Pacifica City Council
September 23, 2024

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 September 23, 2024
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
September 23, 2024 (MONDAY) – 6:00 PM
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 September 23, 2024
6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Vaterlaus

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Fire Prevention Week: October 6 - 11, 2024 B. Proclamation - Pacifica Family Fun Festival 40th Anniversary

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 Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for (1) the July 8, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting and (2) the August 12, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.

2. Adopt Resolution Amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code to Revise the List of Designated Employees
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution amending the City of Pacifica Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of Designated Employees and repealing Resolution No. 61-2022.

City Council Regular Meeting 3 September 23, 2024

3. San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County.”
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County.”

4. Notice of Completion for the FY 2024-25 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps Improvement Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the FY 2024-25 Sidewalk, Curbs, and ADA Ramps Improvement Project; and Authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

5. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Consultant Services Agreement and Amendment No. 1 to Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and Cotton, Shires & Associates for design and environmental engineering services related to the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving Amendment No. 2 to the Consultant Services Agreement (Attachment 1) and Amendment No. 1 to Task Order No. 1 (Attachment 2) between the City of Pacifica and Cotton, Shires & Associates for design and environmental engineering services for the 310-330 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Project to extend the term of the Agreement to September 30, 2028 and in the amount of $197,355 with a 10% contingency increasing the total budget authority to an amount not to exceed $900,000, and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related the amendments for design and environmental engineering services.

6. Direction to Pacifica Voting Delegate Regarding CalCities 2024 Annual Conference Resolution Packet
PROPOSED ACTION: Provide direction to Pacifica's voting delegate to support one resolution to be considered by the League of California Cities (CalCities) at the 2024 CalCities Annual Conference to be held in Long Beach, October 16 - 18, 2024 - Resolution on Fair and Equal Treatment of All Governmental Officials at All Levels as submitted by City of Glendora.

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.

City Council Regular Meeting 4 September 23, 2024

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

7. Consideration of 1) Resolution Denying Appeal of Dan Stegink and Upholding Appeal of Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC, of the Planning Commission’s Effective Denial of Various Actions to Approve the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan; Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, and Adopting Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Quarry Reclamation Plan; and Approving Specific Plan SP-179-22, Quarry Use Permit UP-71-16, Variance PV-531-22, and Tree Permit TP-1-22 (File No. 2016-001); and 2) Waive the First Reading and Introduce of Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Rezoning RZ-210-22 and Development Plan DP-86-22 (File No. 2016-22) to Rezone to the P-DX/CZ Zoning District from the Existing C-3X/HPD/CZ Zoning District as Required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Overlay Zoning District Standards in PMC Section 9-3.2256, and Approval of a Development Plan to Assign Site Specific Zoning Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2203 for a Quarry Reclamation Plan to Reclaim the Former Rockaway Quarry Including Construction of Public Access Trails, Drainage Infrastructure, and Wetland Mitigation Areas, on Two Undeveloped Parcels Totaling Approximately 86 Acres Located West of State Route 1 Between Reina Del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APN 018-150-120 and 018-150-150)
PROPOSED ACTION: 1. Adopt a Resolution Denying Appeal of Dan Stegink and Upholding Appeal of Baylands Soil Pacifica LLC, of the Planning Commission’s Effective Denial of Various Actions to Approve the Rockaway Quarry Reclamation Plan; Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Quarry Reclamation Plan; and Approving Specific Plan SP‐179‐22, Quarry Use Permit UP‐71‐16, Variance PV‐531‐22, and Tree Permit TP‐1‐22 (File No. 2016‐001); and

2. Waive the First Reading and Introduce Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Rezoning RZ-210-22 and Development Plan DP-86-22 (File No. 2016-22) to Rezone to the P-DX/CZ Zoning District from the Existing C-3X/HPD/CZ Zoning District as Required by the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Overlay Zoning District Standards in PMC Section 9-3.2256, and Approval of a Development Plan to Assign Site Specific Zoning Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2203 for a Quarry Reclamation Plan to Reclaim the Former Rockaway Quarry Including Construction of Public Access Trails, Drainage Infrastructure, and Wetland Mitigation Areas, on Two Undeveloped Parcels Totaling Approximately 86 Acres Located West of State Route 1 Between Reina Del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue (APN 018-150-120 and 018-150-150)
City Council Regular Meeting 5 September 23, 2024
CONSIDERATION - NONE.

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 170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica.

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, 170 Santa Maria Ave.

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
9/23/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes for (1) the July 8, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting and (2) the August 12, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes for the July 8, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting (Attachment A) and the August 12, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (Attachment B).

FISCAL IMPACT:

Within budgeted operational expenses.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 6

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 Regular Meeting 1 July 08, 2024
July 08, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on July 8, 2024 at 7:05 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m., stating Councilmember Bigstyck will be arriving late.

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

Councilmember Bigstyck arrived at 7:12 p.m.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Kavitha Kumar, Interim Community Development Director; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director (Engineering/Field Services); Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director (Wastewater Div.); Tara Schiff, Economic Development Manager; Irene Camarena, Human Resources Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Elizabeth Brooks, Management Analyst.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgement.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Boles

1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 July 08, 2024

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Non-Profit of the Year Award by Assemblymember Berman's Office to Pacific Beach Coalition
Mayor Vaterlaus introduced the special presentation of the Non-Profit of the Year Award to Pacific Beach Coalition from Assemblymember Berman’s office, mentioning that District Representative Elise Lester from Assemblymember Berman’s office would make the presentation and District Representative Anthony Yoshida from Senator Becker’s office was also present.

District Representative Elise Lester stated she was honored to commend an extraordinary organization that has made remarkable contributions to our community and environment. On behalf of Assemblymember Berman and the California State Assembly, she recognized the Pacific Beach Coalition as Non-Profit of the Year for District 23 in 2024. She stated that, on June 5, the Pacific Beach Coalition was celebrated at the State Capitol in Sacramento for their outstanding dedication to our coastal environment and fostering community engagement through education, advocacy, and action, which has safeguarded our beaches and reduced pollution as well as instilled a sense of environmental stewardship in our community. She mentioned all their endeavors and accomplishments.

Lynn Adams, President of Pacific Beach Coalition, accepted the award and thanked them for this acknowledgment at City Council’s meeting and by Assemblymember Berman. She stated that they have worked very hard for this award and felt there was a lot more to do.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated they spoke after PBC President Adams received the award in Sacramento and she was proud of how well the Pacific Beach Coalition is representing all of San Mateo County, and we take pride in them because they are in Pacifica and the service they provide for our youth, as well as opportunities and education for all our community is outstanding and they deserve every accolade. She thanked PBC President Adams for her leadership, vision and the fantastic team she has built and all they contribute to our community.

PBC President Adams thanked her, adding that it is the team that does make the dream work.

Councilmember Bier thanked everyone in the Pacific Beach Coalition. She cannot remember a time without the Coalition as ever since she started doing advocacy in the city, they were there.

She thanked them for cleaning up after July 4 and it was a pleasure for her to join people in that cleanup effort. She stated that she has been able to honor her family through the Beach Coalition which has been a beautiful experience and continues to be for her, her students, and her family.

Councilmember Boles stated she is so proud of PBC President Adams and the whole Pacific Beach Coalition organization. She feels privileged as she is their liaison and goes to their meetings and she sees every month the amazing team that it takes to put together the clean ups and brainstorming for their Animal of the Year, as well as how to inspire students to want to learn about the ocean and be the next generation to make a difference. She felt it was a joy to see them recognized not just in Pacifica, but other adjacent cities, countywide and statewide.

She appreciated District Representative Elise Lester for being here, as well as District Representative Anthony Yoshida from Senator Becker’s office. She thanked Assemblymember Berman for recognizing what an amazing organization they are and giving them a platform at the state level.

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 July 08, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck knows how deeply this community benefits and values her work and the team she cultivated, and how they have knit our community together around conserving and taking care of our beaches.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she did a beach cleanup two weeks ago. She thought it was well worth it, and she has done it before and will do it again. She thanked PBC President Adams’ whole team. She stated that, when she walks, she rarely sees any trash at all which is a testament to her and her team.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus pointed out that Item #3 must be approved by a 4/5 vote, and she asked if any councilmember would like to remove any item from consent.

City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the item requiring a 4/5 vote is Item #4, not #3.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked for an overview of Item #3 because this came up on their last agenda and she wonders what the progress is.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, and thought Dep. Director Sun can provide the details, but with an emergency ratification like this, the requirement is that they continue that emergency at every City Council meeting.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed until it is resolved.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed.

PW Dep. Director Sun stated that a couple of weeks ago, staff was doing routine inspection on Carmel Avenue and, in the sewer line, we discovered a grade 5 sewer defect in the main sewer line which required immediate action. He stated most of them are corrosion/erosion and at points where the sewer line is no longer functioning, and sewage could leak out. He stated that the contractor is currently working on that and they are about halfway done, and we are expecting another week or two for this emergency repair to be completed.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, if she understood the staff report, this is work that we do routinely when we are doing street work, checking the sewer lines, which is how this issue was discovered.

PW Dep. Director Sun stated she was correct that we do routine CCTV in their sewer collection system and during this process is when we discover these defects.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that the system is working as it should.

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

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 July 08, 2024
CONSENT CALENDAR:

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

1. Approval of Disbursements for 06/01/24 through 06/30/24.

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive.

5. Approve a new classification for Finance and Administrative Services Director, and adopt the new and revised job description and salary schedule into the classification plan.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the resolution approving a new classification for Finance and Administrative Services Director, and adopt the new and revised job description and salary schedule into the classification plan.

6. Amendment No. 2 to Master Consultant Services Agreement and Amendment No. 1 to Task Order 4 between the City of Pacifica and Hines EDM for Scanning and Digitization of City Records
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing: (1) Amendment No. 2 to Master Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Hines EDM for scanning and digitization of City records and ongoing scanning services in connection with the City’s Records and Information Management Program Policy to extend the term to 8/30/2024; (2) Amendment No. 1 to Task Order 4 to Increase the Cost Ceiling from $2,000 to $6,000 and extend the term to 8/30/2024 for Scanning and Indexing of Recorded Property Records; and (3) authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the agreement.

7. Resolution to Approve Purchase Agreement with Thermal Process Systems for Digester - ATAD Modification Phase 3 Project (P002)
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution:

A. Approving the City Manager to award and execute a sole source Purchase Agreement

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 July 08, 2024
(Attachment 1) with Thermal Process for Digester - ATAD Modification Phase 3 Project (P002); and
B. Approving the Purchase Agreement with Thermal Process Systems in an amount of $179,647.00; and
C. Authorizing budget authority in the amount of $206,594.00, which includes a contingency in an amount of fifteen percent (15%) of the Contract amount; and D. Authorizing staff to execute future change orders not to exceed the contingency amount; and
E. Authorizing the City Manager and Designated Personnel to execute all documents related to the Digester - ATAD Modification Phase 3 Project (P002).

8. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Accepting the Report of Sewer Service Charges for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 and Directing the Filing of Charges for Collection by the County Controller.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the proposed "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting the report of Sewer Service Charges for Fiscal Year 2024-2025, and directing the filing of charges for collection by the County Controller" to place the assessment charges on the County of San Mateo Property Tax Roll.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in the event there are residents from the Vallemar neighborhood to talk about the Calera Creek Park, which was talked about at the last Council meeting, he wanted to make sure in advance to repeat what information he provided at the last City Council meeting, i.e., the city continues to research that issue as it was mentioned many of them did not hear the update as many had left before his communications at the last Council meeting. He stated that, after receiving information, the city did additional research at the County Recorder’s office to locate appropriate documents, that information is being reviewed and, once the review is complete, the information will be communicated to those residents who had inquired.

Aren Clark, Pacifica, referred to an email sent to City Councilmembers regarding the city’s possible maintenance responsibilities at Calera Creek Park and he shared his thoughts on the situation.

Jeff Moroso, Pacifica, stated that this is about Calera Creek Park and shared his thoughts on the city’s position on this issue.

Erroll Hunter, Pacifica, stated that this is also about Calera Creek Park and shared his ongoing concerns and thoughts regarding who has the obligations and liability on this issue.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, referred to an article in the Chronicle on San Francisco not meeting their housing goals and shared his concerns and thoughts on the issue, including what it could mean to Pacifica.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, referred to traffic issues on the 4th of July and shared his thoughts on possible traffic calming mechanisms, as well as the fireworks and fire danger. He also referred to SB 423 and shared his thoughts on the housing issue that Clif Lawrence commented about.

Calvin Chan, Pacifica, stated that he is a member of Pacifica’s Youth Advisory Board and Terra Nova High School Student Council and one of many youth who care about our city and

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 July 08, 2024
environment. He began to refer to the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Task Force.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Task Force update is on the agenda as Item #9, so she will hold his card until we open public comments for that item.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated he is an environment advocate and urged them to not endorse or vote for Regional Measure 4, and shared his concerns on this issue.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he spent the weekend visiting holy ground. He acknowledged the community’s sentiments about the Vallemar situation and noted similarities in how he invokes such feelings in his customers in his professional daily life. He expressed his thoughts after visiting sacred ground how there is a lot of underlying fear going on and connected it to his family background and daily work life. He emphasized the importance of coming together as a community as human beings experiencing the same kind of pains. He explained an interaction he had upon meeting a Coastal Commissioner and community members during his visit over the weekend and encouraged everyone to acknowledge where fear may undermine communication that may be more helpful. He also encouraged the community to share positivity with upcoming City Council candidates.

Councilmember Bier thanked everyone for the 4th of July celebration. She stated that interacting with the community and other visitors coming to buy fireworks was fun. She referred to her fellow Vallemar residents and stated that she wanted to be involved with the creek cleanups. She looks forward to all their conversations and perhaps they can have a community meeting and invite her. She attended “When Everyone Leads” which was a follow-up from a weekend workshop leading into the leadership program she has been accepted to. She attended the Coast Pride Board of Directors meeting. She had a call with Congressional Candidate Sam Liccardo. Council all did the LCLUP briefings and meetings. She thanked PD, Fire, and the Pacifica Beach Coalition for the cleanup and for keeping us safe on the 4th of July.

Councilmember Boles thanked Clif Lawrence and Remi Tan for speaking about the Housing Element. She thought everyone enjoyed the Civic Center ribbon cutting and she thought the renovated Civic Center was a great investment in Pacifica’s future for keeping our staff and bringing investors and people into our city. She met with Congressional Candidate Sam Liccardo and talked about our erosion issues, airplane noise, etc. She met with the Pacifica Climate Committee and advertised that, on July 25, they are hosting an event at the Sharp Park Library called “Electrify Your Home, It Is Easier Than You Think”. She has been asked by Peninsula Clean Energy and Sustainable San Mateo County to host tours of her net-zero house for realtors on August 15.

Councilmember Bier thanked staff for the Civic Center ribbon cutting event.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer acknowledged the communication from Vallemar residents and that it is important to acknowledge that there is information the community often has, in addition to what Council has, that provides insight. She emphasized the importance of the Civic Center ribbon cutting and explained the staff health impacts from the previous building. She met with Congressional Candidate Sam Liccardo and showed him some of the Esplanade area and bluffs. She had a Local Government Working Group Zoom meeting leading up to the June 26 meeting on the Local Coastal Land Use Plan; there will also be a meeting at the Coastal Commission on August 8, talking about the neighborhood approach, which is included in our

1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 July 08, 2024
Local Coastal Land Use Plan draft. She attended the Rotary Club in Pacifica. She referred to the Library Outpost, which the City Clerk would follow up on in staff communications. She stated that the Beautification Advisory Committee work day is on July 14 on Palmetto.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated she and other councilmembers had meetings on short-term rentals and budget and Local Coastal Land Use Plan and then had the Civic Center opening. She described the condition of the old city buildings and expressed the importance of having the renovated buildings. She met with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s office regarding some of our needs and mentioned the press conference by the pier with Congressional Candidate Sam Liccardo, County Supervisor Candidate Jackie Speier, and County Supervisor Ray Mueller.

She stated Council of Cities in the City of San Mateo was a good event. She went to Frontierland Park on July 4 and had a great time. She thanked PB&R staff and everyone who was involved in that.

Councilmember Bier thanked Pacifica Hot Rods for another great car parade.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse augmented some of the comments made by councilmembers. First, with the Civic Center ribbon cutting, he acknowledged and thanked Council for that fantastic event but also to all staff and their team who worked to put that event together, including PW assistance and PB&R contributions as the experts in planning events, while getting ready for the 4 th of July festivities. He pointed out great keepsakes and stated that it was a great day, and as Councilmembers mentioned, a rigorous week of difficult and late work. He appreciated every department that worked on that. He referred to the 4th of July events at Frontierland, stating that PW, PB&R, Police and Fire for public safety, and they made a great effort for that with great attendance at Frontierland. He stated that Police Department and Fire Department are putting together their after-action summary data and information and will be coming to Council soon.

He mentioned, as was by the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem, over the last couple of weeks, we did have some pointed meetings with staff from Congresswoman Eshoo’s office, as well as staff from Senator Becker and Assemblymember Berman to go over in depth all of our coastal projects and initiatives. He stated that the great thing about that is that they are paying attention to what it is that Pacifica is trying to accomplish and it is great to have that collaboration. He stated that we have another upcoming ribbon-cutting in partnership with County Libraries which is the Sanchez Library Outpost ribbon cutting on July 23 and he will turn to City Clerk Coffey to fill in the details.

City Clerk Coffey stated that the Sanchez Library Outpost is a 24/7 book kiosk and that can be used with a library card for checking out and returning books. The ribbon-cutting will be open to the public July 23 outside the Sanchez Library. She stated that the San Mateo County Libraries are planning a great ribbon cutting event and anyone from the public is welcome to attend. She stated that we are excited to introduce this during the summer as part of the city’s overall Library Modernization Project. She stated that the exciting thing about the Sanchez Library Outpost is that it is the first of its kind in the Bay Area and Pacifica is on the cutting edge.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

9. Report to City Council from the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Task Force

1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 July 08, 2024
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive update from Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Task Force on Task Force progress, ongoing activities, and future actions.

Climate Action & Adaptation Task Force Chair Meagher presented the staff report.

Councilmember Boles thanked her for her leadership on this committee and thanked everyone on the committee for their work. She referred to the data and asked if that was data that is specific to Pacifica or more regionally and adjusted a little bit.

Chair Meagher stated that it depends on what specifically the data is measuring. As far as emissions from electricity, that is very specific to Pacifica; we can tell with PCE and PG&E how much energy is getting delivered to Pacifica and we can then apply emission factor to that. For transportation, they tend to do it more at a county level, and MTC is heavily involved in that process and they say here is the MTC for San Mateo County and then RINCON allocates that out and shows Pacifica’s contribution to this countywide number. She stated that it emphasizes the fact that working as a larger community as part of the County makes so much sense as we are all trying to drive these numbers together that impact all of us.

Councilmember Boles stated that the transportation was one she was questioning because we have fewer public transportation options than other cities and she was curious if she thinks the data is helpful or if she needs anything else for more specific information to Pacifica.

Chair Meagher stated that we are trying to work with the data we have and highlight areas where we could benefit from digging in more and they learned about some new data this morning that might help get more specific. She thought it was possible that there was other data out there to get more specific in certain areas.

Councilmember Boles was impressed with her chart and noticed that most of them are in nature-based solutions and she was curious if she is having to explain what that means to people or is there a collective understanding of what that is.

Chair Meagher stated that RICAPS provided their input and advised to use language that is accessible and they said nature-based solutions is more acceptable to people than resiliency, adaptation, etc. She thought there was a general understanding of that at this point.

Councilmember Boles asked if there are some good examples of cities that have incorporated nature-based solutions.

Chair Meagher thought we have to keep in mind the different resourcing, as one of the coastal cities that stands out has been San Diego. However, they are a very different resourced city than us and so we need to understand what they have done and scale it to Pacifica.

Councilmember Bier stated that Nancy Tierney presented to the Pacifica Collaborative and that was helpful. She appreciated the community outreach that she is doing. She stated that she was so grateful for their excitement, knowledge, and expertise.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer encouraged fellow councilmembers and the community to take a look at is the Sustainable San Mateo County’s sustainability dashboard for various measures and data sources. She stated that one thing she finds beneficial is that it is tied to census tracts so you can click on your city and get city data compared to other cities but you can drill down to very specific areas of the town. She also echoed Councilmember Bier that it is very exciting

1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 July 08, 2024
and she said that when we have the committee and commission report out each year to see the folks that Council has the opportunity and pleasure to appoint to these committees and see them doing the work. She thanked them for their service to the city and community.

Councilmember Bigstyck and Mayor Vaterlaus echoed the thanks from his colleagues.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.

Calvin Chan, Pacifica, stated that, as a member of Pacifica’s Youth Advisory Board and Terra Nova High School Student Council, he is one of many youth who care about our city and environment. He thanked the task force for welcoming him and other youth into meetings and shared his thoughts on the issue from the youth perspective.

Mayor Vaterlaus explained that Council cannot respond but she thanked him for being here.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, commended the committee and shared his thoughts on this issue.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

10. Approve Resolution Authorizing 5-year Street Maintenance Improvements PROPOSED ACTION: Approve a Resolution Authorizing the 5-year Street Maintenance Program Improvements for FY 25/26 to FY 29/30 PW Director Petersen stated she was assisted by Consultant Mei-Hui Lee, a PhD pavement engineer with NCE, and then presented the staff report.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we are projecting 74% PCI in five years.

PW Director Petersen stated that, in five years, we will have covered almost 75% of the streets and the PCI will drop slightly down two points to a 51. She stated that we will still be in the good condition category but it will drop slightly.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he saw Olympian on the list.

PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it looks like Vallemar is also included.

PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Rockaway is not quite ready to be scheduled yet.

PW Director Petersen stated it is included.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated in 2027.

PW Director Petersen stated that the goal for those areas is to get the work done first before we get in and do the streets and that is why they are coming a little later. She stated, in talking

1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 July 08, 2024
with Manager Patten from Wastewater, his thought was that probably in 2027 we would be able to get that work done and why those streets are scheduled when they are. She stated you don’t want to do those streets and then come in and cut them up.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Winona would be included.

Councilmember Bier stated no.

PW Director Petersen stated that we have some streets that do not have any asphalt paving on them. She stated that there are a lot of streets out there that were paved that are going to need asphalt overlays and may need reconstruction, including streets that do not have any asphalt on them we need to pave. That is why it’s so important for staff and Council to have that perspective that there is a big need out there for more robust treatments than we have been doing. She stated that we have been doing a great job increasing the PCI, but to get to the next level, we will have to treat those streets that need asphalt on them.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the point was well-taken that it is apparently $167-$175 per square yard of reconstruction rehabilitation and, for a road that has no asphalt, is it the same price tag or higher than that.

PW Director Petersen stated that it would be reconstruction, building a new street.

Councilmember Bigstyck concluded it is about on par.

PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the stretch will pass this five years or, if we find a way that revenue comes in, we can get there quicker.

PW Director Petersen agreed.

Councilmember Bigstyck thanked her for the work she has been doing.

Councilmember Bier thanked them for including Vallemar and Rockaway and Pedro Point. She asked, if we pull up the map for Vallemar, why Angelita and Juanita were left out.

PW Director Petersen stated that this is part of the pavement maintenance program, and she knows that sometimes it is hard for residents to understand. She stated that the program is picking up streets that it feels it can afford to pick up, and the less expensive the treatment is, the more likely it is going to pick it up. She stated that Juanita and Angelita need some work and those were beyond just seal streets and anything that is going to be requiring additional work (generally rehabilitation or reconstruction) the program is not likely to pick that up. That is why we need to come up with extra funding to address those streets. She added that it is important to note that we did do an estimate of what those cut fees were, and when we had the cut fees, we put them into doing some of the rehabilitation work. She stated, should the cut fees come in more, then that also can be assessed at that time when this program comes up.

Councilmember Bier appreciated that explanation.

PW Director Petersen stated it could be grind and overlay which is more expensive than a seal.

1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 July 08, 2024
Councilmember Bier thanked her for including their neighborhood.

PW Director Petersen added that, in the past, there have been some tranches of funds that have been dropped into the pavement program in past years, when there has been additional money that the city has had, and that can also be an additional way that they can get some of these streets in.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked, as we look at the maps and table and see the intention for various fiscal years moving forward, the day-to-day within the capacity of PW for pot holes, etc. and can she speak of it on how we fold that action into this overall process.

PW Director Petersen stated that we have what we call a digout program where we go through some streets that need to do more work and are not in the program and we put $150,000 in the programs and go out and do that patching work. She stated that can make the streets way better, and we have been doing that about every two years with a list of those locations. It takes our staff a lot of time to go out there and work on these streets all the time and it makes sense if we have some additional money in the program to do patching on bad streets so those people do get some relief.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the wastewater update project in Lower Linda Mar.

PW Director Petersen stated that the sewer project has a contractor on board and we have been doing significant additional outreach to the community for replacement of their laterals.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she always think about those laterals in terms of street cuts as the goal is to have the lateral replacements done prior to so there is no need for street cuts.

PW Director Petersen stated that in the program they cut a piece of the pavement and take the pipe and hydraulically pull that pipe through the existing pipe and it saves the street and there is not an entire trench down every single street.

Councilmember Boles thanked her for presentation. She stated that some of the maps have a surface seal category and some have surface seal and rehabilitation. She asked if the rehabilitation is the rubber cape seal or is that more major.

PW Director Petersen stated that is going to be the grind and overlay which is a very expensive treatment. She stated that in some of those streets we cannot cap them. She stated that it is important to note that, when you are doing a grind and overlay on those streets, it is a 20-25 year treatment.

