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 November 12, 2024
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
November 12, 2024 (TUESDAY)
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 November 12, 2024
5:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code section 54957. Title: City Manager.
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.
Salute to the Flag led by Local Veterans from American Legion Post 238 / Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
Closed Session Report
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Frank Erbacher
CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.
Public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on consent agenda items must relate to that specific item.
If comments do not relate to a specific agenda item, then City will provide you with an initial warning to stay on topic. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.
Items on the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion unless a Councilmember requests, before the vote on the motion, to have an item discussed. Time limit on comments is three minutes or less.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 November 12, 2024
1. Approval of Disbursements for 10/01/24 through 10/31/24.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of October 2024.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the September 17, 2024 City Council Special Meeting.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
5. Cancellation of December 23, 2024 City Council Meeting PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve cancellation of the December 23, 2024 regular City Council meeting.
6. Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending June 30, 2024 PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending June 30, 2024
7. Resolution accepting a grant award from the State of California Department of Justice 2024-25 Tobacco Grant Program
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution accepting a $62,713 grant award from the State of California Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General Tobacco Grant Program for enforcement and educational activities regarding tobacco sales regulations.
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 November 12, 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
8. Consideration of an appeal of File No. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP-005- 24) and upholding 1) the ministerial approval of the Urban Lot Split and Residential Development Permit and 2) Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit. File No. 2024-004 authorizes an urban lot split for an approximately 7,289 square foot (SF) undeveloped parcel into two parcels and development of a one single-family residence on each new lot at Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030).
PROPOSED ACTION: ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF FILE NO. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP-005-24) AND UPHOLDING 1) THE
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF THE URBAN LOT SPLIT AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND 2) PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. (FILE NO. 2024-004)
CONSIDERATION
9. Resolutions to repeal and replace Administrative Policy No. 3 “Regulations For Use of City Council Chambers” with new Policy entitled “Public Use of the Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers” and amend Administrative Policy No. 2 “City Fees and Charges” (Master Fee Schedule) to add fees related to use of Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to:
1) Adopt a Resolution to repeal and replace Administrative Policy No. 3 “Regulations For Use of City Council Chambers” with new Policy entitled “Public Use of the Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers” to allow the public use of City-owned indoor facilities in accordance with established procedures and policies to ensure their proper use.
2) Adopt a Resolution to amend Administrative Policy No. 2 “City Fees and Charges” to update and include fees related to use of the Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers.
ADJOURN
NOTICE: If you challenge a city's zoning, planning or other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Judicial review of any city administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period for litigation, in certain cases 30 days following the date of the final decision City Council Regular Meeting 5 November 12, 2024
The City of Pacifica will provide assistance for disabled citizens upon at least 24 hours advance notice to the City Manager’s Office (650) 738-7301, or send request via email to:
[email protected] if you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary. All meeting rooms are accessible to the disabled.
The Pacifica Municipal Code is available online at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode);
HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:
Agendas are posted no later than Friday prior to the City Council meeting date, at the entrance to the City Hall location at 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
11/12/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Approval of Disbursements for 10/01/24 through 10/31/24.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of October 2024.
STAFF CONTACT:
Lucy Xie, Deputy Finance Director
(650) 738-7395
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Staff has submitted the following Monthly Check Register Report per California Government Code, Title 4, Division 3, Part 3, Chapter 3, Section 41004:
• Disbursements dated 10/1/24 through 10/31/24 are in the amount of $6,081,487.11 (Attachment 1 and 2).
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with acceptance of the Monthly Check Register Report.
ORIGINATED BY:
Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment 1: Disbursements -FY 24-25 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 TYLER (PDF) Attachment 2: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 GEMS (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 6
City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 11/04/2024 09:32
User: 5234vsahay
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: Uncleared
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 775 10/02/2024 PRINTED 001087 VIVIKA SAHAY 138.13
776 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000038 A & D AUTOMATIC GATE AND 777.00 777 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000039 AVINA, ANGEL 200.00
778 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001080 ACCESSIBLE SOLUTIONS, LLC 3,192.00 779 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000050 ACCUTITE 1,025.00
780 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000056 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 234.59 781 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000060 AIRGAS USA, LLC 489.21
782 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000061 HEMRAJ SINGH 306.89
783 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000064 ALHAMBRA 140.91
784 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000066 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC S 431.12 785 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000074 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1,436.71 786 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000075 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINIS 2,476.80 787 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001023 ANGELA BOELDT 360.00
788 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000091 ARROWHEAD FORENSICS 330.00 789 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000094 ASCAP 451.81
790 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000921 AT WORK UNIFORMS 146.16
791 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000096 AT&T 1,596.26
792 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000108 VWR INTERNATIONAL 3,011.42 793 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000110 BAAQMD 288.00
794 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001038 BADAWI & ASSOCIATES 32,370.75 795 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001082 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELL 2,363.80 796 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000130 BEARING AGENCIES INC 2,305.02 797 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001086 BIG GUYS TOWING 352.00
798 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000147 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPAN 850.39 799 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000150 BOB GRAF 213.73
800 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001072 BRANDON SMITH 1,320.12
801 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000906 BRISA RANCH LLC 184.00
802 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000166 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENS 111,863.48 803 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000179 CALIFORNIA TEACHER COMMIS 100.00 804 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000179 CALIFORNIA TEACHER COMMIS 100.00 805 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000179 CALIFORNIA TEACHER COMMIS 100.00 806 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000178 NAF SERVICES, INC. 183.80 807 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001067 CHERIE WIELAND 214.20
808 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000201 CHILDCARE CAREERS 3,403.80 809 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001069 CINDY BLACKSTONE 78.39
810 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1,665.66 811 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS 1,230.68
812 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000240 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIAT 16,635.40 813 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000241 CPRS 555.00
814 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000244 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 782.13 815 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000248 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 89,883.12 816 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000258 DIGITAL ASSURANCE CERTIFI 2,500.00 817 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001089 DC LOCK & SECURITY 7,189.82 818 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000944 DIRECT CARRIER SOLUTION, 510.00 819 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000292 DU-ALL SAFETY, LLC 1,950.00 820 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000321 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, IN 362.61 821 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000335 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESS 97.60 822 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000335 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSIN 14.00 823 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001041 CAL STEAM 1,523.16
824 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000927 FLO-LINE TECHNOLOGY, INC. 72,896.79 825 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001085 FLOCK SAFETY 34,000.00
826 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000350 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 4,227.06
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Attachment 1: Disbursements -FY 24-25 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 TYLER (5788 : Disbursements - City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 11/04/2024 09:32
User: 5234vsahay
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: Uncleared
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 827 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000359 GAIL EDWARDS 200.00
828 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000363 GHD INC. 24,038.98
829 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000367 GLOBALSTAR USA 4,994.61
830 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001078 GOOD CITY COMPANY 11,732.50 831 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000377 GRAINGER 1,858.02
832 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000378 GRANICUS, INC. 819.00
833 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000380 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY #265 1,628.27 834 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000955 HD SUPPLY FORMERLY HOME D 453.17 835 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000402 HILTON IRENE 741.00
836 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000411 HEART OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 6,333.05 837 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000433 JACK DOHENY COMPANIES, IN 192.27 838 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001091 JASMINE MONTOYA 250.00
839 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001057 JFCS 500.00
840 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000446 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 625.30 841 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000457 KBA DOCUSYS 94.50
842 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001092 KEVIN CONTRERAS 178.64
843 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000462 KIMBALL MIDWEST 411.77
844 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000463 KING, KATHLEEN 36.00
845 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000523 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GRO 55,446.25 846 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000519 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COM 87.71 847 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000520 MCMILLAN ELECTRIC 4,933.83 848 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000587 OFFICE DEPOT 773.91
849 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000602 OMMM PACIFICA 1,521.00
850 10/04/2024 PRINTED 999998 Joseph Zamagni 2,000.00
851 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000603 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, I 8.88 852 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000605 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION 250.00 853 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000656 POLYDYNE INC. 53,069.64
854 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001059 PRODUCTIVE PRINTING & GRA 246.09 855 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000679 QUILL CORPORATION 1,697.44 856 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000680 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, I 810.33 857 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000683 RANEY PLANNING AND MANAGE 4,829.99 858 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000684 SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE 6,255.76 859 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001070 REBECCA COLLIER 380.56
860 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000694 RINCON CONSULTANTS INC 3,568.75 861 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000021 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 55,124.00 862 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000731 SERVICE PRESS, INC. 97.74 863 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000744 SMART & FINAL 224.36
864 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000025 SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO 80.23 865 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000936 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCIS 2,500.00 866 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000759 ST. FRANCIS ELECTRIC, INC 550.00 867 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000004 CALIFORNIA STATE OF JUSTI 32.00 868 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000772 SUN RIDGE SYSTEMS, INC 45,536.00 869 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000805 T-MOBILE CORPORATION 91.44 870 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000788 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS 30,543.06 871 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000791 TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTE 707.00 872 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000804 JOSE LUIS MONTES 775.00
873 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000827 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES 85,378.00 874 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000830 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPE 342.16 875 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000834 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AME 153.82 876 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000837 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 1,148.67 877 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000844 US FOODS, INC 8,591.03
878 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000852 VEGA AMERICAS, INC. 3,215.67
1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Attachment 1: Disbursements -FY 24-25 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 TYLER (5788 : Disbursements - City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 11/04/2024 09:32
User: 5234vsahay
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: Uncleared
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 879 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000855 VERIZON WIRELESS 2,310.76 880 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001088 WEST COAST EQUIPMENT & SA 3,204.37 881 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000874 UPS STORE 1468 213.06
882 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000878 STEVE KWON 225.00
883 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000879 WEX HEALTH, INC. 71.00
884 10/04/2024 PRINTED 000885 WINTZELL YLVA 3,124.00
885 10/04/2024 PRINTED 001033 YULIA CARTER 791.95
886 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000060 AIRGAS USA, LLC 2,661.87
887 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000061 HEMRAJ SINGH 257.11
888 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001102 ALBERTSONS / SAFEWAY 507.00 889 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000065 ALL BAY ENVIRONMENTAL 800.00 890 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000074 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 2,305.69 891 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000078 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVI 1,238.97 892 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001104 ANVIL BUILDERS 10,600.00
893 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000091 ARROWHEAD FORENSICS 543.35 894 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000096 AT&T 116.54
895 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000108 VWR INTERNATIONAL 1,553.90 896 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000134 BEECHER ENGINEERING, INC. 880.00 897 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000147 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPAN 4,180.62 898 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000152 BOOTZIN, ALEX 250.00
899 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001103 BRYAN ROMERO 74.22
900 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000166 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENS 11,741.60 901 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000177 CALIFORNIA SEWER ENGINEER 3,000.00 902 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000178 NAF SERVICES, INC. 1,166.60 903 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001098 CANNERY ROW HOTEL DEVELOP 5,000.00 904 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000187 CAROLLO 3,447.50
905 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000190 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER 10,656.82 906 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000192 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 6,500.00 907 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001016 CENTRIFUGE-SYSTEM LLC 198,324.38 908 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000194 CENTRISYS 69,969.82
909 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000201 CHILDCARE CAREERS 2,287.20 910 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1,181.54 911 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000205 CITY AUTO SUPPLY 73.23
912 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000931 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEME 865.26 913 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000239 CORT BUSINESS SERVICES CO 3,787.83 914 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000240 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIAT 28,641.47 915 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000248 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 5,380.01 916 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000253 C.W.E.A. 239.00
917 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001089 DC LOCK & SECURITY 1,957.44 918 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000293 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICE 1,400.00 919 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000314 EL DORADO FORKLIFT COMPAN 699.86 920 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000347 GOVERNANCE SCIENCES GROUP 6,900.00 921 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000350 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 7,377.76 922 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000363 GHD INC. 39,294.86
923 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000377 GRAINGER 587.46
924 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000383 GREEN TIRES 1,149.00
925 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000390 HACH COMPANY 4,433.93
926 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001094 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANN 7,005.42 927 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000399 HERC RENTALS INC. 398.52
928 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000415 IDEXX LABORATORIES 434.69 929 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000979 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 17,357.70 930 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000462 KIMBALL MIDWEST 538.23
1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Attachment 1: Disbursements -FY 24-25 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 TYLER (5788 : Disbursements - City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 11/04/2024 09:32
User: 5234vsahay
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: Uncleared
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 931 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000474 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERI 5,791.85 932 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000496 LUHDORFF AND SCALMANINI C 1,710.00 933 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001025 MATT KELLY 188.64
934 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000519 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COM 786.66 935 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000536 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQU 10,630.76 936 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000537 MOFFATT & NICHOL 1,094.50 937 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000015 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER 22,670.00 938 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001083 NATIONAL DRIVING SCHOOL, 2,800.00 939 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000585 ANKAR CYCLES, INC. 176.44 940 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000587 OFFICE DEPOT 977.95
941 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001077 ONDREJKA ENTERPRISES 9,635.66 942 10/11/2024 PRINTED 999998 Attracta Keenan 2,000.00
943 10/11/2024 PRINTED 999998 Jason Butko 864.00
944 10/11/2024 PRINTED 999998 Tina Fryslie 2,000.00
945 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000605 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINAN 1,512.49 946 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000016 PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT 14,546.00 947 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000647 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 53.57 948 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000657 POWERDMS, INC. 3,370.80
949 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000666 PRINT COPY XPRESS 1,248.73 950 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001095 PRO-WEST & ASSOCIATES, IN 23,000.00 951 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000672 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES 800.00 952 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000679 QUILL CORPORATION 103.04
953 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000687 RECOLOGY ORGANICS 1,200.93 954 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000994 ROSALINE ROMERO 1,700.00
955 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001048 RYAN BIANCULLI 120.00
956 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001024 SCHAAF & WHEELER 7,355.00 957 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000729 SEAVIEW TIRE & BRAKE CENT 1,515.54 958 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000993 SOUTHWEST STRATEGIES LLC 1,906.25 959 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000760 STANDARD PLUMBING SUPPLY 99.68 960 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000027 STATE LANDS COMMISSION 611.94 961 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000802 THOMSON WEST 445.12
962 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001021 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 5,000.00 963 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000824 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 3,181.08 964 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000828 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINAN 2,083.78 965 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000829 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVIC 1,300.00 966 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000844 US FOODS, INC 7,365.02
967 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001100 VESTIS SERVICES, LLC 1,063.36 968 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001049 VICENTE ROMERO 564.26
969 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000863 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB 106.00 970 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000895 YAKOV PUHACHEVSKY 120.00
971 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001033 YULIA CARTER 38.79
972 10/11/2024 PRINTED 001015 D&M TRAFFIC SERVICES, INC 71,558.94 973 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000299 DYETT & BHATIA 7,782.50
974 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000947 K.F. HOWELL ELECTRIC, INC 8,856.51 975 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000656 POLYDYNE INC. 26,534.82
976 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000684 SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE 5,000.00 977 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000685 RCM FIRE PROTECTION INC 18,846.63 978 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000029 SWRCB 5,525.00
979 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000788 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS 43,983.10 980 10/11/2024 PRINTED 000925 ZARA CONSTRUCTION, INC 16,074.40 981 10/15/2024 PRINTED 000224 COMCAST 565.15
982 10/15/2024 PRINTED 000977 V S S INTERNATIONAL INC. 604,118.39
1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Attachment 1: Disbursements -FY 24-25 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 TYLER (5788 : Disbursements - City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 11/04/2024 09:32
User: 5234vsahay
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: Uncleared
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 983 10/17/2024 PRINTED 000053 ACTION ROAD SOLUTIONS LLC 969.38 984 10/17/2024 PRINTED 000096 AT&T 582.69
985 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000058 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES 184,966.97 986 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000062 ALERT PEST CONTROL COMPAN 280.00 987 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000074 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 339.73 988 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001084 AMERICAN RED CROSS 460.00 989 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000921 AT WORK UNIFORMS 280.00
990 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000098 ATLAS PLUMBING & ROOTER I 600.00 991 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000106 AUTOMATIONDIRECT.COM, INC 56.70 992 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000108 VWR INTERNATIONAL 167.41
993 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000130 BEARING AGENCIES INC 322.21 994 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000146 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC. 95.00 995 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001114 BLUE FLAMINGO 12,500.00
996 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000147 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPAN 248.46 997 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001116 BRIANNE HARKOUSHA 35.04
998 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000906 BRISA RANCH LLC 379.00
999 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000177 CALIFORNIA SEWER ENGINEER 1,200.00 1000 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000178 NAF SERVICES, INC. 183.80 1001 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000187 CAROLLO 14,402.07
1002 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000190 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER 894.91 1003 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000194 CENTRISYS 4,275.00
1004 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000199 BRETT STOLLENWERK 3,240.00 1005 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000201 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1,977.54 1006 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1,574.26 1007 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS 156.79
1008 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000011 CITY OF DALY CITY 6,067.20 1009 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000208 CIVICPLUS, LLC 22,790.74 1010 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000224 COMCAST 923.28
1011 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000227 CONCERN EMPLOYEE ASSISTAN 900.00 1012 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001013 CONSENSUS CLOUD SOLUTIONS 33.99 1013 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000234 CPS HR CONSULTING 1,202.00 1014 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000240 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIAT 8,292.95 1015 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000244 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 1,568.22 1016 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000248 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 39,372.56 1017 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001110 CURIODYSSEY 197.55
1018 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001110 CURIODYSSEY 164.40
1019 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001110 CURIODYSSEY 123.30
1020 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001110 CURIODYSSEY 123.30
1021 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000253 C.W.E.A. 460.00
1022 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000280 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. 50,625.00 1023 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000281 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 1,902.56 1024 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000318 EMCOR SERVICES 1,680.00
1025 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000967 EVANS, STEVEN 120.00
1026 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000332 EXPERIAN 100.00
1027 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000335 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSIN 14.00 1028 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000350 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 2,449.35 1029 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000116 BADGE FRAME, INC. 37.00
1030 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001107 FRANK AND GROSSMAN LANDSC 11,720.00 1031 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000377 GRAINGER 188.15
1032 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000952 HARDY DIAGNOSTICS 1,175.69 1033 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000397 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & 729.12 1034 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000397 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & 20,000.00
1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Attachment 1: Disbursements -FY 24-25 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 TYLER (5788 : Disbursements - City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 11/04/2024 09:32
User: 5234vsahay
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: Uncleared
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 1035 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000401 HILL SCOTT 110.00
1036 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001106 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM 679.04 1037 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001115 JEFF HIGGINS 250.00
1038 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000443 JOAN ARTHUR 201.00
1039 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000446 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 43.95 1040 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000469 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC 891.80 1041 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000492 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 5,322.20 1042 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001113 MATTHEW POWERS 889.01
1043 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000529 MILLER & O'BRIEN 175.00
1044 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000551 MUSCIO SECURITY 210.00
1045 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000561 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINE 2,528.75 1046 10/18/2024 PRINTED 999998 Carlos Davidson 2,000.00 1047 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000628 PARS 800.00
1048 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000636 PEERY & ASSOCIATES INCORP 550.00 1049 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000638 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUI 771.58 1050 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000647 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 287,361.66 1051 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000972 PLAN JPA 4,134.35
1052 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000663 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. 154.36 1053 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000667 PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY 1,391.98 1054 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000679 QUILL CORPORATION 40.41
1055 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000680 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, I 37.60 1056 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000683 RANEY PLANNING AND MANAGE 766.32 1057 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000692 RICE TRUCKING SOIL FARM 471.68 1058 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000694 RINCON CONSULTANTS INC 3,610.00 1059 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001108 RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLE 138.00 1060 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000982 S.R. ROSE ENGINEERING, IN 5,680.00 1061 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000710 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. 425.15 1062 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001112 SAN BRUNO POLICE DEPARTME 5,580.00 1063 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000730 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. 111.53 1064 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000755 SOUTH CITY LUMBER 2,600.79 1065 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000936 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCIS 185,185.75 1066 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000788 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS 253.00 1067 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001109 THE DRIVING COMPANY 2,139.00 1068 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000827 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES 7,400.00 1069 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000829 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVIC 52,586.73 1070 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000830 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPE 529.19 1071 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000832 UNDERWOOD, EILEEN 73.70
1072 10/18/2024 PRINTED 001118 VIVIKA SAHAY 97.16
1073 10/18/2024 PRINTED 000878 STEVE KWON 229.00
1074 10/24/2024 PRINTED 001102 ALBERTSONS / SAFEWAY 2,062.69 1075 10/24/2024 PRINTED 000376 GRAFIX SHOPPE 748.01
1076 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000060 AIRGAS USA, LLC 320.31
1077 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000074 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1,322.23 1078 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000084 ANTOINETTE M KAUFFMAN 200.00 1079 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001104 ANVIL BUILDERS 469,098.41 1080 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000096 AT&T 480.76
1081 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000108 VWR INTERNATIONAL 386.89 1082 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001123 BELKORP AG 2,900.00
1083 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000906 BRISA RANCH LLC 247.00
1084 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001044 BRYAN CLARK 296.18
1085 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000166 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENS 49,082.63 1086 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001117 CARLOS CARDENAS 143.00
1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment 1: Disbursements -FY 24-25 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 TYLER (5788 : Disbursements - City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 11/04/2024 09:32
User: 5234vsahay
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: Uncleared
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 1087 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000190 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER 1,764.91 1088 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000191 CREATIVE DIGITAL AGENCY I 1,155.00 1089 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000201 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1,797.76 1090 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 3,174.14 1091 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000011 CITY OF DALY CITY 26,551.52 1092 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000208 CIVICPLUS, LLC 6,355.65
1093 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001045 COASTPRIDE INC 5,000.00
1094 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001119 COLIN DE SOUZA 143.00
1095 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000987 COLONIAL ORNAMENTAL IRON 2,750.00 1096 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000224 COMCAST 753.44
1097 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000224 COMCAST 378.70
1098 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000231 SCA OF CA, LLC 49,335.42 1099 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001012 CORE & MAIN LP 325.02
1100 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000240 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIAT 15,921.25 1101 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000248 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 27,674.81 1102 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000282 DISH 62.99
1103 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001128 ELIZABETH BROOKS 96.51
1104 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000335 FASTRAK VIOLATION PROCESS 68.00 1105 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000335 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSIN 14.00 1106 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000350 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 4,933.36 1107 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001107 FRANK AND GROSSMAN LANDSC 1,280.00 1108 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000355 FREYER & LAURETA, INC. 6,862.00 1109 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000969 GIBSON JR., EUGENE 100.00 1110 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001127 GWEN WHITE 147.71
1111 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000397 HDL COREN & CONE - PROP T 4,216.92 1112 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000411 HEART OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 3,166.64 1113 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000415 IDEXX LABORATORIES 403.41 1114 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001126 JORDON TOWNSEND 216.81
1115 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000455 KASEYA US LLC 97.85
1116 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000978 LASHLEY, MARK 150.00
1117 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000489 LIFELOC TECHNOLGIES 987.21 1118 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000492 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 30.67 1119 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001124 LUCIE BRAUN 246.18
1120 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000506 MARATHON DISTRIBUTORS, IN 717.92 1121 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000519 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COM 1,109.83 1122 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000592 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 1,833.93 1123 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000587 OFFICE DEPOT 172.36
1124 10/25/2024 PRINTED 999999 Breton Hanville 250.00
1125 10/25/2024 PRINTED 999998 Cassandra Colby 81.00
1126 10/25/2024 PRINTED 999998 Lemos Farm 900.00
1127 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000600 PACIFIC FIRE SAFE 385.16 1128 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000612 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS ASS 112.50 1129 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000633 PACIFICA COMMUNITY TELEVI 28,951.86 1130 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000638 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUI 2,406.35 1131 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000642 PET FOOD EXPRESS 10.69
1132 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000667 PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY 800.00 1133 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001059 PRODUCTIVE PRINTING & GRA 105.00 1134 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000670 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 6,867.19 1135 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000679 QUILL CORPORATION 956.11 1136 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000681 R & S ERECTION NORTH PENI 11,554.24 1137 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000696 RK ENGINEERING, INC. 10,266.01 1138 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000021 SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING 1,500.00
1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment 1: Disbursements -FY 24-25 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 TYLER (5788 : Disbursements - City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 11/04/2024 09:32
User: 5234vsahay
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: Uncleared
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 1139 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000021 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONM 554.00 1140 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000021 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF' 9,644.00 1141 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000725 SCAPES, INC. 1,726.51
1142 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000743 SIGNAWEST SYSTEMS, INC. 155.00 1143 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000744 SMART & FINAL 225.90
1144 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000025 SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO 78.08 1145 10/25/2024 PRINTED 001099 TANNER PACIFIC, INC 186,644.96 1146 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000779 AXON ENTERPRISE INC. 94,273.32 1147 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000797 RADAR SHOP INC., THE 1,496.00 1148 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000014 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH 4,380.00 1149 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000813 U.S. TELEPACIFIC CORP. 13,394.28 1150 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000817 TREE MANAGEMENT EXPERTS 1,709.48 1151 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000828 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINAN 2,743.70 1152 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000835 UNITED ROTARY BRUSH CORP 863.63 1153 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000844 US FOODS, INC 8,775.73
1154 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000855 VERIZON WIRELESS 5,181.58 1155 10/25/2024 PRINTED 000897 SERRA YELLOW CAB 4,755.84 381 CHECKS CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL 4,342,003.90 .00
1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment 1: Disbursements -FY 24-25 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 TYLER (5788 : Disbursements - City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 11/04/2024 09:32
User: 5234vsahay
Program ID: apchkrcn
UNCLEARED CLEARED
381 CHECKS FINAL TOTAL 4,342,003.90 .00
** END OF REPORT - Generated by Vivika Sahay **
1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment 1: Disbursements -FY 24-25 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 TYLER (5788 : Disbursements - Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY NOV0424 9:27 Page: 1
CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 10/01/24 - 10/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL
PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 70580 67751.37 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01579 AXON ENTERPRISE INC. 1 70581 45.00 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00011 C.W.E.A. 1 70582 230536.30 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 70583 1200.00 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02201 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. 1 70584 10000.00 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00927 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC 1 70585 4075.00 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04887 INTERMOUNTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP 1 70586 853.35 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05667 IPS GROUP INC. 1 70587 575.11 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01014 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 1 70588 1379.30 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05535 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 70589 570.00 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01165 MILLER & O'BRIEN 1 70590 1041.12 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01206 NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DIST. 1 70591 246.81 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01217 OFFICE DEPOT 1 70592 5000.00 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01240 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 1 70593 615.83 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01243 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, INC. 1 70594 33726.84 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05873 POLARIS SALES INC. 1 70595 624.69 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01367 RICE TRUCKING SOIL FARM 1 70596 1675.00 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05774 RINCON CONSULTANTS INC 1 70597 42682.83 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04211 SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION D 1 70598 845.75 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03720 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1 70599 10000.00 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05147 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC. 1 70600 1096003.13 10/03/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01635 TROJAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 1 70621 8536.81 10/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00595 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 70622 2626.50 10/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00587 CPS HR CONSULTING 1 70623 9132.50 10/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 70624 11126.25 10/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00025 DALY CITY/CITY OF 1 70625 4615.86 10/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04131 HDL SOFTWARE, LLC Report: RECONCILE Generated: 12DEC22 14:37 Run: MONDAY NOV0424 9:27 Page: 2
CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR: 10/01/24 - 10/31/24 CHECK RECONCILIATION BANK: ALL ALL
PAYMENT RECONCILE
BANK CHECK # CHECK AMOUNT CHECK DATE CHECK STATUS TYPE DATE VENDOR # NAME 1 70626 85845.01 10/22/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05118 PAVEMENT COATINGS CO. 1 70630 12372.65 10/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 02502 BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 1 70631 750.00 10/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06140 COASTPRIDE INC 1 70632 42510.00 10/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 00611 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 70633 40367.13 10/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 05975 DUDEK 1 70634 1600.00 10/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 01297 PARS
1 70635 3211.32 10/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 04211 SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION D 1 70636 2448.00 10/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 03720 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1 70637 4893.75 10/31/24 OUTSTANDING SYSTEM 06138 TANNER PACIFIC, INC BANK: 1 TOTAL # OF CHECKS: 35 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF: $1739483.21 TOTAL # OF REISSUED CHECKS: 0 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF:
TOTAL # OF ACH CHECKS: 0 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF:
http://pac-gems/fms/BISystem/ReadROCFile.asp?sWC=C&iIdx=0&FileName=D:\GemsE... 11/4/2024
1.b
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment 2: Disbursements -FY 23-24 - 10-01 to 10-31-24 GEMS (5788 : Disbursements - Dated 10/1/24 through 10/31/24)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/12/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to approve the minutes for the September 17, 2024 City Council Special Meeting.
STAFF CONTACT:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Move to approve the minutes for the September 17, 2024 City Council Special Meeting (Attachment A).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Within budgeted operational expenses.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 17
CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Special Meeting 1 September 17, 2024
SPECIAL MEETING
September 17, 2024 (TUESDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on September 17, 2024 at 4:00 PM 4:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1 case. 6:00 PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus reconvened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Kavitha Kumar, Interim Community Development Director; Stefanie Cervantes, Acting Community Development Dep.
Director; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 September 17, 2024
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Boles
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated there was no reportable action.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Certifying that the Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) with Alternative Modifications is Intended To be Carried out in a Manner Fully in Conformity with the California Coastal Act; Adopting the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications; Directing the City Manager to Transmit the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications to the California Coastal Commission For Certification; and Finding that Approval of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP With Alternative Modifications Is Exempt From The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PROPOSED ACTION: 1) Receive a presentation from staff and confirm alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP; and 2) Approve the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Certifying that the Revised Certification Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) with Alternative Modifications is Intended To Be Carried Out In A Manner Fully In Conformity With The California Coastal Act; Adopting the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications; Directing the City Manager to Transmit the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications to the California Coastal Commission For Certification; and Finding that Approval of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP With Alternative Modifications is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Acting Community Development Dep. Director Cervantes presented the staff report.
Councilmember Boles asked if Acting Dep. Director Cervantes can explain what has changed in the staff report from the last meeting.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she will go through in detail the changes from the August 12 staff report to today’s document. She stated that there are some minor changes, as the City received a letter from California Coastal Commission a few days prior to the August 12 letter; the City has had conversations with Coastal Commission staff and believe both parties have reached a mutual understanding.
Councilmember Boles assumed those have not been shown prior and will be new for today.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the items on Council’s list now are items Acting Dep.
Director Cervantes will comment on from that correspondence with Coastal Commission staff.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated some of them, yes, and some of the other items on the list are items Council has not discussed yet.
Councilmember Boles stated she has a few policies she would like to go back to and she
2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 3 September 17, 2024
assumed we can do that at the end after we go through the list.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles stated that there seems to still be a lot of confusion in the community, such as regarding tsunami.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if Council is taking public comment tonight.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we need to take public comment after.
Councilmember Boles stated that the public will not have a chance to know about the new policies until after Acting Dep. Director Cervantes’ presentation.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested making clarifying questions after public comment.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed to make clarifying questions, take public comment, and then come back again.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we will be completing the matrix before or after public comment. He thought it was a good idea to finish working through the matrix and asking questions of staff for clarification before getting public comment and deliberating.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed the public can also hear the items we have not already gone through before they come up and ask their questions.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes continued with the matrix, i.e., packet from the August 12 meeting, summary table on packet page 379.
Council asked for the item number as several were working from an older packet.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated with Modification No. 6.57 for policy CR-I-39: For development directly inland of the public infrastructure in special shoreline resiliency areas, 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.
Therefore, it is a policy that would allow that development to use any protection provided by the existing shoreline protection into that technical reporting and into the design of the development.
She moved on to Modification No. 6.58: This is the armoring and special resiliency areas policy specifically drafted to address continued maintenance of the two existing shoreline protection structures in Rockaway area and West Sharp Park area. Repair, maintenance, enhancement redevelopment and replacement of the shoreline protection structure that is existing at the time and gives an allowance for minor extension in order to fill gaps or otherwise ensure overall shoreline protection structure is effective may be approved when required to protect public infrastructure. This policy is very important for the future of the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project as it does allow for redevelopment replacement and for the minor extension in order to fill gaps. This will specifically address permitting for the Clarendon gap.
Councilmember Boles would like to look at the maps again and understand the armoring in these locations. She stated that she asked to look at the permit records for the armoring to
2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 4 September 17, 2024
better understand who owns what and what the maintenance conditions are. She understood that, starting at the parking lot on the south end, there was no armoring there now.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated, by the parking, that is correct.
Councilmember Boles stated that it does not make sense to her if we are saying that there is development behind the armoring but there is no armoring at that line. She asked if it means we can put armoring at that line.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it does not mean that we cannot put armoring there, but the line is demonstrating where the neighborhood and ends here and where the policies for the shoreline protection could apply. She stated that it is not a map showing the existing shoreline protection structure but is aligned to identify where the special resiliency areas are.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, when we look at the map, and where the tiny square is on the other side of San Marlo Way, that is pump wastewater infrastructure. She asked if she is right and asked if that is the connection between the protection area of the SSRA and that is part of our infrastructure that we want to be able to maintain and protect.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively, adding that, in conversation with California Coastal Commission staff to determine where the boundaries would be, City staff tried to extend the boundary as far as possible in order to give protection to as many properties as possible. Coastal Commission staff was amenable to extending the line further north in order to protect the existing City infrastructure.
Councilmember Bier clarified that just because the line is there for the SSRAs does not mean that is where we are going to be armoring.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bier thinks there is a misconception in the community that we want to add more armoring.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated adding more armory is separate from the SSRAs as the SSRAs are only applicable to existing shoreline protection.
Councilmember Boles stated that there is some provision for expanding, such as at Clarendon where there is not currently armoring.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there are policies that allow the city to repair, replace, fill gaps as needed, etc. but the SSRA policies will not apply to future fills. If the city decides to create a fill in the future with more armoring, at that point those policies may apply.
They will not apply at this moment.
Councilmember Boles described the portion of the armoring owned by Nick’s and that this is not public infrastructure but private infrastructure. She asked if she is correct.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the existing shoreline south of Rockaway is owned by Nick’s.
Councilmember Boles asked if that is being maintained. She stated that the permit conditions
2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 5 September 17, 2024
require certain things done every year, and she questioned whether we can rely on any armoring because it’s there or whether it actually needs to be legally permitted without violations that the Coastal Commission would object to.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes understands and shared that with recent conversations with Coastal Commission staff regarding shoreline protection in this area we provided the permit and did not indicate that there were any violations on those permits. Whether there is ongoing maintenance on the sea wall in front of Nick’s would be a question for California Coastal Commission staff as it is her understanding that the permit requires monitoring reports to the California Coastal Commission and does not require monitoring reports to the City. She assumes that, if materials are being submitted to Coastal Commission staff, they would share those materials with the City, but she has not received anything in her time here. She also assumed that, if there are violations, Coastal Commission staff would reach out to City staff for support for that and the City has not received anything.
Councilmember Boles wanted to make sure the city is protecting itself legally. She knows that the monitoring program is required yearly for that project; for the armoring north of that, Rockaway Beach Avenue at the dead end up to the parking lot, is city property and that also required a monitoring program every five years. She thinks that some of these things might need to be sorted out before these policies come into effect. She stated that, originally, when we talked about reliance on the shoreline armoring, former Planning Director Christian Murdock said it was up to the applicant to do the engineering to verify whatever protection and whatever remaining life that the armoring would provide, and she thought last time it was said that the city is taking on that responsibility. She wants to clarify where that is and exactly what it says about that. Another question is, since we do not own that armoring at Nick’s, how could the city possibly do that as we have no control over the permit or whether it will be maintained.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that her recollection was that the conversation was that the City could provide information to applicant. It would likely be standardized information, i.e. the City could determine the remaining life of an existing sea wall that we own and have that information available for the public when development came. She stated that there is also the option that the applicants could do their own analysis of that. She stated that, for privately owned walls, such as Nick’s, it is very likely that they will have to do their own analysis because, unless Nick’s provided that information, the City is unlikely to have it and do that work.
Councilmember Boles asked how this would work in practice and how an engineer would rely on this information. She then referred to 1567 Beach Boulevard where one set of engineers determined the wall had 40 years of life and then two years later GHD did the same analysis and decided the wall had 5-20 years left. She questioned what kind of information we can give a developer and would it be useful. She asked what liability we may be taking if we are saying that something has a life and then it does not and they base their design on that.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes statedthat staff is very confident that this policy direction will allow for more development and allow some properties that may not have much development potential now be able to develop with the concept of the SSRAs. She anticipates a lot of that work will be done during the Implementation Plan. She mentioned last time that the Zoning Ordinance is our Implementation Plan and has the requirements: If you are in a landslide area, this is what you need to provide to the city in order to demonstrate that you can safely develop.
Very likely, that is the same type of language or requirements that are going to come out of adoption of an LCLUP and be updated in the Implementation Planning. If you are in these areas, these are the type of analysis documentation that you need to provide to the city in order
2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 6 September 17, 2024
to demonstrate that your development is safe, that your development is addressing coastal hazards. She stated she had a conversation with Coastal Commission staff today where we touched on that topic of how all of these different coastal vulnerability zones, SSRAs, tsunami inundation zones, etc. are all going to have different requirements of what staff is looking for and all of that is going to be in the Implementation Plan as we get into the level each zone of what type of requirement is the city going to have on planning applications and what review level are we going to do on planning applications. She understands that Council wants those questions answered but it is very difficult for staff to respond to those questions and give that detailed analysis when we have not confirmed the policy direction.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if we are doing these SSRAs, her difficulty is that we are committing to a process, a lot of staff time, and a lot of money for the programs required after that, and we do not know if they are helpful at this point.