Councilmember Boles asked if the software takes into account the more major arterial roads that get people out of town.

PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively. She stated the program gives a weighting to streets. She stated an arterial roadway would get a higher weighting and more likely to get picked up by the program and a collector street will get an in-between weighting and a residential street gets the least weighting. She stated that one of the reasons that the program leaves so many of those 10 and below residential streets is because they are not getting weighted high enough to get picked up as they will not do much to increase the paving condition index of the overall network.

1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 July 08, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that these have a 5-7 year life on average and this is a 10-year program so are we basically starting over again.

PW Director Petersen stated that you will find that seal coats last different lengths and based on the amount of traffic residential streets tend to last a lot longer whereas you will see a seal coat on an arterial street disappear quickly; now that we are using the rubber cape seal, they can easily last up to 10 or 15 years, so that will help the program as well.

Councilmember Boles thought that might give them some more money to do some of the worst streets. She asked how many times can we do a slurry seal, such as is there a limit.

PW Director Petersen stated that you can do a slurry seal a number of times until the point where the slurry seal is not working anymore because you are getting cracking in the roadway and then you go to a rubber cape seal. She has talked to cities that use rubber cape seal about how many times they used a rubber cape seal. She talked to one city that said they had done it three times on their streets.

Consultant Lee stated that a local agency can do a slurry seal up to three or four times but she has heard do it four or five times depending on materials and procedure.

Councilmember Boles concluded at some point we might have a lot more work.

PW Director Petersen agreed, adding that we have to keep that in mind.

Mayor Vaterlaus asked if there are streets that are not in Pacifica.

PW Director Petersen stated many streets that are in Pacifica are in our pavement maintenance program and there are a lot of streets that are not getting picked up because they are in terrible condition; that was her conversation about the $19 million of streets that were not picked up by the program and almost 50% of them have a pavement condition index of 10 or less.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, urged Council to approve this plan, and shared his concerns on the project regarding one street on Bancroft.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to the table on packet page 162, which is the FY 25-26 project, and asked what the abbreviation W/O means.

Consultant Lee stated it is west of Fassler.

Councilmember Bier stated, going back to dirt roads, even the curb cuts at the end of Winona have improved it so much.

Mayor Vaterlaus thanked staff because she has lived in her house since 1979 and every day now she looks at it and thinks it is beautiful.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer appreciates the education. She asked about the software and how are things like bicycle boulevards factored in and is that part of the algorithm or does it happen

1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 July 08, 2024
as a function of them being collector streets or arterials.

PW Director Petersen stated she is correct. That is exactly how it is factored in.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, with every street he sees upgraded, there is a mental health component to it. He thanked staff for the effort.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about a funding process from the Linda Mar project and if that is incorporated into this or something we looked for outside of this process for our distressed streets that are more degraded.

PW Director Petersen stated that the one type of street that we sometimes get grant funding for are arterial roadways. She stated that there are more opportunities for grants on arterial streets and why we were able to get a grant on Sharp Park Road. Typically, we do not get them on residential streets.

Councilmember Bigstyck moved to approve a Resolution Authorizing the 5-Year Street Maintenance Program Improvements for FY 25/26 to FY 29/30; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

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

11. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election to be consolidated with the City’s next General Municipal Election on November 5, 2024, and Submitting to the Elector’s a Ballot Measure to update the City’s Transient Occupancy (Hotel/Lodging Guest) Tax imposed on short term stays by increasing to fifteen percent (15%) by amending Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-7.03; Establishing the Policies and Procedures for such an election; Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate with the City’s General Municipal Election, Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services; Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis; and Authorizing the Filing of Rebuttal Argument
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election to be consolidated with the City’s next General Municipal Election on November 5, 2024, and Submitting to the Elector’s a Ballot Measure to update the City’s Transient Occupancy (Hotel/Lodging Guest) Tax imposed on short term stays by increasing to fifteen percent (15%) by amending Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-7.03; Establishing the Policies and Procedures for such an election; Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate with the City’s General Municipal Election, Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services; Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis; and Authorizing the Filing of Rebuttal Argument.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that Brian Moura, strategic services consultant with RGS, is on Zoom, and then presented the staff report.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that there are some questions that came in from a community member asking is this bad for local STR operators in Pacifica. He thought, since the cost is

1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 July 08, 2024
passed to the guests of the STR, it should not have an effect on them.

City Manager Woodhouse stated he cannot comment on whether bad or good depending on what the operation is, but the mechanics is that TOT is paid by guests.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked another question from the community, which is how much it will cost for a ballot measure, who pays for it, and are we going to spend a bunch of money against Airbnb.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the question was how much does it cost to put it on the ballot and City Clerk Coffey provided him with the estimate from the County Election’s Office in April regarding measures, and the incremental cost, including two Council seat elections and a measure on the ballot, ranges from $56,000 to $157,000, so about $100,000 cost which is standard for the Election Office for printing of all the materials.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked how much this potentially has to bring in yearly.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, yearly, it is $720,000, the additional 3%.

Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that it is a $100,000 startup cost and the concern was that Airbnb does not like it, but that $720,000 would be very helpful.

Councilmember Boles knows we have been reaching out to the hotels in town to let them know we are considering putting this on the ballot at this meeting and she appreciates that. She was looking at San Francisco’s TOT percentage which is 14%. She asked if there has been any financial analysis done if we might start losing some people to that extra percent that might choose not to come here.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that there has not been any analysis of that, but he knows that in the course of history as TOT has increased, there is often that claim made that often cities do not see that impact. He stated a lot of cities have additional charges on hotel rooms and he knows that is the case in San Francisco; San Francisco has 14% and then they have other charges on top of that which guests pay.

Councilmember Boles stated in the resolution it says “the proposed measure will include accountability requirements such as annual financial audits and public spending reports,” and she is guessing the hotels are good about doing that, but she asked what the reporting is that from short-term rental operators and will that change with this measure.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if she can point to her reference, i.e. the auditing of the city’s financial records.

Councilmember Boles stated she will find it in the resolution.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that her question is for Econ. Dev. Manager Schiff and/or for Consultant Moura in regard to the rate in other surrounding communities. She referred to packet page 175 of the staff report. She does not know what the source of the data is in the data table and she would like to know how that was researched. She wondered if anyone has information on how recently other cities have increased their TOT and/or if we anticipate seeing any other measures in the region coming up in this regard.

1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 July 08, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Consultant Moura could speak to the direct source of this, but the State Finance Department has this information about the TOT that is charged.

Consultant Moura stated that Michael Coleman, a financial consultant to the League of California Cities, put together a table of all of the TOT rates through the year 2019, and he went through all of the elections from 2019 to the present time to update his information for all the cities in California. He stated that the table is current as of today’s date. He stated, in terms of other cities, the only city he is aware of in San Mateo County that is looking at a hotel tax increase is the City of Menlo Park which has not yet put a proposal on the ballot for November but have discussed raising their TOT rate from 12% to 15.5% which would generate another $3.2 million per year for them. He stated that, in terms of the trends, she is correct that, within the last 4-6 years, a number of cities, not just in San Mateo County, but across the Bay Area and throughout the state, have upgraded their TOT or modernized that rate from 12% to either 14% or 15%. He stated that the one city in California that has gone beyond 15% is Palo Alto which has a rate of 15.5% which is the highest in California. He stated she is right in her observation that the trend seems to be the move from the 12% level to either 14% or 15%, and a number of cities have done that ahead of this discussion in Pacifica.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano referred to packet page 177 where the ninth recital in the resolution that says, “The proposed measure will include accountability requirements such as annual financial audits and public spending reports.” She stated that refers to Section 2 in the ordinance itself about review and audits that provides that “any auditor’s report shall include an accounting of the revenues received from the TOT and shall be presented to the City Council annually and made available for public review”.

Councilmember Boles asked if that is a new requirement or something that was already in there.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks that is what is occurring now and this just specifies it in the ordinance. She stated that the city would not necessarily be reporting on STR revenues, although it may. It would be reporting on the TOT revenues, which includes hotels and lodgings and other types of accommodations in Pacifica that pay into the TOT.

Councilmember Boles heard that STRs are not always forthcoming with this information and asked if that is true or are we able to get that information from Airbnb.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that any STR operator who has a permit in the city, as a part of that permit, is required to pay TOT. He asked if that was her question.

Councilmember Boles asked if they are reporting as she thought we were having trouble getting some of the information from some of them.

City Manager Woodhouse thought she might be referring to the Airbnb system and their voluntary revenue reporting system, where it is difficult to get the breakdown per STR, as they will not provide that. He stated that they are required to pay and, if not, they would not have a compliant permit and that is the enforcement component of STR update ordinance.

Econ. Dev. Manager Schiff referred to Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer’s question regarding time period of the neighboring cities. She stated that, in regards to Half Moon Bay, they increased their TOT from 12% to 15% in 2022.

Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.

1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 July 08, 2024
Aren Clark, Pacifica, stated he was making comments on behalf of a friend and expressed her concern on the issue of raising the cost of staying in town and he shared his concerns on the taxing.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, urged Council to pass this measure, and shared his thoughts on the tax issue and STRs.

Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, spoke in support of the tax measure and posed a question about any arguments that would be against this.

Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we consulted with the members of the BID before bringing this up at this meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that we offered to meet with all the hotel managers and ended up having responses from five of them to inform them about tonight’s discussion.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated Business Improvement District would be managers of the hotels. He asked what was the result of those meetings.

City Manager Woodhouse stated the meetings were informational to be very transparent that Council would be discussing this at this meeting to consider putting it on the ballot and they were thankful about the outreach and had questions about details; most of them found it informative and they were thankful for the outreach and transparency.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if he was able to elucidate whether or not there was a positive response from a majority of them.

City Manager Woodhouse thought it ranged. He felt the meetings were more about being transparent and clear.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that a community member asked the question if they are aware of the argument that might be against it should Council vote to put this on the ballot.

City Manager Woodhouse thinks that is a broad question and there are many different perspectives about taxing. He would rather keep it general and not hypothesize what an argument against this measure would be.

Councilmember Bigstyck expressed that we do not want to harm businesses and we would like everyone to agree to make the city stronger by willingly contributing. He stated that, no matter which hotel he visits, there is some charge in there by which he is contributing to the community he is visiting. He appreciates that and that we are talking about 15% up from 12%. He thought it is a relatively minor added cost and, while he does not want to harm businesses, adding that he does not think that is enough of a cost that it would dissuade someone looking to visit.

Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she has never asked what the TOT tax is at a hotel or a resort fee, as she pays them. She balanced the incremental difference for an oceanside view at a hotel in Pacifica versus elsewhere.

1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 July 08, 2024
Councilmember Bier was happy to hear the response from the hotel owners. She has not heard any opposition in other communities as far as she knows.

Councilmember Boles wanted to respond to the public comment about raising fees otherwise and having the community pay for it, as we did that two years ago with Measure Y. She thinks we need to do more education to the community about the needed cost to maintain our roads and our sewers and all the infrastructure and money to understand that we as a community need to invest in our own community.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks there is a legitimate confusion and no clarity on the part of many in the community about what is TOT versus what is the BID. She encouraged a more regular form of communication about this. The city regularly speaks of being a visitor-serving economy and how in working with the Coastal Commission there is interest in low-cost visitorserving services; in weighing all those things, keeping costs low means not raising taxes, and on balance, she looks at the chart and she understands Half Moon Bay raised their TOT recently. She stated that the rates are consistent with Pacifica, and she knows this is a fluid demand based pricing structure and not fixed rates that never change. She concurs with what the Mayor said that she does not look at TOT until she is paying her bill and she pays it. She concurs with Councilmember Bigstyck that she is making an impact on the community that she is in and using the roads and facilities and she feels it is fair to ask visitors to pay a share as we have our property owners in town paying their property taxes in that share. She thinks communities generally understand this affects visitors more than a resident. Thus, she is inclined to support this at 15%.

Councilmember Bier moved to adopt a Resolution Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election to be consolidated with the City’s next General Municipal Election on November 5, 2024, and Submitting to the Elector’s a Ballot measure to update the City’s Transient Occupancy (Hotel/Lodging Guests) Tax imposed on short term stays by increasing to fifteen percent (15%) by amending Pacifica Municipal Code Section 3-7.03; Establishing the Policies and Procedures for such an election; Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate with the City’s General Municipal Election, Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services; Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis; and Authorizing the Filing of Rebuttal Argument; seconded by Mayor Vaterlaus.

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

1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 July 08, 2024

ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 07-08-2024 Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 August 12, 2024

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
August 12, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on August 12, 2024 at 6:05 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

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

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Stefanie Cervantes, Acting Deputy Director of Community Development; Kavitha Kumar, Interim Director of Community Development (Zoom); Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Roland Yip, PW Deputy Director (Field Services/Engineering); Katelyn Snodgrass, Asst. Planner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer

1.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 12, 2024

CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Boles asked to pull Item #13 from the consent calendar.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer opened public comments on Consent Calendar items excluding Item #13 and, seeing no one, closed public comments.

Councilmember Boles moved to approve consent calendar, excluding Item #13; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

CONSENT CALENDAR (EXCLUDING ITEM #13)
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ABSENT: Vaterlaus

1. Approval of Disbursements for 07/01/24 through 07/31/24.

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

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the June 10, 2024 City Council Special and Regular 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. Move to adopt Resolution Terminating Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive and Accepting Invoices from Pacific Trenchless for emergency repair work at Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive covered by the Proclamation of Local Emergency from June 17, 2024.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt Resolution for:

A) Terminating Proclamation of Local Emergency (Attachment 1) at the Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive
B) Accepting Invoices (Attachment 2) from Pacific Trenchless for emergency repair work at Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive covered by the Proclamation of Local Emergency from June 17, 2024, for a total of $298,607.00.

6. Notice of Completion for the Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Improvement Project PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file the Notice of

1.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 12, 2024
Completion for the Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Improvement Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

7. Approval of Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services related to the FY 2025-26 Pavement Resurfacing Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Consultant Services Agreement with NCE for design and engineering services in the amount of $183,200 in connection to the FY 2025-26 Pavement Resurfacing Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $201,520 which includes 10% contingency and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.

8. Approval of Full Trash Capture Design Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Schaaf & Wheeler
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Approve a Resolution Authorizing an Agreement for Consultant Services with Schaaf and Wheeler, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $168,530 for the Full Trash Capture Stormwater Treatment Project; Approve budget authority in the amount of $185,383 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $16,853; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

9. Adopt a Resolution approving the Third Amendment to the Construction Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Chesterworks.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution to approve the Third Amendment to the Construction Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Chesterworks for construction management services for the Civic Center Project in the amount of $10,000 increasing the overall cost to $185,960.

10. Approval of Annual Agreements for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2024-2025 for Polydyne, Inc. for $200,000; Trojan Technologies for $100,000, Synagro West, LLC for $180,000, and Centrisys CNP for $175,000 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the following resolutions to approve Annual Agreements for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2024- 2025:

1. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Agreement with Polydyne, Inc. In The Amount Of $200,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2024-25 Annual Supply of Polymer.

2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Agreement with Trojan Technologies Group, ULC in The Amount Of $100,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2024-25 Annual Supply of Trojan System UV4000 Original Replacement Parts.

3. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment 1 for Master Agreement for Biosolids Services and Task Order No. 2 with Synagro West, LLC In the Amount Of $180,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2024-25 Annual Biosolids Hauling and Disposal.

1.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 12, 2024

4. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Master Agreement for Centrifuge Services with Centrisys CNP In the Amount Of $175,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2024-25 Annual Centrifuge Services; and Approving Amendment 1 to Extend Term for FY 2023-2024 Master Agreement.

11. Resolution to Approve Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with Websoft Developers Inc for the Fund 18 Sewer Collection Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS).

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution:

A. Approving a sole source Master Agreement and Task Order No.1 with Websoft Developers Inc. for the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) in the amount of $127,500; and
B. Authorizing a budget authority in the amount of $146,625.00, which include contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Contract amount; and
C. Authorizing staff to execute future change orders not to exceed the contingency amount; and
D. Authorizing the City Manager and Designated Personnel to execute all documents related to the maintenance of CMMS.

12. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the Acceptance of $95,042.68 from the State of California’s Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program for the Education, Prevention, and Enforcement of Impaired Driving Laws PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica authorizing the acceptance of $95,042.68 from the state of California’s Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program for the education, prevention, and enforcement of impaired driving laws.

13. Consultant Services Agreements for Mapping Update Services Between the City of Pacifica and Environmental Science Associates (ESA)
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Environmental Science Associates (ESA) with a total amount of $102,200 for mapping update services associated with the City’s draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP); authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement and a budget amendment; and finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).

Agenda Item #13 Discussion
City Manager Woodhouse gave the following summary: Throughout the LCLUP process, and with the more recent sea level rise guidelines adopted by the Ocean Protection Council, there has been discussion about updating the maps in the LCLUP process for Pacifica based on best available and recent science, which would be achieved through the contract with ESA Associates.

Councilmember Boles asked about the sea level rise analysis and date range used in the previous vulnerability assessment. She reached out to Robert Battalio at Environmental Science Associates and wanted to compare what was in the previous vulnerability assessment versus what is now in the OPC guidance, specifically looking at the tide gauge in San Francisco.

1.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 12, 2024
She also asked whether increasing storm impacts were included in the analysis.

Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that she had a brief conversation with ESA today and were not able to iron out any of the details regarding what would be mapped in time for this meeting, but it is anticipated that the wave run-up hazard zone maps will include any increases that are expected due to storms as well.

Councilmember Boles referred to packet page 320 for the optional tasks. She understands that the budget we are approving is for the whole scope of services but staff was still negotiating whether to do optional tasks 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, when it comes to the optional tasks, the only task that staff is determining if it is needed is optional task #8, the update of the web maps, only because the city is working on a different effort to update GIS maps as well. She stated that it depends on the timing of when this task may be needed and, if our existing work with updating GIS maps would be able to take over that task.

Councilmember Boles concluded that it will be done either way, just the question of whether ESA would do it or not.

Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles stated that will be an important tool.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer opened public comments, and seeing no one, closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that this is something we have needed for a long time and Council asked for. She received inquiries over the week on why we are doing this and what is the urgency. She stated that there has been questions in the past by various members of the community about the point of view of ESA and has been a problem in terms of our civic discourse. Her concern as she raised it with staff before this meeting was how this discourse going to go if we have concerns about the point of view of the firm doing the maps. She stated that the City Manager made it clear that it would add time and money to the process. She stated that we have been seeking to get OPC updates because we want to have the best available science as we move into policy decisions and use those maps for all of our work over the next five years until the next update. She would like to put it out for discussion to see what councilmembers think about it.

Councilmember Bigstyck expressed similar concerns to staff, more specifically in terms of what the timeline would look like if we sought other agencies to do the mapping. He felt encouraged that there had been no comments posed at this meeting against Item #13. Additionally, he stated this agency has a great deal of expertise. He feels okay going forward with this at this time and thinks it will give us the maps they need to feel better about that conversation with Coastal Commission should we continue to that step.

Councilmember Bier stated we have asked for the maps and need the maps and added, if we can get them done and checked, we they should move forward with this at this meeting.

Councilmember Boles heard from several people that the biggest topic of concern was about the financial economic impacts and whether those were factual numbers in the economic

1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 12, 2024
analysis. She was told that ESA was paid to do a certain task and did not have the time to do the full analysis the way the community expected it. She worked with ESA professionally and noted they are doing a fantastic job. She stated she has no concerns about the agency.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked staff regarding comparability with our former maps. She stated that we have a couple of conditions and she wants to clearly understand what is going to be mapped: When the maps were done in the past, we did not have the sea wall incorporated into those maps and she asked if that would be one of the things considered in this process.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that his understanding is that, in the SSRA areas, the maps would reflect the protection provided by the sea walls.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it would include the protection or impact of closing the Clarendon gap.

Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that was one of the items of discussion and it would depend on if there is going to be Council direction. She stated that we have some flexibility to have different scenarios mapped.

City Manager Woodhouse added, given the flexibility we have within the scope of this contract and being put on the spot, he suggested that we should have that as an example because that will relate to and benefit our Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project efforts.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She asked to what degree the sea wall, bluffs, and any sort of existing dunes, trees, or such material existing at this time are incorporated into the mapping.

Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it would depend on what the structure is and whether ESA has data available for that. She stated that, when it comes to shoreline protection structures, there is data that they can collect for that; they might be able to collect data for other testing structures that might be along the shoreline.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it would be her desire to have this mapping process as closely mirror our reality.

Councilmember Bier added to include the berm.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed to include the berm.

Councilmember Boles stated that what she saw in ESA’s proposal is that they would do one as existing condition and then two scenarios, presumably for different time periods: If they are going to have them look at other things, they are analyzing what is existing, not the proposed project, then we have not designed a proposed project for the Clarendon gap; and if they are evaluating the existing shoreline protection in Rockaway and Beach Boulevard, how are they factoring in the design life of what is there versus what could be.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed that it is not that clear and thinks they have to put in assumptions and state what they are.

Councilmember Boles stated that her main concern is that more contingency may be needed in the budget amount.

1.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 August 12, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there are a lot of variables. He stated that, like most contracts, staff is comfortable with this recommended agreement amount but, through the course of the project, if staff need more money, staff will have to come back to Council for that.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there is an automatic 10% contingency in the Purchasing Policy.

Councilmember Boles moved to adopt Item #13 to approve the agreement for consultant services between the City of Pacifica and ESA as noted in the staff report; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added friendly amendments with comments and suggestions from Council incorporated.

Councilmembers Boles and Bigstyck agreed.

AGENDA ITEM #13
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [4-0]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ABSENT: Vaterlaus

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Jeff Moroso, Pacifica, stated he was requesting more information about Calera Creek Park and a public hearing on the issue of who owns the park and who is responsible for maintaining it. He shared his concerns and actions and the city’s process leading to his request.

Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, stated she was updating Council on PRC’s operating hours, grocery distribution dates, back to school program, homeless outreach work, and schedules, including their 50th anniversary at the Palm-a-Palooza fundraiser on September 21.

Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, stated that Council had a robust study session on short-term rentals in June, and requested an update on the follow-up session, sharing her concerns and thoughts on this issue.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, addressed the short-term rental licenses and shared her concerns on this issue and options until a new ordinance is ready and requested that staff communicates on the plans to Council and the public.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated he supports Ms. Abbott’s comments on short-term rentals and shared his thoughts on that issue, and he also addressed the insurance problems with fire risks, including fireworks, to ensure citizens’ safety.

Peter Garenani, Pacifica, encouraged them to go forward with the STR ordinance and shared key points on STRs regarding various studies done and questioned their accuracy regarding cost/income benefits, etc., as well as comparing them to studies in San Francisco.

Victoria Sanchez De Alba, Pacifica, asked for the update on the STR ordinance. She

1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 August 12, 2024
supported previous comments and shared her concerns on behaviors in neighboring un-hosted short-term rentals and asked that the city keep them safe.

Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, appreciated the city’s work with STRs and agreed with his neighbors on the issues raised, shared his concerns on the dangers to the community by code noncompliant STRs, urged staff to inspect existing STRs, and encouraged a moratorium until all applicants are inspected to prevent disasters.

Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, referred to comments on issues of short-term rentals and then shared details regarding an unsafe situation near their home that took place on National Night Out.

Giovanni Guadagnini, Pacifica, referred to ADA and asked about curb cuts on Avery Court in Gateway. He also referred to other areas where ADA requirements should be addressed.

Aren Clark, Pacifica, stated he disagreed with the management of PW Department. He shared his thoughts on this issue of management and subsequent staff turnover. He suggested addressing the issue before hiring a PW Director replacement.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, if acceptable to Council, she would like to propose to move Council Communications to the end of the meeting and continue forward.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked City Manager to provide during staff communications an update regarding Calera Creek Park as well as approximate time frame for the STR follow-up session.

He referred to October when the permits are to be renewed for the STR owners and asked if there was any way to address that briefly.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bier thanked everyone who was involved in saving a pelican recently.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated, at the last Council meeting, he felt inspired to express that we can establish a community firmly here despite larger issues. He explained that he received one person appreciating those comments and another not. He wished to apologize to those who were offended by his comments. His comments were intended to illustrate the greater way a lot of people were feeling around the national politics. He stated that we can focus on our community. He expressed hope in shaking hands with people of dissenting points of view and hopes that is what we can cultivate as a community.

Councilmember Boles stated that Community Emergency Response Team training (CERT) classes are starting on August 22, so we can all be better prepared when disaster does strike.

She attended the Coastal Commission meeting about updated sea level rise policy; they issued their draft Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance and the public comment period ends on September

23. She stated some of the key takeaways are there will be some new requirements that we will need to do in our Local Coastal Plan for SB 272; some if it is about environmental justice, outreach to at-risk communities, the sea level rise adaptation strategies, and recommended projects and defining projects a little bit more, and economic impact analysis. She stated that the takeaway for cities that are in process like Pacifica is updating our Local Coastal Plans now is not to stop. She stated that the Coastal Commission is giving staff feedback to a lot of the policies that will be required like the risk disclosure.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated on September 11 in Monterey there will be a discussion of

1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 August 12, 2024
the neighborhood approach and it will give a context of how we got to this point.

Councilmember Bigstyck shared the concept of sibling cities from Palo Alto and he would like to bring Councilmember Vicky Veenker from Palo Alto to tell us about it.

Council was amenable to the presentation.

City Manager Woodhouse stated we will schedule that at some point.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated, regarding the Calera Creek Park, that analysis has been conducted and the letter will be finalized and sent out shortly. He stated that with the STR work and timeline, since the June 24 meeting, staff has been working very diligently on the inputs received from Council and the community in that study session related to the research and policy development: Community Development staff and City Attorney’s Office have been working diligently on analysis such as restrictions on the number of permits per person, distinction between hosted and un-hosted rentals, etc. He stated that a lot of work has been conducted on the policy front and on enforcement enhancements, as well as public safety analysis of all the calls over the last six months of this calendar year and ongoing stakeholder collaboration communication and discussion with Airbnb. He stated that, in the last five weeks since that study session, a significant amount of work in preparation for bringing this item for further Council discussion and direction at the second meeting in August. He added that it depends on the LCLUP next steps. He stated that the work is being done and, in terms of timeline, the process is that staff need to come back with all the research analysis on these issues as directed by Council, receive specific policy direction that staff and the City Attorney’s Office can then build into the ordinance language that will come back at a following Council meeting for the hearing and adoption of that ordinance and the second reading or adoption of the ordinance. The ordinance does not go into effect until 30 days after adoption and, in this case, an ordinance does not go into effect in the coastal zone until approved by the Coastal Commission as an LCLUP amendment. He stated that there is a long trajectory for this implementation of the ordinance. He stated that, regarding the Civic Center, the move into the new Civic Center has incurred a significant amount of work and staff effort to make that move and staff were able to do that successfully with just one business closure day. In terms of the conference rooms, he stated that some of the committees and commissions can begin meeting in them but the audio-visual is not completed and installed in those conference rooms yet. He stated that there are growing pains in the new Civic Center, but he has seen great public response from people who have come to the center, as well as have enjoyed the parklet between the two buildings.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it sounds likely that the ordinance would not be ready before the October 31 deadline for renewal of short-term rental licenses.

City Manager Woodhouse thinks that is correct as the ordinance would not go into effect for 30 days and the revisions do not go into effect in the coastal zone until it runs through the Coastal Commission process. Regarding the specifics about the renewal of STRs and how changes have been made, on the ongoing enforcement side that we have been diligently working on, that is a process that will continue to bring bad actors into line or revoke permits. The effects of that cannot be implemented i.e., enforcement and eligibility related effects, until they are in effect until 30 days after adoption.

1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bier was concerned about how Council will be able to talk about it.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is not an agendized item and Council can ask brief clarifying questions but not go into deliberations or discussions.

Councilmember Bier asked how Council can talk about that.

Councilmember Boles stated perhaps it is coming up at the meeting in two weeks. She suggested that it would be great to talk more about enforcement, knowing that the ordinance will not come into effect.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked the City Attorney’s Office to be prepared to revisit the issue of a moratorium on licenses being issued as part of their STR item.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

14. 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 alternative modifications.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation from staff and discuss and confirm list of alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP.

City Manager Woodhouse stated we have Acting Director of Community Development Kumar on Zoom and she will be actively taking notes alongside Asst. Planner Snodgrass and Acting Deputy Director of Community Development Cervantes will respond to questions and guide Council through the matrix. He reiterated that, as stated in the staff report, in part because of the Coastal Commission comment letter received the night before the agenda packet publication, tonight Council is not being asked to make a decision and adopt the modifications to the LCLUP for submittal to the Coastal Commission. Tonight, Council is continuing from the June 26 meeting the discussion about main policy issues in Chapter 6 and any other items.

Staff will need to bring all of the input and the final package for Council’s consideration for adoption to a future City Council meeting and after a chance to debrief more with Coastal Commission staff to understand the comments made last week. He stated that it is a continuing study session format but staff needs deliberation from Council on these important policy matters. He then turned it over to Acting Deputy Director Cervantes.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes presented the staff report.

Councilmember Bigstyck thanked her for the staff report and asked to give an overview of SSRA and deed restrictions. He also stated he would like to ask questions around tsunami inundation before public comment so Council can attempt to answer some questions preemptively.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood and Councilmember Bier agreed.

Councilmember Boles stated she has questions about tsunamis and a few other follow-ups.

She asked, as we go through the staff report, to confirm when something has changed from the previous staff report to this one. She referred to the concerns expressed in the Coastal Commission letter and thought it might be helpful to talk about their concerns as well.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes said, if time permits and there are questions related to topics

1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 August 12, 2024
outside Chapter 6 that are related to the conversation in Chapter 6, those can be discussed.

Councilmember Boles thought there were questions about the technical reports in the small project exemptions and some of this is in the Implementation Plan. She asked, until we update the new Implementation Plan, are we still able to take the exemptions in the existing Implementation Plan. She also heard reference to Municipal Code Section 9-4-4303 that has exemptions to Coastal Development Permits and she asked if that still applies.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles thought it might be helpful for additional explanations on those items.

She asked if there is anything in the staff report now that addresses historical buildings.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that she can look for that.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked to proceed with questions asked by Councilmember Bigstyck.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked to begin with an overview of the SSRA, then into an overview of deed restrictions mean, and lastly the tsunami inundation zone.

Councilmember Bier also requested visuals and page numbers to accompany the discussions.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added chapter and modification number being referenced.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated she will do her best. She stated that SSRAs stand for Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas. Generally in the coastal zone, new development (any additions to homes, new homes, complete demos, and rebuilding) is not allowed to rely on any existing shoreline protection structures that may exist. She stated that, in Pacifica, we have two areas of the city with existing city-owned shoreline protection structures, which includes the Rockaway area, as well as the Sharp Park area. These areas are also unique because the shoreline protection structures protect homes and public infrastructure, including roads, coastal access, and utilities. All that is unique to these areas, and there is the added benefit that the structures also protect the private property next to the public infrastructure. In these two areas, city staff has been working with California Coastal Commission staff for over a year in having an exemption to the rules. The rule is that you cannot rely on existing shoreline protection structures; the SSRA is the exemption in these two specific areas when new development comes. The technical reporting and the design of the project would be allowed to rely on the protection provided by the city’s existing shoreline protection structures; that includes mostly soil and coastal erosion but could include some protections from wave overtopping, as well as flooding, etc., that can be seen in the coastal vulnerability maps. The purpose of these two areas is to allow for streamlined development and more development in these areas because existing shoreline protection structures provides some protection for these developments to have a bigger buildable area or be able to better design to mitigate some of those coastal hazards. For example, if you are thinking about flooding in some of these areas, the flooding might be a lot higher than with the protections that the shoreline structure provides. Therefore, developers may be able to elevate a few feet versus having to elevate to an extreme level or they might be able to floodproof their ground level to provide for that mitigation needed. She stated that the purpose of these two areas is to allow the properties in these areas to continue to do maintenance and repairs on their properties to be able to redevelop. There are a few

1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 August 12, 2024
vacant sites in these areas that would be able to take advantage of these development potential opportunities now with the assumption that the shoreline protection structure can be used for the analysis and the design of these projects.

Councilmember Boles stated she understands the shoreline protection in front of Nick’s belongs to Nick’s and asked how it works if it is not city-owned armoring.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that she is not aware of the particulars of that specific section of the armoring but, in general, what we discussed with Coastal Commission staff is that this would be the boundaries for the SSRA.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked for clarification around what is generally referred to as deed restrictions, disclosures, and waivers.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the policy for coastal hazard risk disclosure in the redline version is on packet page 593. Generally, a project would need to apply for a Coastal Development Permit, and it would trigger that requirement due to an addition, a new building, new demolition remodel of a site, etc. As part of the approval for a Coastal Development Permit requirement in coastal vulnerability zones or tsunami inundation zones, the property would be required to report a risk disclosure and it would be part of the approval, similar to a condition of approval on a resolution. That disclosure would contain the information as outlined in several bullet points.

Councilmember Boles wanted to confirm that any project in the coastal vulnerability zones or tsunami zones requires the permit regardless of the substantial structural modifications.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed, adding that the requirement is for the approval of a Coastal Development Permit. There are different types of projects that will require a Coastal Development Permit that are not an SSM project.

Councilmember Bigstyck clarified that SSM is being substantial structural modification meeting 51% of the structure or more.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes answered affirmatively.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated, in terms of tsunami inundation zones, he appreciated that there is a map on page 667 with possible approximations. He asked how the map was brought together. He also asked how Half Moon Bay and Newport Beach purportedly are not beholden to their tsunami inundation zone but we have to be beholden to it. He asked for a general overview of tsunami inundation zones in answer to what informs this map and if we have the data to compare and contrast Half Moon Bay and Newport Beach, it would be important to get this started.

Councilmember Bier asked to see the differences between the Half Moon Bay ordinance and our own language.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated the map was created using some of our resources this summer with publicly available data. She stated, in the earlier discussion on Agenda Item #13, there was discussion on different variables to ensure that it showed the existing conditions and that is not included here. This is just the raw data that is publicly available. She stated that there are no changes to the variables here and that is why it is a draft tsunami inundation map.

1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 August 12, 2024
Staff was not able to verify if there are any variable that could be inputted into the data to make it more accurate for existing conditions and that is one reason it is still a draft. In terms of the Half Moon Bay example, their LCLUP has a similar policy to what we are proposing to do with the risk disclosure which is in Policy 7-9. Policy 7-9 states, “Infill development on existing building sites may be permitted in the tsunami inundation zone, provided that a disclosure of hazard presence and a hold harmless clause indemnifies the city from any harm caused to permitted development by tsunami inundation are recorded against the property.” She stated that the policy might be straightforward and simple to read, but when we are considering what that entails for implementation or property owner, it is a more detailed process. What staff is trying to do with our policy for risk disclosure is that it has the language we are anticipating will be in our risk disclosure that will be a template for Coastal Development Permit approvals in these two areas. There will be additional information of why is it a requirement, what type project is required, etc. The idea that because the policy spans one sentence that it is easier to implement is false, as the policy itself is similar to what we are requiring: disclosure of hazards that needs to be recorded against the property.

Councilmember Boles asked for clarification on if we do not have restrictions on development in tsunami inundation zones.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed, adding that if the property is just in a tsunami inundation zone the only requirement is that you record the risk disclosure. There is no other prohibition on development or for additional technical reporting or citing or design. Those policies are only applicable to the coastal vulnerability zone map. As part of changing our risk disclosure policy, the map, Figure 2.2, is separate from the coastal vulnerability map.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it seems like the coastal vulnerability zone naturally runs with the tsunami inundation zones as displayed on the map. He asked if she has a sense if any of these tsunami inundation zones run outside of the coastal vulnerability zones.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that staff has not been able to overlay those to determine what that would look like. She stated that, on a wider scale, just from looking at the Fairway neighborhood, she knows that those two lines are not 100% lined up as there is some variable between those two.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if it is a tsunami inundation zone, but not a coastal vulnerability zone, the only requirement is that you put a disclosure that it is a tsunami inundation zone and that is the entirety of the requirement.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bier asked if it would be possible in the future to get an overlay map and to see the differences side-by-side in writing so we can clearly understand the differences.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed that it would be one of the products that ESA can help the city with, as well as future implementation in our own GIS. He wanted to emphasize a point that Acting Deputy Director Cervantes was saying that was important at this point when we are talking about inundation zones and comparing to Half Moon Bay. He stated, in essence, Half Moon Bay is more restrictive than ours is proposed to be because new development is not allowed in inundation zones in Half Moon Bay’s LCP. He stated that, in practice, the details of the risk disclosure are the same, but Pacifica is just putting it upfront transparently in the policy in the LCP whereas, in Half Moon Bay, you get that later on when you work with city staff and

1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 August 12, 2024
have this covenant that you have to report. He wanted to be very clear about that comparison.

Councilmember Boles clarified there are 10 or 12 affected homes in the tsunami area in Fairway Park and more in Sharp Park, but not as many as there were in the previous map. She asked what will happen to their maps eventually as the tsunami evacuation area now is overlaid.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the tsunami evacuation zone will likely remain as a map overlay, not because it is tied to any policy but because it is important information for property owners in the city to be aware of and easily available to the public. She stated that tsunami evacuation zones are important to know and understand for preparedness, but it would not be tied to any policy.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked about tsunami inundation versus the structures on the golf course and, in general, whether or not our document will disallow them from making adjustments to the physical facilities that might be pertinent going forward.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that most of the structures are there, including the clubhouse and some of the storage structures and the golf cart storage structure which the city recently issued a Coastal Development Permit for, are all outside of the coastal vulnerability zone; those structures, if there is any redevelopment of them, may need a Coastal Development Permit, but they will not trigger the policies in Chapter 6 that require the technical reporting or the citing and design. She added that there is some exempted work that is currently in the city’s Implementation Plan in the Zoning Ordinance that may allow some of that work to be exempt from a Coastal Development Permit. She stated that, as mentioned earlier, some if it includes minor grading or minor replacement, such as for lights, and there is the possibility that the work can be exempted from a Coastal Development Permit in the first place. She added that a good portion of the golf course is outside of the city’s permit jurisdiction and is within the Coastal Commission’s permit jurisdiction.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, for the portion of the golf course within the city’s permit jurisdiction, she wondered about normal golf course maintenance issues. She asked if moving sand around for a sand trap would be considered grading every time they have to manipulate sand and would that be something that would have to be broached to the city.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that there is Coastal Commission permit jurisdiction and everything to the seaward side would require Coastal Commission staff to make a determination. But what is outside of that line to the east, there are some exemptions, such as if it is less than 50 cubic yards of grading, that is exempted work; if there is any work that is not impactful to resources, that is the umbrella of the exempted work. She stated that it can be done through a building permit or through no permit at all and that is generally the code sections listed in our LCLUP and the reason that it is exempted work is because it does not impact coastal resources.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it does impact resources for visitor-serving which we have as a priority. She does not know if it requires specific policy or just within the department jurisdiction, but it stuck out to her as something she wanted to talk about. She stated that her follow-up question around the tsunami is that she understands the sources of data used to create the map and she asked if there is any way to provide links to those in some way that the public can follow and have access to what staff were looking at when those were put together.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that we can post those on the city’s website.

1.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 August 12, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer opened the public hearing.

Richard Harris, Pacifica, referred to their discussion of tsunami and vulnerability zone and his letter on August 6 that discusses this issue. He shared his thoughts on several changes that were put into effect that changed the requirements for technical reports.

Jennifer Behling, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on climate change and addressing the complex problems here and questioned the Coastal Commission’s goals. She was not in favor of passing the LCLUP until all the edits are considered and more thought was placed in addressing all the complex needs.

Larry Bothen, Pacifica, suggested that we stop this LCLUP process and compare our requirements to Half Moon Bay and Newport Beach and their exemptions from development restrictions in tsunami and coastal vulnerability zones and asked if staff has talked to those cities going through the same thing.

Frank Vella, Pacifica, stated that the LCLUP is extremely flawed and shared his concerns that it is just a step towards implementing managed retreat, and questioned creating areas, such as tsunami zones, that will impact property owners, residents, finances, and insurance. He stated that we should stop the LCLUP process.

Robine Runneals, Pacifica, stated that she agrees with the speakers. She stated that the tsunami development restriction is burdensome and shared her thoughts on it not being required. She referred to the latest Coastal Commission letter and stated it was concerning as it is taking a long time and is bringing unknowns to those who live in the beach area. She hoped we can try to do the best thing to keep our neighborhoods viable.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, referred to the San Pedro site, which he called the field and wetland sites, and he shared his concerns about city staff believing that density is necessary to address community concerns regarding potential future development of the site. He shared his thoughts that the staff is misrepresenting the concerns of residents and experts.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, referred to his neighborhood having a tremendous amount of coastal erosion, and he shared his thoughts that the city should take a close look at the coastal plan to figure out what we do as we need to protect the houses and shared his concerns about the need to come up with a protection solution as we do the update.

Peter Loeb, Pacifica, asked why the SSRAs are still being considered, stating the community did not support it, and shared his concerns regarding some of the problems we are experiencing. He hoped that the community hears what Council is doing and Coastal Commission hears that many in the community are opposed to the SSRA.

Cherie Chan, Pacifica, stated she has been working on the General Plan and the LCLUP update since the first meeting at IBL in 2009. She referred to residents in Sharp Park and the city trying to decide what to do with the houses, and she stated that we can do better and that the community is objecting to the SRAs. She then shared her concerns about what the city is doing and encouraged them to use the latest available science.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, appreciated Council slowing down this process and this meeting is not for a vote on the LCLUP update and felt the city must continue a slow but steady approach.

1.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 August 12, 2024
She then shared her thoughts on her interaction with community members and her concerns about some of the issues being addressed by staff.

Summer Lee, Pacifica, stated she was touched by what Ms. Abbott said, and she echoed concerns about continuing community engagement in this process. She stated that it is getting less clear and she shared her concerns on the issue including the SSRAs.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that he does not hear much clarity coming from staff, but does hear a consistency from the public telling them not to pursue SSRAs. He shared his concerns and thoughts on the issues.

Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that he agreed with previous speakers that the SSRAs are inappropriate and bad for Pacifica. He expressed his concerns on this issue and felt we would be better off with the Coastal Commission suggestions.

Aren Clark, Pacifica, stated that he disagreed with most everybody. He stated that he felt the Coastal Commission had a radical agenda and he added that the purpose of Council and staff is to fight for Pacificans to preserve property. He felt that we have to fight back against the Coastal Commission recommendations and shared his thoughts on this issue.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer closed the public hearing. She stated that we will continue the process of reviewing the Chapter 6 policies.

Councilmember Boles asked if we should follow up on a few of the questions.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.

Councilmember Boles stated there is still confusion about if there is any limitation about development in tsunami zones. She asked if staff can clarify.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the city’s LCLUP does not contain any prohibition or requirements for development in tsunami inundation zones only. The only requirement is that, if you are going to obtain a Coastal Development Permit in a tsunami inundation zone, you record a risk disclosure on the property that you are in a tsunami inundation zone.

Councilmember Boles reiterated that Half Moon Bay’s ordinance includes those risk disclosures in tsunami areas also.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed, adding that their Policy 7.9 is similar to Pacifica’s Policy 7-8. She stated that Half Moon Bay has an additional requirement that our LCLUP does not have; ours does not require siting design or technical reporting for tsunami inundations.

Councilmember Boles stated that one point raised by Mr. Harris was that the definition of coastal hazard zone does mention tsunami and we might want to review that.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated packet page 636 has the definition of coastal hazards and the definition of coastal vulnerability zones. She read the definition for coastal zone:
“Coastal hazards include, but are not limited to episodic or long-term shoreline retreat and coastal erosion, high seas, ocean waves, storms, tsunami, tidal scour, wave overtopping, coastal flooding and their interaction, all of which may be exacerbated by sea level rise.” She read the definition of a coastal vulnerability zone: “The area shown on the city’s map prepared

1.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 August 12, 2024
for Pacifica’s sea level rise vulnerability assessment incorporated herein and as may be amended from time to time based on updated best available science about projected sea level rise, erosion, flooding and other coastal hazards.” She stated that the distinction is that the policies apply to coastal vulnerability zones but do not apply to all coastal hazards.

Councilmember Boles stated that, at the end of the definition of coastal vulnerability zone, it says “and other coastal hazards” and coastal hazards include tsunamis. She stated that we want to make sure there is not a loophole.

Acting Planning Director Cervantes agreed and thought the best thing the city can do is to ensure that the coastal vulnerability maps are separate from Figure 2.2, the tsunami inundation map, to ensure that those are seen separate.

Councilmember Boles stated that she said earlier that what is in the tsunami hazard map now would be staying there so the tsunami evacuation zone map would be staying on the coastal vulnerability zone map.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated she may have misspoken. The tsunami evacuation zone map is not on the coastal vulnerability zones but is a separate map included in the LCP.

She stated that, when she was speaking about the evacuation zone maps staying, it is in Figure

5.3, flood zones, and the map shows the different flood zones and also has the tsunami evacuation area.

Councilmember Boles was wary of relying on a map instead of clear language. She asked if we can add text to clarify that tsunamis are not included in coastal vulnerability zones.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Acting Deputy Director Cervantes can talk about what other coastal hazards would be mapped in the coastal vulnerability zone map, as that might assist us in understanding what that last phrase refers to.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes thought we could clarify what is mapped and it would include sea level rise, erosion, flooding, wave overtopping, and storm flooding; instead of saying “and other coastal hazards,” we can limit it to what is included in the coastal vulnerability maps.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated, in the definition of coastal vulnerability zone, if you add at the end “and not inclusive of tsunami inundation or evacuation,” that would serve the point that Councilmember Boles is making, which is that the end of coastal vulnerability zone seems to harken back to the definition of coastal hazards, whereas since coastal vulnerability zone definition specifically refers to the maps it could be pointed out in that definition that tsunami inundation and/or evacuation if appropriate is not one of the elements included in the maps.

Councilmember Boles stated that is good as we need to be clear.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concurred with Councilmember Bigstyck.

Councilmember Bier added to check is that true if we add that to the end of the definition.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed, as the coastal vulnerability maps do not include tsunami inundation.

Councilmember Bier stated she wanted to be clear about that.

1.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bier stated that, with the points that Mr. Harris brought up, she feels that they need to be looked at again because people still are not understanding it.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she is suggesting looking at the letters that were submitted and that staff could respond to those points in the letters submitted as part of public comment.

Councilmember Bier stated the August 6 letter specifically.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified that staff has responded to many of the public comments; over the course of all of the meetings, staff has responded to numerous public comments. She asked if Council is asking for something different from or in addition to what staff has already done.

Councilmember Bier asked for reiteration.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is in the packages and available for the public to review online, and she asked if Council is asking for something additional to be included.

Councilmember Boles stated that Council can specify which questions for staff to answer and asked if a response to the letter dated August 6 would be reasonable.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he would ask Councilmembers to look at staff’s response to the issues that have been brought up. Attached to the packet are lengthy responses to comments and, if Council feels that there is not information that is provided, to make that specific request, when this comes back to Council, to respond more clearly or repeat the response, etc. He stated that staff needs to hear from Council what is not clear, why it is not clear, and how to specify further.

Councilmember Bigstyck suggested among Council, as we read through his work and come to questions of possible legal disparity, that is the time as Council is reading the document to email staff. That is at Council’s discretion at any given point to inform that conversation that may happen leading up to the next meeting.

Councilmember Bier appreciated that.

Councilmember Boles stated there was one comment that staff answered on packet page 705:
“Pacifica’s LCLUP should exempt maintenance repair and minor additions to existing structures from CDP permit requirements. The Coastal Commission, April 2021, unanimously approved these same exemptions in Half Moon Bay.” She stated staff’s response was stated in Section

2.3: “Land use framework, coastal development review, pursuant to the Coastal Act, certain categories of development are exempt from Coastal Development Permit requirements. These exemptions are generally set forth in Section 30610, and Sections 13252, 253, 250 of the California Code of Regulations. These code sections provide clear language on when maintenance and repair activities do and do not require Coastal Development Permit.

Additionally, language on what does trigger a CDP or exemptions to CDP, currently exist in the city’s Implementation Plan.” She sent Mr. Harris today the Section 9-4-4303, Coastal Development Permit requirements, which has a long description of exemptions. The CDC maps do not include tsunami inundation zones. She stated that there are some answers, but it is just referring to particular code sections or documents to look at and not necessarily answering the question about the specifics. She stated that this is part of their previous Implementation Plan

1.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 August 12, 2024
that the Coastal Commission reviewed and adopted and this is current.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that, very similar to what is occurring with the LCLUP, the 1980 version is still the certified version that we are using and the same thing for our zoning ordinance which is our Implementation Plan that is certified by California Coastal Commission.

That zoning ordinance and these code sections will stay in place until a new ordinance is written and certified by California Coastal Commission. She stated that these are the exemptions that we rely on today to review projects and determine if they need a Coastal Development Permit.

Councilmember Boles stated that, for example grading, under 6, “Repair and maintenance activities that do not bring results in addition to enlargement of expansion of the improvement for maintenance activities […] Grading of 50 cubic yards or less outside in established public or private right-of-way provided that this exemption shall not apply within environmentally sensitive habitat.” She thinks there is information here that Mr. Harris can look at and clarify if he has very specific questions about specific maintenance that is not addressed in these.

Councilmember Bigstyck has something to address briefly, i.e., this notion of the Coastal Commission “making a hard example of Pacifica” and many comments did not particularly like the SSRA notion. He thinks that, what was scheduled on August 8, was going to be a report out to Coastal Commission around the neighborhood carve-out approach that the Coastal Cities group has been working on as a general information session independent of Pacifica because this is an approach that has been worked on by Councilmembers, not just from Pacifica, but from other locales, certain Coastal Commissioners and certain Coastal Commission staff. He appreciated that we seem to be on the cutting edge of this new coastal technology, and this is something that is being worked on statewide. He stated that the point is well-taken that the community is asking if we want to be the first to try this thing and the Coastal Commission has to start somewhere. He stated that the point was well-taken by a couple of commenters that referred to the latest Coastal Commission staff letter as new demands. He acknowledged that processing nine meetings over the course of a year has been a stretch for all their dispositions, not just the community. He stated that there is a lingering question mark with every meeting of continuing this another step. When new information is brought forward and we do not get to process because it comes out the day before the staff report comes out, that further deepens that question mark. He is willing to continue the work as we have plenty of work to that we had in front of us before the latest letter, but he acknowledged that Coastal Commission staff has given our city staff more to have to process to bring Council Councilmember Boles stated that there was a question about hydrology mapping and the CoSMoS data. She asked if that is something that will be updated through ESA and their mapping. She thinks it is ground water that is raising as part of sea level rise.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano believed it was Figure 4.1.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the ESA mapping does include an update to groundwater mapping using the USGS CoSMoS ground water map.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that Council will resume discussion of Chapter 6 policies.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes directed attention to summary table on packet page 373 and the redline policy language starts on page 593.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we were talking about Modification No. 6.44.