Councilmember Bigstyck wanted to ask a follow-up question to that for the sake of clarity between LCLUP and IP (Implementation Plan). He asked what the relationship is between a Local Coastal Land Use Plan document and the Implementation Plan. His understanding so far is that LCLUP is a policy document, meaning that it is a higher level document that does not get into some of the specifics that the IP or Implementation Plan document will get into.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the land use document is policy direction and tells the City generally what the vision is for, in this case, the coastal zone. The Implementation Plan can be multiple documents. She stated that the bulk of Pacifica’s current Implementation Plan is the Pacifica Municipal Code and the Zoning Ordinance. When the city makes revisions to the Pacifica Municipal Code, depending on the section, we have to take that to the California Coastal Commission to be certified and why we had to take our STR ordinance to be certified, why we have to take our ADU ordinance to get certified by them, because the Pacifica Municipal Code is part of our Implementation Plan. She mentioned the zoning map which is another component of their Implementation Plan. The City could also have other documents that are part of the Implementation Plan so we can have certain programs and policy documents that we would create and take to California Coastal Commission for certification and that will become part of our Implementation Plan. When you are thinking you want to develop, you go to the Pacifica Municipal Code; the General Plan is the overarching policy direction and the code is what staff is looking at to determine if you meet all the criteria. With subdivisions, we look at the subdivision map and the City’s subdivision ordinance. She stated that there are policies in the General Plan that encourage a subdivision under certain criteria but, when you are creating that subdivision, that concept for a planning application or reviewing and approving that planning application, you are looking at the code.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, when you have the SSRA in policy form in the LCLUP, how does that translate into SSRA in IP.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that what will occur will that we have some overlay district on the zoning map that says you are in x, y, z zones and there will be articles in the Pacifica Municipal Code that will say, if you are in this zone, this is what applies to you.
Mayor Vaterlaus states similar to the Hillside Preservation overlay on top of the existing.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively, adding that it is a perfect example. The Zoning Ordinance might say R1 and Hillside Preservation District and it means that you look at the R1 requirements but also at the Hillside Preservation District requirements.
2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 7 September 17, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked what the timeline was for the IP as it seems like it would need to be in effect before these policies so we will tell people what they needed to do and has the Coastal Commission given a timeline on other things.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that they have not given them a deadline for implementing our Implementation Plan. It is in our workplan to do a comprehensive code update as we need to update their code to address the General Plan changes as well that the Council adopted in 2022. She stated that it is our workplan to generally do a comprehensive update of the Pacifica Municipal Code.
Councilmember Boles stated it would have to be done before these policies come into effect.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively. She stated that there is some language in the policy documents that say if there are any discrepancies whatever is the certified document will be the guiding document.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought the question was when we are going to adopt the zoning code updates.
Councilmember Boles added the requirements that an applicant has to fulfill as well.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that those zoning code updates would not take place until we have a certified LCLUP.
Councilmember Boles stated that, even if the LCLUP is certified, there is still a period because we have to provide these other plans.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano answered affirmatively, stating the implementation details.
Councilmember Boles stated not just the Implementation Plan.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referenced the Coastal Management Plan.
Councilmember Boles agreed, adding Coastal Access and Resilience Program, particularly about the SSRAs. She thought we have a few years to get that submitted before these policies can go into effect.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that you could adopt the zoning codes after the LCLUP is certified, but some of these programs will not be in place to take advantage of it like the Implementation Plan and the Coastal Access and Resilience Program.
Councilmember Boles asked if the Implementation Plan goes to Planning Commission, City Council, and Coastal Commission for approval also.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles stated that she had one more question on CR-I-39. The public letters state in the SSRAs maps and figures may rely on the shoreline protection structure in that area that was existing at the time of the permit application to help determine that its setbacks meet the requirements of policies. She stated the question she has seen from the public is what
2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 8 September 17, 2024
potential protections can people count on or is it just setbacks, and does it relate to erosion or flooding or other issues and what is meant by setbacks. She stated that CR-I-39 says the SSRAs can help demonstrate that its setbacks meet the requirements of these policies. She asked what that gives an applicant. She stated that we talked before about how SSRAs may be helping with erosion and she can see how erosion relates to a setback, but she asked if that is the only benefit or are there other potential benefits and how is that defined.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the intent of the policy is to allow development to address all the coastal hazards and she believes this might be a typo.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she means an omission.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes thinks the policy is supposed to read “permit application to help demonstrate that it meets the requirements of policy CR-I-19 and CR-I-20”.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, if you look at CR-I-20, it says “development in coastal vulnerability zones shall be cited and designed and set back from the blufftop and/or shoreline to be safe from erosion”. She stated that is consistent with CR-I-39.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that CR-I-39 is saying that the existing armoring and protection can be factored into that calculation of safety from the setback compliance.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is what she reads.
Councilmember Boles asked if this is the exact language that the Coastal Commission approved.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated yes, and she recalls there was some discussion about setbacks to try to make the term consistent and they wanted the term setback.
Councilmember Boles stated that, to her, what this is saying is that, if you have your property, like 1567 Beach Boulevard, the setback needed to be 108 feet so all the policies can help you determine is how far back your building goes.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the difference is counting whether the protection is there or not. Without the protection factored in, that distance setback is going to be much different than calculating with the protection there.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes thought, in part, that is one of the requirements that the policy is intended to address. She stated her understanding was the policy was intended to address all coastal hazards as well and that it would give allowances for stormwater and wave overtopping.
Councilmember Boles referred to Beach Boulevard and possibly Rockaway as FEMA high hazard zones now.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she means for flooding.
Councilmember Boles stated for flooding. Right now the FEMA maps do not include sea level rise, just flooding as it is, but these are already the highest hazard zones and FEMA also requires certain things when you build in those zones, one being that you do not put living areas below a certain data point. She stated that there is possible overlay that is going to restrict
2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 9 September 17, 2024
what is being built here.
Mayor Vaterlaus added place your garage below your living area so your bedrooms are not on the ground floor.
Councilmember Boles agreed, but also hazards if the waves overtop and hit your building.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to a previous question about insurance and what the insurers were looking at, circling back to FEMA.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated his understanding is that fire insurance does come through FEMA at this point.
Councilmember Boles said you cannot get regular insurance if you are in these zones and it would have to go through FEMA.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is commercial uses that are going to be going up for the insurance but, if you live along Beach Boulevard, presumably you will be going to FEMA for your insurance also. He stated that, at this time, the topic is more in terms of fire than flood.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, stating that questions in the community have come up on what is the impact of these policies on the ability to get insurance. She stated that this came up when she was at Smart Coast and there was a legal panel that specifically addressed insurance concerns and financing; they stated the current state of the practice is the only thing they are looking at is the FEMA flood maps and not factoring in these kinds of policies. She stated that the general question is forward-looking and makes sense to think about it but, as a practice, it was just the FEMA requirements that were being incorporated.
Mayor Vaterlaus does not think the flood insurance is in the FEMA program. She stated the problem of FEMA flood insurance is that they let the program expire and then they have to go in and redo it again. Sometimes it takes them weeks.
Councilmember Boles stated that then they run out of money.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed, stating it takes them weeks to come back and say they are going to start the FEMA flood insurance project again.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that his research was specifically in terms of how insurance is affected if there is armoring versus no armoring. He thinks the conclusions was if you are in a flood zone, you are in a flood zone and, at that point, it does not have an impact.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that the armoring is not impacting the insurability or not.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is a mapped flood zone; whether or not it impacts homeowners insurance in general, he is not sure as that would ride with a different kind of insurance but, in terms of flood insurance, if it is mapped as a flood zone, it is mapped as a flood zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that is what they are factoring in.
2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 10 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes continued with policy CR-I-41, on packet page 380 of the August 12 report’s summary table. She stated that this policy determines when the SSRA policies go into effect. The initial Coastal Access and Resilience Program needs to be developed and submitted for Coastal Commission review and, in accordance with Policy CR-I-5, the development of the shoreline adaptation program has been initiated, including at minimum that the city has developed a public engagement plan or plan timeline and identified funding for completion of the technical studies and planning work. She wants to clarify that this policy states the SSRA policies do not go into effect at time of certification of the document but go into effect once both actions have been taken.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if the Implementation Plan is connected to the plan approvals.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the work on the Implementation Plan is not connected to this policy but, assuming that the document is certified, staff would begin work on updating the Implementation Plan.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if that was covered in the next policy.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes continued onto CR-I-42, which contains language which would suspend the SSRA policies. There are criteria information that the City needs to provide, as well as actions that the City needs to take and submit to California Coastal Commission that would, if the City does not meet these obligations, suspend the SSRA policies. She stated the first one would be tied to the following policy, CR-I-43, if the Coastal Access and Resilience Program is not certified by the Coastal Commission within 15 months of acceptance of the LCP amendment for filing as identified in policy CR-I-41 or any CDP applications that are required every five years to implement projects are not submitted in complete form or any projects required in the Coastal Access and Resilience Program are not developed and implemented.
She added that, per policy CR-I-5, the City is obligated to start that work and noted suspensions if the City has not completed technical studies to accomplish part of the shoreline adaptation program within six years of effective certification of the land use amendment that creates a requirement for the shoreline adaptation program or the City has not prepared a draft shoreline adaptation program within eight years of effective certification of the LUPA that created the requirements of the shoreline adaptation program or the Coastal Commission has not certified the final shoreline adaptation program within ten years of effective certification of the LUPA that created the requirements of the shoreline adaptation program. She stated that for the shoreline adaptation program, the City has six years, eight years, and ten years in miletones that we need to meet in order to keep the policies in place.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what we are referring to with the CDP applications that are required every five years.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it is in reference to the Coastal Access and Resilience Program and some of those projects will require Coastal Development Permits, either through the City permit jurisdiction or through the California Coastal Commission permit jurisdiction. She stated that some of those will have horizons where they will expire and the City will need to reapply.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, when she first read it, it seemed inclusive, but it said any of the CDP applications that are required and that would be specific to the project.
2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 11 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles referred any of the project required in the Coastal Act and Resiliency Program are not developed/implemented, and she asked if that means completed in terms of construction.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively, stating that the second bullet point is saying there are some projects that are required CDPs, probably from California Coastal Commission, that will have an end date, and they will need to reapply every five years for some of them. If the California Coastal Commission gives you approval for these projects but the City fails to develop them or implement them, that is also a cause for suspension of the policy.
Councilmember Boles concluded that, even if they are under construction, they are not implemented and supposed to be finished within that period.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, later on in this policy, we will see how it talks about the determination notice Coastal Commission needs to send to the City and then the City can reply to that and, based on that exchange, with communication and collaboration back and forth, we would expect that the project is underway, been delayed for X, Y and Z reasons, or there would be reasonable explanations back to Coastal Commission and the Executive Director would agree to that and it would not be suspended.
Councilmember Boles thought there were a lot of ways for them to stop doing the program after we have spent a lot of time and money trying to do the program.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she is thinking we should put something that gives the City more opportunities for negotiation. She read that all these policies are suddenly not in effect anymore if this happens. She asked if there was a way to indicate what City Manager just said in a clearer way.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, with CR-I-42, staff had extensive conversations with Coastal Commission staff and our legal team about this language and there was back and forth a little bit on the date. She stated that, the Coastal Commission wanted certainty, they wanted a short timeline and the City wanted more flexibility in achieving the standards or milestones that were set in this policy. There already has been a significant discussion with the Coastal Commission staff about these dates, timeline, and the language itself. Staff has done a lot of work to get as much flexibility as we think was appropriate and achievable.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that part of understanding this is also from the perspective of the pressure that the Coastal Commission is under to feasibly approve and implement LCLUPs with cities up and down the state. There is that aspect which would suggest that they are going to be reasonable in their collaboration with cities to effectively implement these policies.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks we should mark this as “programs that are not developed/implemented” sounds final whereas projects in the process of being done should count.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the policy says “in the event that the Coastal Commission’s Executive Director determines that the city has not met one or more of the above conditions, they send a preliminary determination to the city, explaining that one or more conditions set forth above have not been met and that suspension
2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 12 September 17, 2024
of the policies shall occur after 15 working days unless the city submits written objection to the preliminary determination,” and there is this back-and-forth built in if the Executive Director determines that one of the conditions has not been met.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that staff’s thought was that, if it is adopted and in process of implementation, even though it is not fully implemented, we would be able to negotiate with the Coastal Commission to address that. She stated that was language the Coastal Commission agreed to in response to the city’s concerns about the milestones.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated the Coastal Commission has put a lot of work into this policy, into the document, and very likely somewhere work into other documents up and down the coast, and the city has also put a lot of work into this document and are going to be putting a lot of work in the implementation actions; it is very likely that there will be some negotiations and ongoing conversations between staff as they continue to implement the policies.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there was concern that the issue of the shoreline adaptation programs that are offsetting the armoring and continuing to allow and incorporate the armoring into the plan. She stated that the concern is that the City will make a plan and then do not ever do it and the armoring is there and being maintained. She thinks that this is Coastal Commission’s way of reassuring the part of the community that is unhappy about the idea of, in any way, counting armoring and not absolutely insisting that it all be removed. She stated that this is the flexibility of where the Coastal Commission is, and it’s not staff but the Commission as well. She stated that it is an uncomfortable one for them and everyone because the overall scope of it is that this is a carveout to the Coastal Act, the first step of undermining the strength of the Coastal Act as approved by the voters. She knows, with the group she has been working with for a few years, the intent is not to undo the Coastal Act but the intent is to find a reasonable compromise between the maximum vision of restoring the coastline to an unbuilt state which is not practical. The compromise is to allow armoring in some places where it is existing and to have adaptation in other places that offset. She stated that the only way those adaptation projects get done is if they are on a schedule with a specific Implementation Plan, approvals, funding, etc. She stated it is more than a trail and it is this notion of how are we incorporating natural adaptations into our actions, not just into our general thoughts and then never doing it.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed with her comments but added that another comment that we received from the Coastal Commission’s AG office is that regarding these changes, to her point about diverting from the language of the Coastal Act, the bulk of the discussion is due to their need and the city’s need to make sure that all of these changes that we are making, especially with SSRA, is consistent with the Coastal Act so that the Coastal Commission, as well as the City, can say this diversion or exception is still consistent with the Coastal Act. That is what they are trying to balance and that is what staff has been trying to do, i.e., trying to balance the community’s interest, the Council’s interest, and the City’s interest along with the need from the Coastal Commission to stay true to the Coastal Act and make sure that whatever we do adopt, in terms of an LCLUP, is defensible.
Councilmember Boles thought it was going to be interesting to see what the Commissioners themselves say as this has all been going through staff. What she heard come out of that is that, when they are talking about neighborhood-based planning, it is a larger area and they are concerned about the word “neighborhood” because that meant built environment and they are looking at more geologic neighborhoods, like some section of coast and how the erosion and beaches. She heard from several commissioners that their goal of these region-, area-, or
2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 13 September 17, 2024
district-based approaches is to be able to look at nature-based solutions because you are looking at a broader scale.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated that this is very different as there were a lot of critical comments about what we are doing here now with these policies as they include keeping armoring and even expanding armoring in these areas, but she thinks the point is that we are not going to be able to do benches and where can we remove sea walls and where can we do nature based solutions. She stated that this is where we need a vision for the whole coast, but if we are committing to this, we have to know that we are committing to something else somewhere else.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she was speaking specifically in a neighborhood south of Council Chambers. We have in place in many instances that there already are nature-based solutions in the form of buffer zones and it is interesting to hear one of the Coastal Commissioners when Coastal Commissioner Justin Cummings came and looked at it the dunes and amount of green space. What she wants to figure out as we develop these projects is incorporating that which is already existing and how are we maintaining it, how are we improving it, we are they making it something we can rely on, and is there a need for some level of drainage or something that needs improving upon, etc. She stated there may minimal work that needs to be done to enhance that, but it is where we do not have those kinds of things that we are going to be looking at. She thinks that, in this sense, it is a good compromise because otherwise the have these policies that are the same for everyone and it does not reflect the conditions on the ground. She thinks the rub is going to be what the impact is of the armoring and what is the corresponding offsetting balance in a nature-based approach. She stated that, in areas where you do not have a beach or not going to have a beach or there is a rocky outcropping, what other kinds of access are we able to implement as there will be other kinds of coastal access points that we want to implement. She thinks it is going to take that analysis of our whole coastline and agreeing on what these different segments look like. She is hoping the next round is more balanced and inclusive and give all of the community an opportunity to ask questions and have input into that. She stated, in the Local Government Working Group, they were talking about what is nature-based as in natural and what is nature-based in somewhat engineered but using natural systems, such as artificial reefs, kinds of implementations; not every project, especially in Pacifica, is going to be able to be what we did at Linda Mar Beach and we have to work as a community to figure out what that is.
Mayor Vaterlaus thinks one can help the other. If we have artificial reefs outside and our sea wall, she thinks it would save our sea wall longer and provide less need for sand nourishment.
She thinks that we can combine them together.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought that, regarding the artificial reef document, the authors of the premise would think it needs to be run through Army Corp of Engineers to figure out what viability looks like and, at the point in which the Army Corp is able to ascertain viability, that is when we might be able to examine funding opportunities. He stated that, looking at long periods of time and a great deal of money, he thinks it becomes more conceivable as we look at it in terms of steps and process and what it looks like to get from here to there and who our partners are along the path, and to make sure we are forming relationships with those who would be our partners. As he was hearing the initial conversation around CR-I-42, he had more interest in protecting what seems like a workable approach, but what if it is a different Executive Director after all the relationship with this one. He stated what if different Coastal Commission staff and different Coastal Commissioners have relationships with some of them at this point.
2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 14 September 17, 2024
He thinks a part of the answer to that is, if we keep showing up, we keep forming relationships.
It is up to us to demonstrate that form of leadership. He stated that the nature of the document would have to be a living document, an organic document that is growing with our needs and the needs of climate change.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we are done with CR-I-42.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes moved onto CR-I-43, which is policy is the end date of SSRA policy. As stated, as of January 1, 2045, no new development may rely on the SSRA policies unless the Coastal Commission certifies an LCP amendment to extend this deadline. As of January 1, 2045, development approved based on the SSRA policies that relied on the shoreline protection structures to demonstrate safety stability and adequate setbacks shall become legal non-conforming and move forward to structural modifications. Triggers will apply to the development in accordance with those policies.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated we are talking 20 years. For her purposes, she has to give feedback that this is too short in light of how long we have been working on this process.
City Manager Woodhouse added that he specifically pushed back hard on this and suggested at least a 30-year period but they wanted the 20-year period for this.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes added that the goal of Coastal Commission staff is that by 2045, the City will have updated our adaptation program, outdated mapping, new science available, etc. and at that point, the City might be ready to do a new LCP or may be able to do some changes to this LCP that will allow them to grant this an extension to this deadline. She thinks City Manager Woodhouse is correct that they want to put an end date but she thinks it is to pressure the city as well to continue to evolve this document and to continue to improve planning in the coastal zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks we are going to have to work on this piece, as she thinks we have to come up with something other than “development approved based on these policies that relied on shoreline protection structures... shall become legally non-conforming and moving forward a substantial structural modification to such development”. If she is reading it correctly then everything reverts to an SSM by 2045. She understands, from what staff was telling her, that we pushed back hard on this and they pushed back hard on us.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she can expand on that. She stated on January 1, 2045, there will be a shift, and starting from that day, development that took advantage of the SSR policies, designed to those policies, will become legal and non-conforming because the policies will not exist any longer. Additionally, it is saying, if that development is after January 1, 2045, does a project that is considered a substantial structure modification, they will need to comply with all the policies that are required of substantial structural modifications. She stated that it is not saying that you are automatically a substantial structural modification, it is saying development starting from that point is a substantial structural modification and we will need to start complying with all those policies. She stated those policies require the technical reporting, the siting and design, etc., for projects.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that it will be without the ability to incorporate the armoring for the 20-year period, assuming we get this done in 2025.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, unless an LCP amendment changes that in that time,
2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 15 September 17, 2024
depending on what happens in the intervening time and any sort of update.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if he feels like this is the hook to get the City to update our LCP more than every 42 years and counting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this would be a benefit, but there are other benefits to having your LCLUP be a living document and updating it more frequently than every 40 years.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that you do not want to have any planning land use documents, like the General Plan, Housing Element, or LCLUP to last more than 20 years. We should be reviewing the LCLUP again before 20 years.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked who says they will accept our amendment in 20 years.
Councilmember Boles stated it is hardly time to get your permit in some cases.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated it is such a short time and they would not have to take our amendment.
Councilmember Bier stated that, the way we are going and how much push back we are getting with the Coastal Commission, we might not even have one to send to the Coastal Commission by then.
Councilmember Boles does see that 20 years gives them a chance to see how we are doing and if we are doing what we said we would do. She stated that Beach Boulevard is already a very hazardous zone and it will get worse. She stated that, at some point, it may not make sense and they are giving themselves a way out because the conditions will change. She stated that, working for developers, she would not want to use these policies to design her building. She mentioned a hotel on the site is designed to rely on the sea wall. The policy expires and all of a sudden, you are legal non-conforming; then you want to do a major remodel but they only designed their foundations to rely on that sea wall and now they cannot anymore because it is legal non-conforming. They may have to do major structural work to the building because they have not designed it to resist the hazards that are there without the sea wall.
City Manager Woodhouse added, by way of analogy, every development is built to today’s codes and when codes change become legally non-conforming. For example, in the future, you may need to upgrade the size of the joist you use on your deck ten years later, and you are going to have new requirements to comply with for safety.
Councilmember Boles stated that the structural stuff does not change.
Mayor Vaterlaus referred to a previous STR discussion about the one-car garage built in all those houses and how they were confirming at the time and currently are not. That is a major structural item.
Councilmember Boles also wanted to ask what happens if there is a project that is in the middle of getting their permits that was relying on these policies and suddenly they expire.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is looking at it like 20 years from now. She thinks staff will have to help Council figure out a way to include priorities on this list for discussion. She stated that, even as she looks at this, she is thinking about how this comports with the projections of sea level rise that we are looking at in OPC guidance in 20 years’ time. She
2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 16 September 17, 2024
stated that there is not a lot predicted to be impacting us in 20 years and this is turning off the valve in 20 years.
Councilmember Boles stated that sea level rise is not that much but the storms are increasing.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that moving on to the last policy, CR-I-44, the Coastal Access and Resilience Program. This is the program directly tied to the SSRA policies. Staff has previously described it as the CIP work plan for the coastal zone so the City is able to use projects that would already be built; in the short term we have the ability to use some of the projects that the City is already expecting to implement in our current CIP. These projects shall be organized in terms expected of implementation dates within five-year increments. They are asking us to, on a five-year basis, is update that list. The types of projects that Coastal Commission is looking for is enhancement to a public recreational access facilities, removal of existing armoring, nature-based adaptation, beach nourishment, and acquisition conservation of properties subject to coastal hazards. She stated that these projects are not just to be implemented in the SSRA, but along the entire coastline. She stated the City can use some of our current projects in our CIP, including the Pacifica State Beach Trail Rehabilitation Project, the Rockaway Beach parking structure, Rockaway parking areas, Beach Boulevard Promenade Park improvements, Sharp Park priority development areas, the PDA access pedestrian improvement projects, etc. These are projects that currently are on our CIP list.
Councilmember Boles asked if the Rockaway Beach parking structure is on the CIP list.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated not in existence but there is a fund for it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it is an unfunded project in the CIP and the parking in-lieu fees are for eventually saving up enough money to build a parking structure there.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the project shall be designed to be implemented in five-year increments and the City also has to identify the funding mechanisms for these projects.
What we submit to Coastal will need to be thoroughly planned out and demonstrate not only are we going to design a permit use projects, but also how we are going to construct them. The initial program shall be developed and should be submitted as an amendment to the LCP by three years from date of LCUP update certification. By five years from the date of the Coastal Commission approval, the initial Coastal Access and Resilience Program and every subsequent five years, the City shall submit a complete CDP application to the Coastal Commission or where applicable to the city itself shall approve projects with CDP. This goes back to the previous policy with that mentioned in the CDPs every five years. The program shall be monitored, evaluated, updated, and resubmitted as an amendment to the LCP at least every ten years thereafter.
Councilmember Boles asked if they have indicated how many projects. She asked they are expecting to see in a five-year period.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes thinks, in general, they are expecting to see the City working towards improving and adding coastal access in the form of direct access to beach areas but also more access to coastal views so perhaps improvement on some of the bluffs. They have not specified we need X number of projects. As long as the City is making efforts towards planning these projects and implementing them while identifying the timelines and the benchmarks and the funding and how the city is going to be implementing these, she thinks that they want to see work going towards this. She stated that, in conversations we have had with
2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 17 September 17, 2024
them, they understand that in the medium to short term, some of the projects that the City is going to need to put them in this plan are going to be shorter term projects. However, the City can start planning for removal of existing shoreline protection in some areas, how the City will acquire and maintain other areas of the coastline as well, etc. They want to see the short- to long-term plan for how the City will be addressing coastal access as well as what are we going to do for the first five years, the next five years, etc.
Councilmember Boles stated that, at some point, we have to start doing major things, like buying property, doing beach nourishment, and doing nature-based solutions, to be able to keep the SSRAs. She wanted to clarify that the program and these policies and this work is only because of the SSRAs. This would not be here if we were not doing SSRAs.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she is correct, and this policy is tied directly to the SSRA and if the city were to decide not to adopt those, this requirement would go away. However, as mentioned in this policy for the effective date, policy CR-I-5, development of the shoreline adaptation program, is a requirement regardless of the SSRA.
Councilmember Boles stated that there was one that said, “enhance public pathway system seaward of private development in the Rockaway Beach area”. She asked if that area is across Nick’s parking lot.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that she is correct.
Councilmember Boles asked if it would require some kind of taking of part of private property.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated not necessarily a taking but working with the property owner to create an easement.
Councilmember Boles referred to formation of GHAD (Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts) CSAs (Community Service Areas) and the area of Beach Boulevard may be creating a district so those people who live or own property there would help pay for these mitigations, even if they are not using the SSRA policies.
Asst, City Attorney Bazzano stated she is correct and that is one of the methods that has been identified for funding mechanism.
City Manager Woodhouse said it is a Community Services Area which is like an assessment district.
Councilmember Boles stated there may be costs if you live in these areas to be able to have these policies.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks it is going to be great news to some members of the community.
Councilmember Boles stated, if you are benefitting from it, you should have a share in the cost.
City Manager Woodhouse stated all of these funding mechanisms that they list here are funding mechanisms cities need to consider to fund their Capital Improvement Programs anyways. If we are going to do infrastructure projects, whether in the coastal area or other places in the city, we have to consider various versions of these types of funding mechanisms to be able to fund
2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 18 September 17, 2024
those projects.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is good to make that clear.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated this concludes the Council’s first review of all the modifications.
Councilmember Boles stated there were Coastal Commission changes from the General Plan.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated, per the Coastal Commission staff letter received in August, there was a number of General Plan consistency changes that they requested. Council adopted General Plan consistency changes that were added into the LCP in October 2023 and this text is changes to that specific language. In many of the instances, the City either clarified or reverted to the original 2020 LCP language. There are some instances where it is new language; however, the intent of the policy is unchanged. She used the numbering for the Coastal Commission staff letter to keep it simple. In Item 1A, they wanted clarification, as this is language that refers to if the City were to annex land that is in our sphere of influence; the City has identified that those areas would have a land use designation of urban reserve. They were questioning of how the City was doing this if these areas were outside of our boundary and within our sphere of influence. We clarified with them that this would occur only in a future action if the City were to annex any property. We added in that first line “annexed into the City of Pacifica… in a future action” and that was sufficient to address their concerns.
Councilmember Boles asked what are we considering annexing that is in the coastal zone.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, south of San Pedro neighborhood, we have land that is within the coastal zone that is within the sphere of influence for Pacifica. She stated that would include portions of the Pedro Point headlands. She stated that this language does not necessarily say that the City will annex that land, but gives some guidance if the City were in a future action to annex that land.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought part of Shamrock is in the coastal zone. That is larger than 50 acres.
She stated that most of it is in the County.
Councilmember Boles thought it would great if staff can bring Council some maps.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified the City is not considering annexation of anything right now, just in the future if that were to happen.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, as LAFCO representative on the dais, he thinks it is pertinent to consider a sphere of influence ramifications, but the City is not looking to annex anything this week. It seems like, of those lands that have been in conversation around the topic of annexation, they are not lands in the coastal zone.
Councilmember Boles wanted to know if some of Shamrock is in the coastal zone.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it was good information to have, but he does not think there is anything immediate.
Councilmember Boles stated the property has been up for sale so things might change.
2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 19 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it is her understanding that Shamrock is east of Coast Highway.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if there is not a segment that goes on the other side from when they built the tunnel.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she was correct as there is a portion that goes underneath the tunnel that is west of Coast Highway.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it is a small portion.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated not 50 acres.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, if considering the whole size of Shamrock, she thinks it is 80 acres.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, for development purposes on that site, the part that is not agriculture is clearly not in the coastal zone and the part that is in the coastal zone would be regarded as agriculture which means there will not be any development on that side if it were to be annexed, and there is no reason to annex it as there are no City facilities or services we would need to provide that that piece of land.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked him for the clarification.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, for Item 1B, at one point, the policy used to read, “continue to require bicycle parking facilities in a new high density residential mixed use and non-residential development”. She stated, at some point, the “high density residential and mixed use” was removed from this policy as was shown in the General Plan consistency changes. Coastal Commission staff requested that the City put “high density residential and mixed use” back into this policy and staff agrees that we should continue to require bicycle parking facilities from these multiple types of development. She stated, for Item 1C, for the General Plan, the City had removed “enhances access to the coast” and that has been removed from the General Plan. Coastal Commission staff requested that the City enter that language back and staff agrees. For Item 1D, the City had rewritten this policy for the General Plan so that it read “work with SamTrans to facilitate transit orient development to all or part of the Linda Mar Blvd., Park and Ride lot”. She understands that on revision for the General Plan, the City only has the Linda Mar Park and Ride lot that is managed by SamTrans, so the policy used to say “citywide encourage SamTrans to facilitate transit-oriented development,” and it did not make sense to require them to do something citywide when they only have one lot that they have control of. The City did rewrite this policy for the General Plan and we inserted it here; however, to address any concerns with any potential future Park and Ride lots, we added the last portion that says “and on any future Park and Ride lot that may be developed by SamTrans”. For Item 1E, this relates to the transportation demand management measures.
Coastal Commission staff requested that it be rewritten to make it easier to read; the intent of the policy is the same, but it has been rewritten to make it more reader-friendly and easier to implement. She reiterated that it is a rewritten policy but the intent remains the same.
Regarding Item 1F, for the General Plan, the City had removed the language from this policy that says “there should be parking areas throughout the coastal zone” and Coastal Commission staff requested that City enter that language back and staff agreed. Regarding Item 1G, for the General Plan, the City had removed the term “suitable” in that this policy (“allow sediment removed from…”), and Coastal Commission staff wanted staff to reinsert the term “suitable” to ensure that the soil sediment that was removed meets a certain standard. For Item 1H, the
2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 20 September 17, 2024
City had rewritten this policy for the General Plan as was originally written in the LCP, and this first bullet point could be interpreted as the City would discourage development on City-owned parcels when the policy is intended to discourage development and build that critical habitat species for private development. She stated that this portion of the policy was rewritten to read “the City should discourage development and/or build out critical habitat or special species status during the development review process except where allowed by policy ER-I-24” which will be discussed further. For Item 1I, Coastal Commission staff had some concerns with the terminology and the changes between some of our figures and policies and some of our background language in the LCP and, in order to address those inconsistencies, staff has added a definition to the LCP; therefore, we have a new definition for coastal view corridors and view shed which reads “an area that is identified as significant for providing public visual and access to and along the coast, including but not limited to as mapped in figure 4.4” and this was intended to have some clarification of what coastal view corridor and view shed is without having to go through the entire document to make those terminologies consistent. For Item 1J, this was an error done by staff. Coastal Commission staff had originally recommended that we delete two paragraphs at the end in Chapter 5. The redline version they saw in August 12 only deleted one of those paragraphs. Staff had previously agreed that both of those paragraphs needed to be deleted. She stated that Item 1K had some questions regarding the replacement of definitions for easement and for special status. The General Plan recreated both of the definitions for easement and special status species. Staff worked on the language with Coastal Commission staff and the new definitions for easement and for special status species that are in the LCP: Easement is “property right given by the owner of the land to the public or another party for specific limited use of the land. An easement may be acquired by the government or another party through dedication when the purchase of an entire interest in the property may be too expensive or unnecessary, usually needed for utilities or shared parking” and special status species, which meets all requirements of the Coastal Act, is “any species which is listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fishery Service or California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Under the provisions of the state and federal endangered species act, it also includes any species designated by USFWH (US Fish and Wildlife Service) as a candidate or species of concern. Species designated by CDSW as a species of special concern, species that may be considered rare or endangered pursuant to Section 15380B of the CEQA Guidelines or species identified on California Native Plant Society list 1A, 1B or 2, implying potential danger of extinction”. Especially on the special status species definition, we worked closely with Coastal Commission staff to ensure that not only is it very protective of special status species but is also consistent with the Coastal Act. She stated that is the last of the General Plan consistency changes that are different from the August 12 report to the present version.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to go back to the issue of easement. The Coastal Commission staff letter on this point talks about removing that definition entirely and holding the discussion for the Implementation Plan. She stated she is looking at packet page 281.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that was an option that Coastal Commission staff gave the City, simply removing the definition of easement. Staff thought it would be better to come to a solution and continue to have the definition in the document.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if there would be a need to redefine it in some way.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated there was concern that the previous definition may not be applicable to property interest and might only be applicable for rights of use. The changes that were made were to ensure that the definition of easement also includes property interest.
2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 21 September 17, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks that is what concerns her and asked to bring up the definition.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated there are different types of easements that can be recorded on a property. There are property interest easements, usually like alleyways, or use easements that can be given. An example of a use easement would be if two single family homes shared a driveway, and one or the other may not own the actual real estate, but they have the right to use that space.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, with regard to easement in our General Plan, the Coastal Commission staff had a concern about it as it relates to the coastal zone and she wonders if there is a substantial change or redefining of the term and what is that implication for property ownership in the coastal zone.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano did not think they had a concern but just wanted to know why the definition had changed and staff’s explanation was that the General Plan defines it a certain way and we are updating their LCLUP to be consistent with that definition.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if they were concerned that it might have some implication for access.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understood that they wanted to know what the rationale was for the change.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that all of these issues related to General Plan consistency.
According to the Coastal Commission AG’s office, the back and forth and compromise are all required for Coastal Act if, for whatever reason, we disagreed with their interpretation. She stated that, on this one, the City did not see an issue with using that definition of easement.
Councilmember Boles asked if there is a separate definition of a prescriptive easement.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is a legal term.
Councilmember Boles stated she is concerned because easement is in both and that is not necessarily the property rights given.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there is a definition for a prescriptive right in the document.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she would like a copy of those two definitions.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that was the last of the General Plan consistency changes for the letter that was received in early August.
Councilmember Boles stated that there are other policies, including the San Pedro site, ESHA, and creek buffers.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated it was her understanding that Council wanted to go to public comment after this.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought we were going to go over all ESHA.
2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 22 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that this policy for the August 12 report can be found on packet page 339 and on 437 for the redlines. She stated, the March 2023 Coastal Commission staff’s adjusted modifications removed 3-5 units per gross acre and instead added a low-density range. When we had discussed this specific suggested modification with Coastal Commission’s staff, there was a misunderstanding of the land use designations and both staffs agreed that the density range should be 3-5 units per gross acre. The only change to this policy from all the different changes is that we added gross developable acre and added the following definition for gross developable acre from the General Plan to the document: “an area of the site, including proposed public streets or other proposed rights of way, but excluding areas subject to physical or environmental constraints which include free corridors, floodways, and areas to be dedicated for greenways or habitat protections”. As stated in the Coastal Commission staff letter from early August, they had some concerns regarding the density and the potential development of the site and how it might impact resources on the site so we have a General Plan definition that says gross developable acre means that it excludes physical and environmental constraints and so staff thought this was an easy way to address it, using terminology that the City already has in the General Plan, and Coastal Commission staff agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated this is a new definition and asked if this will come back at some point and Council will have all the writing to look at.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, for these General Plan consistency changes that we have confirmed with Coastal, the intent is that we are going over them tonight and they will become part of the record for the resolution that Council considers for adoption tonight.
Councilmember Boles wants to hear her definition again and she would like to see it.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated the definition is included in the LCP version attached to tonight’s agenda.
Councilmember Boles stated that there have been changes that were not highlighted previously.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the LCP that was attached to tonight’s agenda was a clean version and staff would be highlighting the modifications at this hearing tonight.
Councilmember Boles stated she is not comfortable approving this until she sees all language.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to be clear that what Acting Dep. Director Cervantes said is that staff met with Coastal Commission staff numerous times about all of these General Plan consistencies and arrived at these agreements presented here. Staff did not get the final email confirmation until today from Coastal Commission staff on those and, in the staff report, we said we were expecting agreement from Coastal Commission staff on all these and these are going to be in the clean copy of the LCLUP that was attached to the report for the record and they would go over each of these changes at this meeting. He stated that is what these changes, with Coastal Commission staff agreement, are in the packet that Council is considering and Council can, if so desired, consider the resolution with the documents. If there are any final changes, we have to read those into the record for tonight.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks that when he read that, he did not understand the extent to
2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 23 September 17, 2024
which there would be corrections and changes; given the breadth, it would be helpful if Council had some of those printed out to follow along. He stated it might be pertinent to have the full view of what Council is looking at for ease of following along so Council can sign off on those changes.