1.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 August 12, 2024
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively, stating that this is the new policy, CR-I-20. As Council may recall from the last meeting, there was a shifting in the policy numbers, as it used to be 44 and is now 20. She stated that this policy is for siting and design of new development in coastal vulnerability zones. She stated that the alternative modifications to this policy add some specific language for setback and blufftop and shoreline. The development needs to be safe, and it provides ways like setbacks from bluff top or from shoreline areas in order to be safe. She stated that it also adds the exemption that would allow for the SSRAs.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer noted the phrase “and other coastal hazards” appears in this language. She stated that previously we discussed being explicit about those hazards.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes asked if Council would like to add exemption language for tsunami inundation zones.

Councilmember Boles did not know if they can be written in one place, as we do not necessarily have to catch it everywhere it happens.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding that we will have to review it ultimately to make sure it is consistently treated throughout the document, certainly in the definition. She thought it was important that we do not have this open-ended “and other coastal hazards”.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the code definition of coastal hazards includes tsunamis. She stated, if Council wants to exclude tsunami inundation zones and tsunami evacuation zones, staff would have to work that into the language here to specify those.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked, if it is the definition of coastal vulnerability zone that excludes tsunami references, is that not enough when using the term “coastal vulnerability zone” elsewhere in the document because it is already defined in the glossary.

Councilmember Boles stated that this refers to coastal hazards which does still say tsunami.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that coastal hazards are articulated as separate from coastal vulnerability zones vis-a-vis class redefinition.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that it would be inconsistent because coastal vulnerability zones would exclude tsunamis but then it refers to coastal hazards which include tsunamis.

She suggested “other coastal hazards except for tsunamis”.

Councilmember Boles stated that she is concerned that the language might be in 20 other places in this document.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it will be. She asked if Acting Deputy Director Cervantes could speak to whether or not she thinks this is something that Coastal Commission staff will be amenable to because, generally speaking, these types of documents do make broad statements to capture as much as possible in the policies. Coastal Commission staff may feel that they do not know what coastal hazards are out there so they will just say “other coastal hazards” to capture everything.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that her recollection of conversations involving this

1.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 August 12, 2024
specific topic was that they were not as concerned with tsunamis for the other policies for technical reporting and the siting and design policy. It was not specifically discussed if tsunami hazards would be included and would be a conversation we would need to have with Coastal Commission staff. Her recollection is that the conversation revolved around the coastal hazard risk disclosure and that requirement for when it came to tsunamis.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it was a different issue than anything that can be connected to permitting. She does not know if adding more language to limit it is easier or taking it out entirely is easier.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated she would think about that.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we are putting a pin in this for now with a question mark about how we are treating that language.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes asked for any other comments on Modification No. 6.44.

Councilmember Boles wanted to ask about the bonding for large projects which requires a removal and restoration plan. She asked if staff can explain what that means and what is considered a large project.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes believes the bonding for large projects is referring to removal and restoration and referring to a bond in case shoreline protection structures may need to be removed with the approval of a new project.

Councilmember Boles stated that it says “requires removal and restoration to avoid future shoreline protection” and that is why she is confused. She asked if we are removing the project itself, as she is thinking of certain projects we had to remove and ended up having to pay for instead of the owner. She is hoping that this is for that and we are getting some bond as long as projects become vulnerable and may have to be removed. She stated that this would be for new applications, not existing applications.

City Manager Woodhouse thinks that this is a capital projects requirement. He stated that, if there is a project that, via Coastal Commission permit or City, is going to require to do any significant restoration or removal, like construction projects, there will be a bonding requirement for that to guarantee, through the project implementation, that the project is done at the applicant’s expense.

Councilmember Boles thought it was talking about project failure and that is why she is asking as it seems to be saying removal of the project itself.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought that was correct, as it says, “where necessary, requires removal and restoration plan which would support the idea that the bond is a restoration bond, including bonding for large project to avoid future shoreline protection structures or project failure”. She agreed.

Councilmember Boles stated that it is a bond we take when the project is permitted that stays with the city for the life of the project, in case it needs to be removed.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed that it is a bond for restoration of the project site if the project fails, adding not the life of the project but the construction of the project.

1.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that it is the life of the project where it will become an issue, not the initial construction.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She added that the reason she thinks that is the interpretation of the life of the project because the part in red goes on to exempt or delineate “except, however, behind special shoreline resiliency areas, development may consider these things”. She stated, in this one text, it is both saying if you are not in the SSRA, you are subject to this, and if you are in the SSRA, it does not pertain.

Councilmember Boles was not sure it does not say pertain, but just says you can also consider these other policies.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Policy 138 is public infrastructure along the shoreline in special resiliency areas and Policy 139 is development directly inland of public infrastructure in special resiliency areas. She stated that 144 is coastal access and resiliency program.

City Manager Woodhouse would interpret it as, if there is existing protection, but in some year in the future, the property owner is acknowledging that it cannot be rebuilt, and that would need to be removed at some point in the future. They are not going to need a bond upfront now for the future but when that project to remove the structure or the revetment, etc., is going to happen.

That is a capital project in itself when it is contracted and approved, and that is when they would bond to ensure that the project happens and does not fail. In other words, to ensure that the structure is removed, the project does not fail by only being halfway removed and then the contractor goes away or the applicant goes bankrupt. He thinks that is typically how bonding works for capital projects.

Councilmember Boles asked if this is the city’s language and not Coastal Commission staff’s.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated she is correct. There were some modifications to that sentence, but that is the original language from the city.

Councilmember Boles she wants to be sure we have the financial protection that we need for projects that do need to get removed at some point. She stated that we changed the language to say “anticipated life,” and her other question was do we have an approved project for less than a 75-year anticipated life or is that a minimum that is required by the Coastal Commission.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes thinks a project could be designed to have a shorter anticipated life, but the project when proposed would need to clarify that. She stated that she stated in the definition of anticipated life that the typical anticipated life for a structure is 75-100 years for residential commercial development and a minimum of 100 to 150 years for critical infrastructure. There are instances where development is proposed to have a shorter anticipated life for a variety of reasons and developers can do that.

Councilmember Boles asked the City Attorney to make sure we are getting the protection we need.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she will take a look at this provision and discuss with staff and return to Council with some explanation or clarification of the language.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated, moving on to Modification No. 6.45. This is the

1.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 August 12, 2024
coastal hazard risk disclosure and this policy would apply to Coastal Development Permit approvals for development in a coastal vulnerability zones or the tsunami inundation zones.

She stated that we have discussed the maps for what the inundation zones would look like and we can discuss the bullet points.

Councilmember Boles stated that, at the beginning, it says “Coastal Development Permit approvals of development in coastal vulnerability zones”. She stated that we talked about the definition of development before, and that was new construction or substantial structural modification. She stated that using that word “development” concerns her.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded saying that we only need Coastal Development Permit for developments and that is why the term is used there. She stated that is the only time you would be getting the Coastal Development Permit, i.e., if you have a development. She stated that new development is defined and there are a number of exceptions to the term and we have discussed some of those at this meeting.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the bullet points are the deed disclosure that would be recorded against the property. Staff anticipaties that this will be the language that will be taken directly from the policy and put into the template risk disclosure that will be recorded on properties that obtained Coastal Development Permits. She read the first bullet point:
“acknowledge the site is subject to coastal hazards, including but not limited to episodic and long- term shoreline retreat and coastal erosion, high seas, ocean waves, storms, tsunami, tidal scour, coastal flooding, landslides, bluff and geologic instability, and the interaction of same, and all as impacted by sea level rise.” She stated that this mirrors the definition of coastal hazards. The second bullet point states, “assume and accept the risks to themselves and their properties of injury and damage from such coastal hazards in connection with the permitted development” and this is an acknowledgment that the property may still be subject to coastal hazards. The third bullet point states, “unconditionally waive any claim of damage or liability against the City and its officers, agents, and employees, for injury and/or damage in connection with the permitted development” and this is the acknowledgment stating that the city is not responsible for any damage that may be caused from a coastal hazard to the development.

The fourth bullet point states, “indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, and employees with respect to the City’s approval of the development against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, and amounts paid in settlement arising from any injury and/or damage in connection with the permitted development, including in terms of the approval or issuance of the coastal permit, the interpretation and/or enforcement of coastal permit terms and conditions, or any other matter related to the coastal permit” and this is stating that the private developer is responsible for any damages caused by the development that is permitted.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that the indemnity language is usually included as a condition of approval or in the application for permit with the city in various places, so it is logically included in this acknowledgment as well.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the fifth bullet point is, “acknowledge public funds may not be available in the future to repair, maintain, and/or continue to provide infrastructure and related services to the property (e.g., roads and utilities), and that the occupancy of structures may be prohibited if such services are no longer available to serve the development, including where sewage disposal and/or water systems are rendered inoperable” and this is an acknowledgment that, in the future, coastal hazards may damage or remove roads or other utilities to the development and is needed that the development will no longer be able to be

1.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 August 12, 2024
occupied. The sixth bullet point is, “waive any rights that might exist under applicable law or shoreline protection structures for the duration the permitted development is present on the property” and this is typical California Coastal Commission policy that new development should not rely or have future shoreline protection structures. This bullet point is written so that, if the law were to change in the future, if regulations are lost under California Coastal Commission were to change in the future, related to existing development having shoreline protection structure, that would apply. It does waive the right under the applicable code at the time.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it was more than an acknowledgment. It is an agreement.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively. She added that for Coastal Development Permit in these areas, the property or development is required to do the technical reporting and to do the siting and design that were talked about in CR-I-19 and CR-I-20. In theory, if these policies are applied correctly, that development should not need to rely on shoreline protection for the anticipated life of that development. It is required that it be filled to be designed to mitigate coastal hazards for that site. She stated that it is an acknowledgment that your property should already be designed to not need future shoreline protection structures and an acknowledgment that law in the future may not allow you to have shoreline protection structures.

Councilmember Boles asked if there would be an exception for the SSRAs.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that there is no exemption for the SSRAs. She stated that the next bullet point is, “be removed and the site restored in response to future hazard conditions and/or certain defined triggers identified in the LCLUP and implementing Programs and/or as identified by the terms and conditions of the CDP including when deemed unsafe, if land comes to be impressed with a public trust interest, when within 10 feet of the blufftop edge, when within 10 feet of the mean high tide line, when no longer served by necessary utilities/infrastructure when coastal hazards would necessitate construction of a shoreline protection structure to ensure safe occupancy of the development, and/or as part of shoreline protection structure repair/maintenance if the development is not permitted to obtain shoreline protection” and this is stating that there is a possibility that your development in the future may not be habitable and it may need to be removed and the site restored.

Councilmember Boles asked how it is determined that the development needs to be removed and whose responsibility is that. She stated that it mentions certain defined triggers identified in the LCLUP but we have taken out all the triggers and we have not done the implementation programs yet. She asked how we decide and who is responsible for enforcing that.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that the policy itself has a few triggers: If land comes to be impressed with a public trust interest that is within ten feet of a blufftop edge, when within ten feet of some mean high tide, when no longer served by necessary utilities and infrastructure, when coastal hazards would necessitate construction of a shoreline protection structure to ensure safe occupancy of the development and/or part of protection structure repaired. It would be city staff determining when that building is no longer safe, whether because it is near a blufftop or because it is no longer being served by required electricity, water, sewer, etc. Those are unsafe conditions that would not allow individuals to live in that structure.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the phrase “if land comes to be impressed with a public trust interest,” and we hear about public trust and about eastward movement of the mean high tide and the definition of private property changing when the mean high tide moves forward

1.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 August 12, 2024
eastward and it is now public trust land. She wonders if Asst. City Attorney Bazzano can elaborate on that in terms of that sentence and specifically regarding “comes to be impressed with the public trust interest,” who makes that determination and when does it happen.

Councilmember Boles added if our vulnerability maps that we are updating every five years map that level of detail. She stated that the BBIRP project mapped the public trust land, the mean high tide line defines it, but that is not done except when a project is approved and continuing.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano believes the city would make that determination but likely get input from Coastal Commission staff, which is her assumption. They would be contacting city staff to explain to them that there has been changes and this is now public trust land. Then, city staff would review and take action as necessary and the action would be some type of enforcement of these provisions and acknowledgment.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was concerned about that. She stated that it seems very vague.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she does not know how this would come up, but that is why she said it is her assumption. She stated that city staff would enforce it. She stated her assumption is that we would likely be contacted by Coastal Commission staff to say this has changed, they signed this acknowledgment and what are they going to do about it.

Councilmember Boles does not see how Coastal Commission staff would be seeing how the entire coastline is changing and letting us know.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that we have a definition for public coastlands and the LCLUP. She agrees that it is likely going to be a coordinated effort between city staff and Coastal Commission staff to determine when an area has become public trust land and then foresee any requirements that come along with that. She thought that we can make efforts at the city level to identify when lands are becoming public trust land but the act of a public trust land is a function that the state, the California Coastal Commission, usually operates. She thinks we would need to work closely with them to ensure we are applying that version correctly.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it seemed to her that the public trust doctrine covers that.

Her question is do we need to put this in our LCLUP as she thinks that is redundant, considering we are not defining it or giving any sort of timeline or any kind of limitation. She reminded everyone that we are on the section about assumption of risks by private landowners and that was crossed out and changed to “coastal hazard risk disclosure,” relating to deed restriction.

She has questions about who decides when, how much notice, how is it enforced, etc. and she asked if we have any other examples to explain to our public what this means.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she is not aware of any examples.

City Manager Woodhouse added that this is the first step in a multi-year, multi-phased process, which includes very rigorous adaptation planning in future years with twice annual measuring of coastal erosion and the mean tideline in public trust lands is a data point that is going to be throughout those studies. The Coastal Commission, the State Lands Commission, and others monitor that. If there is erosion to the extent that the mean high tide line and public trust lands moves, the city is going to learn about it. He thinks it is in there as it is one of the triggers for this that the state is very concerned about.

Councilmember Boles stated that we are educating people that the coastline is moving and

1.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 August 12, 2024
what may have been your property 50 years ago might not be your property today or 50 years from now as the line is moving.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked how a land comes to be impressed with the public trust interest.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it seems “impressed by public trust lands” is a term from erosion as sea level rise and the mean tideline moves inland.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked, when land is converted to beach, it has become impressed.

Councilmember Boles stated it may not be necessarily related to erosion. There could be a sea wall that does not erode, but still the mean high tideline could move in past the line of the sea wall, thereby impressing the public trust in a different way. She stated that, just thinking about updating our science every five years, we are going to need to know and how do we know that, in this section of town, this area is starting to become in the public trust. She thinks it would be interesting to know if that is something ESA checked on a rough scale.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that every five years, as the science changes, presumably as the science changes around our area, new mapping would occur.

Councilmember Boles stated that the mapping shows the hazard zone and right now, it does not show where the public trust line is.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks she is concerned that this seems to be going beyond what we understood before was limited to the substantial structural modifications which did have a specific definition. She stated that this sounds like anything you obtain a CDP for.

Councilmember Boles agreed, adding that they are just warning people that this is a risk as you are by the ocean and you acknowledge it.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was going back and forth between the definition of public trust land on packet page 640 and listening to what the City Manager Woodhouse was saying.

At first the definition is talking about navigable lakes, rivers, and fisheries. He thinks the City Manager’s explanation of how more specifically to our coastline it might apply, i.e. if due to blufftop erosion where you had a bluff before and now it is a beach, it just got impressed as public trust interest. He stated that makes sense. After that, it is a matter that we are asking people to acknowledge, if your bluff just became a beach, things might change for you.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that makes sense for the properties that are at the blufftop within ten feet as defined. She asked about the ones that are nowhere near the bluff edge as it seems like it is applying to them the same, if they are in the coastal vulnerability zone or tsunami inundation zone.

Councilmember Boles stated that for 2212 Beach Boulevard she was sure when we first built the sea wall, the public trust land was out further; it was a little bit closer now so, when we do a project, we have to map that. She stated that it is something that shifts over time and we are acknowledging that with sea level rise which is not very much in the next 50 years.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought the crux of it was, if there is a hazard there and if it is in the hazardous zone, it is more likely to shift character than if not. He stated that he feels it suggests that, at some point, the city may not have the wherewithal to address protection when there is

1.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 August 12, 2024
such a hazard and, seeing our budget, he is inclined to believe it. He stated that, if at some point that hazard we are mapping as being present should shift to the nature of the land in relation to that property, he thinks this is suggesting that we are acknowledging that there comes a point where the nature of the land has shifted and that is a risk we are taking by setting up there.

City Manager Woodhouse thinks that is right. He stated that the city will verify about the definition of public trust lands and mean high tide. He stated that the mean high tide does not move beyond the bluffs and seawalls because the tide does not move beyond those. When there is erosion, the tide can move further in, and then the mean high tide moves and public trust land moves. He stated that, if you are not on the edge, on the shoreline, this trigger is not going to apply until you are.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is what she is concerned about because where does it say that. It says coastal vulnerability zone.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is the laundry list of triggers and some may apply to you, but that one would not.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that there is another one in the public trust land’s definition, “submerged land”. He says there is more to it than bluff erosion and that is what this definition seems to be getting at.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought submerged lands were specifically delineated in a legal context. She stated that, even when the Coastal Act was approved, there were submerged lands that were known, like in Marin in Tomales Bay area. She thinks it is important for us to be clear in understanding what this is saying and to whom it applies.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we have tried to identify who has to sign this coastal hazard risk disclosure; this section is trying to identify the universe of events that could take place that could result in the property owner having to remove the development and restore the site. The City is trying to paint a broad universe so there can be restoration if these hazards occur. She stated that submerged lands may never occur on this site but, if it does, we want to be able to say that you signed the acknowledgment that says you understood that this was a risk of developing on this property and now you need to restore the site.

Councilmember Boles stated that reading the definition more has her more concerned as it talks about submerged lands and historic tidelands and submerged lands that are presently filled or reclaimed and which are subject to the public trust at any time. She agreed that Laguna Salada was a lagoon and the water was further in before the berm was built. She questioned if there are other places we filled over the years. She stated that San Francisco has a ton.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed the bay has many examples.

Councilmember Boles asked if there is has ever historically been submerged lands.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she understood that it protects the city, but what does it do to our citizens. She stated that is her big concern on this one as she feels that they are coming up with every single possibility. She stated that one of the things mentioned is utilities. When you can no longer maintain the utility, you can no longer maintain the sewer lines, but somewhere else it says roads. She stated that we have examples in Pacifica of these type of things and

1.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 August 12, 2024
people live there. She asks if the City will come knocking on Shelter Cove and say if they cannot maintain the roads then they need to remove their house and restore the land. She stated that it will not happen to them because they are not subject to this, but it would happen to a future person. If they sign this waiver and acknowledgment, they are agreeing to that in advance without knowledge of when and how it is going to come to be.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is not forcing any development, but if someone wanted to come in and redevelop their property or build, then this is an acknowledgment and disclosure about what they may need to do in the future. He stated that an important point about the disclosures here is that this also achieves protections for the entire community via costly abatement that could fall to the city without such disclosures from a private property. The City has examples of that where there were not these types of disclosures and commitments made which leads to lawsuits and costly public money being spent for a private property owner that does not want to do the abatement that they should be doing.

Councilmember Bier stated that all of this is triggered by a Coastal Development Permit if they want to develop on this land. She stated that someone who is in the coastal vulnerability zone and does not have to disclose all these things unless they are looking for a Coastal Development Permit. She asked if that is correct.

City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, to discuss this on this case, that is potentially leading to blight and to people not maintaining their property, and she asked how we balance these things.

She asked if she can have some sense of the scope. The maps do not tell her how many homeowners or what neighborhoods; she needs some sense of scale for her to feel comfortable about what we are having people being subjected to. She needs to have a better understanding of how many potential Coastal Development Permits are going to come forward, maybe related to the map overlay.

Councilmember Bier asked for a very clear map overlay so we can see all the details. She would like to be able to see street level.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if Council was asking how many properties there are in the coastal vulnerability zones.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how many properties in the coastal vulnerability zones would be affected and required to sign this coastal hazard risk disclosure should they come forward to develop their property. She asked what the scale is.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the question would be how many development applications and CDPs have we issued in the last year in coastal vulnerability zones.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that is a data point but not the one being asked for.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that would be a data point of what did occur when people came forward and went through the process of developing their property. She is talking about the future potential of being able to come forward.

City Manager Woodhouse asked if she was asking staff to predict future development activity.

1.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 August 12, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated no, what she is asking staff to show her on a map and look at a better rendering of all of the people it is going to affect.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she was asking for how many properties there were in the coastal vulnerability zone.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added properties that would be subjected to this coastal hazard risk disclosure.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is only triggered by a development application and it is any Coastal Development Permit in the coastal vulnerability zone has to sign this disclosure.

For a snapshot of how many people that is, staff would have to predict development activity and cannot do that. He stated that we can look back and say last year there were 25 CDPs issued for properties.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she was asking for a list of parcels inside of the coastal vulnerability zone.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles added how many properties would be affected.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that City Manager was saying we do not know if people will be affected because we do not know if they are going to want to develop. Her question is, if they so choose, they are going to have to sign this, and she would like to have an understanding of how many properties that is. She stated, in Pacifica’s coastal zone as defined, where are the lines and how many are included in that zone.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, to be clear, she is asking for how many parcels there are in the coastal vulnerability zones or the inundation zones.

Councilmember Boles stated, knowing that the maps are going to be updated, those areas will be less. She stated that is where she is struggling by not having updated maps as she thinks people should know if they are in the zone or not.

City Manager Woodhouse asked Acting Deputy Director Cervantes and Asst. Planner Snodgrass how readily available the number of parcels in the coastal vulnerability zones are.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that it might take staff some time with the resources to determine that.

Councilmember Bigstyck feels like the pertinent question before them is should any given property owner in the coastal vulnerability zone have to say to somebody else at some point that these are the hazards of living here and it is not up to the city to bail you out. He stated, whether or not these are the right definitions, these are the triggers.

Councilmember Boles stated that we are just asking people to acknowledge that the risk is there by signing that and it does not affect their ability to not develop or to keep doing substantial structural modifications or anything else, but just acknowledging that risk and, if you are selling it, the next person should know.

1.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if your risk has overcome your property, if your apartment building is falling off the bluff, it is your responsibility to deal with it, not the city’s. He stated that, at that point, it is time to remove.

Councilmember Boles added that it is their responsibility to tell a future buyer just like you have disclose anything else. She asked where all this language came from, perhaps Coastal Commission. She attended the Coastal Commission’s briefing on SB 272 and the update to sea level rise planning and they mentioned that the risk disclosure was a key thing that they are going to be asking in LCPs that apply to be able to get funding from SB 272, etc. She asked if this specific language that they are putting in LCPs all over the state or is this something that they are working on with us in particular. She asked if there is room for negotiations.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that there was a bulk of language that came from Coastal Commission and then there was some negotiation between the two staffs that came up with this final language that is published today. There was some back and forth to ensure that this language fits the needs of our city.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is how she remembers it, as there was some back and forth. She can look back at who suggested what language and what was revised.

Councilmember Boles is okay with this language, but if there is something that Council wants to ask about changing, is that possible at this point in negotiations with the Coastal Commission.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, if there is something Council feels strongly about, we can ask.

He stated that the language we have here mainly has been reviewed by Coastal Commission staff and they do not have further comments. He stated city staff have reviewed it with them and the staffs are in agreement, but if there is some particular language, we will need to take that back through another iteration and see what Coastal Commission staff says about it or impose it and see what the Coastal Commission says about it when they make a decision.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she needs to have a better understanding of the magnitude of the import of this policy, i.e. the neighborhoods, the streets, and the houses. She stated that this is a lot to ask Pacificans to sign off and she hears the point about not doing it and the whole city and every citizen has to pay for something as there was no policy to say otherwise.

City Manager Woodhouse clarified that these risk disclosures apply to any property in a coastal vulnerability zone, and those are mapped, that wants to do development and needs a Coastal Development Permit to do their development, and the tsunami inundation zones, as the disclosure applies to both of those. He stated that is the universe of potential property owners that this disclosure applies to. He stated that the risk impact might be more severe for someone who is right on the shoreline versus someone who is further inland in the coastal vulnerability zone but that is the potential for whom this disclosure applies. He stated that, when projects are appealed or Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over those approvals, they require this anyway; there are many CDPs that have been issued with these disclosures already in Pacifica and elsewhere.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated what he is saying is true and that it happens later on in the process of someone developing their property when they are doing a Coastal Commission appeal with additional expenses. She thinks a person on their first step in developing their property will have a difference in their willingness and understanding about these being

1.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 August 12, 2024
conditions of approval, with the notion that we put it in now and if it is appealed and ends up in appeal to the Coastal Commission it will happen anyway.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that we are not suggesting doing that because Coastal Commission would require that anyway, and that is not the premise for why this is in here. He stated we are being transparent about all the requirements, benefits, and things being imposed in this modernized LCLUP. He stated that, if you are a property owner and invested $100,000 and you have gotten to the 11th hour on your project and you’re before the Coastal Commission and it gets denied, you have lost all that money. Here, we are bringing transparency and certainty to a process and that is what fuels investment in people’s financial decisions about what to do with their property.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he served on the Planning Commission when that property off of Paloma was approved and then followed it every step of the way. He stated it was heartwrenching as he had very specific reasons for not voting for it on Planning Commission and it had nothing to do with this and had everything to do with his visceral appreciation of our infrastructure and didn’t even think about what they would have to experience through Coastal Commission. He does not know what the experience of Council who heard that on appeal was, but they came to the conclusion that they are going to pass it through and then Coastal Commission staff said reduce the number of units and then stopped it. He appreciated the way Coastal Commission worked, independent of their staff. He got to observe that Coastal Commission themselves disagreed with their staff to the point of summarily executing a development project a block away. He thought that property owner would have been wellserved via disclosures that were necessary for that development. He thought this might be a tool and asset to somebody trying to develop if it is going to wind up at the Coastal Commission one way or the other.

Councilmember Boles agreed with him from the point of working and development. She stated that what developers want is certainty and knowing what the restrictions are. She watched that meeting, and the Coastal Commissioners did not feel that the hazards were properly addressed, especially the hazards of circulation. Staff said you could redesign the project but there was nothing left to approve by the time they were done.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, when a project like that comes before the city, the city says we do not want to run the risk of being sued over a taking and we are going to find a way to make it work and pass the likely scenario the development ends up with the Coastal Commission. He did not say that will happen with every project every time, but he can point to a specific example. Through this mechanism, it seems overly constrictive from one perspective, but from another perspective, it could give a sure warning.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer said it depends on how long it takes them to get through these different things and Council is on the second one.

Councilmember Boles asked if we finished reading all the bullet points.

Councilmember Bier stated that talking about hazards is what made it so hard. She stated, if she owned property in a hazard zone, it would not make her feel good but there is the reality of what we are going to be facing in the future.

Councilmember Boles stated that some of those realities are there now.

1.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that these are the deed restrictions that the community is concerned about.

Councilmember Bier moved to extend the meeting until midnight; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.

EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ABSENT: Vaterlaus
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes referred to Modification No. 6.45a for the policy regarding bluff face development, stating there were some alternative modifications added to this policy to “allow native bluff landscaping, public recreational access and other improvements and critical infrastructure to bluff places”. She then moved on to next modification of policy on substantial structure modifications. This has generally remained except for one difference in language:
“non-conformities related to non-coastal resource issues may be maintained at the discretion of the decision-making body so long as they do not lead to significant impact to coastal resources”.

She stated that sentence is to protect some non-conformities that are not related to coastal hazards so that can be development standards that are not related to coastal hazards or even uses in some instances. Currently, in our Implementation Plan in the Zoning Ordinance, we have provisions that allow for permitted non-conformities to remain under certain circumstances or even to be expanded under certain circumstances with the approval of a use permit. This sentence would allow the city to continue that practice of allowing non-conformities, as long as they are not impacting coastal resources, to remain or to have minor expansions.

Councilmember Boles stated that there might be a typo in the first sentence, i.e., “when proposed modifications to a existing structure,” and whether it is supposed to be “an” existing or “a” structure.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she thinks it means “a structure” because we took away references to “existing” and “new”.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes moved on to Modification No. 6.47, Habitat Sea Level Rise Mitigation Buffers.

Councilmember Boles asked if the Coastal Commission commented on this one in regards to buffers for ESHA and creek.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that those comments were not in relation to this policy but in relation to additional policies. The reason it is included is because previously city staff had proposed a modification that “the overall buffer area shall include both sea level rise and habitat buffer” but on the May 23 meeting, staff was directed to remove that proposed alternative modification and keep the Coastal Commission’s suggested modification. She stated that the next Modification No. is 6.47A policy on Subdivision Limitations. She stated that the proposed modification is to remove the phrase “update the zoning ordinance” and replace it with “Prohibit the division of shoreline property that creates hazardous or unbuildable parcels due to erosion”. She moved on to Modification No. 6.47B, where staff is proposing to remove

1.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 August 12, 2024
an alternative modification from Coastal Commission staff. She then referred to Modification No. 6.48, Beach Nourishment policy, that has been moved to the beginning of the chapter. She then referred to Modification No. 6.49, Existing Shoreline Protection Structures, and this policy applies to existing legally permitted shoreline structures and details some language that would allow for repair and maintenance of the city’s existing shoreline protection structures. She read, “Modifications to existing shoreline protection structures which fall within the limitations of an exclusion contained in the definition of Substantial Structural Modification shall be considered to be allowed without the above-mentioned considerations.” She stated that staff clarified that anything below that 50% is an exclusion in the SSM definition and is allowed.

Councilmember Boles assumed that all the red underline was Coastal Commission changes that our staff had agreed on, but she asked if there was an alternative modification that we are proposing that the Coastal Commission does not agree with Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that previously staff had not proposed any alternative modifications to the policy and the reason that the third column is all red is because now we are proposing alternative modifications.

Councilmember Boles stated she had asked a question about legally permitted shoreline protection structures, and she thought it was one thing to legally permit something but sometimes permits expire. She asked about clarification to say “current valid permits”.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes thought the legally permitted would cover that as, if the permit has expired, it is no longer legally permitted.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what we mean by shoreline protection structures and she understands this to be saying is “legally permitted shoreline protection structures may be repaired and maintained”. She stated that is already in 30235 of the Coastal Act, but what is different in this policy now is “until the development they are protecting is removed or redeveloped”.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that specific phrase is already there and there was a suggested modification from Coastal staff that added “or redevelopment pursuant to the definition of SSM”. She stated, when a development triggers that definition of SSM and triggers that 50% trigger, it is now considered new development and thus does not qualify for protection of shoreline protection structures and that would be the same as development.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wondered how this would be implemented with protection of private property.

Councilmember Boles stated, if you are remodeling a house and it was not falling into the ocean, and the remodel is 50% or more of the substantial structural modification, you would have to take out that armoring that is currently there because the new development cannot rely on that. She stated, as an example, there is a house off of Palmetto, and if they wanted to do a remodel of that property and there is a rock revetment in front of it now and if they wanted to do a substantial structural modification to that house, they might be required to take out the revetment, but it would have to be evaluated as there are lots of caveats in the evaluation.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed that they may be required to remove the existing shoreline protection.

1.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bier asked if that changes if they are in an SSRA.

Councilmember Boles stated that the SSRA does not have any protection that is for a private house.

Councilmember Bier understood.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes referred to Modification No. 6.51 pertaining to New Shoreline Protection Structures. She stated that we added an alternative modification which states, “including existing public roads and sewer lines if necessary”. She stated that staff is also proposing to change the phrase “erosion” to “coastal hazard”. She then referred to Modification No. 6.52 pertaining to the Authorization Limit of Shoreline Protection Structures and there are no alternative modifications to this. She then referred to Modification No. 6.53 pertaining to internal consistency change that was made to this policy to reflect the new name for one of those policies and add the additional policy that is at the end of this chapter. She then referred to Modification No. 6.54 which is a new policy that was crafted in coordination with California Coastal Commission staff that related to Emergency Shoreline Protection Structures and the issuance of Emergency Coastal Development Permits. She stated that the city does have the ability to issue emergency Coastal Development Permits for certain types of work. The policy does compliment that and outlines some additional requirements and clarifies that a regular CDP application is needed in order to do a permitted approval of that emergency work.

Councilmember Boles assumed that is a Coastal Commission requirement now, but she thinks a lot of people do not know it because there is not enforcement of that currently.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated she is correct. Currently in the city’s Implementation Plan, it lists the requirements for obtaining a Coastal Development Permit for any emergency work. She stated that, depending on the type of work that is done, sometimes applicants are unable to submit that regular application within that timeframe and there are certain communications that need to occur.

Councilmember Boles was concerned about the 60 days following construction of the temporary structure. She stated that this is getting a survey, mean high tideline, mapping utilities and all the applications they have to do. She stated that it says Planning Director can extend it with good cause but she thinks that is almost impossible.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added “including good faith efforts towards submittal of such application”. If they are waiting on technical reports, she thought that would fall into that category. She asked what staff’s thought was.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that she was correct.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what Councilmember Boles thought about that.

Councilmember Boles asked if that 60 days came from the Coastal Commission. She stated that it can take 30 days just to hire a consultant, much less do the work.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she is looking at section 944307, and that is the zoning code section that describes the Coastal Development Permit process and, for Emergency Coastal Development Permits, it also specifies that 60-day period for the expiration for the permit. She stated that the code requires 30 days for submittal of an application.

1.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Boles thought staff will spend more time talking to them to try to get extensions.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it sounds like her thought is that it should be longer.

Councilmember Boles stated, if allowed, as 90 days would be helpful.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked how far this deviates from the city’s normal practice when it comes to emergency or is there a normal practice in the case of emergency shoreline protection.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes asked if he means the number of days between the issuance of an Emergency Coastal Development Permit and the required regular Coastal Development Permit.

Councilmember Bigstyck responded affirmatively.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that it is the same, 60 days. She stated that their current Implementation Plan and the Zoning Ordinance states that the “Emergency Coastal Development Permit is valid for 60 calendar days from the date of issuance by the director and the director may extend an emergency permit for an additional 60 days if the Coastal Development Permit application is on file but has not been processed”.

Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that it is already our standard practice.

Councilmember Boles stated that she has been asking how many emergency shoreline protection structures we have that have not followed through with our CDPs and she has been told we do not know. She concluded the city is the one who processes all those, not the Coastal Commission directly.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that it has been a mixture and the city has issued some Emergency Coastal Development Permits but the California Coastal Commission has issued some as well in Pacifica.

Councilmember Boles asked if that will continue to be the process. She is asking who is in charge and who is following up to make sure that a full CDP is being issued in the future. She is assuming that we are not back tracking against the ones that never did that work at this point.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated it would be the responsibility of the agency that approved the Emergency Coastal Development Permit; from her experience, the Coastal Commission enforces that more just due to the resources they have, but staff also follows up on those as well for the permits that the city issues.

Councilmember Boles referred to the previously mentioned example and the Coastal Commission had filed so many letters of violation about their armoring that they were threatening to charge daily fines. She does not know if any of that happened.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that this section is related to shoreline protection structures, and he asked if the city issues the Emergency CDPs for the shoreline protection or the Coastal Commission does.

1.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 36 August 12, 2024
Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated it depends on where that structure is proposed to be located and there are some but not a lot of instances where the city may have permit jurisdiction.

City Manager woodhouse stated, if revetment on the beach, probably not, as that is Coastal.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Boles stated, if Coastal Commission is approving a permit, they would at least be notifying the city so we could start tracking that.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes believes the city gets notified on all Emergency Coastal Development Permits and eventually they do make their way through Community Development.

Councilmember Boles states she is happy to see some policies where there is more enforcement for emergency permits.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes moved on to Modification No. 6.55 pertaining to a policy related to the Sharp Park Golf Course that previously was in the sub area section and has been moved to the end of this section. This is the Sharp Park Golf Course policy that states “strongly support that the City and County of San Francisco’s ability to provide public access along the coast protects environmentally sensitive habitat area and provides flood protection”. She then referred to Modification No. 6.56.

Councilmember Boles stated that there is a whole introductory paragraph in the book that is not in the table and she thought it might be helpful to read regarding SSRAs.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated the introductory paragraph is the heading of the Special Shoreline Resiliency Area and staff provides some information as to why these two areas have been chosen and it references the two specific areas. She stated that, starting with the first policy in this section, Modification No. 6.56, which is a policy related to public infrastructure along the shoreline in SSRAs, which allows “Public infrastructure (e.g., public roads, sidewalks, parking areas, accessways, water and sewer infrastructure) on the immediate oceanfront of the Special Shoreline Resilience Areas mapped in Figures 6-3 and 6-4 shall be consistent with all LCP provisions except that, to establish the safety and stability of the proposed development, such development may rely on a shoreline protection structure that is existing at the time of the application and/or that is proposed in the same permit application as the infrastructure itself.” As mentioned before, the SSRAs allow development to rely on the existing shoreline protection structures that are existing at the time. This specific policy is for public infrastructure which, under the definition of development, is considered development.

She moved on to Modification No. 6.57 which is essentially the same policy but it is for development directly inland of public infrastructure in the special resiliency shoreline areas.

Councilmember Boles thinks we should read these.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano read Modification No. 6.57: “Notwithstanding Policy CR-I-2, development located directly inland of the public infrastructure on the immediate oceanfront of the Special Shoreline Resilience Areas mapped in Figures 6-3 and 6-4 may rely on a shoreline protection structure in that area that is existing at the time of the permit application to help demonstrate that its setbacks meet the requirements of Policies CR-I-19 and CR-I-20. In addition to meeting the requirements of Policy CR-I-21, such development shall be conditioned

1.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 37 August 12, 2024
to require the applicant to acknowledge that the development’s long-term safety may be based in part on shoreline protection structures located seaward of the development, which may or may not be effective, and/or be maintained, and/or be present in the future.” Councilmember Boles stated that the basic definition of where this applies has her confused.

She stated development located directly inland of the public infrastructure, and she is thinking of Sharp Park with the sea wall directly inland “on the immediate oceanfront of the Special Shoreline Resilience Areas”. She knows our maps have a line without a backstop to the line, but immediate oceanfront to her implies just the first strip, not that far back.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks that was the change when the policies all got reordered.

City Manager Woodhouse thinks it is referring to the infrastructure that is on the immediate oceanfront.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated not the shoreline protection structure but the infrastructure it is protecting.

Councilmember Boles stated development located directly inland of the public infrastructure.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified public infrastructure on the immediate oceanfront.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed.

Councilmember Boles stated that it is only the infrastructure on Beach Boulevard and not any further infrastructure on Palmetto.

City Manager Woodhouse stated part of one of the definitional requirements of the SSRA is that there is public infrastructure right there on the oceanfront.

Councilmember Boles stated that what this is saying is that the SSRAs stop at some point, i.e. the first street of infrastructure.

City Manager Woodhouse stated it is anything that is inland from that public infrastructure line.

Councilmember Boles stated the public infrastructure on the immediate oceanfront, not public infrastructure that is further back.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, clarifying there is seawall that protects public infrastructure and anything directly inland from that is in the coastal vulnerability zone is what this refers to.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it was not just limited to Beach Boulevard and it could apply to structures on the next block.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it could apply to Palmetto.

Councilmember Boles stated directly inland of the public infrastructure on the immediate

1.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 38 August 12, 2024
oceanfront. She does not think it would count infrastructure further back.

City Manager Woodhouse added that it is talking about everything that is inland from that public infrastructure that is on the immediate oceanfront.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated the development located directly inland. She stated that it is the word “directly”.

Councilmember Bier stated it is not saying “everything inland,” but saying what is right behind it.

Councilmember Boles thought, if we got rid of “directly,” that would help.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated “directly” was added by Coastal Commission staff.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if that was added in the last iteration.

City Manager Woodhouse thought they were referring to the straight line back from the seawall and public infrastructure, not angularly back as that would not be directly inland.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes believes that is where the distinction is, as there is a line and everything directly behind that line going inland.

Councilmember Boles asked for staff to explain “to help demonstrate that its setback meets the requirement”. She stated that it is not a hazard analysis necessarily but just where the building is located in relation to the oceanfront hazards. She asked what they are asking for in the analysis and what does that mean.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated, what it would mean for CR-I-19, the technical reporting, is that reporting can rely on the shoreline protection structure in that area that is existing at the time of permit application to help demonstrate that it needs the setbacks required for CR-I-20, which is the siting and design requirements.

Councilmember Boles stated that the setbacks are related to the hazards.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed, stating that it is not a development standard setback.

Councilmember Boles stated that we are talking about developer certainty but acknowledge that it is based on shoreline protection structures that may or may not be effective and/or maintained and/or be present in the future. She is still not clear on how the analysis is done to know if the shoreline protection is effective. She stated that the reason she was watching the 1567 Beach Boulevard hearing and reading that staff report again. She stated, even without these policies here, there seems to be a path forward to analyze the existing shoreline protection for the project.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer remembers that they had to design it and have technical reports as if the seawall was not there.

Councilmember Boles stated that there were four geotechnical reports, two by the applicant.

They analyzed the seawall and also dug to understand how the connections were there. They did all this analysis and they said that the seawall down there had a 40-year life and the city’s two other geotechnical engineers whom she assumed the applicant paid for had to sign off on it

1.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 39 August 12, 2024
and they agreed that the seawall had a 40-year life and his setbacks were based on that. She stated that the 40-year life was not the whole life of the building so the Coastal Commission’s presentation was to say that they accept that the seawall can protect you for 40 years but for the next 35, here is what the hazards do and, therefore, this what your setbacks need to be.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought it still boils down to analysis without shoreline protection.

Councilmember Boles stated that they analyzed the seawall.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought, if the premise was that the seawall could live for 100 years, they would have been fine with the development.

Councilmember Boles stated that there are two things that bother her, one being that all four of the engineers decided that this seawall had a 40-year life in 2020 when GHD had told the city something very different. She stated that this is part of her concern about this whole policy, i.e., developers will be trying to cut corners and you can hire someone to say whatever you want to say. She asked how we know that the armoring is going to provide the protection for the life of the project. She stated that, even with the new seawall, we have all the documentation, the engineers are stamping it off, and you have the project submitted the next day, it is only being designed to last 50 years and then what happens for the next 25.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the reason he voted no on that project was because of the understanding of the sinkholes that continuously formed behind the retaining wall that sits behind them. He was also concerned about the fact that there was not a second way out of the property. He was very public about what this wall’s problems are. He voted against it for one reason, and then it went to Council where two councilmembers voted against it. He stated that, after that, if it is a different development with a different greater setback, that might meet the 75- year threshold in conjunction with the 50-year seawall. He stated that, when you get down to specific development, things change. He agreed that the engineers that looked at that were off the mark when they concluded that the seawall would protect for 40 years.

Councilmember Boles stated that her concern is that this is a gift for developers. The City is telling them that they can rely on what is here that the city has built and is maintaining. She voiced concern about developers who want to make a quick profit, who will try to build something cheaply and then sell it to some person who is less discerning.

Councilmember Bigstyck agreed that it could be construed as a gift to developers but it also could be construed as protecting this larger swath of our community while we figure out exactly what adaptive strategies we will need. He stated suspect developers could exist anywhere and a poorly made structure could exist anywhere.

Councilmember Boles does not see how this policy is protecting our community.

Councilmember Bigstyck thought we were talking generally about SSRA. He stated that, in general terms, the way it protects our community is that, without that protective structure, we have a lot of vulnerability in this area, not just immediately along Beach Boulevard.

Councilmember Boles stated that the presence of the seawall is a whole different topic. It is there now and we are going to try to replace it and we have been told that these policies do not help or hurt that.

1.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 40 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed that the topic of replacing the seawall is a different topic, but the topic of the seawall we have directly pertains.

Councilmember Boles agreed, but she thinks what this is doing has nothing to do with the seawall and whether it gets replaced or not; it has to do with letting projects rely on that armoring. She asks where the public benefits are to allowing the developer of that project to rely on the seawall.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked Acting Deputy Director Cervantes, if somebody were to develop the 1567 Paloma site today, acknowledging that there is armoring there, would it be in terms of the current degradation to that part of the seawall and what they expect the life of it to be. He stated that the policy says there is armoring there so they can build, but that armoring has a life expectancy to it, given the life it has already experienced, and where does that factor in to the equation.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that one of the things she mentioned in her initial presentation is that, for all the technical reporting, it is anticipated that the assumption is that variables that will go into those technical reports will be in the Implementation Plan, either through the Zoning Ordinance or through some additional policy that will essentially allow the city to determine what the assumptions would be. Staff would consult with geotechnical engineers, our Engineering Division, California Coastal Commission staff, etc. to determine what is the remaining life of our existing seawall, what can we assume are the protections that it provides due to height, due to what we expect to be maintenance and repair, and that will be what applies to all these projects. It will not be individual developers determining what the remaining life of the seawall is, but it will be the city determining what that remaining life of the seawall is and it will be applied the same to everyone in this area.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we are saying any development that happens is in conjunction with the protection we already have, and when we implement it, that is when we study what that really means. He stated that we have a policy that says there is protection and you get to develop in terms of the protection you have. When we get to the Implementation Plan, we get a little closer and say what that protection we have is then specifically described.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes agreed.

Councilmember Bier referred to all those adaptation strategies and stated that the SSRAs allow and at least protect for a little time while we have an opportunity to plan the adaptation.

Councilmember Boles stated that it has nothing to do with protection but to allowing more development in these hazardous areas and that is her concern. She stated that we were told before that the city would not be defining this and the applicants had to do their investigations with their geotechnical engineers. She is even more worried if the city is signing off saying that the seawall has a specific remaining life and for seawall that does not belong to the City. She thinks it is dangerous legally and asked if we are giving a life of the infrastructure and the revetment or seawall, the city is making a legal promise to a developer who is relying on that information to design the project.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano hears what she is saying but she would not characterize it as a promise. She is sure there will be some analysis that staff does that is typical for any project that we review and approve. She stated that there are policies that say you are relying on it and it may or may not last the life that you expect it to last.

1.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 41 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that she cannot see any developer wanting to use that.

City Manager Woodhouse added the hazard disclosure which they will sign says that protection may not be there and the city may not maintain that. In the case of the seawall, the city intends to replace that and the life will be much longer with the new one.

Councilmember Boles asked who would spend millions of dollars to rely on these policies with no promises.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the point here is to allow flexibility for property owners to determine what it is that they want to do with their property.

Councilmember Bier stated it is not necessarily developers but property owners.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it also pertains to developers. She stated that the Sharp Park Specific Plan is in this vicinity.

Councilmember Boles stated that the Sharp Park Specific Plan increased development on Palmetto which is not in the hazard area, and she did not think that applies. She stated that the owner of 1567 Palmetto is not relying on the city and is doing his own engineering and talking to the Coastal Commission and he can build some things within the setback is what he has been hearing and he does not need these policies. She stated that 2212 Beach Boulevard is set back even further and she did not think we needed these policies. She stated that her question is how are these going to be used and is it worth all the investment because the city is having to do a lot to offset them.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we are going to get the mitigations with the coastal management plan.

Councilmember Boles stated it is important to understand is about how they could be used and if it’s really an economic help to the city.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer appreciates the question and she thinks it is taking them to that next level of nuance. She stated SSRA seems like a great idea on the face and we are probing what does that really mean and what exactly does it protect. She stated that it goes back to her issue about the hazards and vulnerability zone and where the line is. She wants to say that the design life or the remaining life that she referred to would be determined in the course of establishing the implementation policies. She stated that they had a previous example that it was 40 years in 2020.

Councilmember Boles noted that the city signed off on it.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated in that example they had to address the remainder of the useful life of the building without that seawall and her question is if it is really helping us.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated that, in the conversations she has had with developers, they want certainties, whether that certainty is for 25 years, 50 years, etc. She thinks this allows property owners and potential developers to really make the decision to identify, if they build in this area, with the protection provided by the existing shoreline protection structure, they know what they can invest and that they will have that investment for that time period. Whether the

1.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 42 August 12, 2024
city decides that we want a new seawall, whether we even get a new seawall permitted, that may not be guaranteed in that future time frame, but at least they know that, for this time period, that is a guarantee that the remaining wall, there is some remaining life there. That is what the city is trying to convey, the flexibility to allow people to be able to use their property for some time period, without saying right now they cannot develop, remodel, or cannot do anything to their property.

Councilmember Boles stated that no one is saying that and pointed out designing to the hazards. She stated that staff said the developer wants certainty, but we are saying at the end that the armoring they are relying on may or may not be effective, maintained, or present in the future and thus there is no certainty there if that is what they are signing off on.

Acting Deputy Director Cervantes stated staff is trying to make it so there is a certainty for a time period.

Councilmember Boles stated, if we say it has a 20-year remaining life but do not do the required maintenance, it may not last 20 years, hence why she is worried that we are promising something that we cannot necessarily say we will do.

City Manager Woodhouse thinks the point is that we are not promising anything and instead being very transparent about what is being offered and the benefit of being able to design a project counting on the protection. He stated that we mentioned before that the SSRA policies have an expiration date of 20 years from now unless otherwise continued or amended in a future LCLUP amendment and this is a 20-year approach to allow this benefit/option to property owners and they do not have to choose to do their analysis this way. He stated, if the owner of 1567 wants to do a minimal thing that does not rely on any seawall there, that is their choice; if they have the option to build more and get more return on their investment, create more housing in the city for the 20 , 30, 40, or 50 years, that is their choice as well. The city wants to provide options for property owners, and the concept of the SSRAs achieves that; there is no guarantee about the future or that SSRAs, 20 years from now, could be used in our LCLUP for development. The City is being very transparent about the timelines and disclosures that are required and what could happen in the future and business people make business decisions based on that.

Councilmember Boles added that, in the meantime, we have to come up with a mitigation program and start doing those projects just to have those as an option for a developer to use, whether they use them or not.

City Manager Woodhouse thinks it is important to recognize that, with the coastal access capital projects into the future and the shoreline adaptation studies, that is Pacifica’s future regardless, and this is getting something out of that as well. He cannot envision a Pacifica that does not try to do coastal access improvements, etc., or over years plan for long-term shoreline adaptation.

This is saying that we are going to do that and, in the meantime, all of these property owners, if they choose to develop, get this benefit of the SSRAs.

Councilmember Bier stated that she hears Councilmember Boles.

Councilmember Boles wanted to make sure we are understanding what we are getting into.

Councilmember Bier stated in the letter received from the Coastal Commission staff on August 6, there is a sentence in the second paragraph that says, “These comments are generally

1.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 43 August 12, 2024
supportive of the city’s draft sea level rise and coastal hazard policies, including the Special Shoreline Resiliency Area policies.” She asked why would the Coastal Commission staff be supportive of those.