City Manager Woodhouse asked, other than the specific changes that Acting Dep. Director Cervantes is explaining now for Council and public who are listening prior to public comment, what the Council is requesting regarding these.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated looking at what is on the screen where it says undeveloped San Pedro site, LD-I-21, she would like Acting Dep. Director Cervantes to direct them to packet page 103 and see the language as amended because that is what she is understanding happened, i.e., Coastal Commission sent this letter August 6, and staff evaluated what the changes were and made some changes, and the draft appended to this meeting’s packet includes those changes. She asked if she was right.
Councilmember Bier stated that it is not a redline version and it is hard to find them.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the version attached to the report includes some of the clean language that staff were anticipating Coastal staff to confirm. The reason that staff recommended Council read it into the record, is because we did not receive final confirmation on everything until this afternoon. A clean version had anticipated that there might be some confirmation, but it does not include all of the changes being verbally discussed today as we did not receive that confirmation until today.
Councilmember Boles stated that is all the more reason to give everyone time to look at it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, before we conclude this meeting, it would be helpful to staff to hear from Council the format in which Council would like to see documents in the future. Staff heard a lot of input about needing to see a clean copy of the document, which is what is prepared in here, and highlight in the presentation what these changes are in that clean document. If there is a different direction and Council is not going to be prepared to consider the resolution tonight and move on with this process and would like additional meetings, then he wants to know what Council’s direction is about how to see documents and changes.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood that the changes in the document in tonight’s packet were not in the last iteration because staff had received feedback from Coastal Commission as recently as today.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the changes are in the packet as a clean version of the LCLUP.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that what was received today was just the confirmation of what staff discussed and is in the presentation now.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the confirmation staff received is the majority of what we do have in the clean version of the documents, but we are specifically going over each of them to be clear and transparent that many of these changes are non-substantial and we worked through with Coastal Commission staff, such as what is the normal planning language that would apply to this policy. Staff trying to discuss each of them and, if there are any we need to drill down more, we could take a break and create a redline version if that is what Council is
2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 24 September 17, 2024
interested in. The intent was to have the Council consider adoption of these alternate modifications for submittal to the Coastal Commission tonight.
Councilmember Boles stated that Council was still giving input. She asked if, besides the General Plan consistencies, all the comments Council has been giving on this document on the spreadsheet of suggested changes or all incorporated in this also.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles thought, with some of them, Council was still vague on and might want staff to think about some a little bit more.
City Manager Woodhouse stated part of the consideration in the deliberation tonight is for Council to say we agree with everything here but we want to push back on the Coastal Commission to suggest that the duration of the SSRAs is not 20 years but 30 years. Council would give staff that direction, and staff would advise Coastal Commission staff would not agree to that but build that into the alternate modifications and send it off to start Coastal Commission’s process to consider. He stated that the goal is an understanding of modifications to this document that staff is recommending Council agree to because Coastal Commission staff agrees to it and will make the certification process at Coastal Commission easier. Council has the prerogative to make any changes desired and staff will build those into the submittal to Coastal Commission. He stated that the goal is to get through and be able to submit this, as we are at the tenth meeting of a three-meeting process.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated this community needs to have confidence in this process and expressed concerns about changes that come at the last minute that staff cannot evaluate for Council to be able to talk about it at meetings. She stated that what ensued in the meantime is that staff had time to talk about it and staff made those changes to this document and gave Council a clean copy with those changes included, aiming for approval. However, Council cannot do that because anytime we change language in this document, our community needs to be able to see exactly what we changed, what it was before, what it is now; before we vote on moving a document forward, we are going to need that. She knows it is a longer process but it is the confidence in the document that enables it to move forward in something we incorporate into the life of Pacifica. Otherwise, changes last minute, however insubstantial they may be, leaves the lingering question that does not inspire confidence. Council is close to telling staff that list of concerns. We went through it with the General Plan where we get close and wanted to see it one more time with no more changes that come from outside of our community. She stated that is the issue as these were promulgated by Coastal Commission staff as responses to our General Plan. We have been waiting to hear what the import of them was as City staff did not know the last time we met on this topic. She thinks we need to see clearly where it is in this document. If we can do that, it would be helpful and we can post a copy of it for the community and take it up at the next meeting to vote on it. She concluded that is her opinion.
Councilmember Boles referenced ESHA buffers and substantial structural modifications as needing discussion.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Council will continue.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes moved on to Policy ER-I-1. From previous discussions, Coastal Commission staff suggested modifications that added language regarding minimum 100-foot buffers and, in no case, 50 feet, i.e., “the 100-foot buffer may be reduced by a minimum,
2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 25 September 17, 2024
necessary to avoid a taking for private development provided that any unavoidable impacts are commensurable mitigated. The 100 foot buffer may also be reduced to provide a required incidental public services for public development such as burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers, maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines, and emergency repairs, provided that a buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible and in no less than 50 feet in any case provided that the creek resource impacts are avoided as much as possible”. She stated that there are also additional changes shown in the August 12 report: “unavoidable impacts commensurably mitigated, all conclusively demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the city and applicable resource agencies”. She stated, from previous discussions, staff had concerns with the specific phrase here (“no less than 50 feet in any case”) and tried to negotiate with Coastal Commission staff to remove that, and they will not remove that. However, between permit exemptions and allowances under our existing Implementation Plan and any future Implementation Plan that does allow for minor maintenance, regardless of any creek resources and some of the other policies in the document, we think that the City may be able to complete incidental public services, be able to repair them and maintain them, even if they are within 50 feet of creeks. While this specific policy does say no less than 50 feet, there are other policies and other allowances that will allow the City to have those public services and be able to maintain them.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked what assurance is there that we can get that into the IP.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated it is not that we would be able to get it into the IP, but that in our existing IP, we have existing permit exclusions for certain work regardless of if it is located within 50 feet of a creek resource.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we will be updating the IP and will not be using the existing IPs so how does that pertain to this language.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the exemptions and exclusions in our existing IP are almost identical to those in the Coastal Act so it is assumed that the City will continue to be Coastal Act compliant. She stated that we have permit exclusions and exemptions consistent with the Coastal Act that will allow us to continue to do work.
Councilmember Bigstyck liked that language in their current IP is almost verbatim Coastal Act and would be included for the new IP but he was uncomfortable with assumptions.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there are certain policies in our new LCP that may be more flexible than what is in our current IP. For example, our existing Article 43 that allows for exemptions and inclusions from Coastal Development Permit requirements comes directly from the Coastal Act and from Public Resource Code. She stated that we will continue to have those exclusions to an exemption to Coastal Development Permits because they are specifically outlined in the Coastal Act. There might be some additional allowances based on other policies in the document. She thinks the big picture here is that Coastal Commission staff, when we are thinking about incidental public services, are going to require us to keep a 50-foot buffer from creek resource and mitigate as much as possible. She thinks the City has other options, policies, and mechanisms in the Implementation Plan to assure that, if we do need to do work closer than 50 feet from creek resources for any stormwater maintenance, lines, emergency repair, etc., we can still do that.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked is the reason we would not reflect that IP language in the LCLUP language because it is too prescriptive.
2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 26 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed, adding that we make a reference to those code sections that specifically exempt Coastal Development Permits for certain work. We had that discussion which was based on work at the Sharp Park Golf Course and certain types of work they were concerned would be triggering many of these policies. It is in the LCP where we specifically outline those code sections in the Coastal Act that are similar to what we have in the IP that would allow for that maintenance small work to continue, even in the appeal jurisdiction, even if there are certain types of coastal resources.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated we have that higher level policy saying “no less than 50 feet” but then in the Implementation Plan, it is no less than 50 except as per the Coastal Act.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we were talking earlier about setbacks they call it buffers and asked if it can say buffers where there were setbacks before. If it said buffers, she thought it would make more sense.
Councilmember Boles thinks that is about placing new development.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated it was to comply with the setbacks, and setbacks for her are different from a house setback. If it said buffers, she thought it would make things clearer. She stated, if no one else agrees, it is fine.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, regarding what changed and where/how did it change, for ER-I-1 and ER-I-24 in regard to creek and ESHA buffer policies, she thought it was a loaded topic. She asked if staff can explain exactly what changed, as that was not highlighted.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that she could read the previous version and read the new version. She stated that the previous version of the policy is on packet page 502 of the August 12 report. She stated that we changed the sentence structure because we were proposing that the first part of the sentence that reads “the minimum buffer may be reduced by minimum necessary to avoid a taking” would be also applicable to the incidental public services, and we combined those two sentences. Previously it read “the 100-foot buffer may be reduced by a minimum necessary 1) to avoid a taking for private development or 2) to provide required incidental public services for public development provided that any unavoidable impacts are commensurately mitigated, that the buffer is close to 100 feet as possible, and provided that creek resources impact are avoided as much as possible and unavoidable impacts commensurately mitigated all as completely demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the city and applicable resource agencies”. She stated that the new language splits the private development from the incidental public services. For private development, the buffer may be reduced to a minimum necessary to avoid a taking, as long as impacts are mitigated buffers. For the incidental public services, the 100-foot buffer may also be reduced to provide required incidental public services for public development. Staff asked Coastal Commission staff to provide some examples, such as burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers, maintenance of existing intake or outfall lines, or emergency repairs, provided that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible and is no less than 50 feet in any case.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wants to see the difference between the versions.
Councilmember Boles thinks having a redline version that has what was there and what is now
2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 27 September 17, 2024
changed would be helpful as a final look.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated we need both/
Councilmember Boles asked as well as the clean version.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated yes, you have to see what the changes were and compare to how it is now, as how it is now is what you are approving and is the final document. She stated the Council should all agree on exactly what it is we are asking for as it sounds to her that we have each asked for different things.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she asked for a redline version for tonight. She has been going by the August 12 version because it did not do her any good to read the clean copy.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she needs them both side by side.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, given that Coastal Commission staff did not seem to fully get back to the City until today, it seems like we were off on their timing even if we did have them.
He would love to see a clean version and a redline version, especially of those things that have changed between the last meeting and this meeting, which specifically pertain to Coastal Commission comments that have now been addressed. He stated, when talking about the 50- foot buffer, that was a particular bone of contention with our public that, when it comes to private development, it can be less than 50 feet to preclude a taking and it applies to City property where the 50-foot buffer needs to be. He needs the public to be able to see that articulation and not just hear it. He would find it helpful to be able to look through a clean document aside from those redlines. He stated that, if there was a redline of just these changes, that would be great.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that Mayor Vaterlaus wants a full redline.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated just the new changes is all she wants.
Councilmember Boles wants to see all of the input that Council has given in a redline. She stated that we have not seen what staff has typed up from Council’s comments. She wants to go back and double check those comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck trying to conceptualize how we could have a redline that specifically is all of the changes we made but his desire in this instance is to see where the changes are specifically for this which maybe is not an entire redline document, but just those handful of pages that had these changes, because we have that specific letter.
City Attorney Kenyon sees the issue for Council and the issue for staff. She thinks Council should talk about what is the format and what exactly do you want to see. She stated that staff tried to reformat this based on comments that staff received since the last meeting from Council about how it is so difficult to read a redline and see the final versions. Unfortunately, staff did not receive Coastal Commission confirmation until this afternoon and the likelihood that staff were going to be able to create a redline prior to this meeting for the public to review was not going to happen. What she is concerned about now is what staff brings back to Council is what is desired. She hears different comments without a majority consensus, and staff are going to need a majority consensus on exactly what Council wants to bring back. Staff needs clear direction on exactly what format Council wants to see these changes in and what iterations of changes Council would like to see in redline and in clean copy. She imagines that, from staff’s
2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 28 September 17, 2024
perspective, the easiest way is there should be one redline with changes from a specific date and then a clean version of that document. She is not clear on what is the date that Council wants all those changes to be incorporated from or the original document for the redline.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he feels fairly comfortable with the material he has in front of him to this point, but what he is not comfortable with specifically is what is directly in front of him on the monitor. It is not an issue he is having with staff, but an issue he is having with Coastal Commission staff for their bad timing, both in terms of the August 6 document and then tonight’s meeting. Within that context, if there was a public handout of what Council was seeing on the monitor now, he would be comfortable. He acknowledged that the public and the rest of Council may not be satisfied by that, but he would like to see this in document form so he can go over it, preferably before he gets to the dais, and so the public can see it. He wanted something relatively small like this, not a full document of tracked changes.
Councilmember Boles stated she wanted more tracked changes than that.
City Attorney Kenyon reiterated staff needing direction from majority of Council.
Councilmember Boles stated that we have given direction on this whole thing and wanted redlines of alternative modifications that was not in there originally since Council started going over this table. She stated staff has taken Council’s input and updated these policies.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought December 5 was the meeting at the Community Center regarding the introduction of the SRA concept. He thought when Council first saw the matrix was November.
Councilmember Boles wanted to make sure that the direction Council has given on all these policies, if they are alternatives, is it what we agreed to.
Councilmember Bier agrees with that as far as the chart goes. She needs to see all the things we have talked about in chart form, including the directions given and the changes made.
Councilmember Boles added to see it in chart form and not look at the whole document.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks the whole point is that we want to be as confident as we can that we are all looking and all deciding on the same thing. There is the minimalist version, the complete version, and somewhere in between. She thinks Council needs to settle on what date because 2 or 3 of them have been looking at the June version, not August, because there was not any difference between them. Council was proceeding through the policy changes and making comments and made notes on their tables. She wanted to be able go between the table, a redline version, and the clean version. She said you have to read a clean version from front to back to have a sense if it makes sense and reflects what Council said and acts the final copy that we are putting forward to our community.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated, for tonight’s meeting, she went back to the chart and used the August 12 redline because she wants to see the changes. She stated that we have gone over this for so long that she just wants to see change, not what we already did. She stated that we are all talking different things.
Councilmember Boles stated just seeing all the changes is okay.
2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 29 September 17, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated Councilmember Bigstyck said to put all the changes in one document.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, specifically where the August 6 letter is concerned, he would like to have had a handout.
Councilmember Bier suggested a break.
Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break and then reconvened the meeting.
Councilmember Bier asked how we are going to take public comment.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what discussion topics were still outstanding.
Councilmember Boles referenced substantial structural modifications.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Council came to a conclusion about format.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we are going to make that final decision before we leave this meeting and agree to it.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she was not here for the August 12 meeting and Council discussed indepth the tsunami inundation zones and tsunami hazard zones. She stated that questions she got from the public related to the tsunami zones and asked how did other cities not have to deal with tsunami zones, such as Half Moon Bay.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, for tonight’s presentation, she was anticipating to discuss this specific topic when we were discussing the policy related to risk disclosure. She continued with the modifications from the letter. She moved to Policy ER-I-24, the management of ESHA. One of the figure changes for this policy is that Coastal Commission staff requested that we add wetlands and City staff did not have any concern with this as ESHAs includes wetlands already so this is a clarification that this policy applies to wetlands. One of the other changes to this policy was the General Plan consistency changes had removed the second bullet point that “no new development shall be allowed within wetlands except as described in Policy ER-I-5” and that has been inserted. As discussed with Policy ER-I-1, the second sentence in the third bullet point pertaining to the buffer has been modified. Previously, it read “the 100-foot buffer may be reduced by a minimum necessary 1) to avoid a taking for private development or 2) to provide required incidental public services for public development provided by any unavoidable impacts are commensurately mitigated that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible and provided that ESHA resource impacts are avoided as much as possible and unavoidable impacts commensurately mitigated all as conclusively demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the city and applicable resource agencies”. She stated that the new language, very similar to the discussion for ER-I-1, specifically related to the “no less than 50-foot buffer”. The new language reads “100-foot buffer may be reduced by minimum necessary to avoid a taking for private development provided that any unavoidable impacts are commensurately mitigated. The 100-foot buffer may also be reduced to provide required incidental public services for public development, such as burying cables, pipes or inspection of pipes, maintenance of existing intake and outfall and emergency repairs, provided that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible, is no less than 50 feet in any case and provided that ESHA or wetland resource impacts are avoided as much as possible and unavoidable impacts mitigated all as conclusively demonstrated by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the city and applicable resource agencies”.
2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 30 September 17, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if there was still some kind of judgment or modification that staff can make in recommendation or in applying the taking concept. She stated that it clearly states no less than 50 feet in any case.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that no less than 50 feet in any case is only applicable to buffers needed for incidental public services. For private development, the buffer may be reduced by the minimum necessary to avoid a taking.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded it does not apply to residences and asked what does it apply to in terms of City land.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated it would apply to public infrastructure in ESHA and wetlands, i.e. any storm water maintenance, facility infrastructure that City has in these areas, and emergency repairs including emergency.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, in case of an emergency, if this prohibits the City from working on what is already there.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it does allow for some emergency repairs. She stated we have some allowances for emergency Coastal Development Permits and there is emergency work but also the later permitting that may be required. She stated that the next changes are to the substantial structural modification definition. Staff went back and forth with Coastal Commission staff regarding this definition. There was a bit of confusion as to how this language was applicable so staff had that clarification with Coastal Commission staff and made some modifications that are not shown in the letter. Generally, staff thinks that the new definition gives more flexibility because it does consider each individual structural component separately. Per the letter, a project that alters 20% roof framing, 20% floor framing, and 20% foundation would not be considered a 60% alteration; each of the components would be considered 20%. That example would not trigger the substantial structural modification policy as they would not be a 50% alteration of any of those individual structural components. She stated that it is slightly different than how City staff had previously been interpreting the definition, but it is more flexible to the way that it is calculated. She stated that there was also some clarification to the exclusion. The Council had directed staff to add a list of exclusions and they did remove plywood roof sheeting from the exclusion list and there was some clarification to that list to ensure that it was clear that those were nonstructural components.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked why the plywood roof sheathing.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is a structural part of the shear to protect from earthquakes, not just an underlayment for the roofing.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it could be your plywood as that is an underlayment of a roof. She thinks it covers a lot more things, as you could also use it under your siding.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that additionally, there were some modifications to the last sentence which previously read “incremental structural changes that cumulatively amount to replacement of 50% or more over time shall be considered an SSM”. The new sentence means incremental changes to floor area and individual major structural component that amounts to alteration, removal, or replacement of 50% or more over time shall be considered an SSM.
Previously staff had interpreted it to say 50% change of your entire structure, but the SSM
2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 31 September 17, 2024
clarifies 50% of each individual structural components. She stated that the property owner can come in and change 49% of their roof framing and 49% of their floor framing and that will still not trigger the SSM policy.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we removed the word “cumulatively” to clarify that it is not a cumulation but individual structural components.
Councilmember Boles mentioned dry rot.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated Coastal Commission staff added the term “nonstructural” to some of the inclusions to clarify that it is nonstructural work. She believes that was added to other nonstructural roofing materials, nonstructural remedial actions to address termite infestation and dry rot, and other nonstructural modifications required to comply with state and federal law and regulations such as improvements of seismic retrofit upgrade.
Councilmember Boles thought it was a good thing but we do not want to let people let their buildings rot to the point where the structure is rotting and have a free pass at replacing it. This says, if you start to see dry rot in your siding, that does not count, so fix it then and get rid of the termites and lower your soil if you do not need to before it starts affecting the structure. If you let it go too long, it will count.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated the next policy that was discussed in the Coastal Commission staff letter is the coastal hazards risk disclosure policy. There were several questions on this policy from the last meeting. She stated there are approximately 620 parcels in the currently mapped coastal vulnerability zones and, in the last three years, the City has accepted 32 applications and has approved 23 Coastal Development Permits. This is data that staff researched in order to give Council more perspective of how many projects and parcels would be required to comply with risk disclosure policy.
Councilmember Boles was confirming that we are not counting tsunami inundation or evacuation zones in the coastal vulnerability zone.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes answered affirmatively. She stated there were some minor revisions done to this policy. One of things that we removed was the language that referred to deed restriction to make the terminology consistent with the title of the policy for risk disclosure.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is a disclosure with no restrictions if you have to put those in your property.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes answered affirmatively. At the August 12 meeting, there was discussion among Council about a list of coastal hazard conditions and certain defined triggers that would require that the development be removed and there were several questions as to who would make that determination, what did some of those triggers actually mean and she was going to turn it over to Asst. City Attorney Bazzano to explain the public trust language that they had there.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated there were questions last time about the Public Trust Doctrine and why it was included here and this is the universe of triggers that could require a coastal hazard risk disclosure.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes read the change: “If land comes to be impressed with a public
2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 32 September 17, 2024
trust interest under the common law Public Trust Doctrine which is confirmed by the State Lands Commission or by a court of law”.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there is a common law public trust doctrine. That is a legal term of art, a legal theory. The Coastal Commission staff initially just wanted public trust in there, and in conversations with them, she said that was too broad and who is going to determine that. Staff collaborated and they both agreed on the limiting language of the Public Trust Doctrine, a legal term, is confirmed by the State Lands Commission as it is the State Lands Commission that has jurisdiction over public trust land and makes that determination.
The City wanted to make sure there was some vehicle or agency and for the public to understand what agency is going to make that determination.
Councilmember Boles asked if she would explain for the public what “when a property is impressed with the Public Trust” means in plain language.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it has a variety of meanings, such as any land that the State of California deems has public trust value, meaning that it is a public commodity. It is so important to the public that the agencies and the courts have jurisdiction to determine whether or not a particular entity or agency is violating the public trust. She stated that you could violate the public trust by allowing untreated water into streams. It usually comes up with dams, etc., or cities taking water from creeks, waterways, streams, rivers, etc. and that is where she is used to seeing it most used. There is also a Public Trust Doctrine with regard to state land. The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over the waters in coastal areas along with BCDC.
Councilmember Boles added the beaches.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she is correct. They make a determination as to whether or not a certain activity or undertaking is violating that public trust. There is no simple definition for a public trust; it can mean whatever they interpret it to mean except that it has to relate to an issue that is of such importance, based on common law doctrine, case law, and jurisdiction prudence.
It is a legal theory that we as a city cannot make that determination and ultimately has to be made by an agency with authority to make that determination, either a court of law or the State Lands Commission, or BCDC.
Councilmember Boles stated that, in this case, with the beaches and ocean, sea level rise is moving in and what was your property may become public property over time.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed and stated that determination will not be made by the City or any individual but made by, in this case, the State Lands Commission.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there have been questions regarding the tsunami inundation zone and different policies in different LCPs. That was a question that staff did ask Coastal Commission staff specifically regarding Half Moon Bay’s policies. Half Moon Bay’s LCP contains two policies that relate to hazard risk disclosure, Policy 7-4 and Policy 7-18. She stated that Policy 7-4 was shown in August that speaks directly to tsunami inundation zones and the requirement for a risk disclosure in that area. Policy 7-18, on the other hand, is contained in the shoreline hazard section of the LCLUP and specifically requires an assumption of risk and disclosure for new development that may be subject to shoreline hazards with a fire grade of details. She stated that, additionally, it is language that predates the Coastal Commission’s public trust guiding principles and it is also language that predates some of the conversations that California Coastal Commission has had with the State Lands Commission as well. She
2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 33 September 17, 2024
stated that Staff were also told by Coastal Commission staff that Half Moon Bay has a very different set of coastal hazards and vulnerabilities and that is one of the reasons why their policy is different than the policies that they recommended for us. They also provided examples of more recent LCLUP policies that were certified in 2023 for two other jurisdictions that are much closer to the policy that we are seeing today for Pacifica because it does include that more comprehensive look of risk disclosure for coastal hazards.
Councilmember Boles asked if Mayor Vaterlaus has seen the new tsunami map that was prepared for the last meeting.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she did see it.
Councilmember Boles stated that is the difference between the inundation and the evacuation areas where the evacuation area was much bigger. Council approved a contract with our consultant to update these maps but do not have the official ones yet.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she read a comment about the maps.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if this is the conversation we had before in regard to the list of coastal hazards, like cliff erosion, flooding, sea rise, and tsunami. She thinks the challenge about tsunami is that science was mostly nonexistent, and that was the concern raised about including tsunami as one of our coastal hazards considering the history of impacting this area is nonexistent. She asked is this something included in a disclosure, is this listed as one of our coastal hazards, and what is the impact of having a tsunami included in our coastal hazards.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that tsunami is in the definition of coastal hazards in the glossary of the document. At the last meeting, Council directed staff to add exclusion language to the coastal vulnerability zone definition to specifically exclude tsunami inundation and tsunami evacuation zone, and the language was added to that definition. The policies of Chapter 6 clearly the policies related to technical reporting and siting designs are only applicable to coastal vulnerability zones which do not include tsunami inundation zones and tsunami evacuation zones. She stated that the coastal risk disclosure policy is applicable to Coastal Development Permit approvals in the coastal vulnerability zone or the tsunami inundation zone. In Chapter 6, the risk disclosure policy is the only policy that would be applicable to tsunami inundation zones.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she can tell her where the policy is in the document in the June staff report.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she does not have the June agenda packet in front of her, but for today’s agenda packet, it is on page 204.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we were looking at CR-I-21.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles referred to a letter from Mr. Richard Harris and the way we are concerned about the tsunami word being in the definition of coastal hazards before. There are two other policies, NH-G-2, that talks about development in hazardous areas, which says “site and design development in 100-year flood plains and tsunami hazard zones to minimize hazard risks without the need for armoring”. She asked if that conflicts with what she is saying about
2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 34 September 17, 2024
tsunamis not being hazard zones.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that tsunami is still in the definition of coastal hazards and we cannot remove that otherwise we will be inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
Councilmember Boles stated that she said there were no siting and design or technical reports required, and this is siting and design in this policy.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that Chapter 6 policies are not applicable to the tsunami inundation zone and the Chapter 5 policies that are for coastal natural hazard zones. There are some policies that refer to tsunami evacuation zones but they do not refer to any tsunami inundation zones. Staff discussed that with Coastal Commission staff and this is an area we would nail down into the Implementation Plan to determine what would be needed, per policies in Chapter 5 versus the policies in Chapter 6, but all indications show that the conclusions of that discussion is that the onerous Chapter 6 policies are not applicable to the tsunami inundation zones. Coastal Commission staff confirmed dthat today.
Councilmember Boles stated that the NH-G-2 does not say tsunami inundation zone; it just says tsunami hazard zones.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that some of the policies in Chapter 5 may still be applicable to other areas and that can be said for any of those other areas. Chapter 5 talks about storm water, flooding, and natural hazards.
Councilmember Boles read NH-I-30, which is tsunami evacuation zones which includes the tsunami inundation zone but more: “For new development in the tsunami evacuation zone required the use of low impact engineering techniques, such as elevating structures about projected water levels to mitigate impacts to people in structures.” She stated that it seems like it is siting and design issues.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated, when you compare the coastal vulnerability zone, especially the storm water flooding layer versus the tsunami inundation layer, those are almost identical. She stated that it makes sense because, when you have a tsunami, the land forms where water can come on land and is similar to storm water flooding as well. She stated that there is language in Chapter 5 that pertains specifically to evacuation zones and language in Chapter 6 that pertains specifically to tsunami inundation zones. However, the discussion for Chapter 6 may need to be separated slightly from the discussion of Chapter 5 as we are looking at different map areas versus the general coastal hazards.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked for the page number on the Chapter 5 policy.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that NH-G-2 is on packet page 170 and policy NH-I-30 is on packet page 171.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if these policies are delineated from the SSRA areas or not.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the Chapter 5 policies are specifically related to flooding and flooding areas and are different than the Chapter 6 policies which are specifically for development and what development can occur in different areas.
Councilmember Boles referred to Fairway West. That whole neighborhood is in a tsunami
2.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 35 September 17, 2024
evacuation zone, only a little bit in a tsunami inundation zone; anything new built there will have to be lifted up over. She asked if that means a substantial structural modification in those areas would require that too.
Councilmember Bigstyck added substantial structural modification in conjunction with tsunami evacuation. The question is Fairway West, which is largely is in tsunami evacuation, and if there is an SSM, would they have to accommodate tsunami evacuation from that point in terms of their development.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated she would need some additional time to analyze that but she can provide a response before the end of the meeting.
Councilmember Bigstyck appreciated that. He hoped we had addressed such things with the introduction of the tsunami inundation zone and, if this is indicating that such is not the case, perhaps we should investigate where tsunami evacuation is still used and advocate for switching out inundation in such places.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and Councilmembers Bier and Boles agreed.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that was the last item for the Coastal Commission staff letter.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to packet page 204 and coastal hazard risk disclosure. She stated that there was reference in the letter to the Local Government Working Groups, highlighting the importance of disclosure policies. She stated that, while true in certain instances, she thinks the concern is that this is going further because it listed all the items. She wanted to make sure that we were not being too restrictive with disclosure requirements or including too many things that have to be disclosed. That was her original question. She thinks staff answered it in terms of the concern about tsunami inundation zone versus evacuation zone. She thought in the risk disclosure with the bullet points on page 204 were the disclosures that Asst. City Attorney Bazzano was saying would be required.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, adding that the idea is that it provides the public clear transparent information that would be included in the risk disclosure, rather than just saying they will have to fill out a risk disclosure and waiting until the Implementation Plan or we put the risk disclosure in front of them. She stated this specifies fairly close to what is going to be in the final risk disclosure document.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the concern was that, if the language was left vague and then the risk disclosure was developed afterwards, property owners would be alarmed at seeing what would be required by the Coastal Commission through their approval process. Their thought is, in order to be transparent, to put it in our LCLUP so that people who are thinking of coming in for a CDP will know what it means in order to receive that permit. They are just disclosures, not restrictions. According to the Coastal Commission, these are their standard disclosure requirements that they would require in their review of the CDP.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding that we move off of disclosure and into another realm we have “unconditionally waive any claim of damage”. That is a far-reaching statement where transparency will show people up front rather than having an unfortunate discovery later, but it is also unpleasant for people to contemplate waiving all rights when they do not even have a project. She stated that the implication is that their property is condemned in some way. She
2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 36 September 17, 2024
is trying to get at how do we make it clear in our document exactly who this applies to and exactly when it will be implemented. It is easy to assume when you read it that, anywhere in the coastal zone, if you want to put a roof on your house, you have to waive your rights and assume all risks. She thought it was intimidating and abstract language when you are not doing it yet.
City Attorney Kenyon understands and believes she is correct that it does appear to be an overreach considering they have not submitted an application for a permit. She added that they would not need to apply this disclosure on their property unless they had received a permit as that is a condition of their permit approval. As a matter of law, any discretionary permit that the City issues, we have immunity; we are immune from liability for our permitting of development.
She stated that it could appear daunting, but the reality of it is that, as a matter of law, this is true, whenever a discretionary permit is issued.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she was saying that is true now, absent this document being adopted by Council.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, absent this document, it is true now.
Councilmember Boles stated that was a discretionary permit. Getting a permit for a roof would not normally require that now.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if it requires Coastal Commission review or City review, and it is ministerial, she is correct. She stated this would put an additional layer of exposure from their perspective. However, in reality, she thinks their ability to assert a claim against the City for permitting their development, what possible claim would exist. She stated that, usually, there is a claim if we deny it or there is a claim if we are not doing what they are asking us to do, but if we are giving them their permit, and they incur damage because of that permit, it is hard for her to imagine what that claim would be.
Mayor Vaterlaus offered that she is building onto her house and a City truck backs up into her house, but if she is in the middle of developing it, then it says that she cannot do anything about injury or damage in connection with the permitted development.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it is interesting that she interprets it that way, and she is correct that it can be interpreted that way, and she had assumed it was only in connection with the permit.
Now that she reads that, with the permitted development, what the Mayor is saying is that, if a City tree damages their permitted development a few years later, have they waived their claim against the City. She does not think they have, as that is a separate action that has its own damages. She does not think this disclosure would apply to that, but she thinks we can clarify that language to make sure that is not how it is interpreted.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she continues to have concerns about this part, as it is going to be a difficult aspect of the LCLUP. She stated it is a concern because, while she sees the benefit in some ways of being up front with people, she thinks we are almost discouraging people to maintain their property. She stated we want people to repair their properties, but this policy feels like an extensive overreach when you are at the front end of the process and are not in the process yet. She recognizes where Coastal Commission staff is coming from on this, as these are the risks that these are the exact policies that they require when projects are brought to them on appeal. She thinks it is efficient, from Coastal Commission’s standpoint, for it to be in our LCLUP, but she is not sure if it’s fair to Pacificans. We tried to address it by our definition of coastal vulnerability zones or tsunami inundation zones. When we talked about our mapping
2.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 37 September 17, 2024
we are going to undertake, our coastal vulnerability zone region is not defined; depending on the hazards and impact of sea rise or impact of the new science, she asked if our coastal vulnerability zone is likely to change or is that fixed.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated it will change.
Councilmember Boles stated that these policies apply whether you are in the coastal zone or vulnerability or not. Being in the coastal zone, you need these disclosures, and that is her understanding.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is not what it says.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it is for the inundation zones and coastal vulnerability zones.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, to the Mayor’s point about the lack of clarity about bullet 3 in terms of unconditionally wave any claim or liability against the City, if you look at the bullets previous to it, the clear intent of all of them is they are releasing the City and accepting the risk associated with any damage from coastal hazards. She stated that we can clarify that third bullet point and say “in connection with coastal hazards associated with the development,” as that is what the intent is. It is just a method to be transparent so they and future buyers of that property know that there are potentially coastal hazards. She assumes it is limited to coastal hazards, which they can clarify in bullet 3, but it limits the ability of these disclosures because they are only disclosing coastal hazards related to the permitted development. Thus, they cannot come back against the City if erosion that causes their property erode into the ocean or a tsunami that came and destroyed their home. They would not be able to use that coastal hazard as a basis for a claim against the City, but she did not think they would be able to do that in any event.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated at least one property she knows in Pacifica has all of these deed restrictions because their project was appealed to the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Commission put all of these deed restrictions on their property in order to allow them to build it.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer acknowledged that there is that one, 620 parcels, 32 projects, and 23 CDPs. She asked if that is the universe that they are talking about in terms of this policy.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated, for the 620 parcels, yes, under the current mapping.
The City has entered into a contract to update the mapping so that may change that number.
Over the last three years, the number of applications that have been submitted to the City versus the number that has been approved is to show metric over the last three years of potential Coastal Development Permits that may have been. If this policy had been in the books, these are the properties they would have been applicable to.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated approximately eight approved per year.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes added that the numbers over the last three years is over the entire coastal zone, not just the coastal vulnerability, so the number of CDPs approved in the coastal vulnerability zone is less.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was what she was asking as she thought it was for the coastal vulnerability zone.
2.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 38 September 17, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated we might see more approvals if we update our LCP.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated possibly not if people do not want to waive their rights.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Mandy Sackett, Pacifica, stated she is SurfRider Foundation’s California Policy Coordinator and works on sea level rise planning statewide. She shared her disagreement with the special shoreline resiliency area concept and expressed concerns about neighborhood-scale approaches leading to unchecked armoring across the coast.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, appreciated all the hard work on this process and urged Council to remove the SSRAs from the LCLUP and shared her thoughts on the issue.
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, shared his concerns about the Coastal Commission staff’s changes to the LCLUP. He emphasized problems about the exclusion of plywood roof sheathing from SSMs and the tsunami policies.
Edward Ochi, Pacifica, thanked staff and Council on all the time spent on this and expressed frustrations on the different versions and the comments received by Coastal Commission staff on the day of City Council meetings. He urged for a single and comprehensive document for everyone to review.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, shared Pedro Point Community Association and residents’ feedback about not changing an environmental hazard zone into a residential area that would turn into a natural disaster, which would lead to possible litigation.
Marianne, Pacifica, shared her concerns on this item and shared suggestions on a possible compromise, especially regarding armoring in Rockaway and Sharp Park areas.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, asked what would happen if SSRAs were rejected and how City staff would accept the compromises by Coastal Commission at that stage.
Cherie Chan, Pacifica, appreciated everything staff and Council has done and shared her concerns on the change of the Pedro Point wetlands zoning as well as the removal of coastal access points to beaches and trails in the LCLUP.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, shared her concern on misinformation and fear mongering, urged for a long-term plan, and asked why SSRAs were still under consideration.
Stanley Lamport, Pacifica, stated he is a land use lawyer and represents interests in Pacifica, but he is not authorized to speak on their behalf. He shared concerns about CR-I-21 about hazard risk disclosures wherein they waive rights for existing structures to protect that property.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if it was specifically SSMs that trigger CR-I-21.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated any project requiring CDP approval.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked how minimal might such a project be.
2.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 39 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, generally, replacement is done through building permit. Reroofs do not require a Coastal Development Permit and re-roofs in the coastal zone are reviewed and approved via building permit, the same thing as replacing a window. She said adding an ADU would trigger a Coastal Development Permit.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that would require a CDP and deed waiver.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the expectation would be that the development is built to not need future shoreline protection per the other policies.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated this was specifically in the coastal hazard zone and tsunami inundation zone.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it would be good to get some Council direction to staff about this policy. Staff knows that this is one Coastal Commission staff thinks needs to be in the LCLUP. If Council has substantial changes to this, the way the process would roll out is that, if Council adopts alternate modifications, submit them to Coastal Commission staff, then Coastal Commission staff is unlikely to recommend to Coastal Commission to certify as submitted, and Coastal Commission will discuss and most likely include this policy in their comments, and it would come back to Council for consideration of whether to accept that or not or withdraw the LCLUP submittal.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked about how many parcels are in the tsunami inundation zone that are not also in the coastal vulnerability zone.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it is difficult information to obtain because we do not have a map with both of those together. She did a visual check and it was less than ten.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, to the City Manager’s point, this is an important point for the Coastal Commission in terms of assuring that the LCLUP is consistent with the Coastal Act.
The reason is that this provision is waiving the right to future shoreline protection because this shoreline protection should only be allowed for the duration of the permitted development. They are not entitled to future shoreline protection following the permitted development life of their existing project, should that shoreline protection not exist, not that it will not exist. They do not have any rights against the city or Coastal Commission to force us to provide that shoreline protection. She is not sure that they would have a claim against the City for not proactively providing future shoreline protection. She stated that was the purpose for including that particular waiver.
Mayor Vaterlaus agrees that, if you are in a tsunami zone and the map says 475 years was the time period for the tsunami zone, and there have not been any, and she wants to build an ADU in her backyard, and she has to waive all these rights by trying to help other people, it does not sit right with her.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if you are building in a coastal vulnerability zone, presumably that means that you are building in a place where there are serious issues. As far as the inundation zone part goes, for the purpose of the broader conversation and coming back to that specific point, we are talking about less than ten houses, and the vast majority is coastal
2.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 40 September 17, 2024
vulnerability zone and it rides together. He stated, if you are in a coastal vulnerability zone, he thinks all those definitions around pre-coastal development that is currently entitled to those protective structures versus how small is the change you are making that would inform you waiving the right to protect your property. By putting an ADU in a known flood zone, he would invite someone for low-cost housing where they might be flooded out and he is adding on in a substantial way in such a fashion that it might trigger doing substantial development and what right does he have to a sea wall. He wants to know how small a change are we talking about that triggers a Coastal Development Permit that a house that currently has a right to protection because it is pre-Coastal Act, i.e. does installing a new kitchen mean it is no longer pre-Coastal Act development. He was following the substantial structural modification conversation to the point of 51%. If we are taking away that piece out of this conversation, and now we must waive what we currently have the right to a protection, that is where he is struggling.
Councilmember Boles stated she has a potential example. In the Pacific View Villas, that complex is about eight condos north of OceanAire that is in a coastal vulnerability zone, their cliff is eroding quite a lot now. They are applying for a Coastal Development Permit to work on some drainage and hoping to add a few more rocks which they have a right to under preCoastal Act development.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we get comments about Half Moon Bay’s. He had a good conversation with one of their councilmembers, and she reminded him of the Casa Mira litigation that is ongoing. She obviated that this conversation is within the landscape of that ongoing litigation which might change definitions once the appeals process is over. He stated that it is not about agreeing or disagreeing but about which way they might lean in their judgment.
Councilmember Boles stated that lawsuit is about defining development after 1977 and we are assuming that policy is that we can still have shoreline protection for things that were built before 1977.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the question is at what point do we say to homeowner in the coastal vulnerability zone that we will not allow them to persist if that is what they need to persist because they are too big a liability in conjunction with what nature is telling us.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested a narrower limit on this particular policy. She thinks the question asked of Dep. Director Cervantes was how many properties are in the coastal vulnerability zone and tsunami inundation zone, and the policy says “or”. She stated that means something different. She stated properties she can think of in town that are much more vulnerable than others to the naked eye today that fit, but she worries about this being too broad and applying to many properties that are not in the near term and possibly for the life of the project they are trying to do is going to be subjected to these concerns. When we say “subject to coastal hazards including, but not limited to episodic and long-term shoreline retreat and coastal erosion,” she stated that we know there is erosion constantly and that seems reasonable in terms of strict policies like this. However, for impacts that are going to hit and projected to be increasing in 50-75 years from now, this policy does not mention a timeline; it just says “episodic and long-term for the high seas, ocean waves, storms, tsunami for 75 years”.
She is concerned that this is casting a wider requirement and a wider number of properties than may be realistic. She stated that until the applications are put in, it is hard to know where the properties are. She wonders if there is any way to limit it or define in a different way because it is more about likelihood. If it just said tsunami on here, she would say no, but ocean waves, storms and coastal flooding happen all the time. She asked if someone should waive their
2.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 41 September 17, 2024
rights because of coastal flooding.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she is trying to understand the distinction that she is trying to make.
She understands Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer is trying to limit the applicability of these risk disclosures and mentioning the tsunami issue and Councilmember Bigstyck mentioned that it seemed likely that, for shoreline protection in a coastal vulnerability zone, that sixth bullet point makes sense. She asked if she is trying to limit the applicability to coastal vulnerability zones and not tsunami inundation zones. She stated, if that is the will of the Council, staff can take that back to the Coastal Commission staff and see what they say, but other than that, she does not see a practical way for any more distinction to be made because that would require a factbased determination. She asked who is going to make that fact-based determination and what are they going to make that fact-based determination on. She stated that is not the purpose of a risk disclosure as it is trying to talk about potential risks. She stated that could be one suggestion, but to make it more refined than that would be difficult to craft.
Councilmember Boles referred to the shoreline protection structures, these properties now have a right if they are pre-Coastal Act, and she asked if it is the Coastal Commission’s intention to take away that right if they do a small project that needs a CDP.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer did not think they can take away that right but you can waive it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, if it is a pre-Coastal Act, that does not apply to them.
Councilmember Boles stated that the public commenter was arguing that they are waiving any right that might exist for shoreline protection type structures for the duration of the permit development as present on the property.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, if you are pre-Coastal Act and you are getting a CDP for shoreline armoring, there are going to be requirements and disclosures built into that CDP that the Coastal Commission will require.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated he was correct.
Councilmember Boles asked, if you are getting a CDP for some drainage work so the erosion is not so bad and later you want to put in some rocks, can you do that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that you would be subject to this disclosure in this case.
Councilmember Boles asked if the disclosure prevents you from adding shoreline protection or modifying shoreline protection that you have.
City Manager Woodhouse thought so.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes thinks we would need to ask that question of Coastal Commission staff. She stated that her first impression is no, as the way the bullet point is written is for the duration of the permitted development. Thus, you are permitting the development with a CDP. In the example of the storm water drainage, they may not be able to come back and request protection of the storm drainage that was permitted for the CDP, but their actual structure will still be pre-coastal. She stated that this is a question they could clarify with California Commission staff.
2.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 42 September 17, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, in the scenario that you have a house in the coastal vulnerability zone and you put in a new kitchen, does your kitchen waive the right to shoreline protection but the house itself does not.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it depends on how extensive your kitchen is. If it is more than 51%, then it is new development and you do not have a right.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if you put in a new kitchen, it is less than 50%, but you get the CDP for it, does the kitchen not have the protection whereas the house does.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes understands the question. She explained that the way that these policies would interact, such as in his example, if you are adding a kitchen, it’s more than 51%, it is triggering the SSM definition and you would be required the Coastal Development Permit and to address all other non-conformity for the LCP on the site; that would mean that you would need to ensure that your entire development on your entire site does not rely on shoreline protection. If you put in a kitchen under 50% and you are not an SSM, that addition still needs, outside of the SSRAs, that new kitchen needs to be designed and sited to address the coastal hazards. The rest of the development does not. If we are going down the same path, that is the permitted development, and that portion of your structure would not qualify for shoreline protection structures but it should have been built to not meet them.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded if you put your kitchen on stilts, it does not need a sea wall, but the rest of your house that does still gets it. There is a point he is making by illustrating it this way.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she was not sure that is the best or correct interpretation because we do need to discuss this with the Coastal Commission. She thinks that, if nothing else, there is an ambiguity with regard to the application that we need clarity on. She would say that, if you are permitting a drainage, something small and not an SSM, that would probably not prevent you from doing shoreline protection if you are a pre-Coastal Act development. She stated, in his example, if you are remodeling your kitchen or doing something that you need the CDP for that is less than an SSM, and you have construction that could implicate shoreline protection, which she thinks a kitchen remodel would, she does not think it would apply there. She thinks, to his point, yes, they would be prohibited from future shoreline protection for that permitted development which is a kitchen but part of a house structure, and the drainage is not part of the house structure. That is an independent sort of structure, not necessarily integrally tied to the house itself. She thinks we need clarity on that from the Coastal Commission staff for a definitive answer.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks he is struggling with the notion of transparency. He is not comfortable with the discrepancies outlined in his example, but is comfortable with the real conversation of whether or not if it is a coastal vulnerability zone you should have to waive your rights and do these disclosures.
Councilmember Bier asked if he suggests removing that bullet point and seeing what the Coastal Commission says.
Councilmember Bigstyck wants to hear from Coastal what the reality is and get clarity.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked what the process for applying for a CDP. She asked if it has to go to Planning Commission and how much extra do you need versus a regular permit.
2.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 43 September 17, 2024
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that typically the materials that are required for a CDP are more detailed than what would be required for a building permit. A building permit is you meet building code, fire code, a set of objective standards, your proposal does not trigger any entitlements, and staff can review and approve it through the building permit. For Coastal Development Permit applications, the required materials depend on the scope of what you are proposing. Staff has a planning application checklist and usually what happens is people come to staff, say they want to do certain work on their site, and Planning staff will look at their zoning and their proposed work and say, based on those two things on your site, these are the project materials needed, and we check them off; if somebody is doing actual development, they will require plans or certain reports, and if someone needs a conditional use permit because of the type of business that they are, that is a different type of requirement. Once they get all materials, it depends on what the project is, but it usually gets routed to all the main divisions in the City and might get routed to some other agencies also for review of that application. Once staff has determined that you have a complete application meeting Municipal Code, the General Plan, and LCP policies, we take that to the Planning Commission and have a public hearing.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it is going to cost that person a huge amount of money to go through with the Coastal Development Permit as it is and it may end up that people just do not come and get permits and do the work and pretend like no one ever saw it.
City Clerk Coffey reminded the mayor that it is 10:54 pm.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to midnight. The motion was not seconded.
Mayor Vaterlaus moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bier stated that there were some things she would like clarification on from some of the public comments. One was Ms. Sackett from SurfRider who used the term unchecked armoring. She asked if there was anything we can do to check the armoring.
Councilmember Bigstyck believes that generally Coastal Commission’s impetus is to discourage armoring for the sake of the beaches being existent and, in response, he asked why Coastal Commission staff would go along with the premise of an SSRA to begin and think that it is Coastal Act compliant.
Councilmember Bier thought that was a very good question. When she was listening to the meeting the other day and talking about the neighborhood approach and she heard some of the Coastal Commissioners’ responses to that, she was not sure if they were too clear about the neighborhood approach either and is an SSRA a neighborhood approach. She stated it looks like they would rather see a regional approach, but it made her think of what the Coastal Commission will say if we turn in a document that has SSRAs.
2.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 44 September 17, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon referred to the initial question about unchecked armoring, and she thinks the Coastal Commission staff would say no because of the other obligations that they are putting in that Council and the public have issues with, like risk disclosure, like the bullet point 6 that says that they are only entitled to shoreline protection for the life of the permitted development. In their discussions with Coastal Commission attorneys, she thinks they are going to be saying that they need this in order to make this neighborhood approach consistent with the Coastal Act because it cannot be unchecked armoring under the Coastal Act. This is the way to create limited exceptions to allow armoring only in certain specified circumstances that are clearly laid out in the LCLUP. In addition, this risk disclosure is also making clear that you may be entitled to protection currently for the life of your development but you are not entitled to protection for armoring in perpetuity. That is the best explanation she can give them as to why she does not think the Coastal Commission would view this as unchecked armoring.
Councilmember Boles stated that having policies that have an end date, being able to see how the conditions are changing, at some point, is not going to be realistic. She referenced from the Coastal Commission meeting that the Coastal Commission is allowing seawalls. Arcata was to protect the sewage treatment plant and Santa Cruz was to protect a road, but both of those cities have done longer term planning that is showing that they are taking those out so the seawall is something interim while they are waiting for a long term plan which is more of what the Coastal Commission wanted. That is what she does not see here and why she is not sure the Coastal Commission is going to go for it.
Councilmember Bier asked if Councilmember Boles did not think the adaptation plan was that.
Councilmember Boles stated that is something we have to do anyway and that is where she thinks the mitigations we will need to do for this are going to be substantial. She would rather do the adaptation plan first and take it from there.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought she read the 2019 transmittal.
Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he feels like the journey from 2018 until now has come a long way toward at least discussing some of the approaches that bring us to a point where the protections we are specifically requesting for the foreseeable future are within the context of the rest of those kinds of protections being checked. He hears what she is saying but feels like balance in this community can be difficult to strike despite hearing feedback that sounds very 50/50.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned the idea of submitting this LCLUP without SSRAs in it.
The 2019 submittal would have effectively been that version because there were no such things as SSRAs. She feels that the policies are all crafted with SSRAs in mind and in existence in the plan as these offsetting checks. She stated, if we took SSRAs out, it seems that the whole thing will have to be rethought, which is overly daunting. She stated that, with the idea of adaptation plan first, LCLUP second, she wonders how the implementation phase works with regard to those kinds of plans. She stated that here is our broad policy plan and Implementation Plan can be involved in that specific adaptation plan that we will be rolling into the Coastal Access Resilience Program. She asked if that is a separate thing or part of our IP.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes asked if Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer is referring to the shoreline adaptation program or the coastal access plan that is tied to the SSRAs.
2.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 45 September 17, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it was the coastal access.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes referred to Coastal Access Resilience Plan and because it is directly tied to the SSRAs, she did not think it would make sense for the City to do that effort.
She stated that the document has to go to California Coastal Commission and has to be certified so that would be part of the IP once we get to that stage.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how the other shoreline plan fits.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the shoreline adaptation plan is policy CR-I-5 which the City is obligated to do regardless of the SSRA policies. What the shoreline adaptation program calls for, within ten years of certification, is that the City needs to do technical analysis to determine existing and future conditions and create goals and actions that the City is going to take to adapt to the future conditions. She stated that we have to identify where our sandy beach areas are, establish minimum sandy beach widths, monitor beach areas, work on, beach adaptation strategies, and continue to have sandy beaches.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how far that plan goes into the future.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated the planning horizon is not specified in this policy.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it sounds like the antithesis of we just keep rebuilding the seawall every time. She stated that Councilmember Bigstyck has talked about is that it takes 50 years to address a wholesale moving of wastewater infrastructure. She thinks it is scope and scale that she is grappling with. We want to approve something and move it forward but we are talking about a relatively short amount of time that these policies would even be in place and we need to do this larger planning process for the future of Pacifica.
Councilmember Boles stated that all those goals and what was done in the adaptation plan for different parts of town have short term, medium term, and long term. She stated, starting to have those plans and dates gives the City projects that they can start to apply for SB 272. That is part of the extra work we need so we can start qualifying for that funding.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked her for bringing that up. She stated, if we do not have an LCLUP approved, we cannot apply for that funding and we do not have the money to do the things we need to do regardless of SSRA or not. We have been working on advocating, etc., with Army Corps for a long time, but there are funds available today through the Ocean Protection Council and through the Coastal Commission for planning grants and for implementation projects and the key to accessing that is in LCLUP. She stated that is the reality. What she is trying to do is find a path forward for the town that has 50/50. She wants them to move forward. She feels like there is a way to do that with this LCLUP. She knows it is not perfect but we are searching for perfect and we have not done anything in 44 years and what makes us think we are going to do perfect the first time out. She is concerned about not doing harm. What she is trying to say is that there are two or three areas that she has significant concerns about that she has expressed at this meeting. She does not want to make a misstep and why she keeps asking the questions over and over about the waivers, as she does not want to do harm to our citizens by putting policies in the plan that ties their hands because Council was having an urgent desire to get an LCLUP in and the downsides for our citizens end up harming them more than not doing it at all.
2.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 46 September 17, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse would like to focus the Council on what the next step is going to be and what is the direction to staff. He stated that there are many different avenues or options.
He wants to get some clear direction, guidance for format for what will come back, if anything is going to come back to Council, etc. There is one option to bring back a clear redlined version based on the last version of the LCLUP that Council adopted which was October 2023, the base document, showing all of the changes that have happened since then minus formatting changes which would make it convoluted. He stated that would be a clear redline version of what Council could consider submitting to the Coastal Commission. Staff then brings that back and Council can discuss final revisions and either accept them and submit or direct them to withdraw our LCLUP submittal. He does not know about timing and when we will be able to bring that back as it might not be for a couple of months, particularly if it involves further consultation with Coastal Commission staff. He knows there are various staff availability and leave and other issues built in there or Council could decide at this time to withdraw the LCLUP and direct staff to bring that resolution back. He heard other comments about revisiting an older version of the LCLUP which requires withdrawing this one and starting over with a new submittal. He is trying to get some direction about what Council wants to do with this major initiative.
Councilmember Bier appreciates the options. She wishes we were making a decision at this meeting, but she thinks our community needs an opportunity to see that document.
Mayor Vaterlaus also wanted to make a decision at this meeting. Major things keep changing.
It is difficult for Council and for the community.
Councilmember Boles thinks about all the people who came to their first meeting and how it dwindled and it is just too much. She would like to see it all and read it one more time. She would like to hear from the Coastal Commission on a few things. She wants to make sure we finish this with the five of them.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like to see the SSRA policies highlighted. She is not ready to debate them at this meeting, but she thinks we need to have that discussion of what it looks like with and without.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if she thinks we need to go back to October 23 with a full redline version.
City Manager Woodhouse stated there is a version of the LCLUP that Council adopted and resubmitted to Coastal. He stated that is the baseline version and all the changes we have been working on in the last year are to that document. He stated that is the cleanest way, but any kind of comprehensive tracked changes version is an immense amount of staff work. As it is now, the estimate of staff time is that, for every hour spent in Council meetings on the LCLUP, an average of about 6-8 hours is spent by staff. If we are in a six-hour meeting, that is 36 hours of staff time that goes in. He stated that it is never-ending and there is a huge list of Council priorities that are not getting done because of this process continuing. He stated that the STR conversation with Coastal Commission staff is not going to happen with this continuing on.
There are all kinds of nondiscretionary things that the Planning staff needs to process and we do not have a full time Community Development Director either. He stated that the point is that working up a clean comprehensive strikethrough version is going to take time. He stated that further discussions with Coastal Commission staff is at least a month to get a meeting on the books with Coastal Commission staff, with Council, the Executive Director, etc. We are looking at some time before we can bring this back, not to mention we have only five regular meetings
2.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 47 September 17, 2024
before the Council reorganization meeting in the beginning of December when we have some major items that have to come before Council coming up.
Councilmember Boles suggested trying to finish this in our next meeting and start early.
City Attorney Kenyon wanted to get clarity that the direction is to move forward with the LCLUP that was adopted by Council in 2023 as the original and then all the changes since then. There was also discussion about eliminating SSRAs by two Councilmembers now; that discussion would require, most likely, a withdrawal and then a whole new process. The SSRAs are so embedded in this total document now that it is not as simple as eliminating that chapter.
Councilmember Boles stated had noted, and possibly acting Dep. Director Cervantes did also, exactly which policies.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified that that is not something we can do in the timeline that City Manager Woodhouse just discussed, i.e., a couple of months.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes added that it was not as simple going in and deleting references to SSRAs because some of the other policies have been rewritten with the intent that the SSRAs would be applicable in the City. It would require going through all the policies to ensure that the intent is not to protect the SSRAs or benefit the SSRAs.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 11:40 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:40 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he does not have interest in pulling out the SSRAs at this time but what he does have interest in is having an articulation as to what happens, in terms of our planning efforts, if we were to remove the SSRAs. He thinks that is what is missing. He stated that there is a longer conversation around our planning documents that do not get activated if we do not have an updated LCP and he feels a sense of urgency around that. He has heard that, predominantly, we would like to pass it, although he hears the reticence towards the SSRAs. What he is not sure of are certain potential deal breakers, and he wants those clearly articulated so that, if we need to have that conversation with Coastal Commission staff before our next meeting, we can conceivably pass those.
Councilmember Boles asked if we found an answer to the question about tsunami SSM raising buildings.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated no.
Councilmember Boles thought that was an outstanding question for next time.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks, if we are coming back, we should come back with those questions ready to be answered and then we can continue the conversation from there. He
2.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 48 September 17, 2024
thinks the premise of going through the entire matrix line by line has been completed as of tonight and he thinks we are ready to have the robust conversation in general.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated one of her concerns was substantial structural modifications.
She feels like there is a constant limiting of what the people who live in Pacifica and own property that is in the coastal zone can do. She stated that the issue is how urgently these potential hazards are coming. She stated that you cannot do this thing to your property now for something that is happening in 50 years. She heard the City Attorney say we were going to try to do something about bullet point six.
City Attorney Kenyon answered affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is still an issue and waivers is the biggest issue for here.
She wants to look at real estate disclosures that exist for sea level rise, as she does not know the scope of existing disclosures.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if she was asking what the disclosures that the Coastal Commission has already required.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively. She knows what they require on their own in the form of appeal and that is what they are asking us to put into our LCLUP.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer would like to know what other recently approved LCLUPs say about that. She understands they probably did not have SSRAs in them, but she thinks there is a direct relationship between those two things.
Councilmember Boles would like to understand the policies that are added because of the SSRAs but that are not specific SSRA policies. She wants to know what those are.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there are none. She stated that some of the policies had been rewritten in order to allow the SSRAs to ensure that there are internal consistencies.
Councilmember Boles asked like the sentence “this does not apply on the SSRAs”.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated there is that, but also some of the other policies to avoid inconsistency internally with what we are saying in some of the policies versus other policies.
She stated that it was not that staff added policies but have ensured that there are no internal inconsistencies in the policies as staff relate to the SSRAs. If the direction is to remove the SSRAs, staff would need to go back to a previous version of the policy that shows that language before they revised it to avoid inconsistencies and ensure that the SSRA policies are beneficial.
She added that it is possible but it would require Council to direct staff to do that work.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if there was a way to give Council a list of the highlights, as when Acting Dep. Director Cervantes says there are no policies that are in there because the SSRAs are there, she was not sure she agreed. The Coastal Access Resilience Program that has to be done and some project has to be underway before the SSRA policies can take place did not exist prior to the SSRA.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the policy is directly tied to the SSRAs.
2.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 49 September 17, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was what she means.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated section 6.9 is the Special Shoreline Resiliency Area policies. All the policies in that section are specific to the SSRAs. She stated that the policy for the Coastal Access Resilience Program is in that section.
Councilmember Boles thought Acting Dep. Director Cervantes provided a list before of what policies relate to the SSRAs and that would be helpful.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed with Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer. She mentioned previously the possibility of people not being able to get mortgages or insurance because we placed them in an SSRA. She stated that it is the unknowns for her about the SSRAs that concern her.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated there is specific ask from staff to talk to Coastal Commission staff about items to bring back to us and we are giving direction as to what information we need.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that those things she just said cannot be answered.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she asked those questions and they were not answered.
Councilmember Bier asked it is about storms and not just sea level rise.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added erosion.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated erosion is our biggest problem in her mind.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added not tsunami.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would like to clarify about format. He asked if Council was in agreement that the format that should be brought back in is the tracked changes version based on the October 2023. Council will continue to discuss about hazard disclosure policy, but what staff will include in the tracked changes version is what we have today. Council can discuss and make revisions at the next meeting to be determined. There are various different actions that Council can take at the conclusion of that.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we are going to continue this meeting to a date uncertain.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we do not have to take any action.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned what we did with the General Plan, posting it with the clean and tracked changes version so the public could check it and look at it fully.
City Manager Woodhouse concluded that Council is requesting a clean version and a tracked changes version as part of the packet.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, if we accept all the changes that have been made, that is the clean version.
2.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 50 September 17, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse agreed.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed that was what we were planning to do as part of the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated to post it in advance of the meeting.
City Attorney Kenyon stated posted when the staff report is posted.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated earlier if possible.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is another discussion with staff as we generally post the Wednesday before the City Council meeting.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend to 11:50 p.m., as it was 11:39 p.m. now.
Councilmember Boles asked if they have until 11:45 p.m.
City Manager Woodhouse has one more question about format.
Councilmember Boles moved to extend to 11:50 p.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:50 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
City Manager Woodhouse stated at least one councilmember indicated a preference to see a matrix of changes and he wanted to verify whether that is a request or not.
Councilmember Bier thought no as the way we are going is good.
Councilmember Boles wants to make sure if there are certain policies that we did not agree with the Coastal Commission staff that they are still suggesting an alternative modification that those can be highlighted so we can track how many of those we have.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that that is what staff tried to show in the previously attached redline versions of the LCP. In the August 12 version, most pages will have three different sets of redlines: the General Plan consistency changes that Council adopted, the suggested modifications that Coastal staff recommended in March 2023, and all the alternative modifications.
Councilmember Boles states some of the alternative modifications were Coastal Commission staff modifications later.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes agreed, adding any changes we made during the conversations with Coastal Commission staff, we included them as alternative modifications in green. She thinks what staff had previously discussed was having that baseline October 2023 version versus we would have for the next report would be all the changes are the same color to see the difference between the October 2023 version and the version staff is asking Council to adopt.
2.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 51 September 17, 2024
Councilmember Boles would still like to know where we disagree with the Coastal Commission.
City Manager Woodhouse added that was a level of complication in a tracked changes version that is going to be challenging for staff to figure out.
Councilmember Boles stated it could be something highlighted in the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the Coastal Commission staff letter before this last letter and there were some recommendations that staff did not recommend accepting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we worked through all those.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that there are not any outstanding alternative modifications that staff does not agree with.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if there are any points in the document where we are pushing back on Coastal Commission’s recommendation or have we reconciled all the differences.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that we have agreed on everything at this time.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified that we have discussed and worked out with them a resolution to what they wanted and what we wanted. It is not that we took their revisions wholesale as there has been some back and forth.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that they have reconciled.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed that all those have been reconciled.
Councilmember Boles noted we did not need it in that case.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked staff for all their work.
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:43 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
2.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 09-17-2024 Special Meeting (5796 : Approval of Minutes)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/12/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
STAFF CONTACT:
Roland Yip, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer 650-738-3767
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On January 22, 2016, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency along the Pacifica coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard due to El Nino storm activity. Extreme wave heights for extended periods of time caused top-of-bluff retreat at several locations along the Pacifica coast and damage to City infrastructure. Since this date, the Director of Emergency Services has proclaimed the existence of other local emergencies along this same stretch of coastline. These emergencies are described below:
• Failure of the sea wall and promenade on Beach Blvd. (in the vicinity of Santa Maria Avenue), which have been repaired, from the January 22, 2016 storm. • The 300 & 400 block of Esplanade experience episodic bluff erosion. In recent years (2016-2018), the bluff erosion has progressed to a point where the erosion is now threatening public infrastructure and utilities.
• Undermining of a eight-foot diameter storm drain outfall and concrete headwall for the discharge of Milagra Creek into the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of 700 Palmetto Avenue from the January 22, 2016, storm. The project was completed on April 24, 2023. • A failure of the seawall and promenade on Beach Blvd. in the vicinity of Santa Rosa Avenue and the Pier was discovered on December 16, 2020. Ocean waves, king tides, and high swells undermined a portion of the sea wall and created a large void (25’x25”) between the pier abutment seawall connection, affecting the sidewalk and promenade.
City staff and contractors stabilized and repaired the large void on January 22, 2021.
The sidewalk and promenade restoration were completed on February 22, 2021.
Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going.
3 Packet Pg. 69
Pacifica City Council 2
November 12, 2024
• On December 29, 2020, another failure of the seawall occurred approximately 150-200 feet north of the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Santa Rosa Avenue. A void, approximately 10’ deep by 15’ long, was found behind the seawall and was repaired with geotextiles and concrete slurry on January 5, 2021. Full restoration of this section was complete in February 2021. Monitoring of the repaired area is on-going. • On January 14, 2021, a combination of high tides and large waves damaged a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west facing deck and concrete railing. Following this event, the Pier was closed due to safety concerns. City staff requested a structural engineering assessment of the above deck pier elements and a proposed repair and associated cost from a local engineering consultant. This information was provided to the City at the end of March 2021. The pier was reopened on April 2, 2021, but the damaged portion was fenced off for safety reasons. The City is currently moving forward with a repair project and is designing the repair. Construction will be funded by grant money provided through a Senate Bill 129. The City Council approved a resolution on December 13, 2021, to approve the application of the state grant funds for the repair of the pier and the application has been sent to the State Department of Parks and Recreation for processing. On May 13, 2022, the City received a Coastal Development Permit waiver from the California Coastal Commission to perform this work. A bid opening for the repair was held on June 9, 2022, and the City received one bid, which was $2 million above the project budget. Council rejected the bid and authorized the project to be rebid. The rebid for replacing the guardrails in need of immediate repair came in over $1.4 million and all of the guardrails at $4 million. As the project was beyond what had been funded for the project, the City pivoted to do further inspections on the pier before a sizable investment is made in fixing the guardrails, since it was prudent for the City to understand the full needs of the pier. The 2023 Pier Condition Assessment Report has been finalized and is able to be viewed at www.cityofpacifica.org/pier. In summary, the 2023 report notes that the end of the main pier and L-section of the pier is in serious condition and should be fixed within the next two years. The remaining area of the main pier is considered in poor condition and should be repaired within four years. This report does not include the new damage sustained during the Dec. 28, 2023, high tide/big wave event. The structural engineers determined there was additional damage to the piles, handrails, and deck. The structural engineers recommended limiting public access on the pier to approximately half of the main pier deck until a complete assessment be made after the winter storms. • In November of 2023, a failure behind the seawall was discovered at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Salada Ave. A void approximately 40’ long and 12’-15’ deep (2’-7’ in width) was found behind the seawall and was repaired with concrete and cement slurry.
The final sidewalk replacement was completed at the end of December 2023. • On Friday, December 29, 2023, another failure behind the seawall was discovered at Beach Blvd. and San Jose Ave. and was temporarily plugged. The final repair was completed on January 3, 2024, with the final sidewalk section and wall completed a week later. The total repair area was approximately 300 sf. This also caused damage to the Milagra storm drain outfall and left substantial sand deposits on the Beach Boulevard Prominade and on the southern Beach Boulevard rock revetment. • In Mach of 2024, City staff received an Emergency Coastal Development Permit (ECDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for removal of the substantial sand deposits left on Beach Boulevard Promenade and southern rock revetment as well as for 3 Packet Pg. 70
Pacifica City Council 3
November 12, 2024
the repair of the damage to the Milagra outfall. Repair to the outfall and removal of the sand on the Beach Boulevard Promenade was completed in late March/April 2024.
Removal of the sand from the southern Beach Boulevard Rock Revetment is expected to be completed by mid-May 2024, with work starting on May 9, 2024. • In May 2024, a new sink hole (approx. 5’ w x 25’ l) was discovered behind the seawall on Beach Blvd. to the north of Santa Maria. The hole was repaired through an emergency contractor.
The City Council first ratified this proclamation (Attachment 1) at its regular meeting of January 25, 2016. Since that date, additional damage had occurred along Beach Boulevard and Esplanade Avenue as noted above.
Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on January 25, 2016, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard every 30 days with November 4, 2024, being the most recent.
The City is using a combination of city staff, contractors, and consultants to manage the discussed emergency work. Staff will bring recommendations to the Council to end the emergency designation for projects on the list once conditions stabilize and the projects are no longer in need of the emergency designation.
The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 71
"ATTACHMENT 1"
3.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (5787 : Continuation of "ATTACHMENT 1"
3.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (5787 : Continuation of
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/12/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
STAFF CONTACT:
John Mullin, Interim Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Louis Sun, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works - Wastewater (650) 738-4660
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a report regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at Pacifica State Beach. After Public Works staff investigated the report, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system and roof/bathrooms were damaged during the fire. The engines were destroyed, and the pumps needed to be replaced.
The damage to the pump station threatened and continues to threaten the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding without an operational pump station.
The City of Pacifica’s Emergency Plan and Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empower the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim the existence of a local emergency when there is an actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and properties within this City.
The proclamation is subject to ratification by the City Council within 7 days, pursuant to the Pacifica Municipal Code. The proclamation of the existence of a local emergency further designates the City Manager or designated representative to act on behalf of the City for public assistance and for individual assistance for purpose of receipt, processing and coordination of all inquiries and requirements necessary to obtain available State and Federal assistance.
Additionally, pursuant to Section 3-15.09 (A) of the Pacifica Municipal Code, in cases of an emergency the City Manager is authorized to proceed at once to replace or repair any public facility without adopting plans, specifications, or working details, or giving notice for bids to let contracts. The City must comply with Public Contract Code Section 22050, which provides a process for City Council’s review of the emergency action if notice of bids to let contracts for public projects will not be given because of the emergency.
In this case, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, which 4 Packet Pg. 74
Pacifica City Council 2
November 12, 2024
requires immediate attention and constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code Section 1102.
Such conditions are, or are likely to be, beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency design and repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contracts. Immediate action is, and continues to be necessary, due to the clear and imminent danger presented by any storm event that could occur during the time the storm water pump station is non-functional. Flooding could occur to areas upstream of the pump station, causing health and safety issues, as well as extensive property damage. As such, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager did proclaim the existence of a local emergency within the City and the need to continue the emergency action continues as the repair will take approximately 8-14 months or longer. The Proclamation of Local Emergency is attached to this staff report as Attachment 1.
City staff contracted with the civil engineering firm of Schaaf & Wheeler of San Jose, California to assist the City with the rehabilitation of the pump station. On July 13, 2020, the City Council approved construction services agreement for rebuild and re-installation of a pump and gear drive, the renovation of bathrooms, purchase and installation of new stainless-steel doors, and repair pump station wet-well grates. As part of the on-going maintenance for the pump station, staff purchased a new pump which was approved by the Council at the August 9, 2020, City Council meeting. An emergency purchase agreement with Herc Rental for a temporary rental engine was also approved on September 1, 2020, and will remain in place until the pump station is operational. On October 12, 2020, temporary measures were completed to allow for a nonstandard system of pumping at the Anza Pump Station until final repairs are completed. This work included a new pump, transfer switch, temporary roof, portable generator connections, and exterior double doors have been installed. Staff is continuing to evaluate and monitor storm water flows and purchased two new sump pumps to accommodate flows.
On May 10, 2021, City Council approved the purchase of two new Caterpillar engines utilizing the City’s established Sourcewell Cooperative Purchase Agreement. The rehabilitation plan is currently 100% completed, and staff has completed the engineering review. The roofing plan was approved by the Building Department. The City entered into an agreement with PG&E to tap the gas main and install a new gas meter.
During a storm event on the morning of December 16, 2021, the City experienced some flooding in the lower Linda Mar area due to the temporary nonstandard pumping system that has been in use at Anza pump station due to the fire damaged pump station engines in March of 2020. This temporary system has been in place because the City had been working to reach agreement with the California Coastal Commission on the remaining permitting requirements for the permanent pumping system. The City faced several significant stormwater related events from October 2021 through December 2021 and will face more with the continuing storm season. Replacement of this temporary system is considered an emergency and staff is moving forward with construction of the permanent system. To further improve operations between now and when the Anza Pump Station Repair Project is completed, the City recently purchased a small diesel engine that will be used to drive one of the existing smaller stormwater pumps, thereby improving pump station resiliency in the interim.
The City Council approved an agreement for DW Nicholson (DWN) to construct the Anza Pump Station Repair Project. Construction began on May 1, 2022. Ghirardelli and Associates were also approved to manage the construction work. The two new gas engines were delivered and installed in December 2022; the third new gas engine was installed in June 2023 and the new 2- inch PG&E gas service line for the new gas engines was completed on May 2, 2023; All Anza Pump Station bathrooms were opened by August 25, 2023. Pump #3 was installed in early 4 Packet Pg. 75
Pacifica City Council 3
November 12, 2024
January 2024. Startup and testing of the new Engine#1, Engine#3, and Engine#4 have been completed. Engine#1 and Engine#4 are now in service and operating with automation capabilities. The closure of the roof is now completed. Contractor continues to correct the sump pump which is on order. The replacement sump pump is expected to arrive and installed by the end of this year. The project will reach substantial completion when the sump pump is completed. Staff plans to bring a final project close out change order and terminate the local emergency to the November 25, 2024 City Council meeting.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on April 13, 2020, and since that time staff has brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency at the Anza Pump Station every 30 days with October 14, 2024, being the most recent.
The City is using a combination of city staff, consultants, and contractors to manage the emergency work related to the Anza Pump Station repair project. The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach. Staff will continue to update the Council on the progress of this emergency work monthly through the emergency declaration Council reports.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to continue this local emergency.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 76
RESOLUTION NO. 19-2020
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA
RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY AT THE
ANZA PUMP STATION AT THE PACIFICA STATE BEACH
______________________________________________________
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.05 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) designate the City Manager as the Director of Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) empower the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said city is affected or likely to be affected by an emergency, subject to ratification by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.02 of the PMC defines "emergency" as the “actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within this City caused by such conditions as earthquake, hazardous materials, plane crash, landslide, tsunami, epidemic, flood, riot, fire, or other conditions, including conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the capability of control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of this City, requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat”; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a report regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach; and WHEREAS, after Public Works staff investigated the report, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system was damaged during the fire and that the engine and the motors would need to be replaced; and
WHEREAS, the damage to this pump station threatens the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding that can occur without an operational pump station; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure due to the risk of flooding and requires immediate attention and repair and as such constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code section 1102; and WHEREAS, such conditions are beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contract, ATTACHMENT 1
4.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5793 : Continuance pursuant to Public Contract Code 22050; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2020, the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the damaged condition of the Anza Pump Station is likely to create conditions of disaster or extreme peril which will be beyond the services, personnel and equipment and facilities of the City; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) the City Council must take action to confirm the proclamation within 7 and in accordance with Public Contract Code section 22050 which requires confirmation by 2/3 of Council within 14 days of the emergency action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said Proclamation of Existence of Local Emergency, as issued by said City Manager in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, which is attached hereto as Attachment “A”, is hereby ratified and approved by the City of Pacifica City Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said local emergency is confirmed to exist and shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Pacifica.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during the existence of this local emergency, the powers, functions and duties of the Director of Emergency Services, and the emergency organization of the City of Pacifica shall be those prescribed by state law, by the existing ordinances and resolutions of the City of Pacifica, as well as this resolution and any subsequent emergency orders of the City Council. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of April 2020, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers: Martin, Beckmeyer, Vaterlaus, Bier, O’Neill NOES, Councilmembers: None.