Councilmember Boles wishes Coastal Commission had their meeting on the neighborhoodbased planning before we talked about this because she thinks neighborhood based planning is a really good idea. She stated that we do not want to be looking at one building and what armoring or environmental issues it might have but we want to look over a region. She thinks the basic concept is there but she stated no one has tried this particular answer which is allowing new development to rely on shoreline protection. She stated that a lot of the public comments, which is one of her major objections, is that these are already hazardous zones in these particular areas. She stated that there are areas that are hazardous, whether you are building a building or not, you are putting more people in these areas, and that is what she worries about. She referred to what the City Manager was saying about the adaptation plan being required regardless of the SSRAs.

Councilmember Bier stated, if you are a hotel owner in Rockaway Beach and you wanted to do some improvements on your hotel, would you be able to do that without the SSRA.

Councilmember Boles stated that you have to mitigate your hazards and know that your foundations are going to last. She asked if you want to build $100 million hotel and rely on a seawall that may not last for 20 years.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he feels she is very focused on new development. He stated he would like to make a statement and then make a motion. She talked about Pacifica or coastal cities in general pressuring the Coastal Commission. He stated that he watched the United States Armed Forces pressuring the Coastal Commission and then Coastal Commission telling them exactly what they thought about the United States Armed Forces not honoring monitoring. He thinks the reason why the Coastal Commission might be willing to look at strategies like this and come along with the coastal cities that are advocating for them is an acknowledgment that one size does not fit all and the way different cities are developed require that we are beholden to the Coastal Act, but we need to bend to the point that cities have to maintain themselves. He thinks that, when we are looking at our SSRAs, he hears the concern about new development, and a lot of it is going to be addressed when we get to the Implementation Program of the policies we are setting in place; but in the meantime, while he looks at the two prime new development sites, he is aware of everything that is already developed that minor maintenance might, from traditional Coastal Commission perspective, rise to a level where it is difficult to do things that the average observer would deem unsubstantial or obvious. He stated that there are things we have in policies like this where it is agreed upon that the hotel can do maintenance. It is there and protected and may not last forever and may only have 20 years left but, in that 20 years that the hotel is going to exist because there is armoring, they should be able to maintain themselves. He thinks that, when looking at these policies, his focus goes much more to what is already there and how we are working with what is already developed and then the adaptive approach is go from there; whereas, when it comes to new development, that will be in conjunction with the Implementation Plan.

Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:20 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

1.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 44 August 12, 2024
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:20 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ABSENT: Vaterlaus
Councilmember Bier stated that she was not disagreeing with Councilmember Boles but she wanted to understand why the Coastal Commission is in favor of this.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is comfortable saying that we are not done yet with 6.57.

She brought up a lot of very good points and maybe staff can address some of the concerns in more detail.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought that would be valuable.

Councilmembers Bier and Boles agreed.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer still believes that each time we take a deeper dive into this and ask these questions we are getting closer to that level of understanding to be able to discern approval. She stated that we cannot make that determination until we go through this process.

Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it seems we have wrapped this up for the evening.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed for this piece of the evening, yes, and in terms of Council communications, she can personally hold hers until the future.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, on this particular item for the LCLUP, is it Council’s desire to continue the item to a date uncertain.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks so.

Councilmember Boles thinks the question is whether they want to do this at the end of the month or the short-term rental ordinance and what is possible.

Councilmember Bigstyck suggested doing a special session to a time not determined either for wrapping up this or for STRs. He asks the City Manager’s input.

City Manager Woodhouse wants to hear from Council about committing to a special City Council meeting in the next couple of weeks in addition to the regular Council meeting on the 26th.

Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated date uncertain and staff will get back to them with polling about an additional meeting and she confirmed that Council was in agreement on that.

Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we need a motion.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we do, and Council can move to continue this item to a date uncertain.

1.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 45 August 12, 2024
Councilmember Bier moved to continue the meeting to a date uncertain; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.

CONTINUE MEETING TO A DATE UNCERTAIN
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ABSENT: Vaterlaus
CONSIDERATION - NONE.

ADJOURN
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 12:16 a.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

1.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 08-12-2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (5757 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/23/2024
1 SUBJECT:

Adopt Resolution Amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code to Revise the List of Designated Employees
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the resolution amending the City of Pacifica Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of Designated Employees and repealing Resolution No. 61-2022.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

California Government Code 87306.5 requires that each local agency review and, if necessary, revise its Conflict of Interest Code in even-numbered years. Public officials designated in Government Code section 87200 must file Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700s).

Additionally, pursuant to the City's Conflict of Interest Code, City employees and certain consultants who hold positions that involve making or participating in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on the holder’s financial interests must file Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700s). A Conflict of Interest Code was first approved by Resolution No. 16-79, which has been amended periodically as noted below.

The City is required to review and, if necessary, revise its list of "Designated Employees" when the City creates new positions, revises job titles, eliminates positions or conducts a structural reorganization within City departments.

In order to comply with State law, the City must amend its Conflict of Interest Code to reflect the changes made in job titles and/or positions. Staff has reviewed new positions created and revised job descriptions that have been adopted subsequent to the update to the Conflict of Interest Code in September 2022. Accordingly, staff recommends adoption of a resolution amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of designated employees to reflect current positions. Exhibit A attached to the resolution included with this report reflects these changes, and is intended to supersede and repeal Resolution No. 61-2022, which approved the last Conflict of Interest amendment on September 26, 2022.

With the amendments to the list of Designated Employees (Exhibit A) the City's Conflict of Interest Code accurately reflects those positions that may make or participate in making decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on the holder’s financial interests.

Making a decision may include voting on a matter, approving the budget, adopting policy, 2 Packet Pg. 70
Pacifica City Council 2
September 23, 2024
making purchasing decisions and/or entering into contracts. Participating in a decision includes negotiating the terms or a contract, writing the specifications of a bid and/or advising or making recommendations to a decision-maker or governing body without significant intervening substantive review.

Notable amendments to the list of Designated Employees based on these criteria and the review of new and revised job classifications include:
• addition of “Finance and Administrative Services Director / City Treasurer” (new classification adopted by Resolution No. 63-2024)
• removal of “Chief Financial Sustainability Officer” (assumed by the position of Assistant City Manager and eliminated with the restructure including addition of classifications for Deputy Finance Director (Resolution No. 17-2022), Finance and Administrative Services Director / City Treasurer and filling of position for Economic Development Manager) • amend “Planning Director” to “Community Development Director” (reclassification adopted by Resolution No. 45-2024)
• amend “Deputy Director of Planning” to “Community Development Deputy Director” (title change pursuant to Resolution No. 45-2024)
• addition of “Senior Code Enforcement Officer” (new classification adopted by Resolution No. 85-2023)
• addition of “Principal Civil Engineer” (new classification adopted by Resolution No. 128- 2023)
• remove “Parks Supervisor” position (review of position indicates that the level of authority defers to the Public Works Superintendent position for decision-making authority as designated by the Conflict of Interest Code) • remove “Child Care Supervisor” and “Senior Services Supervisor” positions (reclassification of the “Recreation Supervisor” job description as adopted by Resolution No. 10-2023 encompasses the positions for the specific program areas of Recreation/Aquatic, Senior Services, Childcare); the “Recreation Supervisor” position will remain on the list of Designated Employees
Staff recommends the adoption of the resolution amending the City of Pacifica’s Conflict of Interest Code incorporating Exhibit A (Designated Positions). Exhibit B defines the Disclosure Categories and is attached for reference. No changes have been made to Exhibit B - Disclosure Categories.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Exhibit A - Designated Positions 2024 update (redlined) (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 71
Pacifica City Council 3
September 23, 2024
Exhibit B - Disclosure Categories (PDF)
Attachment C: 2024 Local Agency Notice - City Of Pacifica (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 72
Pacifica City Council 4
September 23, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. __-2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AMENDING THE CITY OF PACIFICA’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 61-2022
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code commencing with Section 87300, the City Council is required to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 87302, the Conflict of Interest Code shall provide for specific enumeration of the positions within the City, other than those specified in Government Code Section 87200, which involve the making or participation in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have material effect on any financial interest and for each such enumerated position, the specific types of investments, business position interests in real property and sources of income which must be reported; and WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974, (Government Code Section 8100 et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code and the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has adopted a regulation (2 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections 18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and a hearing the standard code may be amended by the FPPC to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. The terms of 2 California Code of Regulations section 18730, and any amendments to it duly adopted by the FPPC, may be incorporated by reference into a local agency’s conflict of interest code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Conflict of Interest Code by Resolution No. 16-79 which has been amended from time to time to conform to amendments by approving Exhibit “A” and disclosure categories for certain designated positions with the City of Pacifica; and
WHEREAS, approval of this resolution supersedes and repeals Resolution No. 61- 2022 which approved the last Conflict of Interest amendment; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the attached Exhibit A accurately sets forth those positions which should be designated, and Exhibit B the categories of financial interests which should be made reportable for each position; and WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act requires review of the Conflict of Interest Code every two (2) years to determine whether it is accurate or whether it should be amended; and
2 Packet Pg. 73
Pacifica City Council 5
September 23, 2024
WHEREAS, the City desires to update its current Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of designated positions and disclosure categories.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica that Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated by reference and the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations section 18730, as may be amended, shall constitute the City of Pacifica’s Conflict of Interest Code.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that individuals holding designated positions identified in Exhibit A shall file Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700) with the City Clerk, to whom the City Council hereby designates the authority to carry out the duties of the Filing Officer, in the manner identified by the City Clerk. Statements of Economic Interest shall be made in a form prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission and supplied by the City of Pacifica.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this amendment shall be the date this Resolution is adopted by the City Council and approval of this Resolution supersedes and repeals Resolution No. 61-2022, which approved the last Conflict of Interest amendment.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special and regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 23rd day of September 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 2 Packet Pg. 74
Revised September 20242

EXHIBIT A
Reportable Economic Interest
Designated Positions Category Nos. (See Exhibit B)
City Council member *
Planning Commission member *
City Attorney *
City Manager *
City Clerk *
Assistant City Attorney 1
Assistant City Manager 1
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer 1
Finance and Administrative Services Director / City Treasurer 1 Deputy Finance Director 1
Human Resources Manager 4(a)
Economic Development Manager 1
Deputy City Clerk 1
Planning Community Development Director
1 Community Development Deputy Director of Planning
1 Senior Planner 1
Associate Planner 1
Assistant Planner 1
Management Analyst II 1
Chief Building Official/Building Inspector 1
Senior Code Enforcement Officer 1
Code Enforcement Officer 1
Director of Public Works 1
Deputy Director of Public Works - Wastew Water 1
Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer -Field 1
Services & Engineering

Engineering Manager – Wastewater 1
Public Works Project Manager 1
Principal Civil Engineer 1
Senior Civil Engineer 1
Associate Civil Engineer 1
Assistant Civil Engineer 4(a)
Senior Project Engineer – Wastew Water 4(a)

2.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Exhibit A - Designated Positions 2024 update (redlined) (5760 : Resolution - Biennial Conflict of Interest Code Update 2024) Revised September 20242
Field Services Manager 1
WastewWater Treatment Plant Operations Manager 4(a)
WastewWater Treatment Plant Collections System Mgr. 4(a) Public Works Superintendent -Streets,Parks,Facilities&Motor Pool 4(a)

Parks Supervisor 4(a)
Motor Pool Supervisor 4(a)

Police Chief 1
Police Captain 1
Fire Chief 1
Deputy Fire Chief 1
Paramedic Coordinator 4(a)
Director of Parks, Beaches & Recreation 1
Recreation Manager 4(b)
Recreation Supervisor 4(b)
Child Care Supervisor 4(b)
Senior Services Supervisor 4(b)
Information Systems and Technology Manager 4(a)
Members of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission 1 Members of the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission 1 Consultants / New Positions **
* Individuals holding these positions are listed for informational purposes only. They are not covered by this code, but are required to file under Government Code Section 87200 et.

Seq.
** Individuals providing services as a Consultant as defined in Title 2 California Code of Regulations sections 18700.3 and 18734 or in a new position as defined in Regulation 18734 that make or participate in making governmental decisions shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in this Code subject to the following limitation:

If the new position or consultant performs limited duties, the agency may tailor the disclosure requirements to the duties performed. The City Manager (or designee) may determine in writing that, due to the range of duties or contractual obligations, it is more appropriate to assign a limited disclosure requirement. a. Not later than ten (10) days after the final approval of a newly created position, the department manager (or designee) shall submit to the Clerk a completed Fair Political Practices Commission Form 804 (Agency Report of New Positions), or subsequent form, which identifies the classification and disclosure categories. The City Manager (or designee) will review the department’s recommendation and make the final

2.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Exhibit A - Designated Positions 2024 update (redlined) (5760 : Resolution - Biennial Conflict of Interest Code Update 2024) Revised September 20242
determination. The City Manager (or designee) determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code.
b. Not later than ten (10) days after an authorized City representative has signed a consultant contract, the department manager (or designee) shall submit to the Clerk a completed Fair Political Practices Commission Form 805 (Agency Report of Consultants), or subsequent form, which identifies the consultant and disclosure categories. The City Manager (or designee) will review the department’s recommendation and make the final determination. The City Manager (or designee) determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code.

2.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Exhibit A - Designated Positions 2024 update (redlined) (5760 : Resolution - Biennial Conflict of Interest Code Update 2024) 1 EXHIBIT B

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
1) Full Disclosure
All interests in real property located within the jurisdiction, as well as investments, business positions and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments. 2) Full Disclosure (excluding interests in real property) All investments, business positions and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments.
3) Interests in Real Property
All interests in real property located in the jurisdiction. 4) General Contracting Categories (Two models)
Note: The first model can be used for an individual who contracts for the entire agency.

The second model is for an individual who has contracting authority for a specific department.
(a) All investments, business positions and income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, from sources that provide leased facilities, goods, equipment, vehicles, machinery or services, including training or consulting services, of the type utilized by the City of Pacifica.
(b) All investments, business positions and income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, from sources that provide leased facilities, goods, equipment, vehicles, machinery or services, including training or consulting services, of the type utilized by the employee’s department or area of authority. 5) Regulatory, Permit or Licensing Agency
All investments, business positions and income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, from sources that either contract to provide education or training required by the City of Pacifica to qualify for or maintain a license, or entities that provide education or training services which courses or curricula are approved by the City of Pacifica. 6) Grant/Service Providers/Agencies that Oversee Programs All investments, business positions and income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, or income from a nonprofit organization, if the source is of the type to receive grants or other monies from or through the City of Pacifica.

2.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Exhibit B - Disclosure Categories (5760 : Resolution - Biennial Conflict of Interest Code Update 2024) www.fppc.ca.gov
FPPC Advice: [email protected] (866.275.3772)

2024 Local Agency Biennial Notice
Name of Agency:

Mailing Address:

Contact Person: Phone No.

Email: Alternate Email:

Accurate disclosure is essential to monitor whether officials have conflicts of interest and to help ensure public trust in government. The biennial review examines current programs to ensure that the agency’s code includes disclosure by those agency officials who make or participate in making governmental decisions.

This agency has reviewed its conflict of interest code and has determined that (check one BOX):
 An amendment is required. The following amendments are necessary:
(Check all that apply.)
 Include new positions
 Revise disclosure categories
 Revise the titles of existing positions
 Delete titles of positions that have been abolished and/or positions that no longer make or participate in making governmental decisions
 Other (describe)
 The code is currently under review by the code reviewing body.  No amendment is required. (If your code is over five years old, amendments may be necessary.)
Verification (to be completed if no amendment is required) This agency’s code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions. The disclosure assigned to those positions accurately requires that all investments, business positions, interests in real property, and sources of income that may foreseeably be affected materially by the decisions made by those holding designated positions are reported. The code includes all other provisions required by Government Code Section 87302.
__________________________________________ _________________________ Signature of Chief Executive Officer Date
All agencies must complete and return this notice regardless of how recently your code was approved or amended. Please return this notice no later than October 1, 2024, or by the date specified by your agency, if earlier, to:
(PLACE RETURN ADDRESS OF CODE REVIEWING BODY HERE)
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN THIS FORM TO THE FPPC.

2.c
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment C: 2024 Local Agency Notice - City Of Pacifica (5760 : Resolution - Biennial Conflict of Interest Code Update 2024)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
9/23/2024
1 SUBJECT:

San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County.”
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County.”
STAFF CONTACT:

John Mullins, Interim Public Works Director
(650) 501- 6523
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Early in California’s history, the California Constitution established grand juries in each county.

The California Penal Code provides for the formation of civil grand juries and their powers and duties. With respect to public agencies, grand juries are authorized to “Investigate and report upon the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method or systems of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.” California Penal Code § 925(a). Within 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a report regarding the operations of any public agency, the “Governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body…” California Penal Code § 933(c).

On July 11, 2024, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued a report titled “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” (Attachment A). California regulations adopted pursuant Senate Bill 1383 (2016) mandate separating compostable materials like food waste from garbage to reduce methane emissions.

Starting January 1, 2022, regulations adopted pursuant Senate Bill 1383 (2016) required California businesses and residents to participate in organic waste collection. As part of this Grand Jury investigation from December 2023 to April 2024, officials were interviewed and data was collected from the County, Cities, the RethinkWaste Joint Powers Authority (JPA) (including Recology of the Coast), and haulers to assess current compliance.

A statewide goal is to reduce 75% of organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2025. Disposal means sending all waste, organic, recyclable, or trash, to the landfill. Diversion means sending organic waste or recyclables to conversion centers, where they become compost, mulch, or consumer recycled content, as opposed to sending them to landfills. This Grand Jury's goal was to identify where consumers and producers are failing to fully contribute to organic waste 3 Packet Pg. 80
Pacifica City Council 2
September 23, 2024
diversion consistent with their abilities.

Based on the Grand Jury report, during the Grand Jury investigation there were several reasons found why multi-family dwellings and businesses have low participation and diversion rates.

Green cart enrollment costs, and insufficient space for the three-cart system are the largest factors. Contamination brought about by improperly sorting organics into bins also played a role.

It was also found that some multi-family dwelling trash chutes do not offer an opportunity to sort items and appropriate compost bins were not conveniently located or available.

Further, local governments cannot reliably assess their progress on Senate Bill (SB) 1383 compliance because JPAs, haulers, and cities have different data reporting formats.

To address these problems, the Grand Jury suggests that:

1. Cities, the County, and RethinkWaste should host monthly in-person green cart enrollment summits for non-compliant businesses and landlords and develop and implement other compliance strategies.

2. Jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings and businesses in narrow or small waste enclosures.

3. To increase transparency and accountability, cities and the County should regularly publish waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

The Civil Grand Jury report includes eight recommendations and strategies to improve education, outreach, program enrollment, tracking and management of the compost diversion program. Recology of the Coast was involved in the development of the recommendations and has implemented and or is in the process of implementing all the recommendations.

Response to Civil Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations:

The City response to the Civil Grand Jury report is due by October 9, 2024. The Public Works Department, in collaboration with Recology of the Coast, has prepared a draft response letter, included as Attachment B. The City and Recology agree with all the of applicable findings and have either begun or are in the process of implementing all the applicable recommendations from the Grand Jury report dated July 11, 2024.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Decline to accept the draft response to the San Mateo Civil Grand Jury and provide additional direction to staff.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the response is consistent with the following Council-adopted Goal:
• Goal 4: Pursue climate change adaption and mitigation FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of accepting this report and implementing the recommendations are minimal and can be addressed within budgeted resources.
3 Packet Pg. 81
Pacifica City Council 3
September 23, 2024
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (PDF) Attachment B - Draft Grand Jury Response Letter- The State of Compost Compliance in SMC_9-16-15 (DOCX)
3 Packet Pg. 82
2023-2024 SAN MATEO COUNTY

CIVIL GRAND JURY

THE STATE OF COMPOST COMPLIANCE IN

SAN MATEO COUNTY

3.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 1 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
ISSUE
California regulations adopted pursuant Senate Bill 1383 (2016) mandate separating compostable materials like food waste from garbage to reduce methane emissions. How effective has San Mateo County been at meeting composting goals, and what can be done to improve?

SUMMARY
Starting January 1, 2022, regulations adopted pursuant Senate Bill 1383 (2016) required California businesses and residents to participate in organic waste collection. According to a 2022 San Mateo Daily Journal article, 70% of Burlingame’s businesses and multi-family dwellings did not have organic waste collection services. San Bruno had 86% of businesses and 45% of multi-family dwellings without organic waste collection (Browning 2022). From December 2023 to April 2024, officials were interviewed and data was collected from the County, cities, the RethinkWaste Joint Powers Authority (JPA), and haulers to assess current compliance.

A statewide goal is to reduce 75% of organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2025. Disposal means sending all waste, organic, recyclable, or trash, to the landfill. Diversion means sending organic waste or recyclables to conversion centers, where they become compost, mulch, or consumer recycled content, as opposed to sending them to landfills. Any stand-alone references to diversion in this report refers to converted organic waste and recycling combined. “Organic waste diversion” only refers to only converted organic waste. This report’s goal is to identify where consumers and producers are failing to fully contribute to organic waste diversion consistent with their abilities.

The report’s recommendations are that the responsible local public entities implement solutions to increase organic waste participation and diversion rates. Notably, jurisdictions should have begun penalizing generators for non-compliance beginning January 1, 2024 (California Public Resources Code § 42652.5 (2022)). Most multi-family dwellings and businesses in San Mateo County have lower organics collection enrollment compared to single-family homes. High enrollment rates for all three property types, however, do not necessarily result in high diversion rates and more organic waste in the waste stream. For example, in 2023, Foster City’s multifamily dwellings had a 98.81% participation rate; but, organics made up only 5.49% of total waste (Recology San Mateo County 2024, 2023).

There are several reasons behind multi-family dwellings and businesses having low participation and diversion rates. Green cart enrollment costs, and insufficient space for the three-cart system are the largest factors. Contamination brought about by improperly sorting organics into bins

3.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
also plays a role. In some multi-family dwellings, trash chutes do not offer an opportunity to sort and appropriate bins are not conveniently located. Further, local governments cannot reliably assess their progress on Senate Bill (SB) 1383 compliance because JPAs, haulers, and cities have different data reporting formats. And residents and the press must retrieve waste statistics from haulers because most cities do not have or post them.

To address these problems, the Grand Jury recommends that:

1. Cities, the County, and RethinkWaste should host monthly in-person green cart enrollment summits for non-compliant businesses and landlords and develop and implement other compliance strategies.

2. Jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings’ and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures.

3. To increase transparency and accountability, cities and the County should regularly publish waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

BACKGROUND
On September 19, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1383 to reduce California’s methane emissions. This law classifies any person or entity responsible for creating organic waste as an “organic waste generator” (Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 18982 (2020)). Generators must comply with the law by subscribing to their jurisdiction’s organic waste collection service or self-hauling organic waste (§ 18984.9 (2020)). If residents or businesses do not subscribe or self-haul, “a jurisdiction shall impose penalties for violations” ranging from $50-$500 depending on one or more infractions (§ 18997.2 (2020)). SB 1383 defines jurisdictions as “a city, county, a city and county, or a special district that provides solid waste collection services.” (§ 18982 (2020)).

The new law builds on previous solid waste management legislation. Assembly Bill 939 was the first law of its kind to provide a solid waste diversion goal for cities and counties. Each jurisdiction had to divert 50% or more of solid waste from the landfill starting January 1, 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 41780 (1989)). SB 1016 later replaced Assembly Bill (AB) 939 with a per capita disposal rate equivalent to the 50% annual diversion rate (§ 41780.05 (2008)). In 2011, lawmakers directed businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of commercial solid waste weekly and multifamily dwellings of five units or more to recycle (§ 41780.05).

3.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Equation 1. Diversion Rate
[(R+O)/(R+O+S)] * 100 = Diversion Rate %
R: Recycling tons, O: Organic tons, S: Solid Waste tons (Sources: Republic Services 2024a and 2024b, Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, GreenWaste 2023)
California passed SB 1383 to tackle the pervasiveness of organic and recyclable waste in landfills. In 2021, CalRecycle estimated landfill composition to be 28.4% organic waste (11,305,710 tons), 15.5% paper (6,193,825 tons), and 13.7% plastic (5,445,299 tons) (2022a).

Failing to divert the majority of reusable materials has polluted the environment Californians share. From August 2016 to October 2018, landfills were the largest source of methane, contributing 41% of point source emissions (California Air Resources Board 2019). California’s track record on recycling and waste emissions has not improved over the years either, as emissions have increased by 24.4% since 2000 (CARB 2023). If mandatory organic waste collection successfully diminishes landfill emissions, it will support the struggle against climate change.

SB 1383 aims to reduce 75% of organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2025 (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 39730.6 (2016)). Signing up for a green composting bin is a key to achieving this goal. Jurisdictions that do not have the standard three-cart system of garbage (usually gray, brown, or black cart), recyclables (blue cart), and organics (green cart) can still participate under certain conditions. For example, a two-cart system with only blue and gray carts can have the latter contain organics and garbage. Haulers must deliver the mixed waste gray carts “to a facility that meets or exceeds the organic waste content recovery requirements…” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 18984.2 (2020)).

Of the 20 cities in San Mateo County, the state orders 18 to comply with SB 1383. CalRecycle issued a low-population waiver to Colma and Portola Valley on January 1, 2022 (n.d1.). They are exempt from enforcing both laws, and were not interviewed for this report.

An earlier investigation on the conditions of landfill capacity inspired this report. In the 2018- 2019 Grand Jury year, jurors released the report “Planning for the County’s Waste Management Challenges.” They used data from a 2014 CalRecycle analysis to note that organic waste comprised 71% of all waste sent to the landfill in the County (SMC Civil Grand Jury 2019).