ABSENT, Councilmembers: None.
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: None.
CITY OF PACIFICA
Deirdre Martin, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
4.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5793 : Continuance
PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council at the earliest possible time; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Monday, March 16, 2020, the Department of Public Works received a call regarding a fire at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach; and WHEREAS, after Public Works staff investigated, and determined that the storm drain pumping system was damaged during the fire; and
WHEREAS, the damage to the pump system threatens the safety of persons and property, including critical public infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, such conditions are or are likely to be beyond the handling capabilities of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair; and
WHEREAS, the City provides this written notification to the San Mateo County and State CalEMA’s Regional and Headquarter offices of a proclamation of local emergency; and WHEREAS, such proclamation shall be subject to confirmation by the Pacifica City Council at the earliest possible time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that, in accordance with State Law and the City of Pacifica Municipal Code, the Director of Emergency Services proclaims the existence of a local emergency for the Anza Pump Station.
DATED: April 8, 2020
By:_____________________________
Kevin Woodhouse
Director of Emergency Services
Attachment 1
4.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5793 : Continuance
4.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 19-2020 Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station (5793 : Continuance
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/12/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Cancellation of December 23, 2024 City Council Meeting
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to approve cancellation of the December 23, 2024 regular City Council meeting.
STAFF CONTACT:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City Council traditionally cancels the second council meeting in December to allow for a vacation period during the holiday season. Should the Council wish to cancel the regular City Council meeting scheduled to be held on Monday, December 23, 2024, the next regularly scheduled council meeting following the cancelled meeting will be Monday, January 13, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
5 Packet Pg. 81
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/12/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending June 30, 2024 RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending June 30, 2024 STAFF CONTACT:
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7402
[email protected]
Lucy Xie, Deputy Finance Director
(650) 501-6014
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Organizational and Fiscal Stability remains one of the City Council’s Strategic Goals. This goal includes planning for and implementing long-term financial health and stability. A key component of this goal is preparing quarterly financial reports that would provide readers with an executive summary of the City’s current economic conditions related to the annual operating budget.
On June 26, 2023, the City Council adopted the structurally balanced FY 2023-24 Budget.
Finance staff has preliminarily completed the Fourth Quarter of the Fiscal Year 2023-24, and this report reflects the financial results for the Quarter.
The Fourth Quarter Financial Report summarizes the City’s General Fund and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. It intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s operations and fiscal condition. This report provides an update on the financial status of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures for the Quarter ending June 30, 2024.
The General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund and is used to account for day-to-day activities. It receives unrestricted revenues and provides the City’s general administrative services, law enforcement, fire, public works, parks, beaches and recreation, and community development-related activities such as planning, building, and engineering. Revenue sources include but are not limited to property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), business registration, and current fees for services such as parking charges, engineering, planning, building permit fees, and recreation services.
The Fourth Quarter Financial Report for the City of Pacifica provides the financial status update 6 Packet Pg. 82
Pacifica City Council 2
November 12, 2024
of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures as of June 30, 2024, but is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions as we will still be going through the final year-end closing and audit process.
With the completion of the Fourth Quarter, General Fund Revenues are $47,396,738 (102% of budget), and Expenditures are $45,776,510 (94% of budget). Compared to the same quarter, last year’s revenues were almost $2.5 million more as a result of the one-time $4.6 million ARPA funding received in July 2022 for FY2022-23. Compared with the same quarter last year, expenditures were just about $50K higher. This favorable result reflects a strong budget control mechanism and staff vigilance in managing expenditures.
Overall, staff is pleased to report that the FY 2023-24 Budget performed better than expected as of the end of the last quarter. Favorable variances in revenues and expenditures have resulted in a projected positive net revenue over expenditures of $1.6 million. However, it is important to note that these are only preliminary numbers, as additional booking entries may occur during the fiscal year-end closing and audit process, which may modify some of the fourth-quarter figures.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the Fourth Quarter Financial Report will not change the City’s financial condition as of the end of the Quarter ending June 30, 2024.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
This item furthers the City’s efforts toward Organizational and Fiscal Stability.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the Council’s acceptance of this report.
ORIGINATED BY:
Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment 1- Q4 FY 2023-2024 Quarterly Financial Report (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 83
City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Fourth Quarter Financial Report
1 OVERVIEW
This Fourth Quarterly Financial Report is an analysis of the unaudited financial status of the City’s General Fund from July 2023 through June 2024. The City of Pacifica has completed the Fourth Quarter of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024. The Fourth Quarterly Financial Report will summarize the City’s General Fund and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. This report intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s fiscal condition, as the General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City and is used to account for most operational activities. Information presented in this report is unaudited, and additional adjustments may occur during the year-end process.
GENERAL FUND
General Fund Financial Condition: With the entire year complete, General Fund Expenditures are at 94% of projections, and revenues are at 102% of the FY2023-24 Budget. These figures include budgeted operating and capital transfers, and some routine year-end journal entries and accruals. There might be more adjustments to be posted as part of the fiscal year-end closing, and additional FY 2023-24 invoices might be still processed and posted in the next two weeks.
Net revenues exceed expenditures by $1.6 million at the end of the Fourth Quarter. This preliminary FY2023- 24 year-end number demonstrates a better result than projected at the mid-year budget review, which showed expenditures exceeding revenues by $1.9 million. The positive net revenues over expenditures are arising from two factors: better than expected revenue performance resulting in an additional $0.7 million, comprising a property tax increase of $0.3 million, OES Reimbursements in Fire overtime cost of $0.2 million, and $0.2 million in FEMA reimbursements from 2023 storms. The expenditures also showed a decrease of $2.8 million due to project delays and savings in contractual expenses in general government, as well as the planning department delay in billing for cost-reimbursable contractual services for development projects. Both expenditures and revenues have favorable variances over budgeted amounts which will be explained in more detail below.
The audited General Fund Balance as of June 30, 2023, was $20,547,470. With the 4th quarter financial information coming in, a net revenues over expenditures of $1.6 million, it is projected that fiscal year 2024 will end with a positive fund balance of $22,167,698.
General Fund Qtr 4
FY2022-23
Qtr 4
FY2023-24
FY2023-24
AMENDED
Budget
% Change
Q4 FY23 vs
Q4 FY24
Qtr 4
% Budget
Revenues 49,970,028 $ 47,396,738 $ 46,695,600 $ -5% 102% Expenditures 45,714,781 45,776,510 48,626,761 0% 94%
Net Rev over Exp $ 4,255,246 $ 1,620,228 $ (1,931,161)
6.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment 1- Q4 FY 2023-2024 Quarterly Financial Report [Revision 1] (5784 : Q4 FY23-24 Quarterly Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Fourth Quarter Financial Report
2 Expenditures:
Departmental operating expenditures were, in general, on target at the end of the Fourth Quarter.
The following chart summarizes year-to-date combined expenditures by department for the quarter ended on June 30, 2024:
The general department expenditures are under budget by $1.2 million mostly because of delays in budgeted cost-reimbursable contractual legal services resulting in a favorable variance at the end of the year. Also, high vacancy rate and project delays result in significant salary and other savings as well.
Both the Fire Department and Police Department are slightly over budget by 4% and 1% respectively, primarily due to overtime costs, which are partially offset in the Fire Department by OES reimbursement of $196K from the Smith River complex fire.
All other departments' expenditures are currently under budget. The Planning Department’s expenditures are low due to lower-than-expected cost-reimbursable expenses, only 66% of the budget. Staff made budget adjustments in the current FY 2024-25 to more accurately project cost-reimbursable revenues and expenditures activities throughout the year. Public Works expenditures are under budget by about $0.3 million as a result of salary savings due to a high vacancy rate, several recent retirements and delays in filling vacancies.
The expenditures of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department and non-departmental are right on target with 99% of budget expended at the end of the fourth quarter.
Revenues:
The following is a summary of revenues for the quarter ended on June 30, 2024:
6.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment 1- Q4 FY 2023-2024 Quarterly Financial Report [Revision 1] (5784 : Q4 FY23-24 Quarterly Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Fourth Quarter Financial Report
3 Property Tax: Property Tax is the City’s largest revenue source. The first installment of the Property Tax payment was remitted to the City by the County of San Mateo in December 2023, and the second installment was received in April 2024. The property tax revenues continued to show a healthy increase compared with last year's actual and current year's budget. The City received roughly 102% of the budgeted Property Tax revenue, which is 5% over the prior fiscal year and 2% over the current fiscal year amended budget.
Sales Tax: As of June 30, 2024, the City has received 99% of its budgeted Sales Tax revenues. HdL adjusted down the sales tax budget from $3,045,000 to $2,875,000 to make the actual very close to the revised budget, as the City received $3,199,915 in total sales tax revenues, which includes $2,845,133 in BradleyBurns sales taxes and $354,782 for the half cent public safety sales taxes.
Measure Y: Measure Y is a ½ cent Transaction & Use Tax that was passed by the voters in the City of Pacifica in November 2022. The tax became effective April 1, 2023 (only three months of Measure Y revenue, $557,966 in FY2022-2023) and City has received $2,566,255 for fiscal year 2023-2024, which is slightly above the revised budget by $66,255, or 3%.
Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT): In FY2023-2024, TOT revenues are broken down into TOT generated from Pacifica hotels and through STR. These taxes are remitted to the City approximately 30 days after the end of
6.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment 1- Q4 FY 2023-2024 Quarterly Financial Report [Revision 1] (5784 : Q4 FY23-24 Quarterly Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Fourth Quarter Financial Report
4 each month by HdL. July receipts are accrued back to FY2023-2024. TOT revenues are very sensitive to the market and economy. Even though the Revised Budget revenue projects a decline of $300K compared to the prior year, the City collected $2.9 million or 100% of the revised budget. This includes $1.6 million collected from Pacifica hotels and $1.3 million from STRs.
Other Taxes: These include franchise tax, business license, utility users tax, Vehicle License Fee, and cannabis operations tax.
Vehicle License Fee (VLF) in Lieu (property tax in lieu of VLF) reflects a big drop in this category from the original budget, which was recorded during the midyear analysis. The actual receipts for FY2023-2024 closely align with the revised budget with a marginal 1% increase. The challenges around the VLF in Lieu revenues have been discussed at length during the midyear budget review, and it remains an evolving issue presenting a significant threat to Pacifica’s revenues.
Utility Users Tax is the 2nd largest revenue source in the Other Taxes category, with a revised budget of $2.7 million, with 97% of receipts of budget in the amount of $2.61 million, about $89K less than the revised budget.
Staff will continue investigating a recent drop in PGE remittances, the biggest UUT payee, which is concerning given that the fuel, gas, and electrical rates have increased.
Franchise Tax is the third largest source in this category. The revenue goal is on target as we received $1,248,599 Franchise tax revenue compared with a $1,236,200 budget. However, as described during the budget process, a portion of Recology’s Franchise Tax revenues ($421K per year) is now being allocated to the street improvement fund to account for the Recology truck’s impacts on the city streets. That leaves the Franchise tax revenue on target, performing as expected.
Business License Tax is collected at 105% of the revised budget this fiscal year, reflecting closer monitoring of these revenues by HdL, the City’s third party tax administrator.
Cannabis Tax is falling slightly short, with about 91% collected from the five cannabis business providers, $100K less than what was budgeted. The City contracted with HdL to perform annual Cannabis audits to help operators to keep the business in compliance with City rules and regulations. It is likely that after further analysis, additional revenues will be accrued.
Excess ERAF: (Excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund). The FY2023-24 General Fund Revised Budget retains $105,00 of the ERAF revenues to fund a community grant program to local non-profit organizations as previously directed by the Council. This is an increase of $17K from the prior fiscal year of $88K. These revenues are usually booked in January and reflected in the third quarter as they are received. The majority of Excess ERAF Revenues of $3.5 million are recorded between the Disaster Accounting Fund and the Housing in lieu funds as per previously approved Council policy.
Grants: This category includes various police grants, as well as Parks, Beaches & Recreation grants for childcare and senior services. The grant revenues showed a decrease over the prior year due to the prior year’s onetime receipt of $4.6 million in American Rescue Plan Act allocation from the State. However, the grants revenue is showing an increase over the amended budget due to recent FEMA reimbursement for the 2023 Winter storms, as well as OES reimbursement for Fire overtime and a one time grant from PBR.
Investment Earnings: Investment earnings such as interest income continues to perform well in the current
6.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment 1- Q4 FY 2023-2024 Quarterly Financial Report [Revision 1] (5784 : Q4 FY23-24 Quarterly Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Fourth Quarter Financial Report
5 economy, with favorable interest rate returns on bank deposits strategically managed by staff. The general fund interest revenue currently is at 107% of the budgeted amount, after factoring in the pooled interest allocation of interest revenues to other special revenue funds based on their cash fund balance.
Department/Programs: These revenues include building permits, engineering and planning fees, charges related to Parks, Beaches & Recreation programs, and rentals, and the transfer-ins from other funds for cost recovery needs. As of June 30, 2024, the City received 95% of the Budget, which is about $500K under budget.
Permits and planning fees tend to fluctuate based on the timing of projects. Planning-related legal, consultant, and application fees are falling behind at only 30% of the Revised budget, after already factoring in some reduction at mid-year to better align the timing of the cost recovery process. Staff may further reduce the cost-reimbursable revenues and expenditures for the FY 2024-25 Budget at mid-year to keep the budget in line with the projected activity level.
SUMMARY
Overall, staff is very pleased to report that the FY2023-2024 Budget was on track, with revenues and expenditures performing as expected and, in certain cases, a little better than expected. At the end of the fourth quarter, the City’s total general fund expenditures are 94% of the Budget, and the City’s total general fund revenues were 102% of the Budget.
It is also important to understand that these are only preliminary numbers as additional booking entries may occur during the fiscal year-end, which may modify some of the figures presented in this report. However, it is encouraging to see that the budget appears to be on target at the end of the fourth quarter.
6.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment 1- Q4 FY 2023-2024 Quarterly Financial Report [Revision 1] (5784 : Q4 FY23-24 Quarterly Financial Report)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/12/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Resolution accepting a grant award from the State of California Department of Justice 2024-25 Tobacco Grant Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to adopt a resolution accepting a $62,713 grant award from the State of California Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General Tobacco Grant Program for enforcement and educational activities regarding tobacco sales regulations.
STAFF CONTACT:
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Community Development Director
650-738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City of Pacifica has been awarded $62,713 from the Tobacco Grant Program (Attachment A), administered by the California Department of Justice, to support enforcement and educational activities that enhance compliance with local and state tobacco laws. The grant will specifically fund the following activities:
• Retail Inspections: The City will conduct annual inspections of 31 tobacco retailers to ensure compliance with local ordinances, particularly those banning flavored tobacco products.
• Retailer Education: The City will provide on-site educational sessions to 31 retailers annually, informing them about local and state regulations on tobacco sales and logging participation in compliance training.
• Enforcement Officer Training: Two enforcement officers will receive annual training on tobacco laws to support effective enforcement.
The grant activities will begin upon the City Council’s acceptance of the award, with the program period extending through June 30, 2028. All inspections, educational activities, and enforcement efforts will be conducted on an annual schedule as required by the grant.
This funding is aligned with the City’s public health and safety priorities, especially those aimed at reducing youth access to tobacco products.
7 Packet Pg. 89
Pacifica City Council 2
November 12, 2024
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may choose to decline the grant award, which would result in no additional funding for the City’s enforcement and educational activities related to tobacco sales regulations.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Acceptance of this grant aligns with the City Council’s mission to deliver high-quality services that enhance community safety and well-being. The grant supports initiatives aimed at fostering a healthier environment and mitigating health risks associated with tobacco use, thereby contributing to the Council’s goal of promoting public health and safety in Pacifica.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The grant provides $62,713 in funding, covering the full cost of the proposed activities. No additional City funds are required for the implementation of these activities.
ORIGINATED BY:
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - DOJ Tobacco Grant Program Summary of Award (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 90
Pacifica City Council 3
November 12, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA ACCEPTING A $62,713 GRANT AWARD FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TOBACCO GRANT PROGRAM FOR
ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES REGARDING TOBACCO SALES
REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has applied for and been awarded a grant through the Tobacco Grant Program, administered by the California Department of Justice, to support enforcement and educational activities related to tobacco sales regulations, as specified in the grant award documentation; and
WHEREAS, the grant award of $62,713 has been provided to fund specific activities aimed at enhancing compliance with local tobacco ordinances, including retailer inspections, retailer education, and officer training on tobacco laws and ordinances, consistent with the program goals outlined by the California Department of Justice; and WHEREAS, the grant timeline stipulates that these activities will be carried out annually throughout the program period ending on June 30, 2028; and WHEREAS, the grant funds will enable the City of Pacifica to uphold its commitment to public health and safety by supporting compliance with local and state tobacco laws through regular inspections of tobacco retailers and educational outreach to increase awareness of relevant regulations among retailers and enforcement personnel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica that:
1. The City of Pacifica hereby accepts the grant award of $62,713 from the Tobacco Grant Program to fund specified enforcement and educational activities.
2. The City Manager, or their designee, is authorized to execute the necessary documents on behalf of the City of Pacifica, including but not limited to the Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit A) with the California Department of Justice, and to submit any additional documentation required to fulfill the grant’s terms.
3. The City Manager, or their designee, is further authorized to undertake all actions necessary to implement the grant-funded activities, including coordination with relevant departments and agencies as needed to ensure compliance with grant provisions and to achieve the intended outcomes of the grant program.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
7 Packet Pg. 91
Pacifica City Council 4
November 12, 2024
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 7 Packet Pg. 92
Pacifica City Council 5
November 12, 2024
EXHIBIT A
7 Packet Pg. 93
Pacifica City Council 6
November 12, 2024
7 Packet Pg. 94
Pacifica City Council 7
November 12, 2024
7 Packet Pg. 95
7.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment A - DOJ Tobacco Grant Program Summary of Award (5790 : DOJ Tobacco Grant Award)
7.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment A - DOJ Tobacco Grant Program Summary of Award (5790 : DOJ Tobacco Grant Award)
7.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment A - DOJ Tobacco Grant Program Summary of Award (5790 : DOJ Tobacco Grant Award)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/12/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Consideration of an appeal of File No. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP-005-24) and upholding 1) the ministerial approval of the Urban Lot Split and Residential Development Permit and 2) Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit. File No. 2024-004 authorizes an urban lot split for an approximately 7,289 square foot (SF) undeveloped parcel into two parcels and development of a one single-family residence on each new lot at Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of File No. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP005-24) and upholding 1) the ministerial approval of the Urban Lot Split and Residential Development Permit and 2) Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit. (File No. 2024-004)
STAFF CONTACT:
Kavitha Kumar, Interim Director, Community Development Department (650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Justin Shiu, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION
File No. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP-005-24) is an SB 9 application for a proposed urban lot split and residential development on each of the two newly created lots at Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030). The SB 9 application was reviewed ministerially by staff pursuant to State law and the City’s interim SB 9 Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 11- 2022) and found to be consistent with State law and applicable objective zoning standards. The project required Planning Commission’s approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) prior to issuance of a building permit because the Coastal Commission is requiring a Local Coastal Plan Amendment in order to administratively process SB 9 applications within the appeals jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. The CDP was approved at the Planning Commission regularly scheduled meeting on September 16, 2024 and an appeal of the approval was received on September 24, 2024. City Council is the review body that considers the appeal of Planning Commission decisions.
BACKGROUND
8 Packet Pg. 99
Pacifica City Council 2
November 12, 2024
Project Description:
This item consists of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of an application for an urban lot split and two-unit development pursuant to SB 9 and a Coastal Development Permit (Attachment A). However, because of State law pursuant to SB 9 and the City’s SB 9 Interim Guidelines, the City Council is limited to reviewing the Coastal Development Permit findings.
The owner (San Pedro Valley, LLC - Mike O’Connell) and applicant (Mike Jimenez) propose a Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) urban lot split (ULS) to divide an approximately 7,289 square foot (SF) undeveloped parcel into two parcels and residential development permit (RDP) to construct a new single-family residence on each lot located on a vacant parcel along Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030) in the Pedro Point neighborhood (See Figure 1: Vicinity Map). Each new residence will have a one-car garage. The uses allowed on a lot created with a ULS shall be limited to residential uses. The Project site is a sloped, oddly shaped lot located on Olympian Way. Project plans are included as Attachment B.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
The property is located in the appeals jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and is subject to a Coastal Development Permit for consideration.
The Planning Commission approved the Coastal Development Permit for the project at the September 16, 2024 Planning Commission regular meeting. The Planning Commission staff report and attachments for the September 16, 2024 meeting are incorporated by reference.
On September 24, 2024, the appellants (Ila and Ron Homsher; Kathy Gust; Don and Meredith Woods; Leo Leon and Kris Geiger) submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission approval.
State and City Statutory Requirements Related to Senate Bill 9:
The project proposed an urban lot split and development of two new units on each lot using the provisions of SB 9. The criteria, standards and requirements for projects under SB 9 are captured under Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, and applicable objective standards within the Pacifica Municipal Code. The project is required to comply with the development standards of the R-1 zoning district, except as otherwise provided under SB 9 and 8 Packet Pg. 100
Pacifica City Council 3
November 12, 2024
where such standards would not preclude the development of units of at least 800 square feet consistent with the standards under SB 9.
The project meets the requirements of SB 9 and the applicable requirements of the Pacifica Municipal Code, as summarized below and more expanded upon in the Planning Commission staff report for the September 16, 2024 meeting.
Locational Requirements:
The project was found to meet the locational requirements for SB 9 projects, as provided in the September 16, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report. The site is located in a single family residential zoning district and would not be located in areas mentioned under SB 9: Prime Farmland or farmland of statewide importance, wetlands, very high fire hazard severity zone, hazardous waste site, earthquake fault zone, flood hazard area (100-year flood), a regulatory floodway, lands identified for conservation, habitat for protected species, and land under a conservation easement.
Objective Standards:
The property is located in the R-1 Zoning District and required to comply with the development regulations of this zoning district while not precluding the construction of up to two units of at least 800 square feet each in floor area and consistent with development standards such as setbacks and parking required by SB 9, shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Zoning Standards Conformance
R-1 & SB 9
Standards
Existing Proposed - Parcel
A
Proposed - Parcel B
Lot Size (sf) 1,200 sf per
parcel
7,289 sf 3,633 sf 3,653 sf
Floor Area 800 sf min1 N/A 2,220 sf 2,198 sf
Lot Coverage2 40% N/A 34.76% 36.02%
Minimum
Landscaping2
N/A N/A 57.63% 60.02%
Height 35’ max1 N/A 34’- 7 ¾” 34’ -11 ¾”
Parking 1 off-street
parking space
per unit1
N/A 1 off-street parking
space
1 off-street parking
space
Lot Width 50’ in width 75’ in width 37.5’ in width5 37.5’ in width5 SB 9 Setbacks
Front 15’-0” N/A 10’-0”3 4 10’-0”3 4
Side 4’-0”1 N/A 4’-0” 4’-0”
Rear 4’-0”1 N/A 57’-3 7/8” 62’- 8 5/8” and 4’-0”
Notes: 1. Development standards for SB 9 applications pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 11-2022.
2. The project complies with the lot coverage and landscaping requirements for the underlying zoning district. 3. PMC Section 9-4.2703 allows open porches to project no more than 6’ into the front setback. On this site, the open porches must have a minimum 9’ setback. The project proposed an open porch with a front setback of 10’-6” which complies with the minimum setbacks. 4. Per PMC Section 9-4.2704(b), residential lots that contain a slope greater than 25% on the front half, may build a garage within 10’ of the front lot line. The new parcels have a slope on the front half of 36%, and 40%, respectively. Note: average slope is <35% per the slope analysis. 5. PMC Section 9-4.402(c) requires lots to be a minimum of 50’ in width, and accordingly, the applicant is seeking a waiver of the lot width requirement for the two newly created parcels as this standard would have the effect of “physically precluding the construction of” up to two units on either of the two parcels, and accordingly, the City is required to waive this requirement under Government Code section 66411.7(c)(2).
8 Packet Pg. 101
Pacifica City Council 4
November 12, 2024
Through SB 9, the applicant sought waiver of the standard 50 foot minimum lot width under PMC Section 9-4.402(c), which would have the effect of physically precluding two newly created parcels. SB 9 provides for such a waiver to standards that would physically preclude the creation of the two lots.
Under SB9, a subdivision can create no more than two parcels, the parcels must be no less than 1,200 square feet, and one parcel may be no smaller than 40 percent of the original parcel.
Both newly created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet, Parcel A is proposed as 3,633 sf and Parcel B is proposed as 3,653 sf. The project also does not involve aspects that may restrict development such as demolition of certain rental and affordable housing or location in a historic district or property.
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Municipal Code
The project requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) prior to issuance of a building permit because the project does not qualify as a category of excluded development since the SB 9 application is located within the appeals jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone [City Council Resolution No. 11-2022].
The project would not trigger additional requirements under PMC Sections 9-4.4403 - 9-4.4408 based on submitted information and project implementation of requirements. The project provides a biological assessment and confirms that the project was found to not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4403 (Habitat Preservation). To further the analysis of PMC Section 9-4.4404 (Geotechnical Suitability), the City obtained a topographic survey that verified the slopes of the parcel are less than 35% and this survey was peer reviewed by the City’s engineering consultants that confirmed accuracy and approved the slope analysis. The project includes requirements related to grading and drainage, thus, would not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4405 (Grading and Drainage). The project was found to not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4406 (Shoreline Protection) or PMC Section 9-4.4407 (Public Shoreline Access) as the property is not on the shoreline and the project is not impeding on public shoreline access. As designed the project would not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4408 (Coastal View Corridors) as the structures are sited to minimize alteration to natural topography, on the least visible area of the property, uses natural materials and includes landscaping to minimize visual impact of the new development.
Therefore, the project with implementation of requirements was found to be consistent and would not further trigger additional requirements of PMC Sections 9-4.4403 - 9-4.4408.
CDP Required Findings
In order to approve Coastal Development Permit CDP-454-23, City Council must make the two findings required by PMC Section 9-4.4304(k). The following discussion supports the findings in this regard:
i. Required Finding: The proposed development is in conformity with the City's certified Local Coastal Program.
Discussion: The City’s certified Local Coastal Program includes a Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and Implementation Plan (IP).
8 Packet Pg. 102
Pacifica City Council 5
November 12, 2024
Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP)
The LCLUP contains policies to further the City’s coastal planning activities. Applicable policies and references in the City’s LCLUP are discussed further below:
· Coastal Act Policy No. 2: Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rock coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
The proposed Project does not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea. The development will be undertaken on an existing vacant lot about 425 feet from the nearest coastal access point at Shelter Cove and about 1,815 feet from Pacifica State Beach. Between the sea and the project site, there is substantial urban development and several streets. Therefore, the Project would have no impact or otherwise interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea.
· Coastal Act Policy No. 5: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. New housing in the Coastal Zone shall be developed in conformity with the standards, policies, and goals of the local housing elements adopted in accordance with the requirements of · subdivision (c) of Section 65302 of the Government Code. (H, LU)
The proposed ULS and RDP would create new housing opportunities within the existing Pedro Point neighborhood. The City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2023-2031 states that the City intends to amend the zoning ordinance and other local policies to remove any inconsistencies with State and Federal law, including but not limited to SB 9, through the future implementation of Program HE-I-14. The actions included in Program HE-I-14 addresses the fair housing issues of low production of affordable housing limiting housing choices of households who have lower incomes and disproportionate housing needs. SB 9, amongst many other housing laws, is intended to make it easier and faster to develop affordable housing. Therefore, the Project would be in conformance with Housing Element policy and State law by providing for SB 9 development consistent with allowances for Sb 9 projects under the State law and the Housing Element plans to complete zoning ordinance amendments for SB 9 compliance. · Coastal Act Policy No. 23: New development, except as otherwise provided in this policy, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources... [the remainder of this policy pertains to land divisions and visitor-serving facilities, neither of which are part of the subject Project.]
The Project would include development within an existing developed area. The Pedro Point neighborhood is a substantially developed neighborhood with subdivided lots, most of which have already been developed including the lots on either side of the Project site. The Project site has the capacity to serve all required utilities to support the existing and proposed development, including but not limited to water, sewer, electricity, and telecommunications. Therefore, the Project would include development within an 8 Packet Pg. 103
Pacifica City Council 6
November 12, 2024
existing developed area which would not have significant adverse effects on coastal resources.
· Coastal Act Policy No. 24: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those described in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan, prepared by the department of Parks and Recreation and by local government, shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
The subject site has a down slope from Olympian Way, while the project proposes a maximum height of just under 35 feet, from Olympian Way the new residences will appear as single-story structures. Because the entire neighborhood is subject to similar slopes, many of the residences on Olympian Way use similar construction methods to build multi-level homes that appear as single-story from the public right-of-way. This type of construction method reduces the visual impact. The proposed residences would be visually compatible with the character of residential buildings in the surrounding area.
Furthermore, the Project site is not located within a coastal view corridor as designated in the LCLUP and, therefore, PMC sec. 9-4.4408 is not applicable to the Project. For all the reasons provided above, the Project would be consistent with Coastal Act Policy No. 24 and would not impact scenic and visual qualities of a coastal area. · Coastal Act Policy No. 26: New development shall (a) Minimize risk to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. [the remainder of this policy pertains to air pollution, energy consumption, protection of special communities, none of which would conflict with the Project.] a. The Project proposes an ULS and RDP on an undeveloped parcel for the development of two new residence lots and construction of a single-family residence on each lot. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report (Attachment B) that finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to minimize risk to life and property due to geologic hazards. The Project site is not located on an area of geotechnical hazard as referenced in the certified LCLUP, however is immediately adjacent to an area with potential slope failure threat from landslides and in a landslide zone from the 2040 General Plan. A geotechnical report prepared for the site finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer. The Project site is not located in a high flood area as shown on the FEMA flood maps. The project is not located in a high fire hazard area as shown in the adopted 2040 General Plan. The Project site is in a Very Low Liquefaction Zone. For the reasons provided above, the location of the Project would minimize future risks associated with areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazards.
8 Packet Pg. 104
Pacifica City Council 7
November 12, 2024
b. The proposed project will assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report that finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to ensure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
Implementation Plan
The City’s certified Local Coastal Program also includes an Implementation Plan (IP) to implement the policies contained in the LCLUP. The IP generally consists of the City’s zoning provisions and other PMC provisions relating to the regulation of development and coastal resources protection. As summarized above in the Project description, the proposed Project would comply with applicable setback, height, and other requirements of the Article 4.5 (PMC Section 9-4.453(c)). Also discussed above, the Project was found to not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4403 (Habitat Preservation), PMC Section 9-4.4404 (Geotechnical Suitability), PMC Section 9-4.4405 (Grading and drainage), PMC Section 9-
4.4406 (Shoreline Protection), PMC Section 9-4.4407 (Public shoreline access), and PMC Section 9-4.4408 (Coastal View Corridors).
For all the reasons provided above, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s finding that the proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program. ii. Required Finding: Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.
Discussion: The Project site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline; therefore, this finding does not apply in this case.
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CDP AND MINISTERIAL APPROVAL
OF ULS AND RDP
The appellants provided four reasons for the appeal in the appeal form (Attachment A), which are summarized and addressed by staff below.
Basis 1. Adherence to Municipal Code Section 9-4.4306 and California Coastal Act 30603 in publishing the June 7, 2024 notice of proposed development.
The appellants argued that the Community Development Director may not issue an Administrative Coastal Development for the proposed project.
Staff Analysis:
The project was initially reviewed as an Administrative Coastal Development Permit pursuant to 8 Packet Pg. 105
Pacifica City Council 8
November 12, 2024
the City’s Interim SB 9 Guidelines. But pursuant to consultation with California Coastal Commission staff, the entitlement was reclassified as a Coastal Development Permit without a public hearing, and brought to Planning Commission on September 16, 2024 for review as a Coastal Development Permit, per PMC Section 9-4.4304. Thus, because this project was not processed as an Administrative Coastal Development Permit, this basis of appeal lacks merit.
Basis 2. The development is not consistent with the LCLUP regarding Urban Lot Splits.
The appellants argued that the project must be sited and designed to be safe from hazards and its land divisions would create parcels whose only buildable area would be on slopes in excess of 35 percent which are prohibited. Appellants also indicated there was correspondence between the City and California Coastal Commission on May 17, 2022 that urged the City to analyze work in the right of way.
Staff Analysis:
In the memorandum prepared by Professional Land Services, dated August 22, 2024, the land surveyor provided explanations of topographic surveys conducted for the site and each of the proposed parcels. Initial surveys in December 2020 were redone to replace supplemental County contour data used previously due to heavy vegetation over part of the site with new spot elevations to increase the accuracy of the survey. The survey’s concluded that the parcels resulting from the proposed split would have an average slope of 32.15 and 31.7 percent.
Therefore, they would be less than the 35 percent and comply with the development standards of PMC Section 9-4.4404(d)(1).
Road work within the right of way is exempt from Coastal Development Permits under PMC Section 9-4.4303 and off-site improvements are not required pursuant to SB 9. However, staff has reached out to California Coastal Commission who are aware of the project, and analysis of details regarding work in the right of way would be conducted through the encroachment permit as a standard requirement and part of the standard permit process. The project will provide design level plans and specifications for work in the right of way as a standard requirement for the encroachment permit needed to conduct the work. The City Engineer has conducted preliminary review of the proposed work and will review design level plans and specifications for consistency with the proposed design and engineering standards. Thus, because this project is consistent with slope calculation requirements and construction plans are required to incorporate geotechnical recommendations and meet building and engineering standards for safe construction, this basis of appeal lacks merit.
Basis 3. Slopes Calculations Exceed Standard and Right of Way Should be Included in Calculations
The appellants argued analysis was not done to ensure slope was within 35 percent for land divisions. Slope was calculated for Lot A. Slope was shown to be 36.73 percent on Sheet A3.4 of the plan set. New parcels have slopes on the front half of the respective lots showing 36 percent and 40 percent. The appellants also argue that slope calculation is not accurate because it does not include slope of the right of way and should be analyzed because it is incorporated into the project.
Staff Analysis
As noted above, the Professional Land Services, dated August 22, 2024, provided analysis of slopes and determined average slopes of the lots would be below 35 percent. The 36.73 percent on Sheet A3.4 of the plan set is a calculation to justify the reduced setback for the slope 8 Packet Pg. 106
Pacifica City Council 9
November 12, 2024
in the front portion of the lot and is based on rise over run, per PMC Section 9-4.2704. The Section provides that a private garage may be built to within ten feet of the front lot line where the slope of the front half of any residential lot is greater 25 percent. These slope measurements capture the slope at a portion of the lot for setback calculation purposes. In contrast, average slope considers the whole lot, and the average slope formula that has been used in the municipal code is provided as:
S= 0.00229 IL / A
Where I = Contour interval in feet, not to exceed ten (10′) feet; L = Situation of length of contour lines in feet; and
A = Area in acres of the site or parcel being considered.
Slope calculations under the Zoning Code generally cover regulations for areas within the parcel lines and do not include the right of way. Thus, because this project is consistent with the standard process for slope calculations, this basis of appeal lacks merit.
Basis 4. The Drainage and Soil Stability System Requires Revisions and Analysis The appellants argue that there should be no stormwater detention percolation system in the top six to eight feet of soil comprising the slope without rigorous slope stability analysis and percolation testing.
Staff Analysis
The applicant’s preliminary geotechnical report has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the analysis and recommendations were found to support the feasibility of the proposed development. It is unclear what the detention percolation system referenced in the appeals means, as the City Engineer indicates that the system proposed is a detention system. The detention system would temporarily capture and release water to slow the rate of flow. The proposed system would be able to manage flow rates so that they would not exceed pre-project conditions. A percolation system would be a different system that functions for retention purposes and retaining water on-site. The City Engineer has indicated that percolation testing would not apply as the project is not using a percolation system. Slope stability and recommendations for design on slopes are evaluated through the project’s geotechnical report.
A design level geotechnical report and plans will be submitted as part of the building permit application to verify construction plans match the approved design, as condition, and meets engineering standards. Thus, because this project is required to meet drainage requirements and slope stability requirements which would be verified in construction plans by the City Engineer, this basis of appeal lacks merit.
CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE
Pursuant to PMC section 9-4.4305, the Council may approve, deny or modify the Coastal Development Permit based on compliance with the following findings: (1) The proposed development is in conformity with the City's certified Local Coastal Program; (2) Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The Council cannot make any changes to the Project unless it lacks compliance with SB 9 standards. .
In the event that the Council determines to deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the Planning Commission, the Council should consider adoption of the attached Resolution. In the event that the Council decides to approve the appeal, based solely on CDP-related findings, 8 Packet Pg. 107
Pacifica City Council 10 November 12, 2024
Council will need to provide staff with the basis for those findings that are supported by substantial evidence. A Resolution denying the application would then be brought back to Council at a later date.
The project is located within the Coastal Zone, Appeals Zone. Appeals of a City Council decision will be considered by the California Coastal Commission.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
Staff analysis of the project supports a City Council finding that the project qualifies for a statutory exemption under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15268 and Public Resource Code Section 21080(b)(1). The Project qualifies as a “Ministerial Project” provided in Section 15268 (Ministerial Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. Any application made under SB 9 must be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.21(a) and Public Resource Code Section 21080(b)(1). Section 15268 states in part:
a) Ministerial projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The determination of what is “ministerial” can most appropriately be made by the particular public agency involved based upon its analysis of its own laws, and each public agency should make such determination either as a part of its implementing regulations or on a case-by-case basis.
The proposal to authorize an urban lot split for an undeveloped parcel into two parcels and construct a single-family residence on each new lot fits within the scope of a “Ministerial Project” under a statutory exemption. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the requirements for a statutory exemption as any application made under SB 9 must be considered ministerially.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
The Project is not directly associated with an item on the City Council’s 2024-25 Work Plan. It is the City Council’s normal governance process to review and determine appeals of Planning Commission actions under the Pacifica Municipal Code.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact to the City related to the recommendation.
ORIGINATED BY:
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Appeal Statement (PDF)
Attachment B - Project Plans (PDF)
8 Packet Pg. 108
Pacifica City Council 11 November 12, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DENYING THE APPEAL OF FILE NO. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP-005-24) AND UPHOLDING 1) THE
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF THE URBAN LOT SPLIT AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND 2) PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AT OLYMPIAN WAY (APN 023-037-030), AND
FINDING THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
______________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Michael Jimenez, Applicant
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to authorize an urban lot split for approximately 7,289 square foot undeveloped parcel into two parcels and construct one singlefamily residence on each new located on a parcel on Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030) in Pacifica (File No. 2024-004) (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a coastal development permit; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 9 (Chapter 162, Statues of 2021) requires ministerial approval of a housing development with no more than two primary units in a single family zone, the subdivision of a parcel in a single family zone into two parcels, or both; and WHEREAS, the Project qualifies for a statutory exemption under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15268 and Public Resource Code Section 21080(b)(1); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed regular Planning Commission meeting on September 16, 2024, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence, presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica adopted a resolution to approve the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, Ila and Ron Homsher; Kathy Gust; Don and Meredith Woods; Leo Leon and Kris Geiger (“Appellants”) filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval on September 24, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public meeting on November 12, 2024, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
2. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials. 8 Packet Pg. 109
Pacifica City Council 12 November 12, 2024
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the appeal and uphold the approval of File No. 2024-004 (CDP-465-24, ULS-009-24, RDP-005-24) based upon all of the reasons set forth in the Staff Report, and makes the following findings pertaining to these Appeal of the Planning Commission’s action:
Basis 1. Adherence to Municipal Code Section 9-4.4306 and California Coastal Act 30603 in publishing the June 7, 2024 notice of proposed development.
Finding: The project was initially reviewed as an Administrative Coastal Development Permit pursuant to the City’s Interim SB 9 Guidelines. But pursuant to consultation with California Coastal Commission staff, the entitlement was reclassified as a Coastal Development Permit without a public hearing, and brought to Planning Commission on September 16, 2024 for review as a Coastal Development Permit, per PMC Section 9-4.4304. Thus, because this project was not processed as an Administrative Coastal Development Permit, this basis of appeal lacks merit.
Basis 2. The development is not consistent with the LCLUP regarding Urban Lot Splits.
Finding: In the memorandum prepared by Professional Land Services, dated August 22, 2024, the land surveyor provided explanations of topographic surveys conducted for the site and each of the proposed parcels. Initial surveys in December 2020 were redone to replace supplemental County contour data used previously due to heavy vegetation over part of the site with new spot elevations to increase the accuracy of the survey. Parcel resulting from the proposed split would be 32.15 and 31.7.
Road work within the right of way is exempt from Coastal Development Permits under PMC Section 9-4.4303 and off-site improvements are not required pursuant to SB 9. However, staff has reached out to California Coastal Commission who are aware of the project, and analysis of details regarding work in the right of way would be conducted through the encroachment permit as a standard requirement and part of the standard permit process. The project will provide design level plans and specifications for work in the right of way as a standard requirement for the encroachment permit needed to conduct the work. The City Engineer has conducted preliminary review of the proposed work and will review design level plans and specifications for consistency with the proposed design and engineering standards. Thus, because this project is consistent with slope calculation requirements and construction plans are required to incorporate geotechnical recommendations and meet building and engineering standards for safe construction, this basis of appeal lacks merit.
Basis 3. Slopes Calculations Exceed Standard and Right of Way Should be Included in Calculations
Findings: As noted above, the Professional Land Services, dated August 22, 2024, provided analysis of slopes and determined average slopes of the lots would be below 35 percent. The
36.73 percent on Sheet A3.4 of the plan set is a calculation to justify the reduced setback for the slope in the front portion of the lot and is based on rise over run, per PMC Section 9-4.2704.
The Section provides that a private garage may be built to within ten feet of the front lot line where the slope of the front half of any residential lot is greater 25 percent. These slope measurements capture the slope at a portion of the lot for setback calculation purposes. In contrast, average slope considers the whole lot, and the average slope formula that has been used in the municipal code is provided as:
S= 0.00229 IL / A
Where I = Contour interval in feet, not to exceed ten (10′) feet; L = Situation of length of contour lines in feet; and
8 Packet Pg. 110
Pacifica City Council 13 November 12, 2024
A = Area in acres of the site or parcel being considered.
Slope calculations under the Zoning Code generally cover regulations for areas within the parcel lines and do not include the right of way. Thus, because this project is consistent with the standard process for slope calculations, this basis of appeal lacks merit.
Basis 4. The Drainage and Soil Stability System Requires Revisions and Analysis Finding: The applicant’s preliminary geotechnical report has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the analysis and recommendations were found to support the feasibility of the proposed development. It is unclear what the detention percolation system referenced in the appeal means, as the City Engineer indicates that the system proposed is a detention system. A percolation system would be a different system that functions differently. The proposed system would be able to manage flow rates so that they would not exceed pre-project conditions. A design level geotechnical report and plans will be submitted as part of the building permit application to verify construction plans match the approved design, as condition, and meets engineering standards. Thus, because this project is required to meet drainage requirements and slope stability requirements which would be verified in construction plans by the City Engineer, this basis of appeal lacks merit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does make the following findings pertaining to Coastal Development Permit CDP-465-24 as required by PMC section 9-4.4304(k) and PMC section 9-4.4306(m)(3):
i. Required Finding: The proposed development is in conformity with the City's certified Local Coastal Program.
Discussion: The City’s certified Local Coastal Program includes a Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and Implementation Plan (IP).
Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP)
The LCLUP contains policies to further the City’s coastal planning activities. Applicable policies and references in the City’s LCLUP are discussed further below:
• Coastal Act Policy No. 2: Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rock coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
The proposed Project does not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea. The development will be undertaken on an existing vacant lot about 425 feet from the nearest coastal access point at Shelter Cove and about 1,815 feet from Pacifica State Beach. Between the sea and the project site, there is substantial urban development and several streets. Therefore, the Project would have no impact or otherwise interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea.
• Coastal Act Policy No. 5: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. New housing in the Coastal Zone shall be developed in conformity with the standards, policies, and goals of the local housing elements adopted in accordance 8 Packet Pg. 111
Pacifica City Council 14 November 12, 2024
with the requirements of · subdivision (c) of Section 65302 of the Government Code. (H, LU)
The proposed ULS and RDP would create new housing opportunities within the existing Pedro Point neighborhood. The City of Pacifica Housing Element: 2023-2031 states that the City intends to amend the zoning ordinance and other local policies to remove any inconsistencies with State and Federal law, including but not limited to SB 9, through the future implementation of Program HE-I-14. The actions included in Program HE-I-14 addresses the fair housing issues of low production of affordable housing limiting housing choices of households who have lower incomes and disproportionate housing needs. SB 9, amongst many other housing laws, to make it easier and faster to develop affordable housing. Therefore, the Project would support the Housing Element policy to provide lower cost housing opportunities.
• Coastal Act Policy No. 23: New development, except as otherwise provided in this policy, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources... [the remainder of this policy pertains to land divisions and visitor-serving facilities, neither of which are part of the subject Project.]
The Project would include development within an existing developed area. The Pedro Point – Shelter Cove neighborhood is a substantially developed neighborhood with subdivided lots, most of which have already been developed including the lots on either side of the Project site. The Project site has the capacity to serve all required utilities to support the existing and proposed development, including but not limited to water, sewer, electricity, and telecommunications. Therefore, the Project would include development within an existing developed area which would not have significant adverse effects on coastal resources.
• Coastal Act Policy No. 24: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those described in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan, prepared by the department of Parks and Recreation and by local government, shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
The subject site has a down slope from Olympian Way, while the project proposes a maximum height of just under 35 feet, from Olympian Way the new residences will appear as single-story structures. Because the entire neighborhood is subject to similar slopes, many of the residences on Olympian Way use similar construction methods to build multi-level homes that appear as single-story from the public right-of-way. This type of construction method reduces the visual impact. The proposed residences would be visually compatible with the character of residential buildings in the surrounding area.
Furthermore, the Project site is not located within a coastal view corridor as designated in the LCLUP and, therefore, PMC sec. 9-4.4408 is not applicable to the Project. For all the reasons provided above, the Project would be consistent Coastal Act Policy No. 24 and would not impact scenic and visual qualities of a coastal area. 8 Packet Pg. 112
Pacifica City Council 15 November 12, 2024
• Coastal Act Policy No. 26: New development shall (a) Minimize risk to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. [the remainder of this policy pertains to air pollution, energy consumption, protection of special communities, none of which would conflict with the Project.] a. The Project proposes a ULS and RDP on an undeveloped parcel for the development of two new residence lots and construction of a single-family residence on each lot. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report (Attachment C) that finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to minimize risk to life and property due to geologic hazards. The Project site is not located on an area of geotechnical hazard1 as referenced in the certified LCLUP, however is immediately adjacent to an area with potential slope failure area of most landslides.
Although located adjacent to a geotechnical hazard, the geotechnical report finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer. The Project site is not located in a high flood area as shown on the FEMA flood maps2. The project is not located in a high fire hazard area as shown in the adopted 2040 General Plan. The Project site is in a Very Low Liquefaction Zone. For the reasons provided above, the location of the Project would minimize future risks associated with areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazards.
b. The proposed project will assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report that finds that the proposed project can be safely constructed as proposed with the provided recommendations from the geotechnical engineer as outlined in the report to ensure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
Implementation Plan
The City’s certified Local Coastal Program also includes an Implementation Plan (IP) to implement the policies contained in the LCLUP. The IP generally consists of the City’s zoning provisions and other PMC provisions relating to the regulation of development and coastal resources protection. As summarized above in the Project description, the proposed Project would comply with applicable setback, height, and other requirements of the Article
4.5 (PMC Section 9-4.453(c)). Also discussed above, the Project was found to not trigger the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.4403 (Habitat Preservation), PMC Section 9-4.4404 (Geotechnical Suitability), PMC Section 9-4.4405 (Grading and drainage), PMC Section 9- 1 Geotechnical Hazard Figure Page 99 of Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the 1980 General Plan as referenced on page C-102 of the certified 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan 2 FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. TBD Olympian Way is not located within any mapped Flood Zone, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. Search conducted on May 29, 2024. 8 Packet Pg. 113
Pacifica City Council 16 November 12, 2024
4.4406 (Shoreline Protection), PMC Section 9-4.4407 (Public shoreline access), and PMC Section 9-4.4408 (Coastal View Corridors).
For all the reasons provided above, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s finding that the proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.
ii. Required Finding: Where the Coastal Development Permit is issued for any development between the nearest public road and the shoreline, the development is in conformity with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.
Discussion: The Project site is not located between the nearest public road and the shoreline; therefore, this finding does not apply in this case.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby deny the appeal and uphold the approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP465-24, Urban Lot Split ULS-009-24, and Residential Development Permit RDP-005-24 to authorize an urban lot split for approximately 7,289 square foot undeveloped parcel into two parcels and construct one single-family residence on each new located on a parcel on Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030) in Pacifica (File No. 2024-004), subject to requirements included in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 8 Packet Pg. 114
Pacifica City Council 17 November 12, 2024
Exhibit A
Requirements: File No. 2024-004 – Coastal Development Permit CDP-465-24 to authorize an urban lot split for approximately 7,289 square foot undeveloped parcel into two parcels and construct one single-family residence on each new located on a parcel on Olympian Way (APN 023-037-030) in Pacifica (File No. 2024-004) Planning Division of the Community Development Department
1. Development shall be substantially in accord with the plans entitled “Tentative Parcel Map – Urban Lot Split BEING OF SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 39, 40, 41 OF BLOCK 18 AS SHOWN IN BOOK 5 OF MAPS PG 60 CITY OF PACIFICA, SAN MATEO COUNTY,” dated December 20, 2023; “New 2-Story Single Family Home TBD Olympian Way Parcel A,” dated January 26, 2024; and “New 2-Story Single Family Home TBD Olympian Way Parcel B,” dated January 26, 2024, except as modified by the following requirements:
2. The approval letter issued by the City and all requirements attached thereto shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any building permit application.
3. The Applicant/property owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant’s Project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Applicant of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/property owner shall clearly indicate compliance with all requirements on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction.
5. The applicant/property owner is required to pay outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project prior to the issuance of a building permit.
6. The applicant/property owner shall submit a Final Parcel Map to the Engineering Division ([email protected]) for approval by the City Engineer. The map shall show and set all required monumentation on the map prior to recordation of the map.
7. The applicant/property owner shall submit a deed restriction to be recorded on each new parcel to reflect the restriction of use to residential only. 8 Packet Pg. 115
Pacifica City Council 18 November 12, 2024
8. The applicant/property owner shall complete an Owner Occupancy Affidavit to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to recordation of the Final Map.
Building Division of the Community Development Department
9. The applicant/property owner shall apply for and obtain approval of a building permit prior to commencing any construction activity.
Engineering Division of the Public Works Department
10. The applicant/property owner shall submit all necessary documents to review and record parcel map, including but not limited to surveys, soils report, tax report, deeds for easement or rights-of-ways, traverse closures, and any other information required by the City Engineer.
11. The applicant/property owner shall submit construction drawings and verify that construction is in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices shall be implemented and the construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the project plans.
12. The applicant/property owner shall submit an Erosion Control Plan prior to issuance of the Building Permit, .
13. The applicant/property owner shall verify that the proposed sanitary sewer system and storm drain system elements, including detention facilities, shall be privately maintained up to their connections to the existing mains on the proposed utility plans.
14. Prior to approval, applicant/property owner shall submit to Engineering Division the construction plans and necessary reports and engineering calculations for all on-site and off-site improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such plans and reports shall include but not limited to:
a. All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.
b. Plan, profile and cross sections of each parcel.
c. Design Geotechnical Report analyzing the proposed on-site and off-site improvements including but not limited to the driveways and storm drains. d. All site improvements including utilities and connections to existing mains must be designed according to the City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant/property owner shall provide hydraulic calculations indicating that the proposed storm drain system does not increase runoff above the pre-development conditions. Any stormwater runoff that exceeds the predevelopment condition must be detained onsite.
16. Prior to any construction activity, the Engineer or Geologist, of record, shall be present on-site during the excavation, grading, and foundation installation phases of the project and the applicant/property owner shall submit a written certification that the project grading and foundation improvement plans has been implemented as approved by the City’s Engineering Division.
17. The applicant/property owner shall submit subdivision and improvement plans that must be peer reviewed by a consultant for the City. The plans must demonstrate that the 8 Packet Pg. 116
Pacifica City Council 19 November 12, 2024
project is compliant with current standards for civil engineering, seismic and geological engineering. The City’s consultant must be able to recommend that the project be approved, as is or with recommended changes. The applicant shall submit payment to the City for the cost of the peer review, including the costs of staff time and any services determined to be necessary by the City Engineer.
18. The applicant/property owner shall submit a traffic control plan (TCP) for review and approval by the City Engineering Division prior to the start of construction activity. The TCP shall include the following and any other information as deemed necessary by the City Engineer upon review of the TCP:
a. Identification of the path of travel for delivery trucks to and from the project site.
This travel-path shall be shown starting from and returning to the City’s designated truck route or the City limits and starting from and returning to the offload location at the project site.
b. Identification of a “turn-around” area for delivery trucks on site. All open-bed trucks shall be tarped.
c. Identification of all on- and off-site worker parking locations, including any carpool pick-up and drop-off locations.
d. Identification of an access lane of not less than 11 feet in width between parked vehicles and equipment at all times for emergency vehicle access. e. Staging and storing of equipment and materials in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited unless authorized with an encroachment permit. f. Lane closure shall only be permitted with prior approval from the Department of Public Works and requested from the Department no less than 72 hours in advance of schedule and coordinated with Pacifica Police, Pacifica Fire Department, and Recology. The contractor shall provide the affected properties with written notice no less than 10 days in advance of road closure. Through traffic shall be maintained at all times along Olympian Way. g. The TCP shall include a note indicative of these requirements.
19. The applicant/property owner shall seek approvals and/or agreements that shall be obtained from all public or private utilities. A dedication of easements shall be recorded and run with the property.
20. The applicant/property owner shall provide plans that indicate the improvements are consistent, approved by, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the requirements. All construction shall meet the latest California Building Code, California Fire Code, City of Pacifica Municipal Code and the City Standard Specifications and Drawings. Securities for all required improvements, and applicable fees and charges, shall be submitted prior to permit issuance. The applicant shall obtain all required permits before commencing work. All required improvements shall be constructed at no cost to the City except where specifically agreed to by the City under the provisions of a written agreement. Grading and improvement plan review and approval by the City Engineer are required before any City Permit is issued. The improvement plans shall include details for on‐site and off‐site improvements for vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, traffic signs and markings, utility service connections, modifications and extension of the City’s sewer, storm drain, safety lighting, landscaping, and other public service and common facilities. All utility services shall be underground unless otherwise approved. Said improvements shall conform to City of Pacifica and affected Agency’s standards.
21. The applicant/property owner shall submit plans that indicate and show all stormwater detention, stormwater treatment, or other stormwater BMP improvements shall be located outside of the public right-of-way and maintained by the property owner. The 8 Packet Pg. 117
Pacifica City Council 20 November 12, 2024
plans shall also show all privately owned and maintained improvements shall be located outside of the public right-of-way. There shall be no private improvements within the public right-of-way. Stormwater measures shall be covered under a separate Maintenance Agreement for Stormwater Treatment Measures recorded prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and to run with the property. The Maintenance Agreement shall burden the Applicant to maintain all covered improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
22. The applicant/property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit before any work is performed within city right-of-way, public easements, or utility easements.
23. The applicant/property owner shall submit a statement that agrees to all roadways to be maintained clear of construction materials, equipment, storage, and debris, especially mud and dirt tracked onto Olympian Way. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced.
24. The applicant/property owner shall submit a statement that agrees to existing street improvements adjacent to the property frontage that are damaged or displaced will be repaired or replaced as determined by the City Engineer even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this project.
25. The applicant/property owner shall provide “will serve letters” from North Coast County Water District for water service. In addition, the applicant/property owner shall submit documentation of “will serve letters” from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for electric services.
26. The applicant/property owner shall complete a deferred improvements agreement for the improvements on Olympian Way prior to issuance of building permit.
27. The applicant/property owner provide a stormwater maintenance agreement that addresses vector control and debris removal for the proposed stormwater facilities prior to issuance of building permit.
28. The applicant/property owner shall complete a maintenance agreement for all private structures, including but not limited to walls, curbs, and fences within the City right-ofway prior to issuance of building permit.
29. The applicant/property owner shall show on the plan set that a 3’ slurry or a t-trench per Pacifica Details is proposed to the edge of the sawcut for the widened roadway to mitigate water intrusion with the widened roadway.
Arborist Division of the Public Works Department
30. The applicant/property owner must submit a Tree Encroachment Permit for the Protected Trees within 50 feet of the proposed construction that will be preserved. For the one Heritage Tree to be removed as part of the construction process, the Applicant shall submit a Tree Removal Permit.
North County Fire Authority
31. The applicant/property owner shall submit drawings and verify compliance with California Fire & Building Codes as well as, Pacifica Municipal Code. 8 Packet Pg. 118
Pacifica City Council 21 November 12, 2024
32. The applicant/property owner shall submit drawings and verify compliance ensuring that all access roads and required aerial access setbacks are provided as per CFC Appendix D. Olympian Way does not meet access width of 20’ minimum. An AMMR is required for access width and Fire Department turn-around provisions on a dead-end street. A separate AMMR is required for each code requirement. Apply for Alternate Methods/Materials Requests (AMMR) with NCFA.
33. The applicant/property owner shall submit drawings that indicate the Fire sprinkler systems as required. In addition, the applicant/property owner shall submit plans under separate fire permit.
34. The applicant/property owner shall submit drawings that indicate fire flow information per CFC, Appendix B.
35. The applicant/property owner shall submit drawings that indicate illuminated address identification as required.
***END***
8 Packet Pg. 119
8.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment A - Appeal Statement (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
8.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment A - Appeal Statement (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
8.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment A - Appeal Statement (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
8.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment A - Appeal Statement (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) LANDS OF SAN PEDRO VALLEY, LLC "SAN PEDRO TERRACE" 5 MAPS 60 BLOCK 18 APN 023-037-030 S4°46'00"W 75.00' S85°14'00"E 68.84' N12°36'00"W 26.19' S85°14'00"E 52.38' N12°30'00"W 13.31' N18°03'00"E 38.30' N85°14'00"W 118.20'
S4°46'00"W 25.00'
BASIS OF BEARINGS
OLYMPIAN WAY (40' ROW) LANDS OF HOMSHER APN 023-037-020 LANDS OF WOOD APN 023-037-040 LANDS OF GUST APN 023-037-140 LANDS OF GARCIA/WALKER APN 023-037-010 TREES TO BE REMOVED PER ARBORIST REPORT, TYP TREES TO BE REMOVED PER ARBORIST REPORT, TYP TREES TO BE REMOVED PER ARBORIST REPORT, TYP TREES TO BE REMOVED PER ARBORIST REPORT, TYP HYD HYDRANT FF FINISHED FLOOR FS FINISHED SURFACE CONTOUR LINE W/ ELEVATION EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT LEGEND CL CENTERLINE FINISHED GRADE WATER VALVE FGWV BUILDING FOOTPRINT IR IRRIGATION CONTROLS DI DRAINAGE INLET WOODEN FENCE LINE TREE CONC CONCRETE BOUNDARY OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES BOUNDARY OF PROPERTY LINE RL RIDGE LINE ELEVATION GF GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION FD FOUND (XXX) RECORD DATA CHAIN LINK FENCE LINE 0 5 10 20 1" = 10' AC DRIVEWAY
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP-URBAN LOT SPLIT
BEING A SUBDIVION OF LOTS 39, 40, 41 OF
BLOCK 18 AS SHOWN IN BOOK 5 OF MAPS PG 60
CITY OF PACIFICA, SAN MATEO COUNTY
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY C1.1 1"=10' TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SB 9 - URBAN LOT SPLIT TOPOGRAPHIC NOTES TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS OBTAINED FROM A FIELD SURVEY CONDUCTED BY PROFESSIONAL LAND SERVICES IN 2021. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1'. BENCHMARK THE ELEVATIONS ARE BASED FROM THE POINT "CP 2" BEING A PK NAIL IN ASPHALT, SET IN NEAR THE CENTERLINE OF OLYMPIAN WAY AND THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF SUSSEX WAY, AND WITH SAID POINT HAVING A NORTHING OF 2045404.65, AND AN EASTING OF 5978552.53 BEING IN NAD83 CALIFORNIA ZONE 3 STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, AND HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 238.27 BEING NAVD 88. BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARING OF S4°46'00"W ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF OLYMPIAN WAY (FORMERLY CLIFTON AVENUE) BETWEEN TWO FOUND MONUMENTS HAVING A DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM OF 25.00', AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 2288, RECORDED IN VOLUME 37 OF LLS MAPS AT PAGE 57 ON OCTOBER 11, 2012 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY. ZONING THE EXISTING ZONE IS R1. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THE EXISTING ZONING. EROSION CONTROL THE SUBDIVIDER INTENDS TO INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. SOILS ENGINEER DAN DYCKMAN GEOFORENSICS, INC. 303 VINTAGE PARK DRIVE, SUITE 220 FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA 94404 650.349.3369 [email protected] LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFEREED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF PACIFICA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO , STATE OF CALIFORNIA , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS 39, 40, AND 41, BLOCK 18, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF SAN PEDRO TERRACE BY THE SEA BEING A PART OF SAN PEDRO RANCH SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", WHICH WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON FEBRUARY 3, 1908, IN BOOK 5 OF MAPS AT PAGE 60. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER (APN) : 023-037-030 OWNER SAN PEDRO VALLEY, LLC APPLICANT MICHAEL JIMENEZ CIVIL ENGINEER MIKE O'CONNELL, PE C75811 EXPIRES 6/30/24 650.303.0495 VICINITY MAP NTS 8.b Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) PARCEL A 3,643 SF
S4°46'00"W 37.50' S85°14'00"E 68.84' N12°36'00"W 26.19' S85°14'00"E 52.38' N12°30'00"W 13.31' N18°03'00"E 25.69' N85°14'00"W 118.20'
S4°46'00"W 25.00'
BASIS OF BEARINGS
OLYMPIAN WAY (40' ROW) LANDS OF HOMSHER APN 023-037-020 LANDS OF WOOD APN 023-037-040 LANDS OF GUST APN 023-037-140 LANDS OF GARCIA/WALKER APN 023-037-010 PARCEL B 3,637 SF S4°46'00"W 37.50'
N18°03'00"E 12.61' S85°14'00"E 51.23' S85°14'00"E 60.97' N4°46'00"E 12.50' 0 5 10 20 1" = 10'
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP-URBAN LOT SPLIT
BEING A SUBDIVION OF LOTS 39, 40, 41 OF
BLOCK 18 AS SHOWN IN BOOK 5 OF MAPS PG 60
CITY OF PACIFICA, SAN MATEO COUNTY
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP C2.1 1"=10' 8.b
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) PARCEL A 3,643 SF
S4°46'00"W 37.50' S85°14'00"E 68.84' N12°36'00"W 26.19' S85°14'00"E 52.38' N12°30'00"W 13.31' N18°03'00"E 25.69'
N85°14'00"W 118.20'
S4°46'00"W 25.00'
BASIS OF BEARINGS
OLYMPIAN WAY (40' ROW) LANDS OF HOMSHER APN 023-037-020 LANDS OF WOOD APN 023-037-040 LANDS OF GUST APN 023-037-140 LANDS OF GARCIA/WALKER APN 023-037-010 PARCEL B 3,637 SF S4°46'00"W 37.50'
N18°03'00"E 12.61' S85°14'00"E 51.23' S85°14'00"E 60.97' N4°46'00"E 12.50' 1- NOTE: ALL RETAINING WALLS ARE SUBJECT TO BUILDING INSPECTIONS BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND A SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT FOR RETAINING WALLS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS REQUIRED. 0 5 10 20 1" = 10'
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP-URBAN LOT SPLIT
BEING A SUBDIVION OF LOTS 39, 40, 41 OF
BLOCK 18 AS SHOWN IN BOOK 5 OF MAPS PG 60
CITY OF PACIFICA, SAN MATEO COUNTY
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C2.2 1"=10' RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUED FROM PUBLIC WORKS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR WORK DONE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER CITY STANDARDS. AN ENCROACHMENT BOND (OR CASH OR CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT) WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 2. ALL ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS REQUIRE 24-HOUR NOTICE. 3. CONSTRUCTION WORKING HOURS SHALL NOT EXTEND BEYOND 9 A.M. TO 4 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE CITY OF PACIFICA (PMC 8-1.08). 4. 5. ROADWAYS SHALL BE MAINTAINED CLEAR OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND DEBRIS AT ALL TIMES. DAILY ROAD CLEANUP WILL BE ENFORCED. 6. HOLES OR TRENCHES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST BE BACKFILLED BEFORE LEAVING EACH NIGHT UNLESS WRITTEN PERMISSION IS PROVIDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, WHICH MUST BE REQUESTED AT LEAST 24 HOURS ADVANCE. 7. ALL RECORDED SURVEY POINTS, MONUMENTS, RAILROAD SPIKES, PINS, CROSS CUTS ON TOP OF SIDEWALKS AND TAGS ON TOP OF CULVERT HEADWALLS OR END WALLS, WHETHER WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY OR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, SHALL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED. IF SURVEY POINT(S) ARE ALTERED, REMOVED, OR DESTROYED, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING THE SERVICES OF A LICENSED SURVEYOR OR QUALIFIED CIVIL ENGINEER TO RESTORE OR REPLACE THE SURVEY POINTS AND RECORD THE THE REQUIRED MAP, PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. 8. ALL IMPROVEMENTS IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR PUBLIC EASEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF PACIFICA SPECIFICATIONS AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY. 9. EXISTING CURB, SIDEWALK, OR STREET ADJACENT TO PROPERTY FRONTAGE THAT IS DAMAGED OR DISPLACED SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED EVEN IF DAMAGE OR DISPLACEMENT OCCURRED PRIOR TO ANY WORK PERFORMED FOR THIS PROJECT. 10. ANY DAMAGE TO IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR TO ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHETHER ADJACENT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY OR NOT, THAT IS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER TO HAVE RESULTED FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 11. THERE SHALL BE NO STRUCTURAL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 12. TRENCHES OR HOLES IN THE STREET OR SIDEWALK AREAS MUST HAVE A 6" SHOULDER ON ALL SIDES (A 6" TEE-CUT) AT LEAST 16" BELOW THE FINISHED SURFACE. FROM THAT LEVEL UP TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE PAVEMENT OR CONCRETE, THE TRENCH OR HOLE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH CALTRANS CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL, COMPACTED TO 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY (PLACED AND COMPACTED IN MAX 8" LIFTS). 13. EDGES OF PAVEMENT PATCHES SHALL BE PARALLEL AND/OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE EDGE OF THE STREET (CURB LINE). PATCHES WITHIN 12 INCHES OF PAVEMENT EDGE SHALL BE EXTENDED TO THE PAVEMENT EDGE. PAVEMENT PATCH MUST BE CALTRANS 1/2" MEDIUM HOT MIX ASPHALT COMPACTED TO 95% IN 2" LIFTS. 14. PATCHES IN CONCRETE SIDEWALK OR DRIVEWAY APPROACHES SHALL BE SAW-CUT AT EXISTING SCORE JOINTS, INCLUDING 6" BEHIND THE FACE OF CURB IF THE CURB IS NOT BEING REPLACED. 1/2" x 12" DOWELS MUST BE INSERTED AT LEAST 4" INTO ADJACENT CURB AND 6" INTO ADJACENT FLATWORK. 15. COVERS OR PLATES OR OTHER ITEMS EMBEDDED WITHIN THE SIDEWALK AREA MUST BE FLUSH WITH THE SURROUNDING SURFACE, AND MUST NOT HAVE GAPS OR HOLES THAT JEOPARDIZE BICYCLISTS, CHILDREN, PEDESTRIANS, SENIORS, OR THE DISABLED, AND MUST HAVE NON-SLIP SURFACES. 16. THE CONTRACTOR OR OWNER SHALL CONTACT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (PHONE 738-4669) 24 HOURS PRIOR TO STARTING EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: TRENCHING, BACKFILLING, PAVEMENT RESTORATION, SEWER TAP, PIPE INSTALLATION OR ANY OTHER SEWAGE WORK. 17. NO PODS, DEBRIS BOX OR EQUIPMENT SHED IS ALLOWED IN THE STREET OR SIDEWALK. 18. NO WASTEWATER (INCLUDING EQUIPMENT CLEANING WASH WATER, VEHICLE WASH WATER, COOLING WATER, AIR CONDITIONER CONDENSATE, AND FLOOR CLEANING WASH WATER) SHALL BE DISCHARGED TO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, THE STREET, OR GUTTER. NOTES 1. DISCHARGE FIRE SPRINKLER WATER TO LANDSCAPE AREA OR SEWER. 2. DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF ON TO VEGETATED AREAS. 3. CONSTRUCT ALL SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PER CITY STANDARDS. 4. CUT = 178 CY FILL = 69 CY EXPORT = 109 CY 8.b Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Construction projects are required to implement the stormwater best management practices (BMP) on this page, as they apply to your project, all year long.
Non-Hazardous Materials Berm and cover stockpiles of sand, dirt or other construction material with tarps when rain is forecast or if not actively being used within 14 days. Use (but don’t overuse) reclaimed water for dust control.Hazardous Materials Label all hazardous materials and hazardous wastes (such as pesticides, paints, thinners, solvents, fuel, oil, and antifreeze) in accordance with city, county, state and federal regulations. Store hazardous materials and wastes in water tight containers, store in appropriate secondary containment, and cover them at the end of every work day or during wet weather or when rain is forecast. Follow manufacturer’s application instructions for hazardous materials and be careful not to use more than necessary. Do not apply chemicals outdoors when rain is forecast within 24 hours. Arrange for appropriate disposal of all hazardous wastes.Waste Management Cover waste disposal containers securely with tarps at the end of every work day and during wet weather.
Check waste disposal containers frequently for leaks and to make sure they are not overfi lled. Never hose down a dumpster on the construction site. Clean or replace portable toilets, and inspect them frequently for leaks and spills.
Dispose of all wastes and debris properly. Recycle materials and wastes that can be recycled (such as asphalt, concrete, aggregate base materials, wood, gyp board, pipe, etc.) Dispose of liquid residues from paints, thinners, solvents, glues, and cleaning fl uids as hazardous waste.
Construction Entrances and Perimeter Establish and maintain effective perimeter controls and stabilize all construction entrances and exits to suffi ciently control erosion and sediment discharges from site and tracking off site.
Sweep or vacuum any street tracking immediately and secure sediment source to prevent further tracking. Never hose down streets to clean up tracking.
Materials & Waste Management Equipment Management &
Spill Control
Maintenance and Parking Designate an area, fi tted with appropriate BMPs, for vehicle and equipment parking and storage.
Perform major maintenance, repair jobs, and vehicle
and equipment washing off site.
If refueling or vehicle maintenance must be done
onsite, work in a bermed area away from storm drains and over a drip pan or drop cloths big enough to collect fl uids. Recycle or dispose of fl uids as hazardous waste. If vehicle or equipment cleaning must be done onsite, clean with water only in a bermed area that will not allow rinse water to run into gutters, streets, storm drains, or surface waters. Do not clean vehicle or equipment onsite using soaps, solvents, degreasers, or steam cleaning equipment.
Spill Prevention and Control Keep spill cleanup materials (e.g., rags, absorbents and cat litter) available at the construction site at all times. Inspect vehicles and equipment frequently for and
repair leaks promptly. Use drip pans to catch leaks until repairs are made. Clean up spills or leaks immediately and dispose of
cleanup materials properly.
Do not hose down surfaces where fl uids have spilled.
Use dry cleanup methods (absorbent materials, cat litter, and/or rags). Sweep up spilled dry materials immediately. Do not
try to wash them away with water, or bury them.
Clean up spills on dirt areas by digging up and
properly disposing of contaminated soil.
Report signifi cant spills immediately. You are required by law to report all signifi cant releases of hazardous materials, including oil. To report a spill: 1) Dial 911 or your local emergency response number, 2) Call the Governor’s Offi ce of Emergency Services Warning Center, (800) 852-7550 (24 hours).
Earthmoving
Schedule grading and excavation work
during dry weather.
Stabilize all denuded areas, install and
maintain temporary erosion controls (such as erosion control fabric or bonded fi ber matrix) until vegetation is established. Remove existing vegetation only when
absolutely necessary, and seed or plant vegetation for erosion control on slopes or where construction is not immediately planned. Prevent sediment from migrating offsite
and protect storm drain inlets, gutters, ditches, and drainage courses by installing and maintaining appropriate BMPs, such as fi ber rolls, silt fences, sediment basins, gravel bags, berms, etc. Keep excavated soil on site and transfer it
to dump trucks on site, not in the streets.
Contaminated Soils
If any of the following conditions are
observed, test for contamination and contact the Regional Water Quality Control Board:
- Unusual soil conditions, discoloration,
or odor.
- Abandoned underground tanks.- Abandoned wells- Buried barrels, debris, or trash. Discharges of groundwater or captured
runoff from dewatering operations must be properly managed and disposed. When possible send dewatering discharge to landscaped area or sanitary sewer. If discharging to the sanitary sewer call your local wastewater treatment plant. Divert run-on water from offsite away
from all disturbed areas.
When dewatering, notify and obtain
approval from the local municipality before discharging water to a street gutter or storm drain. Filtration or diversion through a basin, tank, or sediment trap may be required. In areas of known or suspected
contamination, call your local agency to determine whether the ground water must be tested. Pumped groundwater may need to be collected and hauled off-site for treatment and proper disposal.
Dewatering
Avoid paving and seal coating in wet
weather or when rain is forecast, to prevent materials that have not cured from contacting stormwater runoff. Cover storm drain inlets and manholes
when applying seal coat, tack coat, slurry seal, fog seal, etc. Collect and recycle or appropriately
dispose of excess abrasive gravel or sand. Do NOT sweep or wash it into gutters. Do not use water to wash down fresh
asphalt concrete pavement.
Sawcutting & Asphalt/Concrete Removal
Protect nearby storm drain inlets when
saw cutting. Use fi lter fabric, catch basin inlet fi lters, or gravel bags to keep slurry out of the storm drain system. Shovel, abosorb, or vacuum saw-cut
slurry and dispose of all waste as soon as you are fi nished in one location or at the end of each work day (whichever is sooner!). If sawcut slurry enters a catch basin, clean
it up immediately.
Store concrete, grout, and mortar away
from storm drains or waterways, and on pallets under cover to protect them from rain, runoff, and wind. Wash out concrete equipment/trucks
offsite or in a designated washout area, where the water will fl ow into a temporary waste pit, and in a manner that will prevent leaching into the underlying soil or onto surrounding areas. Let concrete harden and dispose of as garbage. When washing exposed aggregate,
prevent washwater from entering storm drains. Block any inlets and vacuum gutters, hose washwater onto dirt areas, or drain onto a bermed surface to be pumped and disposed of properly.
Painting Cleanup and Removal Never clean brushes or rinse paint containers into a street, gutter, storm drain, or stream. For water-based paints, paint out brushes
to the extent possible, and rinse into a drain that goes to the sanitary sewer. Never pour paint down a storm drain. For oil-based paints, paint out brushes to
the extent possible and clean with thinner or solvent in a proper container. Filter and reuse thinners and solvents. Dispose of excess liquids as hazardous waste. Paint chips and dust from non-hazardous
dry stripping and sand blasting may be swept up or collected in plastic drop cloths and disposed of as trash. Chemical paint stripping residue and chips
and dust from marine paints or paints containing lead, mercury, or tributyltin must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Lead based paint removal requires a statecertifi ed contractor.
Painting & Paint Removal
Concrete, Grout & Mortar
Application
Protect stockpiled landscaping materials
from wind and rain by storing them under tarps all year-round. Stack bagged material on pallets and
under cover.
Discontinue application of any erodible
landscape material within 2 days before a forecast rain event or during wet weather.
Landscaping
Paving/Asphalt Work
Storm drain polluters may be liable for
fi nes of up to $10,000 per day!
8.b
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:15 AM
A0.0
TITLE SHEET
TBD OLYMPIAN WAY, PACIFICA, CA PARCEL A
NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
PLANNING DATA
ABBREVIATIONS PROJECT SCOPE BUILDING CODE DATA PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DIRECTORY
PROJECT NOTES
CALGREEN CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
DRAWING INDEX
A0.0 TITLE SHEET
A0.1 3D VIEWS
A0.2 PHOTOS
A1.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A2.1 LEVEL 1 AND 2 FLOOR PLAN
A1.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN
A1.3 NEAREST FIRE HYDRANT
A2.2 ROOF PLAN
A3.1 FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS
A3.2 RIGHT AND LEFT ELEVATIONS
A3.3 SECTIONS
A3.4 SLOPE SECTION
TYPE OF OCCUPANCY: R3/U
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB
BEARING AND NON-BEARING
WALLS (LESS THAN 5' FROM
PROPERTY LINE): 1-HOUR
OPENINGS NOT PERMITTED LESS THAN 3'
FROM PROPERTY LINE
NUMBER OF STORIES: 2
ALL WORK TO CONFORM TO 2022 CRC, CBC,
CFC, CPC, CMC, CEC, CEnC, AND CGBC.
PROJECT COMMON ADDRESS:
TBD OLYMPIAN WAY
PACIFICA, CA 94044 PARCEL A
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 023-037-030
ZONING: R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
APPLICANT / OWNER - SAN PEDRO LLC
DESIGN / DRAFTING PKM CONSTRUCTION AMBROGIO PANESI
SURVEYOR PROFESSIONAL LAND SERVICES MIKE MAHONEY
650-302-3164
(650) 244-9667
ENGINEER ROUND HOUSE INDUSTRIES MIKE O'CONNELL (650) 303-0495
SERVICE COMPANY CONTACT TELEPHONE
* CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE, AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
MANUAL TO THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT,
ADDRESSING ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 IN CALGREEN SECTION 4.410.1. * PER CALGREEN SECTION 4.408.2, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND SUBMIT A CONSTRUCTION WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN, DIVERTING A
MINIMUM OF 65% OF WASTE GENERATED AT THE SITE TO RECYCLE OR SALVAGE, TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE PLAN:
· IDENTIFY MATERIALS TO BE RECYCLED, REUSED, OR SALVAGED · SPECIFY IF MATERIALS WILL BE SORTED ON SITE OR MIXED FOR TRANSPORTATION · IDENTIFY THE DIVERSION FACILITY(IES) TO BE USED
· IDENTIFY CONSTRUCTION METHODS TO BE USED TO LIMIT WASTE GENERATION · SPECIFY THAT THE AMOUNT OF MATERIALS DIVERTED ARE TO BE CALCULATED BY WEIGHT OR VOLUME * AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS CONTROLLERS INSTALLED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION SHALL BE WEATHER-BASED.
* PROTECT ANNULAR SPACES AROUND PIPES, ELECTRIC CABLES, AND CONDUITS AT EXTERIOR WALLS AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF RODENTS.
* COVER DUCT OPENINGS AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENT OPENINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
* ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, AND CAULKS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH VOC AND OTHER TOXIC COMPOUND LIMITS.
* PAINTS, STAINS, AND OTHER COATINGS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH VOC LIMITS. * AEROSOL PAINTS AND COATINGS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH PRODUCT WEIGHTED MIR LIMITS FOR ROC AND OTHER TOXIC COMPOUNDS.
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED.
* CARPET AND CARPET SYSTEMS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH VOC LIMITS. * MINIMUM OF 80% OF FLOOR AREA RECEIVING RESILIENT FLOORING SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION
4.504.4.
* PARTICLEBOARD, MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD, AND HARDWOOD PLYWOOD USED IN INTERIOR
FINISH SYSTEMS SHALL COMPLY WITH LOW
FORMALDEHYDE EMISSION STANDARDS.
* INSTALL CAPILLARY BREAK AND VAPOR RETARDER AT SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATIONS. * CHECK MOISTURE CONTENT OF BUILDING MATERIALS USED IN WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING BEFORE ENCLOSURE.
* EACH BATHROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH AN ENERGY STAR EXHAUST FAN, AND
FAN MUST BE CONTROLLED BY A HUMIDITY
CONTROL.
* DUCT SYSTEMS SHALL BE SIZED, DESIGNED, AND EQUIPMENT SELECTED PER SECTION 4.507.2. HVAC
SYSTEM INSTALLERS MUST BE TRAINED
AND CERTIFIED AND SPECIAL INSPECTORS EMPLOYED BY THE ENFORCING AGENCY MUST BE QUALIFIED.
RHB RADIANT HEATING BOILER
WNDW WINDOW
WT WEIGHT
WR WATER RESISTANT
WP WATERPROOF
W/O WITHOUT
W x H WIDTH BY HEIGHT
WH WATER HEATER
WD WOOD
WC WATER CLOSET
W/ WITH
W WEST, WASHER, OR WATER
VERT VERTICAL
UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
TYP TYPICAL
TV TELEVISION
TP TOP OF PAVEMENT
TOW TOP OF WALL
TOS TOP OF SUBFLOOR
TOP TOP OF PLATE
TO TOP OF
THK THICK
TEL TELEPHONE
TOC TOP OF CURB
TBD TO BE DETERMINED
T & G TONGUE AND GROOVE
TRANSFORMER
T TILE, TREAD, TOP, OR
SYM SYMMETRICAL
SW SHEAR WALL
SUBFLR SUBFLOOR
SUB SUBCONTRACTOR
STRUCT STRUCTURAL
STOR STORAGE
STL STEEL
SS SANITARY SEWER
SQ SQUARE
SPEC SPECIFICATION
SL SLIDING
SIM SIMILAR
SHTG SHEATHING
SHT SHEET
SHWR SHOWER
SH SHOWER HEAD
SF SQUARE FEET OR SQUARE FOOT
SD SMOKE DETECTOR/STORM
DRAIN
SCHED SCHEDULE
SB SETBACK
S SOUTH
ROW RIGHT-OF-WAY
RO ROUGH OPENING
RM ROOM
REV REVISION
REQ'D REQUIRED
REINF REINFORCED OR
REINFORCEMENT
REF REFRIGERATOR
RD ROOF DRAIN
RAG RETURN AIR GRILLE
R RADIUS
PT POINT OR PRESSURE TREATED
PR PAIR
PLYWD PLYWOOD
PL PLATE OR PROPERTY LINE
OPP OPPOSITE
O/H OVERHEAD
OH OVERHANG
OPNG OPENING
OFF OFFICE
OVERFLOW DRAIN
OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER OR
OC ON CENTER
OA OVERALL
O OVEN
NTS NOT TO SCALE
NSF NET SQUARE FEET
NR NON-RATED
NOM NOMINAL
NIC NOT IN CONTRACT
NA NOT AVAILABLE
N/A NOT APPLICABLE
(N) NEW
N NORTH
MTL METAL
MTD MOUNTED
MLDG MOULDING
MISC MISCELLANEOUS
MIN MINIMUM
MH MANHOLE
MFR MANUFACTURER
MECH MECHANICAL
MAX MAXIMUM
LT LIGHT
LAV LAVATORY
LAM LAMINATE
LINEN LINEN CLOSET
JT JOINT OR JOINT TRENCH
INT INTERIOR
INSUL INSULATION
HR HOUR
HORIZ HORIZONTAL
HT HEIGHT
HDWD HARDWOOD
HDR HEADER
HC HANDICAP
GYP BD GYPSUM BOARD
GR GRADE
GL GLASS
GD GARBAGE DISPOSAL
GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR
GALV GALVANIZED
GA GAUGE
G GAS
FTG FOOTING
FT FOOT OR FEET
FP FIREPLACE
FLUOR FLUORESCENT
FL FLOOR
FIN FINISH
FF FINISHED FLOOR
FOUND FOUNDATION
FD FLOOR DRAIN
FAR FLOOR AREA RATIO
FAU FORCED AIR UNIT
FURN FURNACE
EXT EXTERIOR
EQPT EQUIPMENT
ENG ENGINEER
ELEV ELEVATION
ELEC ELECTRICAL
EA EACH
(E) EXISTING
DWG DRAWING
DW DISHWASHER
DS DOWNSPOUT
DR DOOR
DN DOWN
DIM DIMENSION
DIA DIAMETER
DEG DEGREES
DEPT DEPARTMENT
DBL DOUBLE
D DRYER
CONT CONTINUOUS
CONC CONCRETE
COL COLUMN
CO CLEAN OUT
CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
CLST CLOSET
CLG CEILING
CL CENTERLINE
CB CATCH BASIN
CAB CABINET
BOT BOTTOM
BM BEAM
BLKG BLOCKING
BLK BLOCK
BLDG BUILDING
AS ABOVE SLAB
ASF ABOVE SUBFLOOR
APPROX APPROXIMATE
AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
A/C AIR CONDITIONER
AB ANCHOR BOLT
# NUMBER
@ AT CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 2-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY HOME
- FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED PER NFPA 13D STANDARDS, UNER SEPARATE PERMIT.
LOT SIZE 3,633 SF
(N) GARAGE 218 SF (UN-CONDITIONED)
(N) LEVEL 1 LIVING AREA
957 SF (CONDITIONED)
1,263 SF (CONDITIONED)
(N) LEVEL 2 LIVING AREA
(N) TOTAL LIVING AREA 2,220 SF (CONDITIONED)
(N) LOT COVERAGE 1,263 / 3,633 = 34.76 %
2,094 SF
2,094 / 3,633 SF = 57.63%
(N) LANDSCAPED / NATURALLY
VEGETATED AREA
8.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:35 AM
A0.1
3D VIEWS
1 3D VIEW 1
2 3D VIEW 2
3 3D VIEW 3
4 3D VIEW 4
8.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:39 AM
A0.2
PHOTOS
3/4" = 1'-0"
1 PHOTO 1
3/4" = 1'-0"
2 PHOTO 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) DN
DN
DN
DN
NATURAL VEGETATION
OLYMPIAN WAY
131 OLYMPIAN WAY
85° 14' 00"
60.00'
S E
4° 46' 00"
12.48'
NE
4° 46' 00"
37.50'
SW
4' - 0"
4' - 0"
29' - 6"
15%
4' - 0"
4' - 0"
57' - 3 7/8"
RISERS @
TREAD DEPTH
7 0' - 7 1/4"
1' - 8"
RISERS @
TREAD DEPTH
2 0' - 7"
0' - 10"
10' - 0" 10' - 0"
3' - 0" 10' - 7"
COVERED PORCH
CARAGE
REAR DECK 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
TBD OLYMPIAN WAY
PARCEL A
APN 023
-037-030
1 8
°
09 '
00 "
25. 72
'
N
E
85° 14' 00"
52.41'
S E
85° 14' 00"
118.25'
S E
3' - 0"
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:40 AM
A1.1
ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
N
15' 10'-6"
8.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) DN
DN
DN
DN
OLYMPIAN WAY
A
E
A
L M M
M
M
M
A A E
E
E
E
A M
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:41 AM
A1.2
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANTING SCHEDULE
LETTER ABR BOTANICAL NAME Type Count SIZE
WUCOLS
WATER
USE
CAL
NATIVE
DROUGHT
TOLERANT SOURCE
SEA
COAST
TOLERAN
T
A MYR CAL Myrica California Pacific Wax Myrtle 2 5 5 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY E RHA CAL Rhamnus Californica 'Mound San Bruno' *California Coffee Berry 4 5 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY L QUG AGR Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Tree 1 15 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY M CLI DOU Clinopodium Douglasii Yerba Bueno 5 1 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY N
TBD OLYMPIAN
PARCEL A
023-037-030
Pervious Paver path
8.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
DISTANCE FROM NEAREST FIRE
HYDRANT TO FURTHEST POINT
OF BUILDING = +/- 449'
DISTANCE FROM STREET
ACCESS TO FURTHEST POINT
OF BUILDING = +/- 110'
75'
264'
8 0
'
8 0
'
OLYMPIAN WAY
30'
30'
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:41 AM
A1.3
NEAREST FIRE
HYDRANT
1" = 40'-0"
1 NEAREST FIRE HYDRANT
1" = 40'-0"
2 FIRE PLAN
8.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) REF
Range
DN
DN
W/D
UP
1 A3.3
46' - 0"
17' - 1 1/2" 8' - 7" 20' - 3 1/2"
0' - 9 1/2" 2' - 6"
0' - 3 1/2"
2' - 6" 4' - 6 5/8" 2' - 6" 4' - 2" 2' - 6" 6' - 10 7/8" 4' - 6" 2' - 3" 4' - 6" 2' - 3" 4' - 6" 1' - 3 1/2" 18' - 9" 10' - 9"
12' - 7" 6' - 4" 10' - 7"
29' - 6"
1' - 6 1/2" 2' - 6" 1' - 0" 2' - 6" 1' - 0" 2' - 6" 4' - 2 1/2" 3' - 0" 0' - 8" 0' - 9 1/2"
9' - 0" 0' - 9 1/2"
5' - 0" 3' - 0" 24' - 1 3/4" 13' - 10 1/4" 5' - 0"
1' - 6" 2' - 6" 4' - 0 1/2" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 3' - 5 1/2" 2' - 6" 1' - 0" 2' - 6" 1' - 0" 2' - 6" 1' - 6" 46' - 0"
1' - 6" 14' - 0" 0' - 8 3/4"
2' - 0"
0' - 6"
0' - 11 1/2"
2' - 6" 0' - 9" 2' - 6" 0' - 9" 2' - 6"
0' - 9 1/2"
214
215
218
219
220
D200
221
222
200 201 202
203
204
205
207
208
209
D190
D205
D204
GARAGE
OFFICE F.F. 237' 5"
BATH 2
PANTRY F.F. 237' 5"
KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
15%
213 212 211
2 A3.3
20' - 0"
RISERS @
TREAD DEPTH
16 0' - 7 5/8"
0' - 10"
3' - 4" 3' - 3 1/2"
RISERS @
TREAD DEPTH
2 0' - 6"
0' - 10"
D208
D207
D206
LEVEL 2 F.F.
236" 5"
5' - 3 1/2" 10' - 0" 4' - 3 1/2" 4' - 3 1/2" 4' - 3 1/2" 9' - 10" 29' - 6"
1 A3.4
ENTRY
LEVEL 2
REAR DECK
D214
225
226
227
4' - 10" 5' - 5 1/2"
0' - 9 3/4"
1' - 9"
0' - 5 1/4"
4' - 1 1/2"
1 A3.3
D111 D112
D113
D109
D108
D107
D106
D105
D104
D101
D103
D102
100 101 102
103
D100
116
115
114
113
112
111
110
109
D109
108
107
106
104
29' - 6"
19' - 2 1/2" 10' - 3 1/2"
16' - 10 1/2" 12' - 5 3/4"
1' - 4 1/2" 14' - 0" 4' - 2 3/8" 2' - 6"
0' - 9"
2' - 6"
0' - 9"
2' - 6"
0' - 9 1/2"
46' - 0"
4' - 6 3/4" 5' - 8 3/4" 5' - 3 1/2" 10' - 1 1/2" 10' - 4" 3' - 4" 6' - 7 1/2" 0' - 9 1/2" 2' - 6" 7' - 3 5/8" 2' - 6" 13' - 3 7/8" 2' - 6" 3' - 4" 2' - 6" 5' - 1 1/2" 5' - 2" 0' - 11 1/2" 29' - 6"
12' - 7" 6' - 4" 10' - 7"
46' - 0"
5' - 0" 15' - 7" 11' - 6 3/4" 2' - 3 1/2" 11' - 6 3/4" 5' - 0" 1' - 6" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 2' - 6" 1' - 0" 2' - 6" 1' - 0" 2' - 6" 1' - 0" 2' - 6" 1' - 0"
MASTER BEDROOM
MASTER
BATH
MASTER
CLOSET
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 3
BATH 1
CLOSET
CLOSET CLOSET
LAUNDRY
LEVEL 1 REAR DECK
2 A3.3 6' - 5 1/4" 6' - 1 3/4" 3' - 4" 3' - 3 1/2" 3' - 5 3/4" 6' - 9 3/4" 4' - 10" 5' - 7" LEVEL 1 F.F.
226' 3"
HALL
STAIRS
D212
D211
D213
6' - 3 1/2"
1' - 7 1/2" 3' - 4" 0' - 8"
3' - 1 1/2"
5' - 0" 3' - 5 1/2"
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:44 AM
A2.1
LEVEL 1 AND 2
FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSED STUD WALL
PROPOSED PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL
PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL
1-HOUR WALL
WALL LEGEND
N
LEVEL 1 WINDOW SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height
Sill
Height
Head
Height Operation
Comment
s Level
100 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
101 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 102 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
103 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
104 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 4' - 6" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 106 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 2' - 6" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 107 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 2' - 6" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
108 4' - 6" 3' - 0" 5' - 0" 8' - 0" AWNING LEVEL 1 F.F. 109 2' - 6" 3' - 0" 5' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
110 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 111 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
112 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 113 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 114 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
115 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
116 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 200 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 8' - 6" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
201 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 8' - 6" CASEMENT LEVEL 2 F.F. 202 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 8' - 6" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
203 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 8' - 6" CASEMENT LEVEL 2 F.F. 204 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 8' - 6" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
205 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 8' - 6" CASEMENT LEVEL 2 F.F. 207 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 5' - 6" 7' - 6" FIXED GARAGE F.F.
208 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 5' - 6" 7' - 6" FIXED GARAGE F.F.
209 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 5' - 6" 7' - 6" FIXED GARAGE F.F.
211 2' - 6" 4' - 6" 3' - 0" 7' - 6" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
212 2' - 6" 4' - 6" 3' - 0" 7' - 6" CASEMENT LEVEL 2 F.F. 213 2' - 6" 4' - 6" 3' - 0" 7' - 6" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
214 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 3' - 0" 8' - 6" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
215 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 3' - 0" 8' - 6" CASEMENT LEVEL 2 F.F. 218 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 3' - 0" 8' - 6" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
219 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 3' - 0" 8' - 6" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
220 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 3' - 0" 8' - 6" CASEMENT LEVEL 2 F.F. 221 2' - 0" 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 8' - 6" CASEMENT LEVEL 2 F.F. 222 1' - 9" 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 8' - 6" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
225 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 4' - 0" 7' - 6" CASEMENT GARAGE F.F. 226 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 3' - 0" 8' - 6" CASEMENT LEVEL 2 F.F. 227 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 3' - 0" 8' - 6" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
LEVEL 1 DOOR SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height Operation Comments Level
D100 14' - 0" 8' - 0" SLIDING LEVEL 1 F.F.
D101 2' - 6" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D102 2' - 4" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D103 2' - 6" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D104 2' - 8" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D105 5' - 0" 6' - 8" DOUBLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D106 4' - 8" 6' - 8" DOUBLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D107 5' - 0" 6' - 8" SLIDING LEVEL 1 F.F.
D108 5' - 0" 6' - 8" SLIDING LEVEL 1 F.F.
D109 2' - 8" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D111 2' - 8" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D112 5' - 0" 6' - 8" SLIDING LEVEL 1 F.F.
D113 2' - 6" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D190 9' - 0" 8' - 0" OVERHEAD GARAGE F.F.
D200 14' - 0" 8' - 0" SLIDING LEVEL 2 F.F.
D204 5' - 0" 6' - 8" DOUBLE LEVEL 2 F.F.
D205 3' - 0" 7' - 0" SINGLE LEVEL 2 F.F.
D206 2' - 6" 6' - 8" SINGLE GARAGE F.F.
D207 2' - 6" 6' - 8" SINGLE GARAGE F.F.
D208 2' - 6" 6' - 8" SINGLE GARAGE F.F.
D211 2' - 8" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D212 2' - 4" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D213 5' - 0" 6' - 8" DOUBLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D214 2' - 2" 6' - 8" SINGLE GARAGE F.F.
NEW PLUMBING FIXTURE NOTES:
• MAX FLOW RATE OF SHOWERHEADS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM
• MAX FLOW RATE OF LAVATORY FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.2 GPM
• MAX FLOW RATE OF KITCHEN FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM
• ALL TOILETS SHALL BE MAX 1.28 GPF
EGRESS NOTES:
AT LEAST ONE WINDOW IN EACH BEDROOM SHALL MEET THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
• MIN. 5.7 SF IN OVERALL SIZE
• MIN. 24" CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT
• MIN. 20" CLEAR OPENING WIDTH
• SILL A MAX. OF 44" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
GENERAL NOTES:
• ALL FRAMING DIMENSIONS ARE TO ROUGH FRAMING UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN
N
8.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) DN
DN
2 %
2 %
CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC SA
BUILT UP, SELF-ADHERING,
MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING
SYSTEM, OR SIMILAR
8' - 0"
1' - 6"
4' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
1' - 6"
5' - 0"
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:45 AM
A2.2
ROOF PLAN
N
PROPOSED STUD WALL
PROPOSED PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL
PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL 1-HOUR WALL
WALL LEGEND
NEW PLUMBING FIXTURE NOTES:
• MAX FLOW RATE OF SHOWERHEADS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM
• MAX FLOW RATE OF LAVATORY FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.2 GPM
• MAX FLOW RATE OF KITCHEN FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM
• ALL TOILETS SHALL BE MAX 1.28 GPF
EGRESS NOTES:
AT LEAST ONE WINDOW IN EACH BEDROOM SHALL MEET THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
• MIN. 5.7 SF IN OVERALL SIZE
• MIN. 24" CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT
• MIN. 20" CLEAR OPENING WIDTH
• SILL A MAX. OF 44" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
GENERAL NOTES:
• ALL FRAMING DIMENSIONS ARE TO ROUGH FRAMING UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 ROOF PLAN
8.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) LEVEL 1 T.O.P. 11'
- 3 1/2"
GARAGE F.F. 13'
- 5 1/2"
LEVEL 1 F.F. 2'
- 3 1/2"
TOP OF ROOF 22'
- 11 1/2"
LEVEL 2 T.O.P. 21' - 11 1/2"
D205
D190
LEVEL 2 F.F. 12' - 5 1/2"
213 212 211
1' - 0" 8' - 6" 1' - 0" 1' - 2" 9' - 0"
20' - 8"
9' - 6"
CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC SA
BUILT UP, SELF-ADHERING,
MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING
SYSTEM, OR SIMILAR
(N) MILGARD VINYL DUAL-PANE
WINDOWS WITH BRONZE SASH
(TYP.)
(N) BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING
OVER 'TYVEK', OR SIMILAR,
BUILDING PAPER (TYP.)
2x10 FASCIA (TYP.)
LEVEL 1 T.O.P. 11'
- 3 1/2"
GARAGE F.F. 13'
- 5 1/2"
LEVEL 1 F.F. 2'
- 3 1/2"
TOP OF ROOF 22'
- 11 1/2"
LOWEST ADJ GRADE-11' - 7 3/4"
LEVEL 2 T.O.P. 21'
- 11 1/2"
34' - 7 1/4"
202 201 200
102 101 100
D200
221
D100
LEVEL 2 F.F. 12'
- 5 1/2"
9' - 0" 1' - 2" 1' - 0" 1' - 0" 8' - 6" 13' - 11 1/4"
9' - 6"
(N) BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING
OVER 'TYVEK', OR SIMILAR,
BUILDING PAPER (TYP.)
(N) MIN 42" HIGH GLASS RAILING (TYP.)
CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC SA
BUILT UP, SELF-ADHERING,
MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING
SYSTEM, OR SIMILAR (TYP.)
(N) MILGARD VINYL DUAL-PANE
WINDOWS WITH BRONZE SASH
(TYP.)
MIN 7/8" STUCCO SIDING WITH SMOOTH
TROWELED FINISH OVER 2 LAYERS
GRADE 'D' BUILDING PAPER (TYP.)
2x10 FASCIA (TYP.)
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:46 AM
A3.1
FRONT AND
REAR
ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 REAR ELEVATION
8.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) 11'
- 3 1/2" LEVEL 1 T.O.P.
13' - 5 1/2" GARAGE F.F.
2' - 3 1/2" LEVEL 1 F.F.
22' - 11 1/2" TOP OF ROOF
-11' - 7 3/4" LOWEST ADJ GRADE
21' - 11 1/2" LEVEL 2 T.O.P.
222
116 115 114 113 112 111 110
109
220 219 218 215 214
12' - 5 1/2" LEVEL 2 F.F.
34' - 7 1/4"
1' - 0" 8' - 6" 1' - 0" 1' - 2" 9' - 0" 13' - 11 1/4"
9' - 6"
227 226
(N) BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING
OVER 'TYVEK', OR SIMILAR,
BUILDING PAPER (TYP.)
(N) MIN 42" HIGH GLASS
RAILING (TYP.)
CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC SA
BUILT UP, SELF-ADHERING,
MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING
SYSTEM, OR SIMILAR (TYP.)
(N) MILGARD VINYL DUAL-PANE
WINDOWS WITH BRONZE SASH
(TYP.)
(N) MIN 42" HIGH WOOD
2x10 FASCIA (TYP.) RAILING (TYP.)
LEVEL 1 T.O.P. 11' - 3 1/2"
GARAGE F.F. 13'
- 5 1/2"
LEVEL 1 F.F. 2'
- 3 1/2"
TOP OF ROOF 22'
- 11 1/2"
LOWEST ADJ GRADE
-11' - 7 3/4"
LEVEL 2 T.O.P. 21' - 11 1/2"
1 5%
103
204 203
104
205
107 106
108
209 208 207
LEVEL 2 F.F. 12'
- 5 1/2"
225 242' - 0"
212' - 4"
237' - 5"
34' - 7 1/4"
1' - 0" 8' - 6" 1' - 0" 1' - 2" 9' - 0" 13' - 11 1/4"
9' - 6"
(N) BOARD AND BATTEN
SIDING OVER 'TYVEK', OR
SIMILAR, BUILDING
PAPER (TYP.)
(N) MIN 42" HIGH
GLASS RAILING (TYP.)
CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC SA
BUILT UP, SELF-ADHERING,
MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING
SYSTEM, OR SIMILAR (TYP.)
(N) MILGARD VINYL DUAL-
PANE WINDOWS WITH
BRONZE SASH (TYP.)
MIN 7/8" STUCCO
SIDING WITH
SMOOTH TROWELED
FINISH OVER 2
LAYERS GRADE 'D'
BUILDING PAPER
(TYP.)
(N) MIN 42" HIGH WOOD
RAILING (TYP.)
2x10 FASCIA (TYP.)
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:48 AM
A3.2
RIGHT AND LEFT
ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 LEFT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 RIGHT ELEVATION
8.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) LEVEL 1 T.O.P. 11' - 3 1/2"
GARAGE F.F. 13' - 5 1/2"
LEVEL 1 F.F. 2' - 3 1/2"
TOP OF ROOF 22' - 11 1/2"
LOWEST ADJ GRADE -11' - 7 3/4"
LEVEL 2 T.O.P. 21' - 11 1/2"
LEVEL 2 F.F. 12' - 5 1/2"
7' - 1 1/8"
D105
113 114 115 116
218 219 220
D204
D109
LIVING DINING
ENTRY
MASTER BEDROOM
LEVEL 1
REAR DECK
HALL
STAIRS
LEVEL 2
REAR DECK
212' - 4"
226' - 3"
236' - 5"
237' - 5"
246' - 11"
D211
215 227
LEVEL 1 T.O.P. 11' - 3 1/2"
GARAGE F.F. 13' - 5 1/2"
LEVEL 1 F.F. 2' - 3 1/2"
TOP OF ROOF 22' - 11 1/2"
LOWEST ADJ GRADE -11' - 7 3/4"
LEVEL 2 T.O.P. 21' - 11 1/2"
LEVEL 2 F.F. 12' - 5 1/2"
D205
D207
D213 D107
BATH 2 ENTRY LIVING
MASTER
CLOSET
STAIRS HALL BEDROOM 1
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:49 AM
A3.3
SECTIONS
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
1/4" = 1'-0" 2
TRANSVERSE SECTION
8.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) LEVEL 1 T.O.P. 11' - 3 1/2"
GARAGE F.F. 13' - 5 1/2"
LEVEL 1 F.F. 2' - 3 1/2"
LEVEL 1 PLATE 1' - 1 1/2"
TOP OF ROOF 22' - 11 1/2"
LOWEST ADJ GRADE -11' - 7 3/4"
LEVEL 2 T.O.P. 21' - 11 1/2"
LEVEL 2 F.F. 12' - 5 1/2"
10' - 0" 46' - 0" 57' - 3 7/8"
113' - 3 7/8"
REAR
PROPERTY LINE
SLOPE CALCS
(B) WHERE THE SLOPE OF THE FRONT HALF OF ANY RESIDENTIAL LOT IS GREATER THAN ONE FOOT RISE OR FALL IN A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF FOUR (4') FEET FROM THE ESTABLISHED STREET ELEVATION OF THE LOT AT THE FRONT STREET LINE (TWENTY-FIVE (25%) PERCENT), OR WHERE THE ELEVATION OF THE LOT AT THE FRONT STREET LINE IS SIX (6') FEET ABOVE OR BELOW THE ESTABLISHED STREET ELEVATION, A PRIVATE GARAGE OR CARPORT, ATTACHED OR DETACHED, MAY BE BUILT TO WITHIN TEN (10') FEET OF THE FRONT LOT LINE IF SUCH REDUCTION WILL NOT INTEREFERE WITH EXISTING OR PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITIES OR ESTABLISHED SETBACK LINES; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, SUCH GARAGE OR CARPORT SHALL MAINTAIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR THE MAIN BUILDING. AN ADDITIONAL REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK MAY BE PERMITTED IF THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON AN IMPROVED PUBLIC ROAD WHERE A CURB HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED OR AN OFFICIAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE ADDITIONAL REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WHICH MAY BE PERMITTED SHALL BE ONE FOOT FOR EACH TWO (2') FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE FACE OF THE CURB. THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED REDUCTION SHALL BE FOUR (4') FEET. SUCH REDUCTION SHALL
NOT BE PERMITTED IF IT WILL INTERFERE WITH ANY ESTABLISHED PLAN LINE FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OR WIDENING.
18' - 2 7/8"
242' - 8"
212' - 4"
242' 8" - 212' 4" = 30' 4"
30' 4" /74' 10 3/4" = 40.50% > 25%
FRONT HALF OF LOT
74' - 10 3/4"
56' - 8" 56' - 8"
FRONT
STREET
LINE (FACE
OF CURB)
FRONT
PROPERTY LINE
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON VACANT PARCEL NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL ATBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL APACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:02:50 AM
A3.4
SLOPE SECTION
3/16" = 1'-0" 1
SLOPE SECTION
8.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:10:28 AM
A0.0
TITLE SHEET
TBD OLYMPIAN WAY, PACIFICA, CA PARCEL B
TWO STORY NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME
PLANNING DATA
ABBREVIATIONS PROJECT SCOPE BUILDING CODE DATA PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT NOTES
CALGREEN CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
DRAWING INDEX
A0.0 TITLE SHEET
A0.1 3D VIEWS
A0.2 PHOTOS
A1.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A1.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN
A1.3 NEAREST FIRE HYDRANT
A2.1 LEVEL 1 AND 2 FLOOR PLANS
A2.2 ROOF PLAN
A3.1 FRONT ELEVATIONS
A3.2 RIGHT ELEVATION
A3.3 SECTIONS
A3.4 SLOPE SECTION
TYPE OF OCCUPANCY: R3/U
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB
BEARING AND NON-BEARING
WALLS (LESS THAN 5' FROM
PROPERTY LINE): 1-HOUR
OPENINGS NOT PERMITTED LESS THAN 3'
FROM PROPERTY LINE
NUMBER OF STORIES: 2
ALL WORK TO CONFORM TO 2022 CRC, CBC,
CFC, CPC, CMC, CEC, CEnC, AND CGBC.
CONTRUCTION OF NEW 2-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY HOME
PROJECT COMMON ADDRESS:
TBD OLYMPIAN WAY
PACIFICA, CA 94044
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 023-037-030
ZONING: R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
RHB RADIANT HEATING BOILER
WNDW WINDOW
WT WEIGHT
WR WATER RESISTANT
WP WATERPROOF
W/O WITHOUT
W x H WIDTH BY HEIGHT
WH WATER HEATER
WD WOOD
WC WATER CLOSET
W/ WITH
W WEST, WASHER, OR WATER
VERT VERTICAL
UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
TYP TYPICAL
TV TELEVISION
TP TOP OF PAVEMENT
TOW TOP OF WALL
TOS TOP OF SUBFLOOR
TOP TOP OF PLATE
TO TOP OF
THK THICK
TEL TELEPHONE
TOC TOP OF CURB
TBD TO BE DETERMINED
T & G TONGUE AND GROOVE
TRANSFORMER
T TILE, TREAD, TOP, OR
SYM SYMMETRICAL
SW SHEAR WALL
SUBFLR SUBFLOOR
SUB SUBCONTRACTOR
STRUCT STRUCTURAL
STOR STORAGE
STL STEEL
SS SANITARY SEWER
SQ SQUARE
SPEC SPECIFICATION
SL SLIDING
SIM SIMILAR
SHTG SHEATHING
SHT SHEET
SHWR SHOWER
SH SHOWER HEAD
SF SQUARE FEET OR SQUARE FOOT
SD SMOKE DETECTOR/STORM
DRAIN
SCHED SCHEDULE
SB SETBACK
S SOUTH
ROW RIGHT-OF-WAY
RO ROUGH OPENING
RM ROOM
REV REVISION
REQ'D REQUIRED
REINF REINFORCED OR
REINFORCEMENT
REF REFRIGERATOR
RD ROOF DRAIN
RAG RETURN AIR GRILLE
R RADIUS
PT POINT OR PRESSURE TREATED
PR PAIR
PLYWD PLYWOOD
PL PLATE OR PROPERTY LINE
OPP OPPOSITE
O/H OVERHEAD
OH OVERHANG
OPNG OPENING
OFF OFFICE
OVERFLOW DRAIN
OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER OR
OC ON CENTER
OA OVERALL
O OVEN
NTS NOT TO SCALE
NSF NET SQUARE FEET
NR NON-RATED
NOM NOMINAL
NIC NOT IN CONTRACT
NA NOT AVAILABLE
N/A NOT APPLICABLE
(N) NEW
N NORTH
MTL METAL
MTD MOUNTED
MLDG MOULDING
MISC MISCELLANEOUS
MIN MINIMUM
MH MANHOLE
MFR MANUFACTURER
MECH MECHANICAL
MAX MAXIMUM
LT LIGHT
LAV LAVATORY
LAM LAMINATE
LINEN LINEN CLOSET
JT JOINT OR JOINT TRENCH
INT INTERIOR
INSUL INSULATION
HR HOUR
HORIZ HORIZONTAL
HT HEIGHT
HDWD HARDWOOD
HDR HEADER
HC HANDICAP
GYP BD GYPSUM BOARD
GR GRADE
GL GLASS
GD GARBAGE DISPOSAL
GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR
GALV GALVANIZED
GA GAUGE
G GAS
FTG FOOTING
FT FOOT OR FEET
FP FIREPLACE
FLUOR FLUORESCENT
FL FLOOR
FIN FINISH
FF FINISHED FLOOR
FOUND FOUNDATION
FD FLOOR DRAIN
FAR FLOOR AREA RATIO
FAU FORCED AIR UNIT
FURN FURNACE
EXT EXTERIOR
EQPT EQUIPMENT
ENG ENGINEER
ELEV ELEVATION
ELEC ELECTRICAL
EA EACH
(E) EXISTING
DWG DRAWING
DW DISHWASHER
DS DOWNSPOUT
DR DOOR
DN DOWN
DIM DIMENSION
DIA DIAMETER
DEG DEGREES
DEPT DEPARTMENT
DBL DOUBLE
D DRYER
CONT CONTINUOUS
CONC CONCRETE
COL COLUMN
CO CLEAN OUT
CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
CLST CLOSET
CLG CEILING
CL CENTERLINE
CB CATCH BASIN
CAB CABINET
BOT BOTTOM
BM BEAM
BLKG BLOCKING
BLK BLOCK
BLDG BUILDING
AS ABOVE SLAB
ASF ABOVE SUBFLOOR
APPROX APPROXIMATE
AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
A/C AIR CONDITIONER
AB ANCHOR BOLT
# NUMBER
@ AT
* CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE, AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
MANUAL TO THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT,
ADDRESSING ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 IN CALGREEN SECTION 4.410.1. * PER CALGREEN SECTION 4.408.2, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND SUBMIT A CONSTRUCTION WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN, DIVERTING A
MINIMUM OF 65% OF WASTE GENERATED AT THE SITE TO RECYCLE OR SALVAGE, TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE PLAN:
· IDENTIFY MATERIALS TO BE RECYCLED, REUSED, OR SALVAGED · SPECIFY IF MATERIALS WILL BE SORTED ON SITE OR MIXED FOR TRANSPORTATION · IDENTIFY THE DIVERSION FACILITY(IES) TO BE USED
· IDENTIFY CONSTRUCTION METHODS TO BE USED TO LIMIT WASTE GENERATION · SPECIFY THAT THE AMOUNT OF MATERIALS DIVERTED ARE TO BE CALCULATED BY WEIGHT OR VOLUME * AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS CONTROLLERS INSTALLED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION SHALL BE WEATHER-BASED.
* PROTECT ANNULAR SPACES AROUND PIPES, ELECTRIC CABLES, AND CONDUITS AT EXTERIOR WALLS AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF RODENTS.
* COVER DUCT OPENINGS AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENT OPENINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
* ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, AND CAULKS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH VOC AND OTHER TOXIC COMPOUND LIMITS.
* PAINTS, STAINS, AND OTHER COATINGS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH VOC LIMITS. * AEROSOL PAINTS AND COATINGS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH PRODUCT WEIGHTED MIR LIMITS FOR ROC AND OTHER TOXIC COMPOUNDS.
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED.
* CARPET AND CARPET SYSTEMS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH VOC LIMITS. * MINIMUM OF 80% OF FLOOR AREA RECEIVING RESILIENT FLOORING SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION
4.504.4.
* PARTICLEBOARD, MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD, AND HARDWOOD PLYWOOD USED IN INTERIOR
FINISH SYSTEMS SHALL COMPLY WITH LOW
FORMALDEHYDE EMISSION STANDARDS.
* INSTALL CAPILLARY BREAK AND VAPOR RETARDER AT SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATIONS. * CHECK MOISTURE CONTENT OF BUILDING MATERIALS USED IN WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING BEFORE ENCLOSURE.
* EACH BATHROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH AN ENERGY STAR EXHAUST FAN, AND
FAN MUST BE CONTROLLED BY A HUMIDITY
CONTROL.
* DUCT SYSTEMS SHALL BE SIZED, DESIGNED, AND EQUIPMENT SELECTED PER SECTION 4.507.2. HVAC
SYSTEM INSTALLERS MUST BE TRAINED
AND CERTIFIED AND SPECIAL INSPECTORS EMPLOYED BY THE ENFORCING AGENCY MUST BE QUALIFIED. - FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT, PER NFPA 13D STANDARDS.
LOT SIZE 3,653 SF
LEVEL 1 LIVING AREA 1,317 SF (CONDITIONED)
GARAGE 208 SF (UN-CONDITIONED)
(N) TOTAL LIVING AREA 2,198 SF (CONDITIONED)
LEVEL 2 LIVING AREA 881 SF (CONDITIONED)
LOT COVERAGE 1,317 SF / 3,653 SF = 36.02%
APPLICANT / OWNER -
PROJECT DIRECTORY
SERVICE COMPANY CONTACT TELEPHONE
SAN PEDRO LLC
DESIGN / DRAFTING PKM CONSTRUCTION AMBROGIO PANESI (650) 302-3164 ENGINEER ROUNDHOUSE, INC. MIKE O'CONNELL (650) 303-0495 2,200 SF / 3,653 SF = 60.02%
TOTAL LANDSCAPE /
NATURAL VEGETATION AREA
8.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:10:48 AM
A0.1
3D VIEWS
1 3D VIEW 1
2 3D VIEW 2
3 3D VIEW 3
4 3D VIEW 4
8.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:10:53 AM
A0.2
PHOTOS
3/4" = 1'-0"
1 PHOTO 1
3/4" = 1'-0"
2 PHOTO 2
8.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) DN
OLYMPIAN WAY
155 OLYMPIAN WAY
131 OLYMPIAN WAY
85° 14' 00"
60.00'
S E
4° 46' 00"
12.48'
NE
4' - 0"
4' - 0" 4' - 0"
8' - 0"
4° 46' 00"
37.50'
SW
15% 10' - 0"
85° 14' 00"
52.41'
S E
85° 14' 00"
52.38'
S E
85° 14' 00"
118.25'
S E
12°
30'
00"
N
26 .19'
W
85° 14' 00"
68.84'
S E
1 8
°
09 '
00 "
25. 72
'
N
E
1 8
°
09 '
00 "
1 2.
60 '
N
E
12°
30'
00"
N
13 .31'
W
1 A3.4
62' - 8 5/8"
4' - 0"
2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
TBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL B
APN 023-037-030
REAR DECK
COVERED PORCH
GARAGE
RISERS @
TREAD DEPTH
8 0' - 7 1/2"
2' - 6"
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:10:54 AM
A1.1
ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
N
8.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) DN
OLYMPIAN WAY
1 B
L
A
A
B
C
B
B
B
M M
B
B
M M
B
TBD OLYMPIAN
PARCEL B
APN 023-037-030
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:10:54 AM
A1.2
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
N
PLANTING SCHEDULE
LETTER ABR BOTANICAL NAME Type Count SIZE
WUCOLS
WATER
USE
CAL
NATIVE
DROUGHT
TOLERANT SOURCE
SEA COAST
TOLERANT
Lombardy Poplar - 40' 1
A MYR CAL Myrica California Pacific Wax Myrtle 2 2 5 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY B ACH MOO Achille 'Moonshine' Moonshine Yarrow 10 1 GAL LOW YES YES MONROVIA VERY C SAL CLE Salvia Clevelandii *California Blue Sage 1 5 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY L QUG AGR Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Tree 2 15 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY M CLI DOU Clinopodium Douglasii Yerba Bueno 4 1 GAL LOW YES YES LAS PILITAS NURSERY VERY
8.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
DISTANCE FROM NEAREST FIRE
HYDRANT TO FURTHEST POINT
OF BUILDING = +/- 384'
DISTANCE FROM STREET
ACCESS TO FURTHEST POINT
OF BUILDING = +/- 117'
75'
192'
84 '
84 '
OLYMPIAN WAY
33'
33'
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:10:54 AM
A1.3
NEAREST FIRE
HYDRANT
1" = 40'-0"
2 FIRE PLAN
3/4" = 1'-0"
1 NEAREST FIRE HYDRANT
8.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) UP
W/D
REF
Range
DN
LEVEL 2
F.F. 222'-11"
1 A3.3
108
109
111
D100
100
102
103
105
106
107
D112
D111
D109 D110
D106
D107
D103
D101
D102 D104
MASTER BEDROOM
MASTER
BATH
MASTER
CLOSET
LAUNDRY
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3
BATH 1
1' - 2 7/8" 16' - 0" 3' - 4 1/4" 8' - 0" 2' - 3 5/8"
29' - 6"
12' - 1" 3' - 6" 13' - 11"
7' - 2" 3' - 5 1/2"
4' - 0"
LEVEL 1 DECK
72.69°
107.31°
2 A3.3
D114
220
D113
237
D115
30' - 10 3/4"
1' - 2 7/8" 18' - 4 5/8" 11' - 3 1/4"
10' - 7 3/8" 2' - 3 1/2" 16' - 1 1/2" 3' - 8 5/8" 7' - 0" 9' - 5 3/4" 1' - 0" 2' - 6" 4' - 0 7/8" 2' - 6" 4' - 2" 4' - 6" 11' - 0 1/8" 2' - 6" 3' - 11 3/8" 2' - 6" 10' - 6 3/8" 49' - 2 5/8"
40' - 0 1/2"
12' - 1 3/8" 5' - 3 1/2" 11' - 7 1/2" 11' - 0 1/8"
2' - 0" 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 2' - 6" 8' - 0 1/2" 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 2' - 6" 1' - 0" 3' - 9 1/2" 8' - 7" 3' - 6" 3' - 3 1/2" 10' - 4" 7' - 0 1/2" 3' - 6 7/8" 13' - 4 1/8" 5' - 0 7/8" 5' - 3 1/2" 5' - 3 1/2" 5' - 0 1/2"
2' - 3 1/2" 4' - 10 1/2"
238
GARAGE
F.F. 233'-7" 15%
1 A3.3
RISERS @
TREAD DEPTH
16 0' - 7 1/2"
0' - 10 1/2"
209
207
D202
D204
D205
206
205
204
201
200
D200
4' - 1 7/8" 40' - 1"
KITCHEN
BATH 2
F.F. 233'-7"
OFFICE
LIVING
DINING
DECK LEVEL 2
24' - 5 1/2" 12' - 7 1/2" 3' - 0"
29' - 6"
12' - 1" 6' - 9 1/2" 10' - 7 1/2"
2' - 3 1/4" 8' - 0" 5' - 0 1/2" 3' - 0"
0' - 6 3/4"
0' - 8 3/4" 9' - 0" 0' - 10 3/4"
40' - 1" 13' - 3 7/8"
12' - 8 3/8" 8' - 1 1/8" 19' - 3 1/2"
1' - 2 3/4" 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 4' - 6" 6' - 5 1/4" 2' - 0" 8' - 11 3/4" 2' - 6" 1' - 5 3/8" 1' - 1" 16' - 0" 2' - 8 1/2" 8' - 0" 1' - 8 1/2"
30' - 10 3/4"
107.27°
72.73°
1 RISER @ 0' - 6"
1' - 1" 4' - 6" 1' - 6" 4' - 6" 1' - 8" 5' - 2" 1' - 2" 4' - 6" 1' - 6" 4' - 6" 1' - 2" 5' - 2" 0' - 8" 2 A3.3
219
218
217
216
215
232
3' - 3 1/4" 2' - 8 7/8" 2' - 5 3/8" 3' - 0" 6' - 11 1/2" 7' - 10" 10' - 10" 18' - 5"
D209
D210
D214 D218
CLOSET
F.F. 233'-7"
3' - 6" 3' - 3 1/2" 4' - 10 1/2" 5' - 5 1/2"
29' - 6"
LEVEL 2
F.F. 233'-1"
ENTRY
STAIRS
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:10:56 AM
A2.1
LEVEL 1 AND 2
FLOOR PLANS
PROPOSED STUD WALL
PROPOSED PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL
EXISTING / PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL
EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN
WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED
1-HOUR WALL
WALL LEGEND NEW PLUMBING FIXTURE NOTES:
• MAX FLOW RATE OF SHOWERHEADS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM
• MAX FLOW RATE OF LAVATORY FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.2 GPM
• MAX FLOW RATE OF KITCHEN FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM
• ALL TOILETS SHALL BE MAX 1.28 GPF
EGRESS NOTES:
AT LEAST ONE WINDOW IN EACH BEDROOM SHALL MEET THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
• MIN. 5.7 SF IN OVERALL SIZE
• MIN. 24" CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT
• MIN. 20" CLEAR OPENING WIDTH
• SILL A MAX. OF 44" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
GENERAL NOTES:
• ALL FRAMING DIMENSIONS ARE TO ROUGH FRAMING UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN
DOOR SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height Operation Comments Level
D100 16' - 0" 8' - 0" SLIDING LEVEL 1 F.F.
D101 2' - 6" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D102 2' - 8" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D103 2' - 6" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D104 2' - 6" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D106 2' - 6" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D107 2' - 8" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D109 2' - 8" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D110 2' - 8" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D111 6' - 0" 6' - 8" SLIDING LEVEL 1 F.F.
D112 6' - 0" 6' - 8" SLIDING LEVEL 1 F.F.
D113 2' - 4" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D114 2' - 8" 6' - 8" SINGLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D115 4' - 0" 6' - 8" DOUBLE LEVEL 1 F.F.
D200 16' - 0" 8' - 0" SLIDING LEVEL 2 F.F.
D202 6' - 0" 6' - 8" DOUBLE LEVEL 2 F.F.
D204 3' - 0" 7' - 0" SINGLE LEVEL 2 F.F.
D205 9' - 0" 8' - 0" OVERHEAD GARAGE F.F.
D209 2' - 8" 6' - 8" SINGLE GARAGE F.F.
D210 2' - 6" 6' - 8" SINGLE GARAGE F.F.
D214 4' - 0" 6' - 8" DOUBLE GARAGE F.F.
D218 2' - 2" 6' - 8" SINGLE GARAGE F.F.
LEVEL 1 WINDOW SCHEDULE
Mark Width Height
Sill
Height
Head
Height Operation Comments Level
100 8' - 0" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" DBL SLIDER LEVEL 1 F.F. 102 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 4' - 6" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 103 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 4' - 6" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
105 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 6' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
106 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
107 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 108 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
109 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 111 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
200 8' - 0" 4' - 6" 3' - 6" 8' - 0" CASEMENT/FIXED/CASEMENT LEVEL 2 F.F. 201 2' - 6" 4' - 6" 3' - 6" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 2 F.F. 204 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 5' - 6" 7' - 6" FIXED GARAGE F.F.
205 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 5' - 6" 7' - 6" FIXED GARAGE F.F.
206 4' - 6" 2' - 0" 5' - 6" 7' - 6" FIXED GARAGE F.F.
207 8' - 0" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" DBL SLIDER LEVEL 2 F.F. 209 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
215 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
216 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 8' - 0" AWNING LEVEL 2 F.F. 217 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
218 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 2 F.F.
219 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 5' - 6" 8' - 0" AWNING LEVEL 2 F.F. 220 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 232 2' - 0" 3' - 6" 4' - 0" 7' - 6" CASEMENT GARAGE F.F. 237 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" CASEMENT LEVEL 1 F.F. 238 2' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 8' - 0" FIXED LEVEL 1 F.F.
NN
8.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) 1' - 6"
3' - 0"
2' - 0"
1' - 6"
5' - 0"
CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC SA
BUILT UP, SELF-ADHERING,
MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING
SYSTEM, OR SIMILAR
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:10:56 AM
A2.2
ROOF PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 ROOF PLAN
N
8.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) LEVEL 1 F.F.
-1' - 0 3/4"
LEVEL 1 PLAE
-2' - 2 3/4"
LEVEL 1 PLATE 7' - 11 1/4"
GARAGE PLATE 18' - 1 1/4"
GARAGE F.F. 9'
- 7 1/4"
TOP OF ROOF 19'
- 3 1/4"
D205
D204
207
LEVEL 2 F.F. 9'
- 1 1/4"
MILGARD VINYL WINDOWS
WITH 'DOVE WHITE'
COLORED SASH (TYP.)
NATURAL CEDAR SHINGLES SIDING
OVER 'TYVEK' (OR SIMILAR) BUILDING
PAPER AT ALL EXTERIOR WALLS (TYP.)
RAFTER TAILS
CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC SA
BUILT UP, SELF-ADHERING,
MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING
SYSTEM, OR SIMILAR
LEVEL 1 F.F.
-1' - 0 3/4"
LEVEL 1 PLAE-2' - 2 3/4"
LEVEL 1 PLATE 7' - 11 1/4"
GARAGE PLATE 18' - 1 1/4"
LOWEST ADJ GRADE
-15' - 8 1/2"
GARAGE F.F. 9'
- 7 1/4"
TOP OF ROOF 19'
- 3 1/4"
34' - 11 3/4"
9' - 0" 1' - 2" 8' - 6" 1' - 2"
200
D200
D100
100
1' - 8" 13' - 5 3/4"
LEVEL 2 F.F. 9'
- 1 1/4"
9' - 0" 1' - 2" 9' - 0" 1' - 2" 0' - 6"
MILGARD VINYL WINDOWS
WITH 'DOVE WHITE'
COLORED SASH (TYP.)
NATURAL CEDAR SHINGLES SIDING
OVER 'TYVEK' (OR SIMILAR) BUILDING
PAPER AT ALL EXTERIOR WALLS (TYP.)
MIN 7/8" STUCCO SIDING WITH SMOOTH
TROWELED FINISH OVER 2 LAYERS
GRADE 'D' BUILDING PAPER (TYP.)
MIN 42" HIGH GLASS
RAILING (TYP.)
RAFTER TAILS
CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC SA
BUILT UP, SELF-ADHERING,
MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING
SYSTEM, OR SIMILAR
MIN 42" HIGH GLASS
RAILING (TYP.)
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:10:57 AM
A3.1
FRONT
ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 REAR ELEVATION
8.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) LEVEL 1 F.F.
-1' - 0 3/4"
LEVEL 1 PLATE 7'
- 11 1/4"
GARAGE PLATE 18'
- 1 1/4"
LOWEST ADJ GRADE-15' - 8 1/2"
GARAGE F.F. 9'
- 7 1/4"
TOP OF ROOF 19'
- 3 1/4"
1' - 2" 8' - 6" 1' - 8" 9' - 0"
34' - 11 3/4"
206 205 204
201
103 102
105
107 106
14' - 7 3/4"
LEVEL 2 F.F. 9'
- 1 1/4"
232
233' - 7"
238' - 4"
MILGARD VINYL WINDOWS
WITH 'DOVE WHITE'
COLORED SASH (TYP.)
NATURAL CEDAR SHINGLES SIDING
OVER 'TYVEK' (OR SIMILAR) BUILDING
PAPER AT ALL EXTERIOR WALLS (TYP.)
MIN 7/8" STUCCO SIDING WITH SMOOTH
TROWELED FINISH OVER 2 LAYERS
GRADE 'D' BUILDING PAPER (TYP.)
MIN 42" HIGH GLASS
RAILING (TYP.)
CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC SA
BUILT UP, SELF-ADHERING,
MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING
SYSTEM, OR SIMILAR
MIN 42" HIGH GLASS
RAILING (TYP.)
MIN 42" HIGH WOOD
RAILING (TYP.)
-1' - 0 3/4" LEVEL 1 F.F.
7' - 11 1/4" LEVEL 1 PLATE
18' - 1 1/4" GARAGE PLATE
-15' - 8 1/2" LOWEST ADJ GRADE
9' - 7 1/4" GARAGE F.F.
1' - 2" 8' - 6" 1' - 8" 9' - 0"
19' - 3 1/4" TOP OF ROOF
34' - 11 3/4"
1 5%
209
111 109 108
D100
100
14' - 7 3/4"
9' - 1 1/4" LEVEL 2 F.F.
238 237 220
219 218 217 216 215
MILGARD VINYL WINDOWS
WITH 'DOVE WHITE'
COLORED SASH (TYP.)
NATURAL CEDAR SHINGLES SIDING
OVER 'TYVEK' (OR SIMILAR) BUILDING
PAPER AT ALL EXTERIOR WALLS (TYP.)
MIN 7/8" STUCCO SIDING WITH SMOOTH
TROWELED FINISH OVER 2 LAYERS
GRADE 'D' BUILDING PAPER (TYP.)
MIN 42" HIGH GLASS
RAILING (TYP.)
CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC SA
BUILT UP, SELF-ADHERING,
MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOFING
SYSTEM, OR SIMILAR
MIN 42" HIGH GLASS
RAILING (TYP.)
MIN 42" HIGH WOOD
RAILING (TYP.)
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:11:00 AM
A3.2
RIGHT
ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 RIGHT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 LEFT ELEVATION
8.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) LEVEL 1 F.F. -1' - 0 3/4"
LEVEL 1 PLATE 7' - 11 1/4"
GARAGE PLATE 18' - 1 1/4"
LOWEST ADJ GRADE -15' - 8 1/2"
GARAGE F.F. 9' - 7 1/4"
TOP OF ROOF 19' - 3 1/4"
7' - 1 3/8"
D100
D202
D110
LIVING DINING
BEDROOM 3 MASTER BEDROOM
LEVEL 2 F.F. 9' - 1 1/4"
D114
216 217 218 219
237 238
STAIRS
ENTRY DECK LEVEL 2
DECK LEVEL 1
LEVEL 1 SUB -8' - 8 3/4"
LEVEL 1 F.F. -1' - 0 3/4"
LEVEL 1 PLAE -2' - 2 3/4"
LEVEL 1 PLATE 7' - 11 1/4"
GARAGE PLATE 18' - 1 1/4"
GARAGE F.F. 9' - 7 1/4"
TOP OF ROOF 19' - 3 1/4"
LEVEL 2 F.F. 9' - 1 1/4"
D102 D104
D214
D200
MASTER
CLOSET
BEDROOM 1 STAIRS
D218
BATH 2
DINING
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:11:01 AM
A3.3
SECTIONS
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
1/4" = 1'-0" 2
TRANSVERSE SECTION
8.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9) -1'
- 0 3/4" LEVEL 1 F.F.
7' - 11 1/4" LEVEL 1 PLATE
18' - 1 1/4" GARAGE PLATE
-15' - 8 1/2" LOWEST ADJ GRADE
9' - 7 1/4" GARAGE F.F.
19' - 3 1/4" TOP OF ROOF
9' - 1 1/4" LEVEL 2 F.F.
112' - 9 5/8"
62' - 8 5/8" 40' - 1" 10' - 0"
56' - 4 7/8" 56' - 4 7/8"
FRONT HALF OF LOT
76' - 2 3/4"
19' - 9 7/8"
SLOPE CALCS
(B) WHERE THE SLOPE OF THE FRONT HALF OF ANY RESIDENTIAL LOT IS GREATER THAN ONE FOOT RISE OR FALL IN A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF FOUR (4') FEET FROM THE ESTABLISHED STREET ELEVATION OF THE LOT AT THE FRONT STREET LINE (TWENTY-FIVE (25%) PERCENT), OR WHERE THE ELEVATION OF THE LOT AT THE FRONT STREET LINE IS SIX (6') FEET ABOVE OR BELOW THE ESTABLISHED STREET ELEVATION, A PRIVATE GARAGE OR CARPORT, ATTACHED OR DETACHED, MAY BE BUILT TO WITHIN TEN (10') FEET OF THE FRONT LOT LINE IF SUCH REDUCTION WILL NOT INTEREFERE WITH EXISTING OR PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITIES OR ESTABLISHED SETBACK LINES; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, SUCH GARAGE OR CARPORT SHALL MAINTAIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR THE MAIN BUILDING. AN ADDITIONAL REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK MAY BE PERMITTED IF THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON AN IMPROVED PUBLIC ROAD WHERE A CURB HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED OR AN OFFICIAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE ADDITIONAL REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WHICH MAY BE PERMITTED SHALL BE ONE FOOT FOR EACH TWO (2') FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE FACE OF THE CURB. THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED REDUCTION SHALL BE FOUR (4') FEET. SUCH REDUCTION SHALL
NOT BE PERMITTED IF IT WILL INTERFERE WITH ANY ESTABLISHED PLAN LINE FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OR WIDENING.
210' - 9"
238' - 9"
228' - 1"
REAR
PROPERTY LINE
FRONT
PROPERTY LINE
210' 9" - 238' 9" = 28' 0"
28' 0" / 76' 2 3/4" = 36.73% > 25%
10' - 0"
SHEET TITLE
SHEET PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT SCOPE:
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION OF (N) 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME
NEW 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMETBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BTBD OLYMPIAN WAY PARCEL BPACIFICA, CA 94044 1 1/26/2024 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
1/26/2024 11:11:01 AM
A3.4
SLOPE SECTION
3/16" = 1'-0"
1 SLOPE SECTION
8.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment B - Project Plans (5794 : TBD Olympian Way SB 9)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/12/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Resolutions to repeal and replace Administrative Policy No. 3 “Regulations For Use of City Council Chambers” with new Policy entitled “Public Use of the Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers” and amend Administrative Policy No. 2 “City Fees and Charges” (Master Fee Schedule) to add fees related to use of Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to:
1) Adopt a Resolution to repeal and replace Administrative Policy No. 3 “Regulations For Use of City Council Chambers” with new Policy entitled “Public Use of the Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers” to allow the public use of City-owned indoor facilities in accordance with established procedures and policies to ensure their proper use.
2) Adopt a Resolution to amend Administrative Policy No. 2 “City Fees and Charges” to update and include fees related to use of the Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers.
STAFF CONTACT:
Scott Leslie, Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation (650) 738-7387
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On June 27, 2024, the Pacifica Civic Center was officially opened to the public, and city employees fully occupied the facility by mid-July 2024. As part of the remodel, multiple community conference rooms were added with the intention of making these spaces available for public use. However, the City’s last official policy governing public facility use dates back to September 1981 and exclusively addresses the City Council Chambers. Many of the procedures and regulations within that policy are now outdated and do not address the broader scope of public facility usage envisioned today.
While the Community Center currently has departmental policies for permits and rentals, there is no comprehensive citywide policy governing the use. With the Civic Center's reopening and the availability of City Council Chambers and additional meeting spaces for public use, it became clear that a modernized, citywide policy was necessary.
The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department conducted a survey of neighboring cities that offer similar rental or permit options for their community centers and public buildings, including non-recreational facilities like large public halls and conference rooms. This survey aimed to establish both local and regional standards for public facility usage. Although rental offerings varied across cities, many overarching policies shared common themes. Most were structured broadly, allowing staff to manage details within a flexible, overarching framework. 9 Packet Pg. 152
Pacifica City Council 2
November 12, 2024
Proposed Revisions to Administrative Policy No. 3 Relating to Use The proposed revisions to Administrative Policy No. 3, “Public Use of the Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers” (“Policy”) are designed to enhance public access to City facilities for Pacifica residents, local businesses, nonprofits, and service groups. It establishes clear guidelines for use of the Community Center, City Council Chambers, and Civic Center, introduces an updated priority-based system to guide reservations and resolution of reservation conflicts.
Under this proposed Policy, an applicant’s category determines reservation priority. Municipal use is prioritized, followed by local residents and businesses, local nonprofit organizations, and lastly, non-residents and non-local entities. Non-residents and non-local organizations may use facilities if none of the other categories have reserved them within the designated timeline.
Priority Group Breakdown:
• Group 1 - Municipal Use: Includes City Council, Commissions, Committees, City staff business, and City-sponsored classes, programs, public meetings, and community events.
• Group 2 - Pacifica Residents and Businesses: Applies to individuals, businesses, or organizations based in Pacifica (excludes P.O. Box addresses). Businesses must possess a current business license.
• Group 3 - Local Nonprofit Organizations: Pacifica-based nonprofits and organizations serving the Pacifica community with IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. • Group 4 - Non-Residents and Non-Local Organizations: Includes any individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or organizations based outside Pacifica.
The Policy establishes regulations for alcohol use and smoking in and around City facilities. It also prohibits political campaigning and campaign-related activities within City facilities.
However, the City Manager may approve requests from non-partisan organizations to hold voter information events, such as candidate debates, and may authorize City facilities to be used as official voting locations. While the Policy restricts religious services at the Civic Center and City Council Chambers, these services may continue at the Community Center.
This Policy also aims to balance accessibility, structure, and flexibility in order to meet Pacifica’s community needs effectively. The City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Director are authorized to establish rules and guidelines consistent with this policy. In cases of dispute, the City Manager or their designee holds final authority over user group categorization, event type, and other reservation details.
The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department will manage all rentals, including eligibility determination, policy administration, and fee processing but may require additional approval from the City Manager or City Clerk to prevent conflicts with the official City meeting calendar.
Proposed Revisions to Administrative Policy No. 2 Relating to Fees Use fees and deposits for use of the Community Center, City Council Chambers and the Civic Center are proposed in the revisions to the City's Administrative Policy No. 2 “City Fees and Charges” (Master Fee Schedule).
With the Policy update to the use of the Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers, newly established fees have been introduced for the use of those spaces. 9 Packet Pg. 153
Pacifica City Council 3
November 12, 2024
Additionally, Community Center fees require updates to align with the new rental categories set by the Policy. Some Community Center fees have been adjusted to reflect regional standards, including reduced rates for weekday rentals due to a historically low volume of weekday rental applications.
The new use fees for the City Council Chambers and Civic Center Conference Rooms were established by surveying similar municipal spaces in nearby cities, including San Bruno, Millbrae, Daly City, Redwood City, and San Mateo. Although all neighboring cities were reviewed, some did not have spaces directly comparable to those in Pacifica. Parks, Beaches, and Recreation staff made every effort to find comparable public spaces, considering factors like capacity, accessibility, facility age, intended use, amenities, and overall aesthetics, as these features vary widely across municipalities.
Large Rooms & Halls: Weekends
LOCATION /
CITY
RENTAL SPACE CAPACITY RESIDENT RESIDENT
NON PROFIT
NON
RESISIDENT
NON RES
NON-PROFIT
Pacifica Council Chambers Seating capacity
200
$107/hr $81/hr $161/hr $161/hr
Pacifica Community Center
Auditorium
125 Banquet $107/hr $81/hr $161/hr $161/hr
Daly City Gellert Park Clubhouse 120 Banquet $125/hr N/A $150/hr N/A Daly City Lincoln Park
Community Center
200 Banquet $150/hr N/A $175/hr N/A
Daly City Merced Room 140 Banquet $125/hr N/A $150/hr N/A Millbrae Great Hall 300 Banquet $545/hr $355/hr $654/hr $545/hr Redwood City COMMUNITY
ACTIVITIES BUILDING
200 Banquet
100 Meeting
$180/hr $90/hr $230/hr $230/hr
San Bruno Community Hall 200 Banquet $457/hr $366/hr $571/hr $571/hr San Bruno Community Hall (1/2) Seating capacity
90 $228/hr $183/hr $285/hr $285/hr
San Mateo
Main Library
Oak Room Theater: 124
Banquet: 100
$140/hr $205/hr $210/hr $315/hr
9 Packet Pg. 154
Pacifica City Council 4
November 12, 2024
Conference Rooms - Small: Weekdays
LOCATION /
CITY
RENTAL SPACE CAPACITY RESIDENT RESIDENT
NON PROFIT
NON
RESISIDENT
NON RES
NON-PROFIT
Pacifica Civic Center Small
Conference Rooms
Seating capacity
15 $40/hr $25/hr $50/hr $50/hr
Millbrae Conference Room B Seating capacity
20 $63/hr $41/hr $76/hr $63/hr
Redwood City Conference Room
CAB BUILDING
Seating capacity
15 $50/hr $25/hr $70/hr $70/hr
San Bruno Conference Room Seating capacity
12 $49/hr $40/hr $78/hr $78/hr
Conference Rooms - Small: Weekends
LOCATION /
CITY
RENTAL SPACE CAPACITY RESIDENT RESIDENT
NON PROFIT
NON
RESISIDENT
NON RES
NON-PROFIT
Pacifica Civic Center Small
Conference Rooms
Seating capacity
15 $60/hr $40/hr $70/hr $70/hr
Millbrae Conference Room B Seating capacity
20 $112/hr $74/hr $135/hr $112/hr
Redwood City Conference Room
CAB BUILDING
Seating capacity
15 $50/hr $25/hr $70/hr $70/hr
San Bruno Conference Room Seating capacity
12 $62/hr $50/hr $78/hr $78/hr
Conference Rooms - Large: Weekdays
LOCATION /
CITY
RENTAL SPACE CAPACITY RESIDENT RESIDENT
NON PROFIT
NON
RESISIDENT
NON RES
NON-PROFIT
Pacifica Civic Center Large
Conference Rooms
Seating capacity
49 $55/hr $35/hr $65/hr $65/hr
Millbrae Classroom A Seating capacity
38 $112/hr $74/hr $135/hr $112/hr
Redwood City Large Conference
Room
CAB BUILDING
35 Banquet
35 Lecture
$70/hr $35/hr $100/hr $100/hr
San Bruno RAC Small Classroom Seating capacity
24 $98/hr $75/hr $155/hr $155/hr
San Mateo
Main Library
Meeting Room (Cedar) Theater: 24
Banquet: 18
$105/hr $110/hr $140/hr $315/hr
9 Packet Pg. 155
Pacifica City Council 5
November 12, 2024
Conference Rooms - Large: Weekends
LOCATION /
CITY
RENTAL SPACE CAPACITY RESIDENT RESIDENT
NON PROFIT
NON
RESISIDENT
NON RES
NON-PROFIT
Pacifica Civic Center Large
Conference Rooms
Seating capacity
49 $90/hr $70/hr $100/hr $100/hr
Millbrae Classroom A Seating capacity
38 $113/hr $74/hr $136/hr $135/hr
Redwood City Large Conference
Room
CAB BUILDING
35 Banquet
35 Lecture
$70/hr $35/hr $100/hr $100/hr
San Bruno RAC Small Classroom Seating capacity
24 $124/hr $124/hr $155/hr $155/hr
San Mateo
Main Library
Meeting Room (Cedar) Theater: 24
Banquet: 18
$105/hr $110/hr $140/hr $315/hr
The Policy permits reservations of the Civic Center conference rooms with the option to include the adjacent Civic Center Plaza Park as an add-on. The usage fee for the Civic Center Plaza Park is $50 and must accompany an internal facility reservation. All additional fees are reflected in the updated fee schedule.
All of the fees for use of the Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers reflect the reasonable cost of the use of those spaces. The updated and newly established fees are introduced with the proposed Resolution to amend Administrative Policy No. 2 “City Fees and Charges”, as attached in Attachment B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose not to adopt the resolutions and provide further direction to staff.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
"An Engaged Community” includes creating opportunities to expand public participation, increase communication, and build community post-COVID.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The expanded rental and permit opportunities will generate additional revenue, which will be directed to the City’s general fund. These funds will be utilized to maintain the facilities and support the staffing infrastructure required to oversee and manage facility operations.
ORIGINATED BY:
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Resolution - Admin Policy No. 3 Public Use Of Community Center, Civic Center, Council Chambers (PDF)
Attachment B: Resolution to Amend Admin Policy No. 2 Master Fee Schedule to Add-Update Facility Use Fees (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 156
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REPEALING, REPLACING, AND RENAMING ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. 3, “REGULATIONS FOR USE OF CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS” TO “PUBLIC USE OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIVIC CENTER AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS” WHEREAS, on June 27, 2024, the Pacifica Civic Center was officially opened to the public, with multiple community conference rooms added to provide dedicated spaces for public use; and
WHEREAS, the former administrative policy governing City Council Chambers use, established in 1981, did not include provisions for other public facilities, and the regulations within this policy no longer address the broader needs for public facility use; and WHEREAS, the new policy will allow the public to rent or obtain permits for the City Council Chambers, Civic Center, and Community Center for a variety of public and private events; and WHEREAS, offering additional public spaces to Pacifica residents, businesses, and community groups supports community building, providing venues for meetings, gatherings, and celebrations; and
WHEREAS, this policy establishes applicant categories to determine rental fees and reservation priorities, with municipal use as the top priority, followed by Pacifica residents and businesses, local nonprofit organizations, and finally, nonresidents and non-local organizations; and
WHEREAS, adoption and implementation of this policy will enable the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department to oversee all rentals, including eligibility determinations, scheduling, and fee processing; and
WHEREAS, this Policy seeks to balance accessibility, structure, and flexibility to meet the diverse needs of the Pacifica community effectively.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby repeals Administrative Policy No. 3, “Regulations For Use Of City Council Chambers” and replaces it with the amended Administrative Policy No. 3, “Public Use of the Community Center, Civic Center and City Council Chambers” attached hereto as Exhibit A. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
9.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution - Admin Policy No. 3 Public Use Of Community Center, Civic Center, Council Chambers (5795 : Admin RESOLUTION NO. XX-2024
_________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
9.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution - Admin Policy No. 3 Public Use Of Community Center, Civic Center, Council Chambers (5795 : Admin RESOLUTION NO. XX-2024
EXHIBIT A
9.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution - Admin Policy No. 3 Public Use Of Community Center, Civic Center, Council Chambers (5795 : Admin
CITY OF PACIFICA
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
No.
3 PUBLIC USE OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIVIC CENTER
AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
DATE ISSUED:
NOVEMBER 12, 2024
I. PURPOSE
To establish a policy governing the public use of the City’s Community Center, Civic Center, and City Council Chambers (collectively referred to herein as the “City Facilities”).
This policy does not apply to public use of the City's parks, playing fields, picnic areas, beaches, and City buildings not designated above.
II. POLICY
The principal use of the City Facilities is primarily used for legislative and other governmental functions, which can include but is not limited to, business: operations, meetings of City Council, Commissions, Committees, staff; events sponsored by the City; and other City purposes (“Municipal Use”). However, when not necessary for City purposes, the City Facilities may be used by members of the public, including residents, civic and nonprofit groups, local businesses, non-residents, and non-city businesses for non-commercial purposes. Use of the City Facilities for commercial purposes is prohibited.
Requests for use will be reviewed and handled in accordance with this Policy and the procedures set forth below.
III. PROCEDURE
1. The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department (“Department”) shall be responsible for determining eligibility and scheduling the use of the City Facilities by interested groups or individuals, in accordance with this Policy. The Department will administer and coordinate the use of assigned City Facilities. The administration of the use of City Facilities includes: establishing Rules and Regulations in accordance with Section 17 of this Policy and updating those Rules
9.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment A: Resolution - Admin Policy No. 3 Public Use Of Community Center, Civic Center, Council Chambers (5795 : Admin AP #39