Additionally, Republic Services, which operates Ox Mountain Landfill, projected that the landfill would close by 2034 based on disposal rates (2019). Although the report highlighted the connection between SB 1383 and landfill capacity, jurors geared their recommendations predominantly on revising the County Integrated Waste Management Plan. This 2023-2024 report: “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” is different. It examines how

3.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
increasing composting participation in multi-family dwellings and businesses can contribute to solving the landfill problem.

Economic Factors Impacting SB 1383 Progress
On September 8, 2022, Shereen D’Souza, former CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency) Deputy Secretary, told the Milton Marks Commission that the state missed its 2020 recycling goal. Ms. D’Souza referred to the 50% reduction in organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2020 under Health & Safety Code § 39730.6 (2016). This goal was the precursor to the current 75% organic waste disposal reduction from 2014 levels by 2025 described above. The Deputy Secretary remarked, “Until this year, CalRecycle’s regulations to meet the organic waste reduction targets were not enforceable” (D’Souza 2022). She adds, “So, it makes sense that the 2020 diversion rate required in 1383 was not met” (2022).

In the same interview, former CalRecycle Director, Rachel Machi Wagoner, described how far California missed the mark. Ms. Wagoner said, “As a matter of fact, in 2020, we were roughly a million tons over our 2014 baseline” (2022). Businesses and residents sent more organics to landfills in 2020 than six years prior. It might be assumed that the COVID-19 pandemic pushed Californians to consume more than usual at home given the lockdowns. Yet, 2020 was also a recessionary year, which decreased some workers’ incomes.

Industrial production and civilian consumption rates are the most consequential causes of landfill pollution. CalRecycle observed that “a strong correlation between disposal and economic growth” prevails (2020). In 1989, California’s GDP “was $0.72 trillion” and “statewide traditional landfill disposal was 44 million tons” (CalRecycle 2020). In 2018, California’s GDP “rose to $3 trillion” (CalRecycle 2020), while landfill and “disposal-related activities” (see Glossary) climbed to 46,255,505 tons (CalRecycle 2024).

3.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Source: Real Gross Domestic Product: All Industry Total in California (CARGSP) | FRED | St.

Louis Fed
During the Great Recession (2007-2009), landfill disposal plummeted by 20.7% in California (CalRecycle 2020). In 2020, the state’s overall disposal (landfill added to disposal-related activities) tonnage fell by 7.46% when compared to the 2019 peak (CalRecycle 2024). Per capita disposal rates, and by extension overall disposal, have risen in the state since 2014 (2024). As the chart and table below illustrates, the timing of SB 1383 enforcement appears to not have a significant impact on California reaching its 2020 objective. Curiously, the 2020 surge of organic waste in landfills occurred while overall disposal fell.

3.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Sources: 2018 State of Disposal and Recycling in California, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2021, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022; note, values are found in Appendix 1, Figure 2 or 3 on each report
Table 1. State Compost Tonnages and Percentage of Overall Waste 2018-2022 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
% of total
waste
12% 12.28% 12.3% 12.41% 14.73%*
Compost
Tons
≈9,312,000 9,522,164 9,522,164 9,522,164 ≈11,200,00
0*
Sources: 2018 State of Disposal and Recycling in California, 2019 State of Disposal and Recycling and Exports in California, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2020, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2021
*Jurors could only find evidence of this number through an Associated Press (California is forging ahead with food waste recycling. But is it too much, too fast?) article, which cited Rachel Wagoner. The State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022 offers a combined amount for “Source Reduction, Recycling, and Composting,” but not for its individual components.

3.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Overall disposal tonnages throughout the 2006-2022 period have not increased alongside the population. Again, waste deposited at landfills fell 20.7% during the Great Recession in spite of the population growing by 1.56% (CalRecycle 2020; California Department of Finance 2012).

Even more peculiar is that overall disposal hit rock bottom in 2012, shedding 2.58% of its 2009 volume (2020). Nonetheless, the state’s 2012 population rose by 2.59%, an inverse of landfill trends, from its 2009 value (California Department of Finance 2022, 2012). Since population growth and SB 1383 implementation inadequately explain waste patterns, macroeconomic events are the significant factor governing waste generation. A former CalRecycle executive has expressed concern over this fact and opined which economic actors spawn the most waste.

Sources: 2018 State of Disposal and Recycling in California, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2021, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022, E-4 Population Estimates for the State, 2001–2010, E-4 Population Estimates for the State, 2011–2020, E-4 Population Estimates for the State, 2021–2024
Note: Population figures are for January 1 of each year according to the California Department of Finance
Former CalRecycle Director Rachel Machi Wagoner issued an urgent warning in the agency’s “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2020” report. Ms. Wagoner blamed “an economy driven by resource extraction and single-use disposable products” for California being on track to miss its 75% recycling goal by 2025 (CalRecycle 2021). She

3.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
claimed, “Consumers placing items in the right bin alone will not solve systemic problems like unrecyclable product designs and a lack of end markets for complex materials” (2021). A solution the Director proposes is getting “local and private partners” to efficiently collect and remanufacture the goods “California produces and uses” into new commodities (2021).

Wagoner’s call for reaching the 2025 target focuses on getting manufacturers to sell goods with recyclable content. Annual reports from CalRecycle partially support this statement because manufacturers generate the highest proportions of refuse.

Businesses and multi-family dwellings with five or more units produce more landfill waste than residential properties statewide. For the last three and a half years, 47% to 50% of all refuse in the state originated from the commercial sector (CalRecycle 2024). Self-haulers contributed 20% of garbage. Residential properties contributed 30% to 33% (2024). An important distinction is that the California Code of Regulations labels multi-family dwellings of less than five units as residential areas (§ 18982 (2020)). Multi-family dwellings with five or more units, then, fall under the commercial category.

Source: State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022; * = Data from Q3 and Q4 2019 only

3.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

METHODOLOGY
Interviews
The Civil Grand Jury interviewed officials from nine cities: Atherton, Brisbane, Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco, and Woodside.

Instead of interviewing the nine remaining cities directly, the Grand Jury spoke with an official from the RethinkWaste JPA. Each city has one council member on the Board of Directors (RethinkWaste n.d. (no date)). Jurors interviewed San Mateo County twice to gather information on unincorporated areas outside and inside the RethinkWaste service area. Lastly, three haulers were interviewed (Republic Services, Recology of the Coast, and Recology San Bruno) because their cities had incomplete data.

Online Public Documents
The CalRecycle and California Air Resources Board websites provided the state’s most recent recycling rates and landfill composition. RethinkWaste was the only public entity that disseminated diversion rates for cities and a few unincorporated areas on their agency website.

This jurisdiction provided calendar year quarterly records and diversion rates separated by the three property types (single-family, multi-family dwellings, and businesses). This makes comparing performance across cities straightforward.

Private Electronic Documents
During the investigation, various documents unavailable online were collected. These resources included diversion rate tables, participation rate tables, sample citations, waivers, and noncompliance notices from 2022 to 2023. The Grand Jury asked haulers, city governments, and the County government permission to use this data. Some differences were noted in the ways cities ask haulers to collect data, which made it difficult to compare jurisdictions. A few haulers combine multi-family dwellings’ participation rates with either single-family homes or commercial properties. Other haulers furnish quarterly reports over fiscal years instead of calendar years.

DISCUSSION
The County’s political, legal, and economic organization largely account for the contrast in diversion and participation rates among the three property types. Based on the 2022 1-Year American Community Survey, 729,181 people live in San Mateo County, down 4.61% from 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau 2022a). Yet, U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for Woodside

3.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
and several unincorporated areas were unavailable in 2021 and 2022. California’s Department of Finance includes these jurisdictions for its January 1, 2024 estimates, putting the total County population at 741,565 people. 61,538 of these residents live in unincorporated communities, and they could be the County’s fifth largest city (2024). This large number of unincorporated residents poses a challenge to County waste management.

Source: E-1 Cities, Counties, and the State Population and Housing Estimates with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2023 and 2024
Two special districts and one JPA unite geographically adjacent public agencies to coordinate and plan for waste management. The South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), known as RethinkWaste, has 11 member agencies spanning from Burlingame to East Palo Alto.

Each city and grouping of unincorporated areas share a single hauler and transfer facility despite having separate franchise agreements. On the coast, the Granada Community Services District (GCSD) and the Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD) follow a similar pattern for unincorporated areas exclusively. Jurors will cover these institutions in the next subsection.

Multi-family dwellings and single-family homes have unequal responsibilities for organics collection enrollment and proper waste disposal. Residents of single-family homes and multifamily complexes of less than five units individually subscribe to their jurisdiction’s organic waste collection service. In contrast, multi-family dwellings owners or managers are

3.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
responsible for enrolling in organic waste collection services on behalf of tenants and employees.

Multi-family dwelling and business owners “must supply and allow access to an adequate number, size, and location of containers” with the correct labels or colors (CalRecycle n.d3.).

Furthermore, they must annually educate tenants and employees on proper organic waste sorting.

Lastly, owners or managers must distribute information to new tenants within 14 days of occupying the premises (n.d4.).

Cities have pursued a policy of maximizing single-family homes’ participation rates.

Homeowners in every San Mateo County city benefit from having blue and green carts included in the price of garbage collection (Table 2 links). Unfortunately, tenants countywide do not have green carts included in the price of garbage collection, except in San Bruno (Table 2 links).

Hence, rental property owners or managers must add a green cart for the same or discounted price as their gray cart. This barrier to participation poses another threat to the county’s waste diversion efforts.

San Mateo County’s tenants play a decisive role in diverting as much waste as possible. In 2022, renters in San Mateo County made up 38.77% (278,126 out of 717,387) of the total population in occupied housing units (U.S. Census Bureau 2022b). Five cities have an owner-occupied population proportion less than the current state baseline of 58.27%. Another seven cities have an owner-occupied population proportion less than the national average of 68.37% (U.S. Census Bureau 2022b). The County’s substantial renter population indicates their waste disposal practices and green cart participation can either enhance or counteract homeowners’ or businesses’ diversion endeavors. Although cities can be commended for expediting green cart enrollment for homeowners, they could have worked with haulers to make tenant organic waste collection easier.

3.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Sources: 2022 1-Year ACS Data: U.S. Occupied Housing Unit Populations, 2022 1-Year ACS Data: California Occupied Housing Unit Populations, 2022 5-Year ACS Data: City Occupied Housing Unit Populations
* = ACS 1-Year Estimate; all other values are from vintage year 2022 from the ACS 2018-2022 5-Year Estimate. See the link for explanation: When to Use 1-year or 5-year Estimates Note: Again, Woodside does not appear on either the 1-Year or 5-Year ACS San Mateo County’s Waste Management Landscape
Most haulers currently have franchise agreements with JPAs, cities, and the County to collect, transport, and dispose of waste. Franchise areas consist of municipalities or special districts that use their bulk purchasing power to negotiate waste collection rates with a hauler (SMC Sustainability Department n.d. (no date)). Each of the franchised haulers also operate in unincorporated areas as part of or apart from existing agreements. Kunz Valley Trash has a nonexclusive franchise agreement with San Mateo County (n.d2.), and alongside Peninsula Sanitary Service, Inc., operates solely in unincorporated communities. The following table lists the six haulers operating in San Mateo County, along with their properties. All haulers offer the full range of waste collection; Kunz Valley Trash clients do not have bins and instead must place their waste in bags (n.d1.).

3.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Table 2. Haulers Serving San Mateo County Cities
Legend: * = Unincorporated areas or Special Districts; Bold = Haulers’ local affiliates Haulers Areas Served* Properties Franchise Agreements
(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
GreenWaste Service
Areas)
Atherton
Portola Valley
Woodside
Los Trancos Woods*
Sky Londa*
Our Facilities -
GreenWaste
Atherton 2020
Woodside 2019
Kunz Valley Trash
(Sources: Kunz
Valley Trash:

Services, Kunz
Valley Trash
Service Guide)
La Honda*
Loma Mar*
Pescadero*
San Gregorio*
Each place is exempt
from SB 1383 because
of a low-population
waiver for census tract
6138 (San Mateo
County 2021)
Non-Exclusive with San Mateo
County (Pending Publication)
(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
PSSI: What Belongs
in Each Container)
Stanford Lands*
(includes the SLAC
National Accelerator
Lab)

3.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
About The Program
– RethinkWaste)
Coast:

Granada Community
Services District*
Montara Water &
Sanitary District*
Pacifica
San Bruno:

San Bruno
San Mateo:

Ladera*
RethinkWaste JPA*
San Bruno
Transfer
Station
Granada Community Services
District 2018
San Bruno 2023
Montara Water and Sanitary
District 2013
RethinkWaste Agreements
(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
Republic Services
Daly City:

Recycling and
Trash)
Daly City:

Broadmoor*
Colma
Daly City
Olympic Country Club*
San Bruno Mountain
Park*
Unincorporated Colma*
Half Moon Bay:

Half Moon Bay
Corinda Los
Trancos
Landfill
Newby Island
Daly City 2015
Half Moon Bay 2017
(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
South SF Scavenger
Residential)
Brisbane
Brisbane Quarry*
California Golf Club*
Country Club Park*
Millbrae
South San Francisco
SFO*
SFO - Census tract
9843 - is exempt from
SB 1383 (San Mateo
County 2021)
Blue Line
Transfer
Station
Brisbane 2019
South SF 2013
RethinkWaste covers the most area and population out of all County entities dedicated to waste management. The organizational chart below names the 11 member agencies. The West Bay

3.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Sanitary District provides waste collection to a handful of accounts in Atherton, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Woodside, and Portola Valley (n.d.). RethinkWaste and San Mateo County are the only public entities that own transfer stations - Shoreway Environmental Center and Pescadero Transfer Station, respectively (RethinkWaste n.d., SMC Sustainability Department n.d.).

Chart 1. RethinkWaste Member Agencies and Contractors
Sources: About – RethinkWaste, Curbside Collection - SMC Sustainability Department Cities and their Properties’ Organic Waste Streams
Historically, businesses have generated more refuse than homeowners in the County, even though the latter produces more waste overall. During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, however, single-family homes made more refuse and overall waste than businesses. From 2011- 2019, homeowners in the RethinkWaste JPA diverted more organic waste tons than garbage tons sent to the landfill (Recology San Mateo County 2024, 2023, 2021). The bar chart below also demonstrates that homeowners have continuously recycled more than businesses. In 2020 and subsequent years, though, residences still diverted more waste in spite of overtaking businesses Member Agencies
Contractors
County Franchised Area
Baywood Park (Crystal Springs area),
Burlingame Hills, Devonshire Canyon, San
Mateo Highlands, Sequoia Tract, Trailer
Rancho, Emerald Lake Hills, Harbor
Industrial, Kensington Square, Oak Knoll,
Peninsula Golf Club, and Palomar Park
County Service Area 8 (North Fair
Oaks)

3.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
in trash sent to landfill. Employees from Republic Services and RethinkWaste were interviewed to explain why this area of the County has this trend and how it differs from other regions.

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2022, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2020 Note: Atherton was a member of RethinkWaste until January 1, 2021; years before 2021 include their tonnages.

RethinkWaste homeowners have higher diversion rates and refuse tons compared to businesses because of takeout and yard waste tonnages. A RethinkWaste representative explained, “We still have a lot of people working from home. We have a lot of businesses that continue to be remote and… are not fully staffed in the way that they were pre-pandemic” (2023). This comment partly reflects two phenomena shown on the chart above. First, it aligns with businesses diverting increased amounts of organic waste throughout the 2010s, only for tonnages to fall in 2020.

Second, it accounts for the record organic waste diversion homeowners contributed in 2020.

Expanding on the RethinkWaste view, businesses constantly diverted more organic waste throughout the 2010s because people ate at restaurants more often. Similarly, falling unemployment rates during the period (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2024) meant more workers ate lunch at their jobs. Once more, the chart displays both factors at work because businesses have been steadily increasing their tons of diverted organic waste post-pandemic. As for the homeowners, the unprecedented organic waste diverted in 2020 probably came from

3.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
increased takeout from eateries and bulk purchases from grocery stores. It is obvious these activities existed before the pandemic, but food consumption alone does not explain why singlefamily homes eclipse businesses in regard to organic waste.

Yard trimmings inflate the weight of organic waste for single-family homes in the RethinkWaste JPA and other cities on the bay compared to coastal communities. This was noted by an official from Republic Services - a hauler covering Daly City, Colma, and Half Moon Bay. The official noted, “Even though more residents are participating in recycling, ... [Daly City does] not have the yards that, let’s say, a San Mateo or a Redwood City house [does]” (2024). The interviewee resumed, “Because diversion is calculated based on weights, they don’t have that yard waste, the grass clippings and stuff that add a lot of weight to the material” (2024). Daly City’s 2023 waste statistics support this claim, as recycling, rather than organics, is the majority of diverted material. Half Moon Bay’s single-family homes probably have greater lawn space than Daly City since the opposite is true.

Sources: Republic Services Half Moon Bay Q4 2023 Report, Republic Services Daly City Q2 FY 2023-2024 Report
*Daly City’s data is from Q1 and Q2 of fiscal year 2023-2024 (July 1, 2023 to January 30, 2024) Note: Data for both cities are not publicly available. Jurors received the information from Republic Services.

3.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
A lack of lawns, gardens, or yards among certain single-family homes does not mean they are stuck with low diversion rates. The Republic Services official made an observation that can apply to all property types, regardless of green space dimensions. Our interviewee stressed that cities “can throw [green] carts out at everybody,” but residents may not use them or contaminate the cart “so much that it becomes trash” (2024). Single-family homes can improve their current organic waste diversion practices just like their counterparts in multi-family dwellings.

Nevertheless, Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside have an easier job hitting higher diversion rates because of their huge green spaces. Moreover, they are the only cities with a high diversion organic waste processing facility thanks to their hauler’s two-cart system (GreenWaste n.d.).

The table below, however, shows that neither green spaces nor a two-cart system recover all organics. Each city has 100% participation in commercial and residential accounts due to the two-cart system, which allows food and refuse in gray carts. An employee from the town of Woodside acknowledged that people “... could be putting food waste into the yard trimmings,” but if they follow the process, “there shouldn’t be contamination” (2024). Likewise, the composting facility may have “residuals that don’t compost and those go to the landfill” (2024).

A similar scenario would be waste at the materials recovery facility (MRF) that is not recyclable or compostable, which also gets sent to the landfill.

Table 3. Diverted Organic Waste and Trash: Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside 2023 Atherton Portola Valley Woodside
Trash 1,232.14 tons 1,996.72 tons 2,112.81 tons
Food Waste
Composted
1,581.16 tons 2,649.88 tons 2,799.38 tons
Trash 94.77 tons 1.24 tons 20.35 tons
Yard Waste
Composted
9,381.98 tons 123.4 tons 2,014.71 tons
Source: GreenWaste Annual Summary 2023
Legend: Green = Green Cart Contents, Gray = Gray Cart Contents The exact percentage of yard trimmings or food waste that became trash due to contamination is unknown. But, improper waste sorting is a possibility even in communities with predominantly single-family housing. Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside only have 20, 36, and 51 commercial accounts within their boundaries respectively (GreenWaste 2023). Still, these minute figures, compared to the thousands of residential accounts, drastically affected diversion rates.

Atherton’s total diversion rate stood at 87.39%, while Portola Valley and Woodside had 60.37% and 69.69%, respectively (GreenWaste 2023). After looking at these statistics, it could be

3.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
deduced that contamination exists in single-family homes and businesses, though one setting may encourage this behavior more than the other.

Yard waste may not be the sole determinant of the differences between cities' organic waste diversion. Cities in the northern part of the county have participation rates and waste streams not entirely influenced by yard waste. Daly City and the five cities in the chart below have owneroccupied housing populations above the state average (U.S. Census Bureau 2022a, 2022b). As a result, they have more single-family waste management accounts than commercial and multifamily dwellings combined (South SF Scavenger 2024, San Bruno 2024, Pacifica n.d.). Still, four out of five cities have diversion rates below 45% even though their single-family participation rates are above 90% (South SF Scavenger 2024, San Bruno 2024, Pacifica n.d.).

If homeowners truly separate waste better than renters or restaurant clientele, then their efforts should have raised overall diversion rates closer to 50% at least. These cities do not separate waste streams by property type to identify if their single-family homes generate more waste than businesses or multi-family dwellings.

Sources: San Bruno - Data on Waste and Recycling Categories 2023, South SF Scavenger 2023 Participation and Diversion Rates, and Pacifica FY 2022-2023 Diversion and Participation Rates * = Pacifica published data based on their fiscal year, which ran from May 2022 to April 2023

3.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Indeed, giving everyone a green cart or adopting a two-cart model does not mean more organic waste will escape the landfill. Supplying homeowners, renters, and businesses with equal green cart access, and appropriate waste separation, is still important. These fixes are in our Findings and Recommendations sections. The broader point is that SB 1383 compliance works well if cities and counties modify their outreach and recordkeeping practices to bolster organic waste diversion. If San Mateo County and its cities consistently track businesses’ and multi-family dwellings’ waste trends, and base their outreach around this data, then organic waste diversion should be straightforward.

Data Discrepancies
While not a primary focus of the investigation, the Grand Jury learned of a major discrepancy in the way South San Francisco Scavenger and its client cities compile tonnage data. Brisbane’s 2022 Electronic Annual Report (EAR) to CalRecycle, which measures several compliance activities, puts the diversion rate at 64% (Edgar and Associates 2023a). The hauler contracted a consulting firm, Edgar and Associates, to prepare the report (Interview with Brisbane 2022).

When the hauler gave the Grand Jury its diversion rate report for 2023, the metric stood at

39.11% (South SF Scavenger). South San Francisco’s 2022 EAR had dual diversion rates of 74% and 66% (Edgar and Associates 2023b), while the hauler’s 2023 document recorded 42.91% (South SF Scavenger 2024). This report based each cities’ tons and diversion rates, shown in the chart above, on the hauler’s data.

Inconsistent diversion rate reporting continued in other cities and communication channels.

Brisbane’s “Waste and Recycling” page on its official website asserts that the city diverts “76% of the waste generated by residents and businesses” (n.d.). South San Francisco Scavenger also provided conflicting data with Millbrae’s 2023 diversion rates. The fourth quarter report the hauler sent the city listed a 37.65% diversion rate, but the version they gave to jurors read

54.14% (South SF Scavenger 2023). Cities in the South San Francisco Scavenger area exemplify the risks of relying on haulers too much for data collection. Having conflicting figures for waste diversion does not help cities accurately assess the progress they have made for SB 1383 compliance.

Brisbane, Millbrae, and South San Francisco should reconcile tonnage reports with their haulers to verify which figures are correct. Assuming the cities did experience a massive decline in waste diversion in a year, this occurrence would still be unusual. An investigation into diversion rates does not adversely affect the per capita disposal rates these cities send to the state. Fixing these errors is important so city governments know what proportion of all waste is organics, recycling, or garbage over time. It is highly likely these mistakes come from the sophisticated way Edgar and Associates converts the per capita disposal rates to regular diversion rates. They present their equation below.

3.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Equation 2. Edgar and Associates Diversion Rate Conversion from Per Capita Disposal Rates (Source: Edgar and Associates 2023a)
Republic Services, Recology of San Mateo County, and GreenWaste have a much simpler equation that does not involve converting the per capita disposal rate. These haulers merely add the total tons of recycling, organics, and rubbish they collect to get a diversion rate. [(R+O)/(R+O+S)] * 100 = Diversion Rate %
R: Recycling tons, O: Organic tons, S: Solid Waste tons (Sources: Republic Services 2024a and 2024b, Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, GreenWaste 2023)
If the difference in calculations explains the unequal diversion rates, the simpler diversion rate formula would be preferable. Cities should negotiate with their haulers to have them compute these percentages in quarterly or annual reports separate from the EAR. Such a change reduces Edgar and Associates’ EAR workload and leaves cities with one reliable waste diversion

3.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
measure. Brisbane, Millbrae, and South San Francisco will also have the opportunity to compare their metrics with fellow governments that use the same methods. The simpler method, using Scavenger’s tons, should yield the same diversion rates jurors obtained in the last chart.

If diversion rates are unequal because of varying tonnage measurements from the hauler, cities should investigate Scavenger’s transfer station scales. Scavenger’s 2023 fourth quarter report to Millbrae had 1,116.78 tons more in its total tonnage than in the annual report it gave to jurors.

Another scenario would be that the hauler gave the Grand Jury and Millbrae different data.

Either way, Millbrae (and its sister cities, if applicable) should scrutinize weights measured at the transfer station to pinpoint if Scavenger furnishes contradictory data.

In the previous graph, five cities were included as not dividing their waste streams by property type. Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside are similar in this regard because they only divide recyclables by single-family homes and businesses (GreenWaste 2023). We recommend cities of the GreenWaste, South San Francisco Scavenger, Recology of the Coast, and Recology San Bruno areas begin dividing their data by the three property types. The County cannot continue having contradictory forms of waste generation reporting. Aggregate waste reports prevent local governments from seeing how severely economic turmoil causes businesses’ diversion rates to tumble. On the same note, South San Francisco, Recology of the Coast, and Recology San Bruno cities do not know how serious renter turnover might affect multi-family diversion rates.

Cities in these hauler areas should have a comfortable transition into segregating organics, recycling, and solid waste streams by three property types. Pacifica, Atherton, Portola Valley, Woodside, and Brisbane have owner-occupied housing populations larger than the national average. Meanwhile, South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae have owner-occupied housing populations larger than the state average. In other words, these cities are mostly residential, and their haulers can discern where refuse and organic tons originate. If haulers have the technical and infrastructural capabilities to portray a waste management story, cities should not be in the dark. Jurors and cities had to ask haulers for either participation rates or diversion rates throughout the investigation.

If haulers and cities do not have the resources necessary to split waste into three property types, they can come up with a long-term plan to do so. Currently, jurisdictions must conduct “annual visual inspections” called “route reviews,” in which they randomly inspect “containers for contamination on all collection routes” (CalRecycle n.d2.). Following these inspections, jurisdictions must “notify all generators on the sampled hauler routes and provide education on proper material separation” (n.d2.). In San Mateo County, Republic Services, Recology of the Coast, and South San Francisco Scavenger “lid flip” bins to check for contamination (Interviews 2024). Republic Services leaves tags on contaminated residential bins and calls businesses and multi-family dwellings about it (Interviews 2024).

3.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 23 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Waste evaluations are conducted at least in two distinct seasons of the year [per 14 CCR section 18984.5(c)]” (CalRecycle n.d2.). If jurisdictions find more than 25% contamination in any container type, they can perform “a targeted route review of containers… to determine sources of contamination (n.d3.). Later, they notify and provide education to those generating contamination” (n.d3.). Local governments should increase the frequency of waste evaluations, specifically on routes with high levels of contamination. Jurisdictions will use their outreach capabilities more efficiently this way.

All documentation of route reviews must be stored in the state’s Implementation Record (CalRecycle n.d2.). Some of the information included are Notices of Violation and penalty order copies. These documents must be accompanied by a list of dates acknowledging entities have complied with warnings or sanctions (CalRecycle n.d2.). Jurisdictions must include “a description of the hauler route and addresses covered by a route review” (n.d2.).

Instead of simply preserving time sensitive data, the Grand Jury suggests jurisdictions analyze past and current contamination trends in problem routes. Cities that struggle splitting diversion rates and waste tons by property type can use this method to track their progress at minimizing organic waste contamination. Perhaps cities will improve their organic waste diversion results if they implement these changes.

Local governments cannot leave their residents in the dark as well. If citizens pay for waste collection service, they have the right to know how well each property type separates waste.

None of the entities interviewed, except RethinkWaste, had copies of annual or quarterly waste reports on their government websites. Brisbane, Woodside, and Pacifica are some examples of cities that had no idea why their haulers do not separate waste by three property types (2024).

Jurors propose cities publish any past, present, and future waste statistics on their government websites following this report’s release.

The Civil Grand Jury recommends setting a waste reporting standard across the County. Without a common measurement, cities might not reduce 75% of organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2025. Jurors understand the state imposed this goal on itself and not on individual jurisdictions. Nonetheless, if the County adopts a mentality of consistently increasing diversion rates, citizens will reap the social savings. If cities keep increasing the price of garbage collection (DiNapoli 2024, Mata 2024) for the same amount of landfill tons, then methane emissions will not abate.

Barriers Exclusive to Businesses and Multi-Family Dwellings Multi-family dwellings and businesses cannot match the participation and diversion rates of single-family homes due to socioeconomic and infrastructural problems. One Sustainability

3.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 24 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Department official said since “tenants sometimes cycle in and out every year… the resources involved to do… outreach [for] a multi-family building” is very “intensive” (2024). Another important component is that residents who live in apartments with trash chutes “have to find different ways to compost or set up bins in separate areas” (2024). Meanwhile, businesses may welcome irregular clients who “don’t know what the rules are” (2024). In spite of these disadvantages, multi-family dwellings in the RethinkWaste area have steadily increased their compost and recycling tons over the last decade (Recology San Mateo County 2024, 2023, 2021). Some city governments have even worked around these problems altogether.

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2022, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2020 Rising recycling and organic tons for multi-family dwellings over the years indicate that tenants strive to segregate waste properly. Unlike businesses, waste generation in multi-family dwellings does not rise and fall based on economic booms or busts. Crucially, renter turnover has not created drastic ebb and flow patterns for tonnage. Aside from landlord willingness, building age is very likely to be multi-family dwellings’ greatest barrier to increasing green bin participation.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 65.36% of existing renter-occupied housing units are from before 1980 (2022c). Cities must consider the difficulty of setting up green bins among older apartment buildings using trash chutes.

3.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
San Bruno pursues a novel strategy for multi-family dwellings’ organic waste collection compared to other cities. A Recology of San Bruno official finds that larger apartment complexes have a harder time complying. The hauler works with landlords to find the best location for green carts “to make it very simple for the residents” (2024). Better yet, the local government treats “multi-family as residential, and there is no cost for the multi-families in San Bruno to participate” (2024). Including green bin service in the price of standard refuse collection has brought 73% of multi-family dwellings in compliance with SB 1383 (San Bruno 2024). As of March 13, 2024, 109 multi-family dwellings remain non-compliant (Recology of San Bruno).

Interviews with several cities confirm that they require new property developments to provide enough space for the three-cart system. Pacifica, Daly City, Millbrae, and all RethinkWaste cities have their planning departments partner with haulers to review building plans (2024). A South San Francisco city employee stated that the city and hauler reviews waste enclosure spaces for new businesses but not multi-family dwellings (2024). Given that Woodside does not have multifamily dwellings, the city scrutinizes building plans for new commercial properties only (2024).

City officials from Brisbane and Half Moon Bay were uncertain about how municipal departments handle new development reviews (2024).

If cities can prepare future infrastructure with the waste enclosures they need, it should be possible for them to start doing the same for existing, non-compliant multi-family dwellings.

RethinkWaste is already ahead of the curve on this front and hopes to build on the San Bruno model. On March 14, 2024, RethinkWaste’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) announced that Recology of San Mateo “was open to a town hall format” to increase participation. At the next TAC meeting, the agency declared it will send invitational emails to businesses and multifamily dwellings for “virtual or in-person” SB 1383 compliance presentations held in June (2024). It is unknown at this point if any landlords or business owners have accepted such invitations or if the agency has begun holding these meetings.

RethinkWaste presently makes phone calls and letters to non-compliant property types (2024).

City employees from Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Daly City have disclosed that outreach activities include releasing newsletters, emails, and social media posts (2024). A Half Moon Bay staff member reported that the city received a grant from CalRecycle to give non-compliant businesses green bins across downtown (2024). A Recology of the Coast official says they distribute flyers and mailers and work with a compliance officer in Pacifica (2024).

The Civil Grand Jury appreciates the massive resource and labor mobilization from haulers and cities to perform these activities. Yet, these actions have consumed significant time in relation to meaningful effects. The scatter plots and tables below for jurisdictions inside and outside the RethinkWaste area describe the unfinished participation progress for multi-family dwellings and

3.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 26 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
businesses. Even if the visual data included properties with waivers, hauler data reveals that many properties are still without organics collection. Daly City, Half Moon Bay, and their hauler, Republic Services, did not give the Grand Jury reliable participation rate data.

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables (see Appendix)

3.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables (see Appendix)
Both scatter plots affirm the assumption that high participation rates to organic waste collection does not increase the share of organic waste in total tonnages. The weak coefficients of determination (R2) tell us that green bin enrollment explains less than 50% of changes in organic waste proportions for businesses and multi-family dwellings. Multi-family dwellings in the RethinkWaste area have the most alarming statistic: less than 10% of their total waste tons are organic waste. It would appear that cities may have consciously or unconsciously prioritized one property type over another. For instance, San Mateo County enrolled twice as many multi-family dwellings for green cart service in the County Franchised Area (CFA) than its businesses.

The scatter plots also reveal that San Mateo County has stranded North Fair Oaks in the SB 1383 compliance process. Businesses and multi-family dwellings in the community have the lowest participation rates and organic waste proportions in the entire RethinkWaste JPA. It is unacceptable for a County tract with a compact area to have less resources than its neighbors. At the Discussion’s onset, the hurdles unincorporated regions pose for compliance were described.

North Fair Oaks has similar participation statistics like its coastal counterparts in the Granada Community Services District (GCSD) and Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD).

RethinkWaste and San Mateo County can combine their resources to level the playing field within the JPA.

3.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 28 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Table 4. Recology San Bruno Participation Rates 2023
Source: Recology of San Bruno Interview
Table 5. Brisbane, Millbrae, and South San Francisco Participation Rates Source: Source: South SF Scavenger 2023 Participation and Diversion Rates

3.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 29 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Table 6. Recology of the Coast Participation Rates FY 2022-2023 Source: Recology of the Coast Interview
One recommendation is that RethinkWaste and non-JPA cities have a mass enrollment summit for multi-family dwellings and businesses. Solving the problem means holding these meetings at regular intervals until there is 100% green cart participation rate for both property types. On-site enrollment, rather than virtual presentations, holds property managers and business owners accountable. Public agencies need to receive input from the parties to address the troubles keeping them from enrolling. Cities, the County, and RethinkWaste can advise these individuals on cost-effective green cart adoption. Jurisdictions should explicitly state that monetary penalties are inevitable unless they attend these green bin enrollment summits.

If renters perfectly segregated their waste, a high percentage of the stream would be organic material, much like that of homeowners. Daly City’s multi-family dwellings, surprisingly, were the only ones in the County to have higher diversion rates than single-family homes thanks to thousands of diverted tons of organic waste. Multi-family dwellings diverted 57% of their waste while single-family homes diverted 48% (Republic Services 2024a). When interviewed, a representative from Republic Services said that an arduous program explained the phenomenon.

Presently, the hauler pulls “organics out of the trash,” which is “not a very good” and “costly system” (2024). The representative predicted the “program is likely going… away, so we’ll be doing something different with our multifamily” (2024).

3.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Sources: Republic Services Half Moon Bay Q4 2023 Report, Republic Services Daly City Q2 FY 2023-2024 Report
*Daly City’s data is from Q1 and Q2 of fiscal year 2023-2024 (July 1, 2023 to January 30, 2024) Note: Data for both cities are not publicly available. Jurors retrieved the information by requesting it from Republic Services.

Despite this inefficient system causing high diversion rates for multi-family dwellings, it proves that tenants generate more organic waste than rubbish. Jurisdictions should not consider getting renters to sort waste properly a lost cause, for this data proves that contamination is responsible for low diversion rates. High subscription rates for green cart service and apartment buildings with distant waste enclosures contribute to low participation rates. The Sustainability Department interviewee remarked, “Sometimes these landlords…vary in how easy they are to implement things like [organic waste collection]” (2024). The official added, “especially if it hits their bottom line about increased costs for adding compost to recycling service” (2024). It is highly recommended that haulers put signage on green carts if they do not have this practice already.

3.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 31 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report
Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report

3.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 32 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

FINDINGS
F1. High green cart enrollment costs and insufficient bin space are the dominant contributors to low participation rates among multi-family dwellings and businesses.

F2. Green bin contamination among compliant multi-family dwellings and businesses prevents them from diverting more organic waste.

F3. City, County, and RethinkWaste compliance outreach efforts for multi-family dwellings and businesses could improve because a significant portion of these properties remain non-compliant.

F4. Multi-family dwellings and businesses produce a significant amount of the County’s organic waste.

F5. Citizens cannot conveniently access reliable diversion and participation rates because JPAs and cities do not make the information available on their government websites.

F6. Assessing progress on organic waste diversion in Atherton, Brisbane, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco, and Woodside is difficult because they and their haulers do not separate waste tons by property type on their annual or quarterly reports.

F7. An alternate and reliable method to separating waste tons by property type would be analyzing contamination statistics from route audits and waste evaluations.

F8. Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae cannot properly track their waste trends since their hauler and contractor have contradictory diversion rate formulas and tonnage measurements.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. Beginning March 1, 2025, cities, the County, and RethinkWaste should host regular inperson green cart enrollment summits for non-compliant businesses and multi-family dwellings, and identify other new compliance strategies.

R2. Beginning January 1, 2025, Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae should investigate their Electronic Annual Report contractor’s diversion rate conversion formulas and their hauler’s waste scales.

3.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 33 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
R3. By July 1, 2025, Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae should begin using the simpler diversion rate calculation the report mentioned or develop a contingency plan if their hauler’s scales are inaccurate.

R4. Beginning November 30, 2024, cities should publish quarterly or annual waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

R5. Beginning December 31, 2024, cities should separate waste tons and diversion rates into the three (or two) property types (business, residential, multi-family) in their annual or quarterly reports.

R6. Starting April 1, 2025, cities that cannot separate waste tons and diversion rates by property type should conduct waste evaluations on highly contaminated routes more often.

R7. Starting May 1, 2025, cities that cannot separate waste tons and diversion rates by property type should analyze problematic routes’ past and present contamination trends to track their progress.

R8. By February 1, 2025, jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings’ and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures.

REQUESTS FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 the Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies.

Jurisdiction Findings Recommendations
Town of Atherton 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 4, 5, 6, 7
City of Brisbane 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 City of Daly City 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8
City of Half Moon Bay 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8
City of Millbrae 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 City of Pacifica 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
RethinkWaste JPA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8

3.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 34 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
City of San Bruno 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
San Mateo County 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8
City of South San Francisco 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Town of Woodside 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 4, 5, 6, 7
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirement of the Brown Act.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
California Penal Code Section 933.05 provides the following regulations (emphasis added).

1.) For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
a.) The respondent agrees with the finding.
b.) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the disputed finding and shall include an explanation of the reasons.

2.) For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
a.) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
b.) The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
c.) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall be at most six months from the Grand Jury report's publication date.
d.) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

3.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 35 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

GLOSSARY
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery) State department formed in 2010 that manages recycling and waste management programs to reduce waste and reuse all materials. Enforces the Integrated Waste Management Act and Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act so Californians can use less, recycle more, and take resource conservation to higher and higher levels. (Source: About Us CalRecycle)
County Service Area
County Service Areas (CSAs) are entities that provide government services by counties within unincorporated areas. It allows communities to fund a service by charging a direct assessment or property-related fee for services such as water and/or sewer service, road and/or drainage maintenance, street lighting, fire protection and/or landscaping. The County Board of Supervisors acts as the governing body for the County Service Areas. (Source: Special Districts in San Mateo County)
Disposal-Related Activities
Alternative daily cover
(ADC) and Alternative
intermediate cover (AIC)
The use of materials to cover
disposed waste in a landfill
cell at the end of the landfill
operating day (daily cover) or
at some other interval
(intermediate cover) to
control odors, fire, vectors,
litter, and scavenging. Green
and non-green ADC exist.

Engineered Municipal Solid
Waste (EMSW), waste-tire
derived fuel, and other
beneficial reuse (construction
or landscaping) at landfills
(such as construction
activities, landscaping, and
erosion control).

Transformation
The use of incineration,
pyrolysis, distillation, or
biological conversion to
combust unprocessed or
minimally processed solid
waste to produce electricity.

Transformation does not
include gasification,
composting, or biomass
conversion.
(Source: State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2022) Franchise Area
Franchised areas are communities where municipalities or special districts have used their bulk purchasing power to negotiate rates with a hauler to provide waste collection services. (Source:

Curbside Collection - SMC Sustainability Department)

3.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 36 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facilities (HDPFs) “High diversion organic waste processing facility” means a facility that is in compliance with the reporting requirements of Section 18815.5(d) and meets or exceeds an annual average mixed waste organic content recovery rate of 50 percent between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2024, and 75 percent after January 1, 2025 as calculated pursuant to Section 18815.5(e) for organic waste received from the “Mixed Waste Organic Collection Stream” as defined in Section 17402(a)(11.5). (Source: Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, California Code of Regulations (West) title 14, § 18982)
Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
A joint powers agency (JPA) consists of two or more public agencies that jointly exercise any power common to both through a joint powers agreement or contract. The agreement may set up a governing board composed of representatives of the contracting agencies and defines the JPA's governance and functions. (Source: Joint Powers Agencies Providing Municipal Services in San Mateo County)
Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission
The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency created in 1962. The Commission’s mission is to investigate state government operations and policy, and – through reports and legislative proposals – make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature to promote economy, efficiency and improved service in state operations. In addition, the Commission has a statutory obligation to review and make recommendations on all proposed government reorganization plans. (Source: About the Commission)
Organic Waste
“Organic waste” means solid wastes containing material originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products including, but not limited to, food, green material, landscape and pruning waste, organic textiles and carpets, lumber, wood, paper products, printing and writing paper, manure, biosolids, digestate, and sludges. (Source: Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, Cal.

Code Regs. tit. 14 § 18982 (2020))
RethinkWaste (South Bayside Waste Management Authority) In 1982, eleven local governments (Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, San Mateo County and the West Bay Sanitary District) in San Mateo County formed RethinkWaste, AKA the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA). It is a joint powers authority that owns and manages the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos, California. The site receives all the

3.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 37 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
recyclables, green waste and garbage collected from the Member Agencies. Other responsibilities include supporting and managing service providers that collect, process, recycle and dispose of materials on behalf of the JPA. (Source: About RethinkWaste)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brisbane, Cal., n.d. “Waste and Recycling.” Accessed June 10, 2024. https://www.brisbaneca.org/publicworks/page/waste-and-recycling.

Browning, Corey. 2022. “New Compost Requirements in San Mateo County.” San Mateo Daily Journal, August 11, 2022. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/new-compostrequirements-in-san-mateo-county/article_8baa7ce6-45f6-11ec-9be7-8325579e56c6.html.

California Air Resources Board. 2023. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 2000 to 2021: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.” Released December 14, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2000_2021_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf.

California Air Resources Board. 2019. “Aerial methane survey finds a fraction of point sources responsible for more than a third of California’s methane emissions.” Released November 6, 2019. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/aerial-methane-survey-finds-fractionpoint-sources-responsible-more-third-californiasmethane#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20survey%2C%20just,of%20California's%2 0total%20methane%20emissions.

California Department of Finance. 2024. “E-1 Cities, Counties, and the State Population and Housing Estimates with Annual Percent Change - January 1, 2023 and 2024.” Released May 1, 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/.

California Department of Finance. 2022. “E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011–2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark.” Last Revised May 2022. https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/E4_2010-2020-Internet-Version.xlsx.

California Department of Finance. 2012. “E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001–2010, with 2000 & 2010 Census Counts.” Last Revised November 9, 2012. https://dof.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/E4_2000- 2010_Report_Final_EOC_000.xlsx.

3.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 38 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
California Health and Safety Code § 39711 (2014).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&divisio n=26.&title=&part=2.&chapter=4.1.&article=.

California Health and Safety Code § 39730.6 (2016).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&secti onNum=39730.6.

California Public Resources Code § 41780 (1989).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum =41780.

California Public Resources Code § 42652.5 (2022).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum =42652.5.

CalRecycle. 2024. “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2022.” Released February 8, 2024. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1907.

CalRecycle. 2022a. “2021 Disposal Facility-Based Waste Characterization Data Tables.” Released November 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/Web/122544.

CalRecycle. 2022b. “Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report.” Accessed May 9, 2024.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DiversionDisposal.

CalRecycle. 2021. “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2020.” Released December 28, 2021. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1754.

CalRecycle. 2020. “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2018.” Released April 6, 2020. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1453.

CalRecycle. n.d1. “Department-Approved Waivers for Reporting Entities.” Accessed May 5, 2024. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/waivers/approved/#LPWcities.

CalRecycle. n.d2. “Jurisdiction Enforcement.” Accessed June 21, 2024. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/enforcement/jurisdiction/.

CalRecycle. n.d3. “New Statewide Mandatory Organic Waste Collection.” Accessed May 19, 2024. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/collection/.

3.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 39 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
DiNapoli, Alyse. 2024. “Garbage rates are set to jump in San Mateo.” San Mateo Daily Journal, April 18, 2024. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/garbage-rates-are-set-tojump-in-san-mateo/article_87aa257e-eb21-11ee-a6a5-2f28cac97939.html.

D’Souza, Shereen. “Hearing on Organic Waste Recycling (Part 3), September 8, 2022.” Milton Marks Commission interview, 28:31-28:44. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc.

Edgar and Associates, Inc. 2023a. “City of Brisbane Annual Report 2022.” Published August 1, 2023.

Edgar and Associates, Inc. 2023b. “City of South San Francisco Annual Report 2022.” Published August 1, 2023.

Granada Community Services District. n.d. “Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://granada.ca.gov/sewer-authority-mid-coastside.

GreenWaste. 2023. “2023 Annual Summary.” Accessed March 19, 2024.

GreenWaste. n.d. “Base Services and Example Service Scenarios.” Accessed April 5, 2024.

Kunz Valley Trash. n.d1. “Pricing Increase/Franchise Addition.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.kunzvalleytrash.com/flyer.pdf.

Kunz Valley Trash. n.d2. “Services.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.kunzvalleytrash.com/services.asp.

Mata, Ana. 2024. “Redwood City set to hike garbage rates.” San Mateo Daily Journal, March 7, 2024. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/redwood-city-set-to-hike-garbagerates/article_2926b68c-d6b5-11ee-9986-9f933c36af5a.html.

Pacifica. n.d. “Below are the tonnages collected by Recology from May, 2022 through April 2023.” Released April 30, 2024.

Recology San Mateo County. 2024. “Quarterly Report to the SBWMA for 4th Quarter 2023.” Released December 30, 2024.

Recology San Mateo County. 2023. “Annual Report to the SBWMA for Year 2022.” Released February 14, 2023. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/RSMC-Annual-Report2022.pdf.

3.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 40 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Recology San Mateo County. 2021. “Annual Report to the SBWMA for Year 2020.” Released February 14, 2021. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Recology-AnnualReport-2020.pdf Republic Services. 2024a. “Quarterly Report for the City of Daly City Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2023/24.” Released January 30, 2024.

Republic Services. 2024b. “Quarterly Report for the City of Half Moon Bay Fourth Quarter Calendar Year 2023.” Accessed April 2, 2024.

RethinkWaste. 2024. “SBWMA Technical Advisory Committee Meeting.” May 9, 2024. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/RethinkWaste-TAC-Packet05092024.pdf.

RethinkWaste. 2024. “SBWMA Technical Advisory Committee Meeting.” March 14, 2024. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/RethinkWaste-TAC-Packet03142024.pdf.

RethinkWaste. n.d. “About.” Accessed May 5, 2024.
https://rethinkwaste.org/about/rethinkwaste/about/.

San Bruno. 2024. “City of San Bruno Data on Waste and Recycling Categories.” Released March 13, 2024.

San Mateo County. 2021. “Low Population Waiver Application for Unincorporated Portions of Counties (Special Districts Providing Solid Waste Collection Services): 9843 and 6138.” Signed December 21, 2021.

San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. 2019. “Planning for the County’s Waste Management Challenges.” Released July 30, 2019.
https://www.sanmateo.courts.ca.gov/system/files/waste_management.pdf.

San Mateo County Sustainability Department. 2024. “Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance.” Updated April 2024. https://www.smcsustainability.org/wastereduction/foodware#start-dates.

San Mateo County Sustainability Department. 2022. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Updated July 2022. https://www.smcsustainability.org/waste-reduction/foodware/facilities/faq/.

3.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 41 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
San Mateo County Sustainability Department. n.d. “Curbside Collection.” Accessed May 14, 2024. https://www.smcsustainability.org/waste-reduction/curbside-collection/.

San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). n.d. “Joint Powers Agencies Providing Municipal Services in San Mateo County.” Accessed May 18, 2024. https://www.smcgov.org/lafco/joint-powers-agencies-providing-municipal-services-san-mateocounty.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, California Code of Regulations (West) title 14, §§ 18982, 18984.2, 18984.9, 18984.11, 18984.12, 18993.1, 18993.3, 18997.2 (2020). https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations ?guid=IB9B3A3D35B4D11EC976B000D3A7C4BC3&originationContext=documenttoc &transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1.

South San Francisco Scavenger. 2024. “2023 Participation and Diversion Rates.” Compiled March 16, 2024.

South San Francisco Scavenger. 2023. “Quarterly Report: Period Ending December 31, 2023.” Accessed April 2, 2024.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2024. “Unemployment Rate [UNRATE], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.” Last Updated May 3, 2024. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022a. “ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: San Mateo County, California.” Accessed May 16, 2024.
https://data.census.gov/table?g=050XX00US06081&y=2022.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022b. “Total Population in Occupied Housing Units by Tenure by Year Householder Moved Into Unit: San Mateo County, California.” Accessed May 22, 2024. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2022.B25026?q=san%20mateo%20county%202022&t= Year%20Householder%20Moved%20Into%20Unit.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022c. “Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units.” Accessed June 9, 2024.
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S2504?q=san%20mateo%20county&t=Year%20Str ucture%20Built&y=2022.

West Bay Sanitary District. n.d. “Areas of Coverage.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://westbaysanitary.org/about-us/areas-of-coverage/.

3.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 42 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Wagoner, Rachel Machi. “Hearing on Organic Waste Recycling (Part 3), September 8, 2022.” Milton Marks Commission interview, 57:00-57:11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc.

APPENDIXES
A. GreenWaste Annual Summary 2023
B. Republic Services Daly City Q2 FY 2023-2024 Report
C. Republic Services Half Moon Bay Q4 2023 Report
D. San Bruno - Data on Waste and Recycling Categories 2023 E. South SF Scavenger 2023 Diversion Rates
F. Pacifica FY 2022-2023 Diversion Rates
G. Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables

3.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 43 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Appendix A
GreenWaste Annual Summary 2023

3.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 44 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

3.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 45 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

3.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 46 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Appendix B
Republic Services Daly City Q2 FY 2023-2024 Report

3.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 47 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Appendix C
Republic Services Half Moon Bay Q4 2023 Report

3.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 48 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Appendix D
San Bruno - Data on Waste and Recycling Categories 2023

3.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 49 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Appendix E
South SF Scavenger 2023 Diversion Rates

3.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 50 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Appendix F
Pacifica FY 2022-2023 Diversion Rates

3.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 51 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Appendix G
Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables

3.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 52 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

3.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 53 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Release Date: July 11, 2024
2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

3.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment A - Grand Jury Report: The State of Compost Compliance in SMC 2024 (5755 : San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury