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 25, 2024
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
November 25, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Off-street parking is allowed by permit for attendance at official public meetings.
Vehicles parked without permits are subject to citation. You should obtain a permit from the rack in the lobby and place it on the dashboard of your vehicle in such a manner as is visible to law enforcement personnel.
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES DURING MEETING
Alternative Ways to Observe and Participate in the Meeting:
The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is in-person at the meeting location published in the meeting agenda. However, there are alternative ways to observe and participate:
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • Watch on TV on Comcast channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv
• Live Remote Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • OR Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | Webinar ID: 811 5615 8241 o Press * 9 to raise your hand to request to speak.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone #. • When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, raise your hand in Zoom. You will be called upon my screenname or last 4-digits of phone number if dialing in. Please mute any background sound and state your full name at the start of your comment.
Please note that Alternative platforms for participation are subject to underlying technology functionality and may be modified or interrupted at any time without notice. • Written Public Comments:
BEFORE THE MEETING: Written public comments may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected]. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Public Comment on Item Not on Agenda” in the Subject Line
• Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date will be provided in their entirety to the City Council and posted to the City’s website prior to the meeting but will not be read verbally at the meeting.
AT THE MEETING: Materials in writing provided at the meeting should provide seven (7) copies to provide for each Councilmember, City Clerk and City staff.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 November 25, 2024
5:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code section 54957. Title: City Attorney.
00b. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. Property: 1050 Crespi Drive, Pacifica (also known as the Pacifica Cultural Arts Center and Spindrift Theater). Agency negotiator: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager. Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and Pacifica Spindrift Players. Under negotiation: Lease price and terms of payment.
00c. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8. Property: 1220 C Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica (APN 023-281-130).
Agency negotiator: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager. Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography. Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment of lease. 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Boles
Closed Session Report
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo
B. Proclamation - Shop Small Business Saturday
C. Presentation - Sibling Cities USA Program (Vicki Veenker) D. Presentation – San Mateo County Libraries (SMCL) Annual Report 2023-24 City Council Regular Meeting 3 November 25, 2024
CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.
Public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on consent agenda items must relate to that specific item.
If comments do not relate to a specific agenda item, then City will provide you with an initial warning to stay on topic. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.
Items on the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion unless a Councilmember requests, before the vote on the motion, to have an item discussed. Time limit on comments is three minutes or less.
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the October 28, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
2. Move to adopt Resolution Terminating Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station at Pacifica State Beach issued on April 8, 2020.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt Resolution Terminating Proclamation of Local Emergency (Attachment 1) at the Anza Pump Station at Pacifica State Beach on April 8, 2020.
3. Move to adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget Authorization for Anza Pump Station Project for Substantial Completion
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt Resolution for:
A. Adopt a Resolution to Increase the Anza Pump Station Repair Project construction contingency budget by $133,355.75 (5.5%) to the total contingency of $938,652.46 (40.5%), bringing the total construction authority to $3,265,966.75; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the close-out change order for the project.
B. Adopt a Resolution to Increase the Anza Pump Station Repair Project engineering services during construction (ESDC) contingency budget by $55,896 (53%) to the total contingency of (85%), bringing the total ESDC authority to $195,526; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the close-out change order for the project.
4. Approve new job classifications for Senior Human Resources Analyst and Senior Building Maintenance Specialist positions, and add them to the classification plan to be recognized as part of the Confidential Group and Teamsters Miscellaneous 856 Unit, respectively.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving a new Senior Human Resources Analyst and Senior Building Maintenance Specialist classifications, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a side letter to recognize the Senior Building Maintenance Specialist Classification by the Teamsters Miscellaneous 856 Unit.
5. Reject all bids for the Playground Equipment Improvement Project (aka FY24-25 Priority Parks Project)
City Council Regular Meeting 4 November 25, 2024
PROPOSED ACTION:
Reject all bids for the Playground Equipment Improvement Project (aka FY24-25 Priority Parks Project).
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
This portion of the Agenda is available for the public to address the City Council on any issue that is not on the Agenda. Any person wishing to address the Council shall be recognized by the Mayor during this time, provided, however, that only items not on the Agenda for that meeting may be addressed. Comments on non-agendized items must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. If comments do not address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City, the City will provide you with an initial warning to stay within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.
Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Public Comments on Items Not on the Posted Agenda. A maximum of three minutes will be allowed for any speaker.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Council Communications is for Councilmembers to inform each other of items of potential interest to other Councilmembers, such as interagency meetings.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Staff Communications is for the City Manager to offer announcements as appropriate.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
6. Recology of the Coast’s application for rate increase for 2025 and Consideration of Proposed Third Amendment to Agreement with Recology for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste Collection Services
PROPOSED ACTION:
Move to Adopt a Resolution that:
1. Confirms the Recology of the Coast’s (“Recology”) 2025 Rate Application for a rate increase of 5.09% is accurate and consistent with the annual rate adjustment procedures specified in the agreement with Recology for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste Collection Services (“Agreement”);
2. Approves a Third Amendment to the Agreement with Recology of the Coast to revise section 5.5.02.D.5 of the Agreement to provide grit and screenings disposal services for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and to revise Section 6.01.A, “Designated Disposal Facilities” and Attachment A of the Agreement to revise the location of the organic material disposal facility and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment; and
3. Finding the confirmation of the rate increase and the approval of the Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 November 25, 2024
7. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approving a Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse as City Manager
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt Resolution approving the Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse.
ADJOURN
NOTICE: If you challenge a city's zoning, planning or other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Judicial review of any city administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period for litigation, in certain cases 30 days following the date of the final decision The City of Pacifica will provide assistance for disabled citizens upon at least 24 hours advance notice to the City Manager’s Office (650) 738-7301, or send request via email to:
[email protected] if you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary. All meeting rooms are accessible to the disabled.
The Pacifica Municipal Code is available online at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode);
HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:
Agendas are posted no later than Friday prior to the City Council meeting date, at the entrance to the City Hall location at 170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica.
View on the Internet:
Follow the link to Council agenda, at www.cityofpacifica.org E-mail subscription:
Send a request to Sarah Coffey, at [email protected] City Clerk’s Office/City Manager’s Office
City Hall, 170 Santa Maria Ave.
Council meetings:
Agendas are available at the City Council meeting
HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313 • Assembly Member Marc Berman, 721 Colorado Ave, Suite 101, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 324-0224 • Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, 698 Emerson Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 323-2984 • Senator Alex Padilla, B03 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 • Senator Laphonza Butler, SD-G10 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3841 • President Joseph R. Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500
CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Sue Vaterlaus, [email protected]
• Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck, tbigstyck@ pacifica.gov • Councilmember Christine Boles, [email protected]
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/25/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to approve the minutes for the October 28, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
STAFF CONTACT:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Move to approve the minutes for the October 28, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (Attachment A).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Within budgeted operational expenses.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 6
CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 October 28, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on October 28, 2024 at 6:10 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 6:10 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; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; John Mullins, Interim PW Director; Kavitha Kumar, Interim Community Development Director; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Joe Gomez, Police Sergeant; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep.
City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Arbor Day
Mayor Vaterlaus read a proclamation in honor of Arbor Day.
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 October 28, 2024
Interim PW Director Mullins thanked Tree City Pacifica in putting this day together with Public Works staff and thanked PB&R Director Leslie for his support.
PB&R Director Leslie appreciated all the work from Public Works and Tree City Pacifica to make the planting of the trees happen at the Community Center. He invited Paul Totah and Gail Benton Shoemaker from Tree City Pacifica to say a few words about this event followed by Dr.
Darnise Williams, Superintendent of Pacifica School District, to share tree planting on local campuses.
Mr. Paul Totah stated he was speaking on behalf of Tree City Pacifica. He thanked Council and PB&R Director Leslie for their support of the upcoming Arbor Day tree planting at the Pacifica Community Center. This is their sixth annual event; planting trees is one way to mitigate climate change and it inspires our community to join together in taking communal action. He stated that they need more teams to plant a tree on Saturday and to reach out to Tree City Pacifica for volunteer assignments.
Ms. Gail Benton Shoemaker also thanked Council and mentioned when Council voted approval of the Tree Ordinance, we voted to protect trees by requiring permits for removing and trimming trees in Pacifica and the 2-to-1 replacement trees. They also look forward to Council approving an aspirational canopy goal in the urban reserve as part of the Climate Action Plan to work together to grow the urban forest; when planting trees on Arbor Day as councilmembers, they will be demonstrating how it is done, including donating trees to the school district to contribute to the urban forest and educate children about the value of trees.
Dr. Darnise Williams, Superintendent of Pacifica School District, stated that this year will be the sixth year of celebrating Arbor Day through their partnership with the City of Pacifica and Tree City Pacifica. They are honored to acknowledge the steadfast dedication of all involved in preserving and nurturing our urban forest, including the children and teachers. She found pleasure when a child took ownership for the community and sustainability. She took this opportunity, on behalf of Pacifica School District, staff, board, and students, to say thank you to Council for donating ten trees every year annually in honor of Arbor Day. She asked everyone to celebrate Arbor Day this Saturday and be reminded that he who plants a tree plants hope, and each planted tree is a symbol of hope for more sustainability and a resilient future, not only for our community, but for each and every one of our students in the Pacifica School District.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is because of trees that we have the capacity for oxygen in our lungs and it is an opportunity to give thanks. He thanked them for all the work they are doing.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer Dr. Williams for her words. She stated that she has watched this process unfold at Cabrillo and thought it was exciting to see that process spread out among all in the school at their site. She stated that the art program was a big deal and she thanked her for acknowledging those things. She also thanked Tree City Pacifica.
Councilmember Bier also thanked Tree City Pacifica. She also thanked Dr. Williams for being here and being a great partner. She gets to walk out of her classroom at Oceana every day and see the little sprouts that are coming off of the trees they planted two years ago and it is beautiful.
Councilmember Boles echoed all the wonderful words. She thanked Tree City Pacifica for starting this program for collaborating with our schools, and a wonderful collaboration was with
1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 October 28, 2024
Public Works and our PB&R Department. She has seen the kids’ faces when they are waiting to hear who won the awards, and she stated Dr. Williams’ enthusiasm is beautiful to see and she sees that it translates into her kids population. She asked if, at the Community Center, any of the proposed plantings in front of the building on Crespi would conflict with plans for an eventual new driveway and drop box.
PB&R Director Leslie stated that we looked at a variety of future projects and the selection of spaces was based on aesthetics and where we should plant them now.
Councilmember Boles heard that some of the trees at Fairmont Park that were planted not long ago are not faring well and asked if that had been investigated.
PB&R Director Leslie stated that we have heard about that as well so staff will do some further investigation on that.
Mayor Vaterlaus recalled previous proclamations and times where Council had planted a tree.
There were no public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if anyone wanted to pull an item from the Consent Calendar. Seeing none, she opened public comment. Seeing none, she closed public comment.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the September 9, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
2. Repeal and Replace Administrative Policy No. 8: Records and Information Management Program Policy, to Update References to Public Records Act and Revise Policy Section
4.15 and other Minor Edits and to Revise the Records Retention Schedule to Amend Retention Periods and other Changes Relating to Police Services Records.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution Repealing and Replacing Administrative Policy No. 8: Records and Information Management Program Policy, to update references to Public Records Act and revise Policy Section 4.15 to Confirm the City Manager is Authorized to Amend the Retention Schedules and other minor edits and to revise the Records Retention Schedule to amend Retention Periods and Make Other Changes relating to Retention of Police Services Records.
3. Pacifica Police Department Militarized Equipment Ordinance Adoption PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Waive the Second Reading of and Adopt by Title the, “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code Renewing the Military Equipment Policy.”
1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 October 28, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, shared their working hours, preparations for the Thanksgiving distribution, Unhoused on the Coast outreach working hours, and grocery distribution at American Legion Hall, including their Thanksgiving distribution for those in Client Choice. They are enrolling for Thanksgiving and the Holiday Joy program now, with distribution on December 16, and their Pacifica Safe Parking program is evaluation is complete and they would love to present at a future meeting. She stated that, for their Thanksgiving program, they are asking for $30 gift cards for Safeway, Oceana Market, or Grocery Outlet. She also mentioned that people may drop off donations of peanut butter, canned tuna, pasta, and chicken at 1809 Palmetto Ave.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bigstyck stated to the public to go vote.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she will concede her time to Councilmember Bier.
Councilmember Bier appreciated all the public’s communication to Council. She thanked citizens of Climate Lobby San Mateo Youth Council for inviting her to participate in Make it Real:
Youth for Youth Climate Rally. She shared two upcoming events on Zoom: Youth Leadership Institute and Westmoor Social Justice Coalition. On November 16, San Mateo County Youth Commission and Peninsula Clean Energy and San Mateo County Office of Ed., are hosting an environmental youth leadership summit. She participated in the San Mateo County Leadership Council CORPS Class which nurtures that drive for collaboration and partnership and she appreciates the opportunity and thanked the city for it. She thanked Boo Bash for the best Halloween.
Councilmember Boles appreciated all the information and different seminars from her time at the League of California Cities conference, in addition to getting to talk to people from different cities and what they are experiencing. She stated that there were updates on new state laws, prolific around housing. She stated that there is more work for them next year on new ordinances that will be needed. She mentioned density bonus, builder’s remedy laws, a presentation from developers including Toll Brothers speaking about types of projects and housing densities, PG&E and infrastructure, and our inclusionary ordinance. She appreciated the Coastal Cities working group update. She also shared some experiences from a session she and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer attended on how to conduct better Council meetings. She attended the Council Housing Leadership Day which was a great event with non-profits, elected financing authorities, and people in the housing world. She was able to talk with our consultants about our Housing Element progress and they have been going back and forth with HCD and feel that we are close to being able to release the EIR.
Mayor Vaterlaus went to many of the same meetings. She also went to the Democrats meeting where Harbor District Commissioner George Domurat showcased an informational video about sand and sea level rise.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer gave an update on the Coastal Cities annual meeting at the League of California Cities meeting. It was well-attended and cities from the bayside attended and shared their policy work with the Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC). They did an interactive survey of the cities in attendance of progress with their LCP updates and reported what happened in the Coastal Commission meeting that was focused around the
1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 October 28, 2024
neighborhood approach. There was also the legislative update about the bills that affected housing in the coast and things that are coming on the horizon for next year. She referred to what Councilmember Boles said about density and density issues in the coast specifically as they relate to the Sharp Park Specific Plan. She also looked into any information about funding because that is what makes it possible to help developers make these projects penciled.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse was at the CalCities conference and attended many of the same sessions as the councilmembers, with one session he attended related to economic development and land development. Part of the presenting staff was Kosmont, which did our economic opportunity study, and that was an informative session. He also mentioned that posted on the website is Pacifica’s citywide accomplishments list that they annually compile; it gets into details about the day-to-day work that the city does and it is a great list of accomplishments and reflects incredible work by City Council, city staff, and committees and commissioners that achieve all this work throughout the year.
City Clerk Coffey provided a reminder about the election period and provided information on the three Vote Centers and three Drop Boxes in Pacifica. She gave information on pickup frequency for the Drop Boxes and shared that ballots can be mailed through USPS as well.
Lastly, she shared that you can sign up online on smcvote.gov to track your ballot, and you can receive a notification by text, email or phone when your ballot has been received and when your ballot has been counted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. 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).
City Manager Woodhouse clarified the documents and attachments we are working with in this agenda report. He stated that the formatting and documents have always been a question. In tonight’s meeting, the October 2023 LCLUP document is the base document and Attachment B is the LCLUP redline which contains all the changes since October 2023. There is also the
1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 October 28, 2024
summary matrix which has the following tracked changes: red tracked changes since the most recent September meeting and black tracked changes where City Council has given direction and revised accordingly. The numbers in the margins of Attachment B are the major policies we had included in the summary matrix; they connect the tracked changes document to the summary matrix.
Councilmember Boles asked what is still green in the table and to clarify what policies, if any, were not in agreement with Coastal Commission staff.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks the green can be disregarded as it was used as some of the major items they previously identified. Regarding all of the tracked changes recommendations that are in the document at this point, both City staff and Coastal Commission staff are in agreement about those with one clarification to make about one policy at this time.
Interim CD Director Kumar presented the staff report. She then asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if she would like to read into the record data about public access and recreation maintenance and improvement services like public trails and ESHA.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that this was regarding the policies where we have been communicating with Coastal Commission staff up to today about certain language in the policies, thus why it is not included in the packet. It is fairly minor in terms of amendments.
They would be adding back in the 50-foot minimum into the policy and adding language at the very end of the second bullet point in the policy (packet page 374) where ER-I-24 is in reference to public infrastructure or public access. She stated there are two items in the second bullet point and this is to the second item where it says “to provide required incidental public services for public development, such as burying cables, pipes or inspection of piers, maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines and emergency repairs, provided that any unavoidable impact are commensurately mitigated, that the buffer is as close to 100 feet as possible” and adding back in “and 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 commensurately mitigated all as conclusively demonstrated by qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the City and applicable resource agencies except that the 50-foot minimum shall not apply to low intensity public access and recreation maintenance and improvement services”.
City Manager Woodhouse added an editorial context to this change for Council and the public, i.e., the Coastal Commission staff was very insistent on “and no less than 50 feet in any case” remaining in the policy, but when City staff met with Coastal Commission staff, we specifically talked about low intensity recreational access and the example was the path that leads to the beach in Pedro Point right beside the creek and how it needs to be repaired and maintained and we were not in agreement that there should be a policy that would seemingly prevent us from doing that as it allows access to the beach, and they agreed with that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, for clarity, all of the language that the Asst. City Attorney Bazzano read into the record is not what is being changed but just a parenthetical phrase.
Councilmember Boles appreciated “no less than 50 feet in any case” and asked if this text is the exact same text for ER-I-1 also.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, explaining that there is very similar language in ER-I-1 where we would be making the same revisions. She reiterated that the bullet point on packet page 357 would add back in “and no less than 50 feet in any case” and adding that language at
1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 October 28, 2024
the end of the bullet point at the top of page 357 “except that the 50-foot minimum shall not apply to low intensity public access and recreation maintenance and improvement services”.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated Council heard from the public several times about the inclusion or exclusion of roofing underlayment plywood and it would seem to her that the plywood is weather proofing and waterproofing and underlayment. She stated that they have consistently struck that out and she would like someone to explain that to her.
Councilmember Bier referred to packet page 238, where it says, “They were informed after the meeting, they were not agreeable to add it to the list of exclusions but agree that any nonstructural repair of roof sheathing could be included in the catch all of other exclusions”.
She stated that, on packet page 239, it says “other nonstructural roof materials”.
Councilmember Boles agreed that the staff report says “other” would be added but maybe something was missed there.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that conversations with Coastal Commission staff stated plywood on a roof connecting the joists and the substructure to the roof is considered structural.
He stated that Coastal Commission staff has said they are not comfortable with excluding plywood but there is discretion in the policy for replacing some of the plywood that might be dry rotted or water damaged, etc., as nonstructural changes in a roof project. However, if you are stripping down to the framing and putting new plywood on, that is considered structural for the house and that is where Coastal Commission staff is coming from. The policy excludes plywood roof sheathing but has the discretion for nonstructural work and there is some leeway there to us as an agency in the review.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified further that the City Manager and staff spent a lot of time trying to explain to the Coastal Commission our reasoning for not including plywood as structural. She stated that the City Manager, at length, was discussing with the Coastal Commission the issue of plywood being used even for, in the city’s opinion, nonstructural issues like fixing leaks or other nonstructural concerns, i.e. health and safety concerns with the roof that leads to leaks and damage to the structure. They agreed with that and their response back was that the City does have discretion to make that determination as to whether or not that use of plywood is structural or not, and in the City’s interpretation, staff does have the ability to determine whether or not the use of plywood is structural. She stated it is not a blanket “every time you use plywood, that is a determination that is structural”. What they said is, to the City Manager’s point, there is plywood use that may not be structural and they said, if not structural, then it is an exception and we have the discretion to make that determination. She stated that was the compromise and this was a major item of discussion between city staff, City Manager and their executive director, the AG’s office, their legal counsel, as well as Coastal Commission staff.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated when she went to put on a new roof, the old roof was wooden shakes.
Underneath the wooden shakes is nothing so to put on a new roof they had to put on plywood because they had nothing underneath it. She asked if that is a structural change, as she considered it as necessary weatherproofing, saving her house from water damage.
Councilmember Boles asked if other wood or boards can be used if not structural.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer appreciated her asking that question and she wants to come back to this point in their deliberations.
1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 October 28, 2024
Interim CD Director Kumar continued the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she could clarify if LD-I-28 and NI-H-34 were amended.
Interim CD Director Kumar responded affirmatively. She added CR-I-9 and CR-I-32 as well.
She continued the staff report.
Councilmember Boles asked if she could tell them more about protection for critical facilities as we have a follow-up letter from NCCWD saying that they thought it was important and why was the Coastal Commission or the City not amenable to that language.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was a great policy that NCCWD recommended and city staff thinks would be good. He stated that there are a couple of aspects to it, i.e., one is that there are other policies that cover this in the LCP and Coastal Commission staff commented about that also. The other is that the specifics of the policy talk about a temporary or an emergency Coastal Development Permit to be followed up on with regular, and that is a process that is generally available with the Coastal Commission. He thinks another aspect of this about water infrastructure on or near the shoreline is it is most likely going to be a permit that NCCWD has to get directly from Coastal Commission so the City’s LCLUP does not even apply in that case. While it can be referenced, the Coastal Commission does not have to factor in the city’s LCLUP. He stated, for a variety of reasons, the intent of this policy is achieved in the recommended LCLUP.
Councilmember Boles asked for the other policies that covers this.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she would refer her to packet page 832 for CR-I-32 new shoreline protection structures and CR-I-9 hazard prone infrastructure.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, on CR-I-32, the insertion of the phrase critical infrastructure and the corresponding definition that she and Coastal Commission staff devised.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed that the revision to CR-I-32 includes revising some of the terms to incorporate that new definition of critical infrastructure.
City Attorney Kenyon further clarified, to the City Manager’s point of the intent of all of these policies, we believe that including that definition of critical infrastructure which now specifically includes the district’s facilities as well is a catchall; that definition which is the same definition that applies to our critical facilities applies to theirs as well. Just as the city is a public agency, according to the LCLUP, they have the same stature as the city in regard to critical infrastructure and should address all of their concerns generally for all of their water facilities.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, looking at the material that was submitted and what she sees here, it looks like almost all of the requests were accommodated with the exception of No.
5. She will reserve her opinions for after public comment.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was impressed to see the collaborative effort that brought agreement to the document and he thinks the City and NCCWD have been working on more proactive relationships. The City advocated for what NCCWD was asking for on one hand and it was pleasing to see their efforts towards collaboration are understood here and abroad.
Councilmember Bier is curious why the Coastal Commission staff is not agreeable.
1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 October 28, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated, as the attachment generally says, first, they feel like the intent of this is addressed in the LCLUP and the idea of adding usage of armoring in certain contexts, at this point in time, muddles the intent there.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added to what he mentioned, i.e., there are other policies that cover some of the language that has been proposed in revisions by NCCWD; at this point, to go back to make sure that everything is consistent would be a significant amount of work and this is a policy for the City, not necessarily for NCCWD. By including their infrastructure in the definition of critical facilities and critical infrastructure, the City applied those policies where those terms are included to NCCWD indirectly.
Interim CD Director Kumar completed the staff report.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked how long she thinks it will take Coastal Commission staff to get back to us after the submittal to set a date to hear this.
Interim CD Director Kumar stated that they said it would take about 2-3 months for them to review and get back to staff.
Councilmember Boles asked if setting a date might extend that further.
Asst City Attorney Bazzano stated that they would have to certify that the application is complete and then they would set it for a hearing once that is done.
City Manager Woodhouse added that indications were from Coastal Commission staff and the Executive Director that they want to move this expeditiously to the Coastal Commission for certification, hence the 2-3 month estimate.
Councilmember Boles thought it would be better to go through the policies another time, Mayor Vaterlaus called for a break and then reconvened the meeting. She opened the public hearing.
Kathleen Moresco, Pacifica, stated she originally was planning to suggest approving this, but after listening to the questions, she felt there are still issues that need to be addressed and she thanked them for all their work and hoped it will get through.
Adrienne Carr, North Coast County Water District, thanked staff for reaching out, meeting with Coastal Commission staff, and bringing forth policies and definitions as suggested. She acknowledged that Council received her letter regarding protection for critical facility policies and stated the aforementioned policies may cover NCCWD’s request.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated SSRAs keep coming back and he stated they encourage development on the highest risk areas. Thus, he suggested that Council reject SSRAs in this plan. He also asked about the impact on the Rockaway Quarry following Council’s decision.
Anne DeJarnatt, Pacifica, shared the importance of protection of water facilities and water supply among NCCWD, the City, and residents, and expressed appreciation towards the collaborative efforts between the City and NCCWD.
1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 October 28, 2024
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, expressed concerns about the LCLUP format, stated that the document was incomplete, and encouraged Council to push back against Coastal Commission staff.
Richard Harris, San Francisco, shared suggested policy language from two letters he sent to Council, expressed concern about a wheelchair ramp excluded from the document, and stated the LCLUP redline was incomprehensible.
Larry Bothen, Pacifica, expressed concerns about overreach by the Coastal Commission and suggested Council stand up for the LCLUP approved in 2020.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, shared her thoughts that SSRAs needed to be removed as they would undermine planning for Pacifica’s coastline and place people in a hazard zone via armoring.
Jenifer Behling, Pacifica, stated she disagreed with the LCLUP and expressed concerns about managed treat, lack of information for impacted property owners, and plans for citizens concerned about their property.
Margo Meiman, Pacifica, encouraged Council to remove SSRAs from the LCLUP and requested holding off approval until Council collaborated with NCCWD.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, referenced ESHA issues about Pedro Point wetlands and information on its use as a sewage disposal site and expressed concerns about building residential there.
Stanley Lamport, Pacifica, stated he was concerned about CR-I-21, bullet point 5, regarding substantial structural modifications and the possibility of waiving rights indefinitely resulting from work done to the property.
Marianne, Pacifica, shared her concerns that the Coastal Commission was forcing the City into managed retreat and questioned the level of community engagement on the LCLUP.
Kimberly Williams, San Mateo County, stated she represents San Mateo County Chapter of SurfRider Foundation, and stated SSRAs do not coincide with the Coastal Act and opposed the inclusion of SSRAs in the LCLUP.
Alok Sonthalia, Pacifica, shared his strong support for this LCLUP policy and suggested that Council move forward on this.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Bigstyck shared some of the challenges of being a councilmember and emphasized that Council does their best and try to honor the promises they make and see them through to the best of their ability, but there is the element that they do not know what they do not know. He stated that he is grateful to know Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer spent time trying to figure out what is balanced, adding up to the point of becoming the chair of a statewide organization and trying to work with all the coastal cities to figure out what is an equitable approach for all California cities to take when they have common issues in trying to work out what is best between any given coastal city and the California Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Boles asked about process. She wants to talk about the SSRAs in more detail and other questions throughout the document.
1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 October 28, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it might be helpful to identify the policies or issues, if not referencing an exact policy, that Council wants to discuss. She stated she wanted to discuss CR-I-21 with specific regard to the waiver of rights. She also wanted to circle back on the issues about the map and wheelchair ramp.
Councilmember Boles added the tsunami map and the landslide maps.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she agrees with reviewing the SSRA and SSM.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like to talk more about the language that NCCWD is requesting as she thinks the two policies that could cover them are for long-term armoring and they were specifically asking for short-term. She also has a few short miscellaneous questions about policies PR-I-12, PR-I-74, CR-I-9, etc. and staff said there was some suggested language which were not presented.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Council start with CR-I-21 on packet page 448.
Councilmember Boles stated that these are coastal hazard risk disclosures and her understanding is that these disclosures are required for any permit and any CDPs in coastal vulnerability and tsunami evacuation zones, not just for new construction or SSMs. She asked if we can confirm that. She stated that the previous language said “Coastal Development Permit approvals of development in the coastal vulnerability zone” so that would agree with what you just said any development, but now the new one only says “new development”. She asked confirmation across all meetings on the LCLUP that we have taken out the phrase “new development” everywhere else. She stated that we have a definition of “development” and she is confused as to why new is here now and is it saying something completely different, such as these only apply to new structures.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, for clarification, new development is development, and development is new development. Whether there is “new” in front of it or not, it is development.
Councilmember Boles stated that we intentionally took out “new” everywhere else in the notes.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated there are other areas in the LCLUP that say “new development”.
Councilmember Boles asked if we took out the definition.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that her understanding is that it was included in the definition and, if it was not, we should include a definition of development signifying all development is new development. That is the intent and, if not clear, we can make those changes to make that clear. She stated that there is no distinction between “development” and “new development,” as all development is based on what is new development.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought the definition says, “For purposes of this document, all development is new development.”
City Attorney Kenyon agreed.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that Councilmember Boles’ point is that, for the most part, we take out “new” and the question is should we take out the word “new” in this instance.
1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 October 28, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, as soon as we confirm the definition of “development,” we can do that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, on packet page 490, under the definition of development, the last sentence says, “In this LCP, ‘development’ is synonymous with ‘new development.’” Councilmember Boles thinks that is confusing too.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, from a legal perspective, the way this will be interpreted is that all development is considered new development. She stated, if the issue is that, in some places, it is new and in some places it is just development, she understands that and we can correct that administratively, should Council move forward to approve this LCLUP. She stated that those issues can be resolved. Staff is telling Council that the intent is that development includes new development and we will make it more clear if there are places where there is confusion.
Councilmember Boles stated that, in construction, that is a confusing term.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that is why we have a definition.
Councilmember Boles agreed for “development”.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that legally development includes new development.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated the issue was of existing development when comparing new development to old or existing development and the multiple definitions or suggestions for those terms. She thinks the intent of removing the word “new” was to dispense with that or at least set it aside.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed that “new development” is used 39 times in the document throughout the document in the implementing and guiding policies.
Councilmember Boles stated she would still like to strike that language.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we can do that if Council would like to direct staff to strike it in that position. Staff are saying is that it is not necessary because there are at a minimum 39 other places where “new” is referred to. If we strike it here, then perhaps we should strike it everywhere else. Staff can do it, but legally it has no significance because of the definition.
Councilmember Boles understands but wanted this particular policy to be clear.
City Attorney Kenyon thinks it makes it clearer that development only relates to new development and that is essentially what the intent is throughout the document. She stated that this is an important provision in the LCLUP and that language was inserted to be clear that this risk disclosure policy would only apply to new development to try to allay some of the concerns with what exactly is this risk disclosure applying to. She stated that it does not have to as it only applies to new development in any event.
Councilmember Boles stated that the previous version did not say that and the Coastal Commission approved it. She stated that her feeling is that the previous version does a lot more to protect us. Part of the language Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and many people in the
1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 October 28, 2024
public were struggling with is the idea of signing this waiver and waiving rights to future shoreline protection and that language is in the new version and other things that gave the City more protection are missing in this new modification. In general, she does not understand why this is better.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she can elucidate what is negative.
Councilmember Boles stated item 3 says that “the permittee unconditionally waves any claim or damage of liability against the city if the permit is appealed” and item 4 also says that; but the previous version was not just about appeals, but about the permits, construction, long-term risk, “indemnifying and held harmless the cities and its officers, agents and employees with respect to the city’s approval of the development against all liability, etc., in connection with the permitted development… assume and accept the risk to themselves and their properties of injury and damage from coastal hazards in connection with a permitted development, unconditionally waive any claim or damage of liability against the city for injury and/or damage in connection with the permitted development,” etc. and she stated it was more to do with the whole development and not just permits and appeals of the permits. She thinks there is protection for us that is missing in this new policy that was there before that has been lost.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks the purpose of this policy is specifically regarding permitting because it is talking about permitting in the coastal vulnerability zone and inundation zone.
Councilmember Boles stated it is about deed restrictions and the deed restrictions are about protections for the City and notification about the hazards to other people who might be buying it. She stated that they do not come into effect unless you are getting a permit, but the protections from the hazards are not just about the permit itself but about the development.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that flow from the permit.
Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively. She asked why we directed the change in the language, as in general Council wanted to simplify it, but the question is has it done what we wanted it to do.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks it is more straightforward and more accessible than the legalese of the original language.
Councilmember Boles stated it is much shorter.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that her concern is the issue of waiving rights that might exist under applicable law. The question that Councilmember Boles asked about new development answers some of that for Mayor pro Tem Beckemeyer, as if it is an existing property that is preCoastal Act, it has rights and this is saying to waive those rights.
Councilmember Boles stated that this is saying waiving those rights for remodels too.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood and added that is her big concern. She gets why Coastal Commission wants it, but how is it good for Pacifica and our people.
Councilmember Boles stated, if someone with a pre-1977 house does a small remodel, not even structural, and needs a CDP, they have to waive their rights to armoring in perpetuity.
1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 October 28, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we are misreading this.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is correct that there is a difference in the language.
City staff and Coastal Commission staff have talked about this and in trying to find a solution to concerns raised by the public and Council about the robust language that was in the previous risk disclosure policy; we tried to find a more simple and precise risk disclosure policy and found an example in the Del Norte County and that is what this is based on. She stated, while the language change is more simplistic, we believe that the basic structure, protections, and provisions of the previous policy are included in this policy. Thus, both risk disclosures talk about requirements of risk of injury and damage from such injuries to be attached to the permittee, both policies talk about the permittee assuming all risk of injury from damages from coastal hazards in connection with a permitted development, and both talk about waiving claims or damages against the city from coastal hazards. She stated both of those provisions have an indemnity provision and Councilmember Boles is correct that there is a little bit of difference but the reality is that any challenge would be based on an appeal regardless. While that language is not in the previous policy, we are still talking about challenges to the decision, which would be via an appeal. Therefore, staff feels the indemnity provision is still sufficient. She stated that there is the waiver that is included, to some degree, in both policies, and that is there because Coastal Commission staff feels it is important that with the shoreline protection, if it needs to be removed, that the permittee is aware that is a part of the risk of proceeding with the development, i.e., they are not entitled to rely on that shoreline protection as a result of the development they are undertaking. It is there, in part, to make sure that the permittee, the public, and everybody understands what the provisions will be if the development proceeds.
Councilmember Bier asked how the Casa Mira case would affect that.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the Casa Mira case is not established case law and not precedential so it does not affect anything at this point.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, when it does become precedential, is that is a moment in time in which an amendment to the LCP will be required.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, if there is a need to revise our LCP based on some appellate court decision or some other court decision that is precedential, then the City Attorney’s Office could bring that back for Council’s consideration.
City Attorney Kenyon added that does occur: if there is a change in the law that affects our General Plan or any other Specific Plan, we do come back and bring back amendments to make sure that document is consistent with existing law. At this time, this LCLUP proposed draft is consistent with existing law.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we can talk about this in terms of SSM, i.e. if it is an SSM, you are doing a waiver of rights but, if you had a small remodel project, you are also doing a waiver of rights.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks we are conflating SSMs with the risk disclosure. The risk disclosure policy is a condition that would be imposed on a Coastal Development Permit for new development in coastal vulnerability zones or tsunami inundation zones. It would be imposed as part of the approvals of that project.
Councilmember Boles ask if even a small project.
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 October 28, 2024
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed it does not matter if it is an SSM or not.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, in an existing house, if you are putting in a new kitchen under 50% so it does not trigger SSM, does it trigger CR-I-21.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it would still be development that requires a Coastal Development Permit and, if you are in the coastal vulnerability zone or tsunami inundation zone, then it would require this disclosure, assuming it does require a Coastal Development Permit.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked what the requirement would be for the Coastal Development Permit, such as the kitchen. She stated that, if it was going to change things that drastically to put in a new kitchen, she asked if anyone would come and get a permit. She thought they would not as it was going to inhibit them from a lot of other things and they are not going to get permits.
City Manager Woodhouse referenced the difference between a building permit, Coastal Development Permit, and their triggers. He stated that typically the CDP is triggered by a change in the intensity of use; thus, a kitchen or bathroom remodel might not be that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated staff can come back to that.
Councilmember Boles thought staff could confirm what is not a private applicant, such as the City or NCCWD.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, stating it is any public agency and any public purpose which would have to be instituted by a public agency.
Councilmember Boles asked if San Francisco doing something on the golf course would not trigger anything.
City Attorney Kenyon stated no, as it would be a public agency with jurisdiction over permitting and it would be the city.
Councilmember Boles concluded that San Francisco does not count.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it could be the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Boles thought the last bullet point was confusing.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it was the one about the public tidelands.
Councilmember Boles read, “The structure may be required to be removed or relocated and the site restored at the property owner’s expense, if it becomes unsafe for occupancy or use due to coastal hazards, including as outlined above when coastal hazards would necessitate construction of a shoreline protection structure to ensure safe occupancy of the development and/or as part of shoreline protection structure repair maintenance if the development is not permitted to obtain shoreline protection or in response to certain defined triggers.” She was not sure if she understands how shoreline protections relate to the hazard risk policy. She asked, if the hazards are increasing to which the structure needs shoreline protection structure, does the
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 October 28, 2024
shoreline protection structure have to be removed and/or if the shoreline protection structure in front of it needs to be maintained or repaired.
City Manager Woodhouse thought the trigger is, if it is clear that the structure cannot remain there safely, unless there is shoreline protection constructed/changed, it needs to be removed.
City Attorney Kenyon stated this risk disclosure is designed specifically with bullet point 8 to inform the recipient of the permit that, if their structure becomes unsafe to occupy or use due to coastal hazards, in the event a tsunami were to come, and that property had a permitted development for the life of the permit, and if during that life of the permit, it is determined that the structure is unsafe to occupy, that property owner would not be able to rely on the existing permit to reconstruct any time of shoreline protection. She would agree it is convoluted, but this is something that the Coastal Commission staff is requiring; if Council is more comfortable with a prior version that did not include this language, then Council can accept the prior disclosure language. If the Council is trying to make this a bit more concise and easier to read, the intent is by including this language is to disclose to the permittee, should they receive the permit, that they cannot rely on the shoreline protection for future reconstruction of development that is destroyed. She added that, in discussing this with the Coastal Commission staff, they feel that these edits are necessary to be consistent with the Coastal Act. To the extent they redlined these changes, it was because the provisions in the Del Norte were not applicable because that was a different jurisdiction with different Coastal Act consistency issues than Pacifica. She stated that every SSRA in the state that the Coastal Commission may certify in an LCLUP is specific for that jurisdiction. She stated the City tends to agree with their conclusion that this is necessary with the Coastal Act in order to defend any challenge to the LCLUP, if approved, that it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act; thus, there is a balancing. She added, that going back to the original risk disclosure we are trying to address, if that language is more acceptable, the Coastal Commission has already accepted that language as consistent with the Coastal Act.
She stated that, if we want to revise it to be more consistent with the Del Norte risk disclosure policy, these revisions to the Del Norte policy are necessary for Pacifica.
Councilmember Boles stated that the other thing that is missing, in trying to compare the two, is acknowledging public funds may not be available in the future to repair, maintain and/or continue to provide infrastructure and related services to the property, etc., and occupancy may be prohibited if such services are no longer available.
Councilmember Bier asked if we would want to include this.
Councilmember Boles thinks the language protects us better in the previous version.
Councilmember Bier asked what does it do for the people in the homes.
Councilmember Boles stated that they are both the same in terms of that. The previous version gives you more information so you know, if you are buying a house there, the City may not be able to do that. She is not sure why we deviated from this, and if there are specific things that were objected to in the previous policy, she would love to talk about that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the feedback from Council and from the community is that there are hazard disclosure policies already approved by the Coastal Commission for other agencies in the state recently, and this one was from 2023, and can staff can take a look at those and see if Coastal Commission staff would be agreeable that they are okay for Pacifica’s LCLUP. He stated that Council has two choices: the Del Norte as edited by Coastal
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 October 28, 2024
Commission or the previous one we looked at. He stated, in essence, they achieve the same goal. He stated that the intent of the Del Norte one is that the language is simpler and that was the direction from Council to seek that out.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks it is more streamlined, but Councilmember Boles is saying that it is also not as extensive and does not protect the City as much. She stated she was more worried about people who wanted to develop and what rights they are giving up in so doing.
She stated, with the whole issue of tsunami inundation zones, she understands from a legal point of view why it is important to include that, but it is not a major occurrence in Pacifica and the likelihood of this occurring is low. However, in case it did, that is why our legal staff wants this in here and Coastal Commission staff does as well.
City Attorney Kenyon stated staff believes that, in terms of protections for the City that are critical, both of these risk disclosure policies protect the City.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought, in recent memory, various apartment buildings could have benefited from various protections. He asked if either of these policies would have served at the function of helping us in those instances or would one serve better than the other regarding an apartment building falling into the ocean.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, generally, if these had been in place, they are helpful.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if either one.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought not necessarily. She stated that she has more information on the definition of development. She stated that there is a definition of development in the LCLUP on packet page 490. She stated that there are many exceptions or exemptions to the definition of development, and also included in the LCLUP is a discussion about the exceptions.
It says, under coastal development review, which is on packet page 276, Coastal Development Permits would be issued for development and that, pursuant to the Coastal Act, certain categories of development are exempt from Coastal Development Permit requirements and these exemptions are generally set forth in Section 30610 of the Public Resource Code and Sections 13252 and 13250 of the California Code of Regulations. She stated that there are a number of exemptions that would allow somebody to forego obtaining a Coastal Development Permit.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, in terms of the example of the kitchen being remodeled, he is looking at the part that says “construction, reconstruction, demolition or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public or municipal utility,” that seems to come as close to a kitchen remodel as it might, but he does not know if that does.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks it could include a kitchen remodel, depending on how extensive it is.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to packet page 276 under the implementing policy LD-I-2.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she read from the third paragraph above, “implementing policies,” under coastal development review, which is the last paragraph on packet page 276.
She stated that it cites certain statutes in California Code of Regulations, but there is also language in our zoning code that has other layers of exemptions and qualifications on requirements for Coastal Development Permits. She stated that you have to read all of those
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 October 28, 2024
together to decide whether or not a project is subject to the Coastal Development Permit.
Councilmember Boles read “acknowledge any adverse effect to property caused by the approved development shall be fully the responsibility of the property owner, including any cost associated with abatement and/or future relocation, removal of the structures due to coastal hazards”. She stated that this is way beyond permit, as the structure may cause problems, and she asked what if it falls on someone at the beach.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that goes back to the Esplanade apartments when they were about to fall and we stopped it because of coastal hazards.
Councilmember Boles understood but new language only talks about permits, not about potential liability for projects that are becoming dangerous.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked what would she propose adding that language in CR-I-21.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has not thought about that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought bullet 8 covers it sufficiently in the new language. She stated it is not as strong, but it has the same impact to her. She is okay with the current one.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that two councilmembers support the revised CR-I-21 in tonight’s package, based on Del Norte.
Councilmember Boles stated that they support it with that language in Item 5 that people have objected about that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is still worried about that, but she does not know what else to do because it sounds like this language is required by the Coastal Commission staff and her concern is it causing people to waive rights that they would otherwise have.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano read you would be “waiving rights that makes this, under applicable law, for shoreline protection structures for the duration the permitted development is present on the property”.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, if you are pre-1977, you have a right to that.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is not saying you cannot go out and get it, but saying you are waiving your rights to the protection that is out there currently. She stated that is the whole point of this as you could be waiving any rights to further armoring if you need it for this development because you have acknowledged that there are risks associated with it.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated for purposes of having the right.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the permittee decides, and if they do not want to waive that right, then they would not proceed with the permit application. She stated that they will be able to look at this policy and make a determination on whether or not they wish to proceed.
She thinks that is key for understanding the implications.
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus states Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer is in favor of the Del Norte plan.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively, but she still has questions.
Councilmembers Bier and Bigstyck agreed.
Councilmember Boles thought Item 8 does not cover that as it is about the structure may be requiring to be removed, but it does not talk about anything about protections from damage that the structure might cause. She still thinks, even if you use the Del Norte, she would like to include that policy.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we are able to transfer one of the bullet points from the old version into the new version without there being an issue.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he cannot guarantee that it would not be an issue. Under this new language, if someone applies for a CDP and signs this disclosure language and coastal erosion happens and their patio falls off and hurts someone, they are liable for that.
This policy covers that.
Councilmember Boles stated that this policy covers that but it is not in the new Del Norte version. She stated that only covers permit appeals.
Councilmember Bigstyck read, “The permittee assumes the risks of injury and damage from such coastal hazards in connection.”
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it does cover it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated every issue with a permit will be appealed and that is the only way this would come into play.
Councilmember Boles stated the appeal is long gone 20 years later when the project does damage to something else.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if damage were to occur due to a coastal hazard, they would be required to remove or relocate the site at their expense if it becomes unsafe for occupancy or use due to coastal hazards.
Councilmember Boles stated for their own property, but this talks about effect to any property, not necessarily their own.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the second bullet point in this recommended language is “the permittee assumes the risks of injury and damage from such coastal hazards in connection with the permitted development”. They would assume the risk and liability related to their patio falling off the bluff and injuring someone or other coastal hazard related incidents that might occur. From City staff’s perspective, we are covered on that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood.
Mayor Vaterlaus was glad the question was asked and appreciated the clarification.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we were done with CR-I-21, and Council chose the preferred
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 October 28, 2024
language and will move forward with it.
Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles added the language about armoring in bullet point 5. Regarding that particular bullet point, she asked how it relates to SSRAs because you have permitted a project that relies on the armoring and then you do a little remodel of the kitchen and all of a sudden, your project can no longer rely on the armoring.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Councilmember Boles is suggesting transitioning to SSRAs.
Councilmember Boles stated she is still talking about this particular policy.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understands the point Councilmember Boles is making and she thinks that is what she was questioning originally.
Councilmember Boles stated, if a hotel developer on this site uses the armoring to determine their setback and then they do a kitchen remodel or a tiny addition and now they have to waive their rights. Now, those technical studies they did that relied on the armoring cannot rely on that armoring anymore so the building needs to be set back another 50 feet. She just wants to be sure there are not unintended consequences.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks her concern is that she does not want people waiving rights they do not need to waive. She asked if bullet point 5 causes them to have to do that.
Councilmember Boles asked if that is a legal issue.
Councilmember Bier stated they are waiving rights to shoreline protection.
City Manager Woodhouse stated in SSRAs the protections can continue to be there into the future and could be renovated and be there for a long time. The individual who has signed the disclosure, if the sea wall were to go away in the future, does not have a right to new protection that is there.
Councilmember Boles stated that this is saying that they do not have any right to any protection from the armoring, whether new or old sea walls. She wonders if we need a caveat.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the protection is there for them.
Councilmember Boles stated that they may not be able to rely on it, in which case they might have to remodel their building and pull it out of hazards if they are doing a remodel.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the SSRA policies are a separate policy so you have to read all the policies together in a consistent manner. She stated, saying that this is going to completely negate the SSRAs would be inaccurate, as SSRAs are a separate policy. This is saying, if you proceed with the development in the coastal vulnerability zone and tsunami inundation zone, then you are waiving any rights that may exist to shoreline protections, which means you cannot say that we cannot remove the shoreline protection or changes cannot be made to the shoreline protection. You are waiving your rights to rely on those shoreline protections that are in place.
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that Fairway Park, which is in the tsunami inundation zone, relies on the current berm that belongs to San Francisco and she asked how they are protected. She asked if they waive their rights automatically; that is an issue as they are not in the SSRAs and, because they are in tsunami zone, they are now giving up their rights to protection of something we do not have control over.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it was important to understand when would this waiver come into play. It would come into play if their property is essentially destroyed. If it is destroyed, why would they want the benefit of prior shoreline protection to reconstruct that property when the property no longer exists. The City would then be allowing that property to reconstruct and she is positive that would be inconsistent with the Coastal Act according to the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, if you have your property inundation zone in West Fairway and say that the Coastal Commission disallows the berm that San Francisco is currently operating and it goes away, then there is a homeowner who wants there to be a shoreline protection there, and at that point they would have to go to the Coastal Commission about that.
He asked if you want the next person to occupy the house to know that it is possible that they are not going to have a choice whether or not they get a shoreline device or do they want them not to know it.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she wants the next person to know that there could be no shoreline protection. She stated she was not talking about a building that is destroyed but about in general you give up your right in general before your property is destroyed.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that is an example where, at the end of the day, it is very likely the City does not have a say whether or not they have the protection. He stated that what this is saying is that they may not have this protection and please sign to acknowledge that fact.
Councilmember Bier asked if that would be a condition of the Coastal Commission anyway.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there are buildings in Pacifica that were built that have given up their rights and will remove their building if something happens as they cannot rely on shoreline protection and they have these items already that were given to them by the Coastal Commission, such as the ability to build that building on Pedro Point.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed getting the CDP required them to do those things.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated they built a new development and Coastal Commission in an appeal required them to do all of these exact same things. They are on their deed.
Councilmember Boles asked if they have required that before for a kitchen remodel, not something new or a 50% addition, as that is where this can affect them.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks the issue is pre-1977 as that is where the right to protection exists presently. She stated this language takes away the right to protect your property.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding based on that shoreline protection that existed or exists at the time you receive that permit.
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 October 28, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated it does not take away that protection if they choose to do development, in which case they cannot rely on it in the future if it goes away.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the Coastal Act says they have the right to protect the property pre-1977.
City Manager Woodhouse stated not new development.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that any new development would trigger waiving those rights.
City Attorney Kenyon added if it is within the tsunami inundation zone or coastal hazard zone.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks the question is at what point is it appropriate to ask that they disclose that there is a potential hazard there.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it is not about disclosure, but waiving rights for possibly a little project.
City Attorney Kenyon asked how we are defining little project.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated less than SSM.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it may not require a CDP if it is a small project. She thinks it is important to remember the purpose of this risk disclosure and, to a certain extent, it is about transparency. She stated Councilmember Bigstyck alluded to that when he was saying if Council as a policy decision want to provide that transparency about the associated risks with developing new development in the coastal hazard zone or the tsunami inundation zone, and would we want to advise the public about that risk sooner rather than later, given the fact that there is a strong likelihood that the CDP may be appealed and could be heard by the Coastal Commission and that obligation would be imposed in any event. She stated she hears a valid concern from Council that what about those instances where it does require a CDP but that CDP is not in fact appealed to the Coastal Commission. She does not know if that happens very often and how often would that happen.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it is in Pedro Point.
City Attorney stated in those two zones. The universe of potential impacted properties is getting smaller and smaller.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and she was asking how many properties are we talking about. She wants to understand if we are talking about the entire coastal zone.
City Attorney Kenyon stated the coastal hazard zone and the tsunami inundation zone. She asked how many homes would be implicated.
Interim CD Director Kumar stated about 10 or 12 properties, based on the draft maps.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that was in the tsunami inundation zone.
Councilmember Boles assumed that is tsunami inundation, not coastal hazard.
1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated, when you purchase a home in the tsunami zone, you get a report that tells you that your home is in a tsunami zone. There may be homes that were not previously in the tsunami zone that are now in there, but that happens with floods also; the flood zones change and you might have purchased your property and it was not in a flood zone and it is now. She stated that, in San Mateo there are a lot of those.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she was advocating for the language because things change.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, with regard to this issue, when we are talking about the risk disclosure, the time when it would become most prevalent and important is only when the person is trying to rely on that shoreline protection to rebuild, not any other time. Thus, the question for Council from a policy perspective is do you want to protect those property owners from using that shoreline protection in the event their home is severely damaged due to a coastal hazard; do you want to protect those property owners with the ability to use prior shoreline protection in the event their home is severely damaged due to a coastal hazard, like a tsunami or sea level rise; and 20 or 30 years from now, when this may really come to pass, as a jurisdiction, does this Council want to re-permit that property when we do not know what the facts on the ground will be after that coastal hazard has destroyed a property. She stated that we have the Esplanade apartment buildings as an example. If this were them and they were in a coastal hazard zone or a tsunami zone and they had to sign this risk disclosure, would we want them to come back to the city and say coastal erosion occurred and destroyed my property and want to re-permit it, and we gave them a permit for that and created a new shoreline protection so they can rebuild. She asked if Council would want to do that.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated no councilmembers would want that.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is not just after disasters happened, but sometimes you see erosion and you want to slow it down. She stated that we lost the houses on Esplanade that faced the ocean. She stated that those did put down some armoring to slow it down so they could live there a little bit longer, but if they remodeled their kitchen, they would have missed out on that opportunity. She stated that it is the same for Shoreview which at risk and the property at the north, the Dollar Radio, as they put in a lot of armoring that was to slow it down and it is failing again now.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated a new kitchen is not entitled to armoring but is the rest of the house around it entitled to the armoring, i.e., is the kitchen itself the development and, since it is not an SSM, the rest of the house is entitled to the armoring if it is pre-Coastal Act.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is the development itself that we are talking about, not other areas of the house.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that the kitchen is not entitled to the protection but the house, in general, is.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed that it could be.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in that case, he is comfortable with point 5.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, when you say during the duration of permitted development is present on the property, with the permitted development being the kitchen.
1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 October 28, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed, stating the kitchen is not entitled to protection but the rest of the pre-Coastal Act house is.
Councilmember Boles stated that you are planning a risk disclosure that goes on your property.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we had discussed that and the discussion with the Coastal Commission staff was about that exact issue and why some of the language changes were made. She stated, as part of the Implementation Plan, this would all be discussed and reviewed and worked out into details. We do not have the language yet or some of the specifics worked out, but that is an area that we can clarify as part of the implementation.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it would need to be clarified in that specific direction for some of us to feel comfortable immediately signing off on it.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it says “permitted development”.
Councilmember Bier asked if we can talk about maps.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated yes, but asked if we are good on this.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we switched in point 5 from “permitted development” to “structure”.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we had a majority of Council that indicated that they were in favor of the Del Norte version, and if that is still the case, we could move on with the majority of Council that agrees with the Del Norte policy language.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if that is still the case.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is concerned about bullet point 8.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated bullet point 5 of this document.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She stated that, if permitted development is a whole house, then it is the whole house.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed and stated he was fine with a brand new house signing off on the waiver. He was also comfortable to a point that, if it is SSM and essentially new development through SSM, the waiver makes sense within the context; but if we are talking about the kitchen not precluding the rest of the house, and that will discussed in the IP, then he is comfortable with the language as is and ready to go on.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there is consensus and to move onto the SSRAs.
Councilmember Boles would like some clarification regarding on packet page 239 and asked if staff can explain how this is different in SSRAs versus the rest of the city, i.e., does it mean that existing buildings in other parts of town cannot be modified or maintained.
Councilmember Bier read, “These policies specifically allow neighborhoods of West Sharp Park and Rockaway to continue maintaining and modifying existing development while providing flexibility for new development, benefit not afforded to other areas within the coastal zone.”
1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 October 28, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked if the rest of the coastal zone cannot continue maintaining and modifying existing development.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is not the policy language, but just the staff report, generalizing the benefits.
Councilmember Boles asked for clarification on the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, when a property behind an SSRA is developing or wants to redevelop, they can count in their analysis for their project the erosion protection and sea level rise protection that the Beach Boulevard seawall provides or the revetment in Rockaway. He stated that does not mean that houses elsewhere in the coastal zone, not in the SSRAs, cannot redevelop or develop or maintain, but just the hazard impact analysis that they undertake would be different than what happens in West Sharp Park where the sea wall exists and Rockaway where the revetment exists. Because they can calculate and factor in the benefit of the sea wall there, which is currently not the case in the old LCLUP and the way coastal works, then it is a benefit to their development potential and a benefit of the economic and investment factors that are critical in West Sharp Park.
Councilmember Bier stated that was because there is already protection there.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed. He stated the specifics about what defines the SSRAs are specific to Pacifica and reliant on the fact that there is critical public infrastructure, both water and wastewater, that runs down Beach Boulevard. That helps define the SSRAs.
Councilmember Boles stated that her question was about “continue maintaining and modifying existing development”. She understands for new development and we can talk about what benefits they might offer later, but for an existing house on Beach Boulevard or in Manor, you can still modify it. She stated that, what the SSRA policies specifically help with setbacks. In terms of existing development, it does not really help you if you are doing a remodel.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, if you are doing a remodel and it is substantial, it is going to be an SSM and you need to do the technical report to show what impacts sea rise, coastal erosion, etc. would have. If it is in the SSRA, when that technical analysis is performed, it can factor in sea wall as part of the conditions that impact that property.
Mayor Vaterlaus gave an example of 1567 Beach Boulevard which Coastal Commission said there was no sea wall but there is a sea wall there. If they are in the SSRAs, they are allowed the protection of that sea wall so they may not have to build back 100 feet. When you have the technical reports done, they are considering the sea wall.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated Councilmember Boles was saying that the hazard mitigation or response to hazards would have more to do with setbacks than armoring.
Councilmember Boles stated that it specifically says that in one of the SSRA policies. You are looking at their foundations and flooding as a risk, but it is only helpful for setbacks. She stated that the Coastal Commission did allow 1567 Beach Blvd. to look at the armoring on that project.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they did.
1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated they could have zero houses there.
Councilmember Boles stated that was not because of the sea wall.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked about the setback.
Councilmember Boles stated that they determined the setback based on what the staff report said was the 40-year life of the sea wall, plus for the full hazards 35 years after the sea wall.
She stated that, in all of these instances with the SSRAs, the sea wall’s life is not for the full development life. You still have to look at it for beyond that when you are doing that analysis.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested moving to the SSRA policy on packet page 456.
City Manager Woodhouse added another point about the SSRA, i.e., in taking Beach Boulevard for an example, there are a series of homes, some of which are pre-Coastal Act, some which are not, and the SSRA policy makes equivalent the fact that everybody can rely on that protection in their redevelopment.
Councilmember Boles stated CR-I-39 talks about the setbacks on page 457 in the redline version: “The areas may rely on shoreline protection structure in the area that is existing at the time of the permit application to help demonstrate that the setbacks meet the requirements of policies CR-I-19 and CR-I-20.” She stated that there is no other benefit, in terms of the design, other than where your setback is in relation to the ocean.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano wanted to point out that CR-I-38 is important. She stated that all the policies in this particular section of the LCLUP are associated with the Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas, so it is necessary to look at all of the policies that relate to the SSRAs to understand how they all work together. She stated that one of the policies, CRI-38, talks about public infrastructure along the shoreline in SSRAs that allow public infrastructure to rely on existing shoreline protection and there is also CR-I-40 which talks about armoring in special resiliency areas. There are other policies that provide context to the SSRAs.
Councilmember Boles stated that this is the only one about development and we are trying to understand how it affects new construction and existing construction. She stated, as far as she knows, the only benefit is the setback. She stated that we have not done a whole cost-benefit analysis and she thinks it is important to have it specifically clear what the benefits are and if they are worth the cost of all these mitigations and programs we will have to do.
Councilmember Bigstyck has clarity around what cost and benefit might look like, vis a vis these policies. He stated that this implies is there may be new development, but more to the point, he thinks the reason he is inclined to favor this is because it has something to do with balance. He hears people say do not take away their ability to protect their property or to develop in places where there is opportunity for the city. He also hears people saying that the sea wall means no beach so remove it. He stated that, whichever version, we need the protections that allow them the timeline to address it. After that, when he reads the policies, what he likes is that, some people might not like that it implies there will be a sea wall for a while, but there are also policies in there that require them to proactively start working on the larger issue. From a pro-property stance and a pro-environment stance, there is much to be happy about. As he reads every redline in the document and going over what that ten-year timeline looks like to get the fullness of the programs up and running, the next ten years will be updating what we are doing in practice. He thinks it strikes the right balance.
1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 October 28, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks he is talking about accountability.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated this is a balanced approach that facilitates doing the work.
Councilmember Boles stated that the work needed is the Adaptation Plan, and not the mitigation for a Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas. Those are separate. She stated that the Adaptation Plan is the hard work of looking at what we are going to do for having a vision, figuring out where it makes sense to armor and where it makes sense to do nature-based solutions, and having triggers over time. She wants to go through that policy too, but she thinks you cannot conflate the two. We need to do that work and be doing that Adaptation Plan to be eligible for funding for SB 272. She stated that they are separate policies.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks this specifically ties that adaptation work to protecting this area.
Councilmember Boles stated that he is conflating the area protected with these policies that allow development to rely on the armoring. She stated we are working on the sea wall. GHD has been working on that project and they are looking for funds to go to the next stage. GHD has told Council that the seawall can be approved with the 1980 Local Coastal Plan. She stated that it is not about the protection, but about whether these policies to allow more development in these hazardous areas and to allow reliance on sea walls, which is against the Coastal Act, without major mitigations are necessary and valuable. She stated that is where she is not convinced that they are.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there has been discussion about neighborhood approach. SSRAs are a specific iteration of that. The reason that all of these are being discussed is because cities were not getting their LCPs done. LCPs are old and not addressing climate change or sea level rise, and the concerns of the residents in these coastal communities is that there is going to be some policy the city is going to adopt as a requirement of the Coastal Commission that is going to harm their investment and take away. With Senate Bill 272, everybody is going to have to get their LCPs done in ten years’ time. She knows that getting this LCP updated is the best step forward for Pacifica in terms of being able to benefit from funding that is available to do the deep dive into adaptation. She stated that the Adaptation Plan we have currently and working off of that was in such contention did not include a robust extensive community discussion and that is what they need and what she was talking about in Monterey. What she does not think is beneficial to us is to stop everything we have done with this work to go do that first. She thinks both can be done and we are talking about phasing our LCPs as well. She stated we have to get caught up from 1980 and then be able to work on sections of our LCP so we are not trying to do the whole thing at one time. She is hopeful that this is going to be successful. If it is not, then we go back to what parts can the keep or modify, and that may be the approach but that is not the road we are on now. She stated, in terms of why we are even talking about SSRAs, the reason is because it will move the City forward and get us going on our plans and LCP will govern those. The other point she wanted to tie back is the Coastal Access Resilience Program. She cannot believe that is not tied to the Adaptation Plan as those are completely overlapping.
Councilmember Boles thinks they are different. She stated when we are doing the seawall and designing a public park and other access down to the ocean, those are not the basic adaptation to protect from the hazards. They are mitigations for the armoring.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer feels like some of the language that was put in September 17
1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 October 28, 2024
version was concerning for her as far as the duration of some of these things. She stated it feels like that is being changed or constrained, and she thinks it is because we are moving forward. She believes the way the policies are written and the way that the discussions have gone on that Coastal Commission expects the Coastal Access Resilience Program to be much more than basic mitigations written into the way the seawall project is going forward.
Councilmember Boles agreed because they say you are going to have to look at removing armoring in other areas, look at nature-based solutions, and look at purchasing vulnerable coastal property. All of those are hugely expensive things that are part of mitigation that are not necessarily part of the Adaptation Plan. She was grateful that Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was working on looking at neighborhood based policies but all the meetings she has heard from stated that the intent of those policies is to be able to look broader so you can do nature-based solutions as a first policy and that should always be the goal and that armoring is the last thing.
Her concern is that we are jumping into armoring here without having looked at those other options. She stated that Rockaway Beach has been armored and the surfers she has talked to say that they used to surf there 30 years ago and it was the best surfing in town and now they cannot because of the reflection on the armoring. She stated that the Adaptation Plan that was done before called for sand nourishment which would negate the need for armoring, rebuild coastal beaches that better draw our tourists, and improve the surfing and the environmental solutions, and yet we have not thought about what is possible there besides armoring.
Councilmember Bier did not think we are saying that there is always going to be armoring. She stated that she is curious about what the Coastal Commission would say about these policies.
Councilmember Boles stated that they might reject it.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they did look at nature-based solutions.
Councilmember Bier stated we have a lot to learn and the Coastal Commission would tell them.
Councilmember Boles asked them what happens if they say no to this.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it comes back to Council to have another conversation.
Councilmember Bier stated Council does not know what would happen. When she looks at the redline, she does not feel like she is for it or against it, but just wants to know what the Coastal Commission is going to come back with.
Councilmember Boles stated that it may come back and they say no, and she hopes that we do not throw all this away. For her, she can approve this without these SSRAs as she did not think they were necessary. The hard work of the policy and the adaptation is in here otherwise.
Councilmember Bigstyck understands there is an Army Corps study of our coastline happening at some point, and he hears Councilmember Boles talking about sand nourishment in Rockaway and he asked if we would need that study to facilitate things like that going forward.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there are several studies and the large one is the general investigation of the entire Pacifica coastline and, if we can get that funded at the federal level, it looks at all of the feasibility of different adaptation strategies for the coastline (scope to be defined on that) and there are two other smaller specific continuing authorities program projects currently underway with Army Corp.
1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 October 28, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated Rockaway has infrastructure that is vital there and most of our visitor-serving hotel space. It is not because he thinks they are wrong in terms of other approaches that would be better than hard armoring, but this methodology allows us to live long enough to figure out those other methodologies.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated to meanwhile protect our infrastructure that we need to protect now until we work out a plan to move the pumps and move what is underneath. She stated that we have to do this now.
Councilmember Boles stated it is fine if you are for these policies but you have to know that this is where staff is going to focus their efforts and other things are going to have to go if the Coastal Commission accepts it and if Council decides to go through without it otherwise. She stated that waiting for certification, going back and forth, and facing potential lawsuits are more time we are losing and not getting started on the hard work that we have to do.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we have an Adaptation Plan in place that was completed in 2017, which was the ticket to be able to submit an LCLUP update. She stated our Adaptation Plan has different policies and recommendations associated with it and another iteration of it must have substantial community involvement. She felt it was incumbent upon us to get the LCP completed and submitted and work on getting those grants that we cannot get until we have our LCP done. She stated that we are close, and it is not perfect, but we have to look at the entirety of the city and take in all those pieces of input, including input from outside of the city because the shoreline and coastline is for everyone.
Councilmember Bier asked what would happen if Coastal Commission says they are not doing any of those.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he can comment on process. Coastal Commission staff and the Executive Director support this document and the SSRAs and will be recommending them to the Coastal Commission. She cannot guarantee how the Coastal Commission is going to vote.
With this package of recommendations, the likelihood is that Coastal Commission staff will recommend it certified as submitted and that means, if the Coastal Commission does that, it does not have to come back to the Council for any further action. He stated that Interim CD Director Kumar outlined in her presentation that the alternative is that the Coastal Commission makes modifications and then says that this is certified as modified and sends it back to Council for approval; if no approval, then we have withdrawn their LCLUP update application, and if approved, it is a certified document.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he hears a consensus in terms of passing these on.
1.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated there are landslide maps, tsunami maps, and some maps are not updated, and she asked if we can make that an amendment later.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, regarding maps, the Council approved a contract with ESA for $100,000 to update the maps, including the coastal hazard maps and the tsunami inundation zone map, contingent on Council’s adoption of this and submission to Coastal Commission. If this is approved, then we start the contract with ESA and once maps are updated then the LCLUP or our submittal is amended with those new maps and that benefits those applicants seeking CDPs at that time.
Councilmember Boles stated that the landslide maps are in the General Plan and we can just put them in. She asked if there was any reason we cannot add those immediately.
City Manager Woodhouse does not recall the discussion or status of that. He stated that it might qualify unless he hears otherwise as an administrative change to the final submittal.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano assumed Councilmember Boles’ position is that the landslide maps in the LCLUP need to be replaced with the ones in the General Plan.
Councilmember Boles stated yes.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano believes it would just be and administrative revision if we are not having ESA update those maps.
City Manager Woodhouse did not think so.
Councilmember Boles stated she has been asking for it.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we are looking at a consensus around the SSRAs.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she has a question about plywood and other small items.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if regarding SSRAs.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated tangentially yes, as they relate to the maps. She stated that we heard from Richard Harris about the missing wheelchair ramp on Item 13A on Table 3-1, coastal access points in the map that relates to that is on packet page 506. She stated that there is reference to ADA access on the berm and that is true that for wheel mobility you can go down the berm, but it falls short because it does not say there is a wheelchair ramp which there is. When it was first discussed years ago, there was not but it got built in the relatively recent years as a Condition of Approval for the berm that the City and County of San Francisco was required to do that. She thought it should be reflected in here.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there was a staircase also.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated those should be reflected and updated to be accurate.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks that is a change we can make; instead of saying “ADA access on the berm,” it can say “access to the beach” and the star can be moved on the map further north, like the Golf Alliance recommended. He stated that falls under the administrative cleanup capacity.
1.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 October 28, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that is the ADA ramp and the staircase.
Councilmember Bier referred to a comment on 6.2 and that map is not here.
Councilmember Boles stated that is the map we are updating. She stated that there is a draft version that she is assuming we are submitting to the Coastal Commission on packet page 521 but it does not relate to the 6.2 and it might need a note on it.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if the map on packet page 521 is supposed to be the placeholder for 6.2.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it is the tsunami inundation map and Council was talking about the map on packet page 506.
Councilmember Bier stated that she was talking about the tsunami inundation map and the changes that are going to happen with that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is going to be updated when all of the maps are done.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that is part of the ESA package.
Councilmember Bier added the flood maps.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we have SSRA consensus.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if the SSRAs are in there, she is not going to be able to vote for this document. She stated that, as others have said, these policies allow more development in harm’s way and we know the areas are already zone 5 in the FEMA maps (coastal high hazard areas). She read about 1567 Beach Boulevard from the neighbors: “Conditions are becoming increasingly more severe and more frequent over the lifetime of people living there for 30 years, overtopping, even huge rocks blown over, people walking, slammed by waves, even to the back wall of garages, flooding, moving a parked car, and the owner of 1581 said we have a moral obligation to develop safely.” Related to that, one of the findings on packet page 244 in the resolution, No. 4, “Council of Pacifica finds as follows, the public health, safety and general welfare are best served by adoption of the revised certification draft LCLUP with alternative modifications” and she does not think that is true as it is not health and safety as the best policies that we are approving with those plans. She stated that we have not analyzed the costs and benefits to know if these are things that are helping development. We are saying that we are going to be providing that analysis of the sea walls but we do not know the cost and she asked what are the costs to the City of doing these programs and what are the benefits to development and to the City’s future finances if they are there. She stated that, for new development, there is not much space. She spoke with 1567 Beach Blvd. yesterday while he made a comment supporting and he is not using these policies for his own project and he has decided that he wants to live there and he wants to live out of the hazards and he does not want to rely on the sea wall but wants to know that he is going to be safe and this project is going to last. Her concern is that these policies do by allowing reliance on sea walls that may or may not be there is we are going to get developers who are in for a quick profit who want to build as cheaply as they can and then sell and the City is stuck with projects that are not going to last as long. She thinks that, technically, that is what we are going to get. She stated it is huge amounts of staff time and asked if we have the capacity to do this.
1.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if she wants to keep waiting and waiting.
Councilmember Boles stated no, but she is saying we have not analyzed the real cost to staff and the City in doing the SSRAs. She stated that we are tying ourselves in for a certain period of time, 20-25 years, without doing our visioning and that should be what comes first. She stated developers rely on certainty and they want to know what the rules are when they are designing their project so they do not have to backtrack. She stated that we have no idea when these policies might come into being; even if the Coastal Commission approves it, we have to do public engagement and have these policies and projects in line and a timeline for them. We have to keep approving it and if we are not doing our work, if we do not do even one project, the Coastal Commission could pull it. She stated you could have a project that you are analyzing with the City and all of a sudden, you have to go back and completely redesign and redo their engineering and maybe set it back because you are partway down the process and the rules have changed. The policies could be pulled at any time, as they have a short expiration date.
She is confused because, if you are using these policies, she thinks you still have to do the risk disclosure that you cannot rely on armoring in the future. She does not understand what that means to the project in the future if something happens that you have to fix or you do a small remodel and then all of a sudden you cannot have a 100-foot setback but 150 and what does that mean to your project. She stated that we have gone down this path for so long and we never stopped and said can we approve the Coastal Commission’s modifications without that.
She did not think all this is worth the risk and money and it violates the Coastal Act. She stated that the mitigations are going to have to be substantial. She thinks we have heard that from the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, according to the Attorney General, this does not violate the Coastal Act.
Councilmember Bier stated, if it does violate the Coastal Act, then the Coastal Commission would let us know that.
Councilmember Boles stated that it violates it without all these mitigations.
Councilmember Bier asked if we could approve it without this. She asked if it is an option.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is an option and he is against it.
Councilmember Bier would like to hear the Coastal Commission’s feedback.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she would as well.
Mayor Vaterlaus called a break and then reconvened the meeting. She asked, if we said to put the plywood back in, what would Coastal Commission staff say back.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he can only say what Coastal Commission staff has said to the City thus far. To date, Coastal Commission staff has said that plywood on roofs is a structural component and is not an exception or exemption in the SSM definition.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the mayor’s research indicates plywood sheathing.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they allow underlayment.
1.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 October 28, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated, if you look up underlayment, it generally refers to the different cloth and types of plastic coating that is the water proofing on a roof.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated home improvement stores showed certain widths of plywood as underlayment. She sees that as weatherproofing or waterproofing.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She stated that the other example that we had some length in a previous meeting had to do with roofs and whatever work that would need to be done to the roof to enable solar panels. She knows one of the exceptions in that section said we have to allow for the implementation of state laws, and it is encouraged to put solar panels on your roof.
She feels that a roof is a basic necessity and plywood should be included.
Councilmember Bier asked if it matters that, on packet page 238, they include the word sheathing but in our other it does not, and should it say sheathing, and does that matter. She stated that it says “other nonstructural roof materials” and not sheathing.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the staff report says staff agrees that any nonstructural repair of roof sheathing could be included in the catchall other exclusions, and he asked if she is saying she wants to call it out specifically.
Councilmember Bier stated that it says, “other nonstructural roof materials”.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it was all plywood.
Councilmember Bier stated it does not say sheathing. She asked if it will be helpful for our people who need a roof to have the word “sheathing” here. She thinks so.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and we need clarity.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it sounds like Councilmember Bier is suggesting adding to Item No. V, “other nonstructural roof materials, including but not limited to sheathing”.
Councilmember Bier responded affirmatively.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if the majority of the Council support that.
There was Council consensus.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the next question is how are we going to define sheathing. She stated that it has to be a nonstructural component.
Councilmember Boles stated sheathing is often structural, even on the outside of the house.
Councilmember Bier stated that they agreed to it.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks they were saying that it could be considered nonstructural materials and, as indicated earlier, that would be up to the City to make that determination.
She asked if we are able to define sheathing in a way that is nonstructural.
City Manager Woodhouse read the definition of roof sheathing: “Roof sheathing, also known as
1.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 October 28, 2024
roof decking, is a layer of wood or other material that is installed on the rafters of a roof to provide support and a flat surface for the shingles and other roofing components.” He thinks, to add sheathing in there, from the Coastal Commission staff’s perspective, is the same thing as adding in plywood, roof sheathing, or sheathing.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the answer we came back with is it is up to the City to determine whether or not that sheathing or that plywood is structural. What this language allows and what we were able to negotiate with the Coastal Commission staff is that the determination of if those sheathes and plywood would be structural would be within the City.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they objected to the word “plywood”.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they also agreed that not all plywood would be structural and they pointed to the language that it is going to be within the City’s discretion to determine whether or not sheathing, plywood, and any facts-based determination is structural. That is some discretion and that determination will be with the City. Ultimately, if there is a question about how we are interpreting and implementing this policy, this interpretation of Council’s intent will be the law.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated it says they would not add it to the list but agree that any nonstructural repair of roof sheathing could be included in the catchall other. She stated it seems like we can include it in other and, if it is the law according to the attorney, then it is the law.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed, especially in light of that level of discussion around SSRAs, knowing that the Coastal Commission is going to have a robust discussion around a policy that their staff is going to recommend. He stated he will go with consensus from there.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer looked at it from that same point of view, but the opposite end of it, as she looked at it thinking why are we arguing about plywood. She asked what the IP phase of this process with regard to this specific question: does it get further defined or refined, is it another opportunity that there will be consternation over this, etc.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, in terms of definition, this is the definition that would be carried forward in the Implementation Plan. To the extent that Council has edits they want to make to the SSM definition, then this would be the time. The Implementation Plan would carry that definition forward and use it in various policies that are being implemented.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed it would not further define it in a different way.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it would not, and whatever we put in the implementation policies needs to be consistent with this definition.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is asking if it needs to be more specific or fleshed out.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, from her perspective, she thinks the broadness of Item No.
V is beneficial to the city. She stated that the City has the discretion to make that determination of what other nonstructural roof materials include or encompass, and she thinks that it is better to leave it broader than start adding lists of things to make it more narrow.
City Attorney Kenyon believed, legally, that, if we start adding more specificity, that will eliminate our ability to have more general discretion. She stated that there is a statutory construction
1.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 October 28, 2024
principal that, when you leave interpretation general, that gives more discretion to the governing body to determine what the intent was. When we start adding more specificity we lose that discretion because the specificity is now in that definition, and she would recommend keeping it general if we are trying to retain our discretion.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she is fine with that. She stated that when she came on to the Council, her whole thing was to build a seawall and, in order to build a sea wall, we need a Local Coastal and Land Use Plan update, and she is going to make a motion.
Councilmember Boles stated she has some other questions about the NCCWD policy.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is comfortable with her making the motion and he thinks if those among Council wish to inquire more about various policies, we should have those discussions because we each represent unique perspectives.
Councilmember Boles looked at packet page 315 and there is a table at the top, “Regional Parks and Beaches in the Coastal Zone,” and it lists all of our beaches in the second section. It says Rockaway Beach is privately owned. She wanted to clarify that as she did not know if Rockaway Beach was privately owned.
City Attorney Kenyon thanked her for raising that point. That is something staff would clean up administratively following approval because, if that is incorrect, staff would be able to fix that administratively.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if you look at the section, it describes the different beaches and it does not describe Rockaway at all. She stated it seems like something is missing because she thinks that is an important one.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed and thanked her for pointing that out. She stated that staff will clarify that administratively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it says Rockaway Beach on packet page 318.
Councilmember Boles agreed that the text is there.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the text is there and it adequately describes the beach and makes it clear that it is not the quarry. She stated the question for staff is to straighten out what is going on with the owner designation on packet page 315.
Councilmember Boles then referred to packet page 345. She stated it is PR-I-74 and she made a comment that the language was confusing and their answers to council questions was suggested changed language and thought staff might want to talk about that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we can clarify that language. The suggestion was “incorporate conditions of approval for development projects to require adoption of Transportation Demand Management measures for a project as authorized by a congestion management program” and the rest stays the same.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about striking that phrase that is written in.
City Manager Woodhouse confirmed striking out “the congestion management program
1.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 36 October 28, 2024
threshold for impacts to the congestion management transportation network”.
Councilmember Boles agreed. She then referred to packet page 406, which talks about development in hazardous areas and site and design development in 100-year flood plains and tsunami hazard zones to minimize hazard risks without the need for armoring. She stated that this seems to conflict with CR-I-20 that siting and design is not required in tsunami hazard areas inundation. Previously, one of the City Attorneys suggested adding language to say, “other coastal hazards except for tsunamis” and it needed to be discussed with the Coastal Commission and she does not know if that discussion happened.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she does not have any information on what was discussed.
Councilmember Boles thought it may have been dropped. She thinks it is important because it does appear to be a conflict between policies.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if Councilmember Boles’ concern is that the NH-G-2 could be inconsistent with the siting with the CR-I-20 on packet page 448. She stated one thing to point out is that these policies address different issues; one is siting and designing for natural hazards and flood plains and is in the natural hazards chapter for siting and designing for development in flood plains and tsunami hazard zones, but CR-I-20 is siting and designing for projects in the policies for new shoreline development standards. There is a difference in where they are located and what they are meant to address because of their locations. She stated that these policies cannot be taken out of context; we have to look at the policies in the chapters they are in and consider the context in which they are set forth. Policy NH-G-2, development in hazardous areas, is talking about siting and designing for natural hazards, flood plains, and tsunami hazard zones and provides a guiding policy to that effect. Policy CR-I-20 is in the section for new shoreline development standard policies and CR-I-20 is one of the implementing policies that discusses siting and designing specific to development in coastal vulnerability zones. She stated they are not inconsistent but instead different policies addressing different issues.
Councilmember Boles stated CR-I-20 talks about the development in coastal vulnerability zones and we have clarified that it does not include tsunami zones. She stated that former Acting CD Dep. Director Cervantes confirmed that multiple times at previous meetings. She stated that we were told that siting and design was not important in tsunami zones and that is why the Coastal Commission did not include tsunami zones in this, but the other policy is talking about siting and design being important in tsunami zones.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated tsunami hazard zones.
City Attorney Kenyon stated only in relation to natural hazards, not new development.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is development in hazardous areas, which would be the same as new development.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that legally two provisions are not inconsistent because they are dealing with two different subjects.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked what the two subjects are that they are dealing with.
1.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 37 October 28, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon stated natural hazards that are related to tsunami hazard zones and the other is new shoreline development.
Councilmember Boles stated that one is development in hazardous areas and the other is not shoreline but new development anywhere in a vulnerability zone. She stated that they are both talking about new development or any development.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the way to read it is to read it in the context of the chapter for which it is written and there is not an inconsistency from a legal perspective. If Council would like to, from a policy perspective, make things consistent, that is a different issue.
Councilmember Boles asked how the policy does not apply to someone in Fairway Park in a tsunami inundation zone.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked what Councilmember Boles thinks is inconsistent about the two policies, i.e., why would she think that there would be an inconsistency.
Councilmember Boles stated that the second one specifically says you do not need to consider siting and design in tsunami areas in CR-I-20 and this seems to say the opposite to her.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it does not exclude that; it does not say it is only required to minimize hazards without the need for armoring. It is just saying that the site and design development in a 100-year flood plain and tsunami hazard zones to minimize hazard risks without the need for armoring. It is a policy similar to the policies that we have in our General Plan that relate in general but are not specific. What you see in new shoreline development standards are policies in CR-I-20 in siting and design; that is specific to development in coastal vulnerability zones and it must be siting and design set back from the blufftop and/or shoreline to be safe from erosions. It is focusing on different concerns and vulnerabilities than what is being discussed is NHG-2 which is more general in talking about site and design development in 100-year flood list in tsunami zones to minimize hazard risks. That is the goal. When we are interpreting that, it is much more general in terms of how we are going to interpret it if that particular site and design is minimizing hazard risk without the need for armoring. It is a general concept and it will up to the Council at the time who is interpreting this to determine whether or not that particular development that is being developed in a 100-year flood plain and tsunami hazard zone is minimizing hazard risks without the need for armoring.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if she is suggesting that the difference is that NH-G-2 is not necessarily confined to the coastal vulnerability zone, and while CR-I-20 specifically applies to the coastal vulnerability zone, NHG-2 could conceive of a circumstance in which your tsunami hazard zone is outside of your coastal vulnerability zone.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that would be a way to interpret it. She stated that policy NH-G-2 is much more general in the limited language versus the specificity in CR-I-20. The ability to interpret that is somewhat more limited as it is a more specific policy. It is different and is not intended to be interpreted the same as NH-G-2.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks it is hard for him to fathom that the tsunami hazard zones referred to in NH-G-2 are outside of the coastal vulnerability zone.
Councilmember Bier moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
1.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 38 October 28, 2024
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:30 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Boles understood from the City Attorney that we would not need to say that in NH-G-2. She referenced from a previous meeting the City Attorney adding the language not to NH-G-2 but to CR-I-20 to say, “other coastal hazards except for tsunamis”. This went back to the definition of coastal vulnerability zones, which also mentions tsunamis.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that was a part of the discussion around tsunami inundation versus tsunami evacuation and the idea was that we were trying to make tsunami inundation consistent across the document by excising the terminology of evacuation.
Mayor Vaterlaus added vulnerability.
Councilmember Boles stated tsunami inundation or evacuation should not apply in CR-I-20.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the definition of coastal vulnerability zone excludes tsunami inundation in evacuation zones.
Councilmember Boles stated that could be something that was added later or it may be a coastal hazard zone.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, going back to the issue of whether or not CR-I-20 would conflict with NH-G-2, coastal vulnerability definition would not include the tsunami evacuation or inundation zone and so likely not the tsunami hazard zone either.
Councilmember Boles stated it is the definition of coastal hazards that includes tsunami.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that policy NH-G-2 would apply in a coastal hazard zone.
Councilmember Boles stated there is some siting that needs to be looked at in tsunami zones.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the definition of coastal hazards includes tsunami.
Councilmember Boles had a question but retracted it and said to move onto NCCWD.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was pleased with the way that our conversation went with NCCWD staff and how quickly our staff was able to set up a meeting with Coastal Commission staff to bring those points forward and get them incorporated. She thinks the concern they had about No. 5 that Coastal Commission staff did not recommend was the same issue we had about existing development and that is why they proposed that. Their worry is that, somehow, if it is water infrastructure that is newer than 1977, it would not be able to be protected or have an emergency repair to it, etc. She thinks what City Manager said earlier covers it: If they had an emergency, they would need to go directly to the Coastal Commission themselves for permitting. She thinks, if it is not codified in the policy, they would have to move their infrastructure and the particular one they were focused on was the pipe they just moved in the
1.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 39 October 28, 2024
SF RV Park from the shoreline. She stated that is where that is coming from regarding their concern about newer than 1977. She stated they are not worried about pre-Coastal Act infrastructure and she asked what our response is to that.
Councilmember Bier stated that there is something about the temporary structure.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated they would have to go and get the permitting directly. She asked if that is only if it is on the shoreline or in general.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it seems the analogue is like emergency revetment protecting 400 Esplanade and protecting the infrastructure there and the City has to follow up with a full project. He stated that, when he reads the policy, if they are seeing risk to their infrastructure, they can apply for an emergency CDP from the Coastal Commission to protect that. Normally what Coastal Commission would do is say that now they need a full Coastal Development Permit and, in doing that, they will need to evaluate all of the alternatives, relocate the infrastructure versus permanent protection, etc., and that is a normal course for coastal CDPs and they would require that, which is in the last line. He thinks Coastal Commission staff was saying was that this was already covered in other processes and policies in the LCLUP.
City Attorney Kenyon stated we spoke about this issue first and, after back-and-forth with the Coastal Commission staff, this is when we came up with the concept of defining their facilities as critical infrastructure and critical facilities. What we were saying and why we believe that they do have the same protections as we have is because their facilities and infrastructure will be protected in the same way as ours will be. When City staff explained that to them, Coastal Commission staff said it would be fine. Their concern with this language is that it went beyond what the City had put in the rest of the document with regard to protections for critical infrastructure. In staff’s minds, since the focus of this for NCCWD was critical infrastructure and facilities, they will have the same protection as the City with regard to our critical infrastructure and our critical facilities. The Coastal Commission staff said that, if we want this in addition, we are giving NCCWD more protection than the City would receive for its own infrastructure facilities and infrastructure. The compromise was that we would get all the same protections for the District as well as the City by including both in the definition of critical facilities and critical infrastructure.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they still go through that process of evaluating the least impactful final project to give them an emergency permit to take care now; but for the longer permanent fix, they have to go through the process of identifying what all the different alternatives are, as the City would also.
Councilmember Bier thanked her for that information.
Councilmember Bigstyck appreciated the comments that NCCWD made regarding maintaining this partnership into the Implementation Plan stage and making sure we are more intentionally aligned going into that process.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she had a conversation with Dir. Carr during the break and spoke specifically about this issue. From her perspective, she thinks Dir. Carr understands the intent and she explained to her what she explained to Council earlier: This interpretation becomes the intent, and this is the legislative history for this document that is part of the record.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she appreciated them too and both NCCWD and the City Council were
1.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 40 October 28, 2024
glad to work together.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she had an opportunity during one of the breaks to read some language that was given to Council this evening back regarding bullet point 5 on packet page 449. From her point of view, when she read the proposed language, it cemented what she was trying to articulate earlier. She stated to clarify and to add the end of bullet point 5 “not intended hereby is waiver of rights to shoreline protection from protection structures existing at the time of an application to which applicant has rights under Coastal Act 30235”.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she does not know why Coastal Commission staff believes that this language is inconsistent with the Coastal Act but they do, and they think that this language which was in the Del Norte policy was specific to Del Norte. She does not know the particular facts associated with Del Norte’s SSRAs, but what they have said to City staff is that the edits that they made to the Del Norte policy, including this deletion made by Coastal Commission staff, is because it is necessary to tailor this policy along with everything else in the SSRAs to Pacifica’s particular situation. Her guess is that Coastal Commission staff will not recommend certification of our LCLUP with this language in it as they have said that they believe it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act. She stated that we could put this in and make our case to the Coastal Commission, but there is a risk that they may not certify it. In the best case scenario they would delete it and say that is the one they would certify and send it back to say for City approval. She stated the worst case is that they may remand it back and say come up with a revised version or they will give us reasons why they cannot accept that version. She knows that Coastal Commission staff will not recommend certification in this former fashion. If that is the only difference that we have from Coastal Commission staff’s recommended version, they may not recommend denial of the LCLUP based on that. She understands why Council wants to put it back in there and she thinks it makes sense, but she cannot tell them how the Coastal Commission will react to that. She can say that Coastal Commission staff has said it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks what is at issue is that the way bullet point 5 is written takes away those rights and that is what is a concern. She stated that, according to 30235, preCoastal Act properties should not have their rights waived, but Coastal Commission staff are rewriting the Coastal Act with this particular language that they say is only pertinent to Pacifica.
She asked if it is because we have so much pre-Coastal Act development than other cities and they may not want it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that Council could direct staff to approve a version with the LCLUP with this language in it but condition that version of the LCLUP on staff having a discussion with Coastal Commission about including it. City staff did not challenge them on that and it may be error or oversight by Coastal Commission staff as she agrees that it sounds reasonable to have this language in there. If Coastal Commission staff agrees with it, we would include that, as it would be part of Council’s motion. If it is not, we could exclude it if that is part of Council’s motion or your motion may be go ahead and discuss it with Coastal Commission staff and, perhaps they will agree, but even if they do not, Council still wants staff to submit an LCLUP that contains this additional Coastal Act language.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we are still building consensus before a motion is made.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is why she brought it forward.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he would like Asst. City Attorney Bazzano’s creative solution
1.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 41 October 28, 2024
and he would advocate for it. There was Council consensus.
Councilmember Boles asked if Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer can state what exactly she was proposing to add.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated in bullet point 5, page 449, where the sentence ends “property;” and then add the words “not intended hereby is waiver of rights to shoreline protection from protection structures existing at the time of an application to which an applicant has rights under Coastal Act 30235”. It differentiates that 1977 pre-Coastal Act person from the later one.
Councilmember Boles stated she is okay putting that in but her only question is Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer is specifically saying existing shoreline protection and her understanding is that part of the Coastal Act also allows new shoreline protection for pre-1977 homes.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is saying any structures.
Councilmember Boles stated if you want to be consistent.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated what if we do not say anything about structures and just say “to which applicant has rights under Coastal Act 30235”.
Councilmember Boles thinks that is safer.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks that is better.
City Attorney Kenyon thinks it is more likely that Coastal Commission staff will agree with that.
City Manager Woodhouse asked her to read what her last suggestion was.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, i.e., “not intended hereby is waiver of rights to shoreline protection, to which applicant has rights under the Coastal Act, Section 30235”.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it could be that Coastal Commission staff would prefer the existing at the time of applications so not new protection.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is the point of Section 30235, as it could be new protection. If they are pre-Coastal Act, conceivably it could be. She stated the concern with bullet point 5 is waiving rights that you have a right to.
City Attorney Kenyon asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano to read what 30235 says.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated Section 30235 of the Public Resource Code says, “Revetments, break waters, groins, harbor channel, sea walls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and, when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish kills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible.” Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks the first part of that pertains and asked what is 30253.
1.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 42 October 28, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck read Section 30235 on packet page 467: “New development shall do all the following, minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic flood and fire hazard, assure stability and structural integrity and neither create or contribute significantly to erosion, geological 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, be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the state air resources board as to each particular development, minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled, where appropriate protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.”
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she wants a piece of language that says you are entitled to protection if your property is pre-Coastal Act.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it does not appear that Sections 30235 or 30253 relate to the issue that the commenter Mr. Harris is trying to resolve. Staff cannot find a provision that specifically deals with that issue because existing structure does not have a definitive definition and that concept of development preexisting 1977 comes from interpretation.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it is not in the code.
Councilmember Boles thinks the pre-1977 is not in the code but in Coastal Commission’s guidance policies. She stated that Section 30235 does say “shall be permitted to protect existing structures”. She stated that the whole point is the definition of the existing structures is being challenged but the Coastal Commission is not challenging the pre-1977.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that with existing structures, it is all a question of existing as of when and that is the interpretation. She stated that is the only piece of language that is in the Coastal Act that specifically relates to existing structures.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, given the discussions with the Coastal Commission staff on what is an existing structure, she does not think there is any likelihood that the Coastal Commission will accept this change.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that in essence, are we awaiting for Casa Mira to be seen through before we can incorporate what might be appropriate, vis a vis the conclusion of that.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we approve this LCLUP absent that how likely is it that they are going to give it back to us. She asked, if we have already agreed to make them waive all their rights, and then Casa Mira settles and say do not make them waive their rights anymore, how will that process work specifically with the Coastal Commission.
City Attorney Kenyon thought it would be dealt with in a different way, not dealt with through this policy. If that decision really changes the definition of existing development, the implications of that will be much broader than just this policy. She stated that it is not just this policy that would be impacted. She thinks, through a trickledown effect, there will be much bigger policies that would be impacted and this would be incorporated into all of those.
1.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 43 October 28, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated amendments, a few different places, etc.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that her guess is that, depending upon how that ruling came down, there would be a number of amendments that we would be including or revisions in any proposed amendment to the Council, and this would be one of many.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer then agreed that we would not put it in as this language does not support what she wanted.
Mayor Vaterlaus moved to receive a presentation from staff and confirm alternative modifications to the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP; and 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; Directing the City Manager to transmit the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications to the California Coastal Commission for Certification as amended; and Finding that Approval of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP with Alternative Modifications is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
Councilmember Bier wanted to make it clear that she is voting yes to push it through to Coastal Commission because she truly believes that the Coastal Commission has our best interest at heart for our coastline and for our people, but she will not going to know that if she does not hear back from them. She is looking forward to moving forward to the Coastal Adaptation and Access Program, coastal resiliency plans, and nature-based solutions moving forward.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and Councilmember Bigstyck agreed.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked everyone for all the questions.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck
NAYS: Boles
CONSIDERATION - NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked them all as it was a long arduous process.
Councilmember Bier wanted to adjourn the meeting in honor of her friend, Mark Simpson, who passed away recently. He was a lifelong Pacifican and he had the biggest, brightest heart and soul of any man she has ever known. She described the hardships he faced getting housed and thanked PRC for their support and noted he is a legend.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed, adding that he had his own friendship with him for at least 20 years, and he has seen his struggles over a very long time. Despite any struggles, there was so much love pouring out from him and trying to figure out the best ways to express even when it was difficult for him to express that love to himself in certain ways.
1.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 44 October 28, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 12:24 a.m. in honor of Mark Simpson.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
1.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 10-28-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5804 : Approval of Minutes)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/25/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Move to adopt Resolution Terminating Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station at Pacifica State Beach issued on April 8, 2020.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to Adopt Resolution Terminating Proclamation of Local Emergency (Attachment 1) at the Anza Pump Station at Pacifica State Beach on April 8, 2020.
STAFF CONTACT:
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
John Mullins, Interim Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Louis Sun, Deputy Director of Public Works – Wastewater (650) 738-4660
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Anza Pump Station is a stormwater pump station located just off Linda Mar Beach, west of Cabrillo Highway between Crespi Drive and Linda Mar Boulevard. 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. Following the fire, Public Works staff 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 the safety of persons and properties within the watershed due to the risk of flooding without an operational pump station.
On April 8, 2020, the City Manager, acting in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to PMC 4-2.05(a) and executed the "Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency" (Attachment 1). The proclamation was ratified by the City Council on April 13, 2020.
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, strain sheets, or working details, or giving notice for bids to let contracts. The City complies 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. This allows staff to 2 Packet Pg. 51
Pacifica City Council 2
November 25, 2024
obtain the necessary equipment to rehabilitate the pump station faster. For the Anza Pump Station, the City Manager had determined that the damaged pump station threatened the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, which required immediate attention and constituted an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code section 1102. In cases where time allows, staff will request Council approval in advance for elements of emergency work.
Beginning in May 2020, the City contracted engineering services to assist with temporary repair of the pump station, developed bid documents to construct the necessary permanent repairs, supported pre-purchasing three new natural gas engines and two new stormwater pumps, and performed a new gas engine submittal review to ensure compatibility of bid documents. An emergency purchase agreement with Herc Rental for a temporary rental engine was approved on September 1, 2020, and on October 12, 2020, temporary measures were completed to allow for a non-standard system of pumping at the Anza Pump Station until final repairs were completed. This work included the temporary rental engine, a new pump, transfer switch, temporary roof, portable generator connections, and exterior double doors.
Active construction on the permanent repair solution commenced on May 1, 2022. The City’s strategy to help expedite Project schedule was to pre-purchase complex, long lead time mechanical equipment (gas engines and storm water pumps). All three of the new pumps had been installed by the fall of 2023, and Pumps 1 and 4 conveyed the majority of the stormwater the pump station received that winter. Due to additional supply chain issues with the instrumentation and control system, the pump station was not ready to run in automatic mode until April of 2024. During start-up of the sump pumps, issues were found with the electrical system and the pumps and electrical equipment had to be replaced. The Project is substantially complete as of this November 25, 2024 Council Meeting. The City was able to provide storm drain pumping and flooding prevention measures for the Anza Pump Station service area at all times after the fire damage and during construction phase.
The situation resulting from the emergency conditions of extreme peril is now deemed to be within the control of the normal protective services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of and within Pacifica. The City Manager, as Director of Emergency Services, and staff now recommend the City Council approve a Resolution of termination of the local emergency at Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose to not approve the termination of local emergency; however, this action would prolong unnecessarily the declaration of an emergency to the public. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• “Stewardship of City Infrastructure, street, and facilities - This work will help facilitate the return of the Anza Pump Station to its pre-fire capacity, conveying storm water flows to the ocean to mitigate potential impacts of flooding including threatening the safety of residents and damaging private property or critical public infrastructure. 2 Packet Pg. 52
Pacifica City Council 3
November 25, 2024
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of terminating the Proclamation of Local Emergency for the Anza Pump Station. The fiscal impacts of the Anza Pump Station Repair Project (C036) are explained in a separate report to the City Council on the November 25, 2024, City Council meeting agenda titled “Additional Budget Authorization for Anza Pump Station Project for Substantial Completion.”
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Anza Pump Station (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 53
Pacifica City Council 4
November 25, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA TERMINATING
PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY AT ANZA PUMP STATION
______________________________________________________
WHEREAS, a local emergency existed in Pacifica in accordance with the proclamation thereof by the Director of Emergency Services on the 8th day of April, 2020 and its ratification by the City Council on the 13th day of April, 2020 as a result of fire at the Anza Pump Station, and after Public Works staff investigated, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system and roof/bathrooms were damaged during the fire.; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), the City of Pacifica entered into a construction services agreement with DW Nicholson Corporation (“DWN”) for construction under the City Council’s purchasing authority; and
WHEREAS, the level of effort required to complete the construction for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project exceeded the estimates used to establish the original agreement amount plus contingency for the work; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve the City’s construction services agreement with DWN for construction on March 28, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated Task Orders with Schaaf and Wheeler for Engineering Services during construction on March 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023.
WHEREAS, the Project is substantially complete, and the situation resulting from said conditions of extreme peril is now deemed to be within the control of the normal protective services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of and within Pacifica. The City Manager, as Director of Emergency Services, and staff now recommend the City Council approve the Resolution Terminating Proclamation of Local Emergency at Anza Pump Station at Pacifica State Beach.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Pacifica, State of California, does hereby proclaim the termination of said local emergency at Anza Pump Station located in the Pacifica State Beach.
• • • • •
2 Packet Pg. 54
Pacifica City Council 5
November 25, 2024
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 25th 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 Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney 2 Packet Pg. 55
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, $77$&+0(17
2.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Anza Pump Station (5797 : Adopt Resolution Terminating Local Emergency For 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
2.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Anza Pump Station (5797 : Adopt Resolution Terminating Local Emergency For PROCLAMATIO1 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
$WWDFKPHQW
2.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Anza Pump Station (5797 : Adopt Resolution Terminating Local Emergency For
2.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Proclamation of Local Emergency Anza Pump Station (5797 : Adopt Resolution Terminating Local Emergency For
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/25/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Move to adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget Authorization for Anza Pump Station Project for Substantial Completion
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to Adopt Resolution for:
A. Adopt a Resolution to Increase the Anza Pump Station Repair Project construction contingency budget by $133,355.75 (5.5%) to the total contingency of $938,652.46 (40.5%), bringing the total construction authority to $3,265,966.75; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the close-out change order for the project.
B. Adopt a Resolution to Increase the Anza Pump Station Repair Project engineering services during construction (ESDC) contingency budget by $55,896 (53%) to the total contingency of (85%), bringing the total ESDC authority to $195,526; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the close-out change order for the project.
STAFF CONTACT:
Dan Patten, P.E., Engineering Manager - Wastewater
(650) 922-7248
[email protected]
Louis Sun, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works
(650) 738-4662
[email protected]
John Mullins, Interim Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Anza Pump Station is a stormwater pump station located just off Linda Mar Beach, west of Cabrillo Highway between Crespi Drive and Linda Mar Boulevard. On March 16, 2020, a fire occurred at the Anza Pump Station causing catastrophic damage. During the fire investigation, the pumps, engines, shafts, and other mechanisms of the pumping system were inspected. The inspection found that the fire resulted in damage to the pump station’s mechanical, electrical, gas meter and appurtenances, control systems, and building roof.
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 3 Packet Pg. 60
Pacifica City Council 2
November 25, 2024
disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and properties within this City. The Proclamation of Local Emergency was declared on April 8, 2020, for the Anza Pump Station.
The Proclamation has continued since and is on the City Council’s November 25, 2024 agenda for termination.
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, strain sheets, or working details, or giving notice for bids to let contracts. The City complies with Public Contract Code section 22050, which provides a process for the 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. This allows staff to obtain the necessary equipment to rehabilitate the pump station faster. For the Anza Pump Station, the City Manager determined that the damaged pump station could threaten the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, which required immediate attention and constituted an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code section 1102. In cases where time allows, staff will receive Council approval in advance for elements of emergency work.
Beginning in May 2020, the City contracted engineering services to assist with the temporary repair of the pump station, developed bid documents to construct the necessary permanent repairs, supported the pre-purchasing of three new natural gas engines and two new stormwater pumps, and performed a new gas engine submittal review to ensure compatibility of bid documents. Active construction commenced on May 1, 2022. An emergency purchase agreement with Herc Rental for a temporary rental engine was approved on September 1, 2020, and on October 12, 2020, temporary measures were completed to allow for a non-standard system of pumping at the Anza Pump Station until final repairs are completed. This work included the temporary rental engine, a new pump, a transfer switch, a temporary roof, portable generator connections, and exterior double doors. The City was able to provide storm drain pumping and flooding prevention measures for the Anza Pump Station service area at all times after the fire damage.
The City’s strategy to help expedite the Project schedule was to pre-purchase complex, long lead time mechanical equipment (gas engines and stormwater pumps). This strategy was also prudent, given the cost savings of purchasing the equipment sooner rather than later in a marketplace whose costs were, and continue to be, spiraling upwards. Relative to the general contractor purchasing this equipment, the City’s pre-purchase strategy saved time (and money) but also experienced supply chain delays as well. All three of the new pumps had been installed by the fall of 2023, and Pumps 1 and 4 conveyed the majority of the stormwater the pump station received that winter. Due to additional supply chain issues with the instrumentation and control system, the pump station was not ready to run in automatic mode (i.e. with the pumps controlled by the computer vs. City staff onsite full-time) until April of 2024. The pump station has two small sump pumps to pump water received at the pump station to irrigate the bioswales at Linda Mar State Beach. During the start-up of the sump pumps, issues were found with the electrical system and the pumps and electrical equipment had to be replaced. Additionally, outdoor portions of the natural gas piping were found to be corroded, and the City decided to upgrade this pipe to 316 stainless steel to reduce the risk of this reoccurring. The Project is substantially complete as of this November 25, 2024 Council Meeting.
Construction at a fire-damaged 70-year-old facility without historical record drawings and during the COVID Pandemic has proven to be challenging. As noted above, to mitigate concerns around pump station age and lack of record drawings, the City established a construction 3 Packet Pg. 61
Pacifica City Council 3
November 25, 2024
budget contingency of 20% at the start of the Project. This amount was discussed with the City’s Insurance Agent who noted the City should budget what it felt would allow for project completion including necessary Contract Change Orders (CCO). Although initially 20% was estimated as needed for completion, due to various issues, staff will need a 40.5% contingency to complete the work. The Table below summarizes the Contract Change Orders (CCOs) included in this Council Report:
Number CCO Cost
34 Phase Converter Replacement $ 38,947
35 Sump Pump Replacement $ 39,622
36 Gas Pipe Improvements $ 5,000
37 Closeout Change Order $ 49,787
Total $ 133,356
Project funding is anticipated to be reimbursable by insurance as described below in further detail.
Engineering services were required during construction. The City issued Task Order 2 for Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC) to Schaaf and Wheeler on March 28, 2022, for an amount not to exceed $105,630. As construction progressed, the project required a greater than anticipated level of effort associated with equipment and material resubmittals; responding to contractor requests for information; coordination with the gas engine supplier; and support for small contractor change orders. Therefore, Task Order 3 was issued to Schaaf and Wheeler on February 13th, 2023 for additional support. Challenges on the project continued, and $55,895.53 was required to complete the engineering portion of the project or an 85% contingency of the originally awarded fee.
Total Engineering Services During Construction
Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Engineering Support $ 105,630 Anza Pump Station Repair Project - Additional Constr. Engineering Support (incl 15%)
$ 34,000
Anza Pump Station Repair Project - Final Engineering Support $ 55,896 Total $ 195,526
Approval of the recommendations will allow staff to complete improvements to complete the Project, thereby supporting the restoration of the stormwater pump station that will protect the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure. Should the Council approve the recommended actions in this report, project construction will be finalized.
The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the increased Project contingency as discussed in this Council report.
This Change Order represents substantial completion of the contract with DWN Nicholson and the Anza Pump Station Repair Project. However, future projects at the Anza Pump Station may be required to improve the operations and the reliability of the pumping systems.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose not to approve the construction budget augmentation and construction management task order agreement; however, this will result in project delays, possible increase of construction costs and increased possibility of equipment failure at the pump station. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.
3 Packet Pg. 62
Pacifica City Council 4
November 25, 2024
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the construction contract and supporting agreements is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure and Maintaining a Safe Community: This construction project will help facilitate the return of the Anza Pump Station to its pre-fire capacity, conveying storm water flows to the ocean to mitigate potential impacts of flooding including threatening the safety of residents and damaging private property or critical public infrastructure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts associated with the Anza Pump Station Repair Project (C036) will be submitted for reimbursement to the City’s insurance carrier, PLAN JPA which includes the additional budget authorization as of this staff report. The requested actions will increase the overall cost of the Anza Pump Station Project by $189,251.28. The City’s deductibles are $225,000 for PLAN JPA and $10,000 for American International Group (AIG).
PLAN JPA has submitted a $2,377,821.31 payment to the City and currently, another $1,046,594.49 is approved and going through the reimbursement process. Staff is still working to finalize the remaining settlement payment with PLAN, and it is projected PLAN JPA will cover roughly 70% of the total cost. The 30% of the total costs that are not covered under PLAN are considered to be improvements and enhancements to Anza Pump Station. Such improvements and enhancements are the purchase and installation of an additional engine and pump for redundancy, advanced electronics and instrumentation, replacements of equipment and infrastructure located in the wet well area which was not affected by the fire, and other improvements to the Anza Pump Station which were not affected by the fire. A complete fiscal impact and insurance reimbursement report will be forthcoming in the future when staff brings the Notice of Completion to the City Council.
The requested additional budget contingency will be submitted for reimbursement to the City’s property insurance carrier, PLAN JPA. The total project use of funds for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project (C036) to date, including the recommended agreement approvals, is as follows:
3 Packet Pg. 63
Pacifica City Council 5
November 25, 2024
Pump Rebuild & Installation $104,937.41
Bathroom Renovations $210,868.52
Schaaf & Wheeler Engineers for Repair Design $264,160.00 Pump Purchase & Installation $185,371.87
Two Caterpillar Engines Purchase $492,268.00
Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Cost $2,326,000.00 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Contingency (35%) $806,611.00 Pump No. 3 Purchase & Installation (including 10% contingency) $228,133.64 Third Caterpillar Engine Purchase (including 10% contingency) $358,696.72 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Engineering Support $105,630.00 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Management (including 10% Cont) $331,095.00 Anza Pump Station New Gas Service Line Construction $185,100.00 Anza Pump Station New Gas Service Line Construction Contingency (20%) $37,020.00 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Additional Construction Engineering Support (incl 15%) $34,000.00 Bay Power Startup Support $88,795.00
Beecher Engineering Inc. Startup Support $74,080.00
Total Work Under Contract $5,832,767.16
Anza Pump Station Repair Project Additional Construction Contingency (5.5%) $133,355.75 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Final Engineering Support $55,895.53 Total Work Proposed $189,251.28
Grand Total $6,022,018.44
Plan JPA ($225,000.00)
American International Group (AIG) ($10,000.00)
Total Insurance Deductible ($235,000.00)
Total Identified Insurance Requested $5,787,018.44
ANZA PUMP STATION REPAIR PROJECT (C036)
Project Use of Funds - Previous Council Approved Completed/Under Contract Project Use of Funds - Work Proposed with this Approval ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (PDF) Attachment B - Schaaf & Wheeler Invoice Reduction and Project Closeout (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 64
Pacifica City Council 6
November 25, 2024
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AUTHORIZING AN
INCREASED CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY AND ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ANZA PUMP STATION REPAIR PROJECT
WHEREAS, a local emergency existed in Pacifica in accordance with the proclamation thereof by the Director of Emergency Services on the 8th day of April, 2020 and its ratification by the City Council on the 13th day of April, 2020 as a result of fire at the Anza Pump Station, and after Public Works staff investigated, it was determined that the storm drain pumping system and roof/bathrooms were damaged during the fire.; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), the City of Pacifica entered into a construction services agreement with DW Nicholson Corporation (“DWN”) for construction under the City Council’s purchasing authority; and
WHEREAS, the level of effort required to complete the construction for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project exceeded the estimates used to establish the original agreement amount plus contingency for the work; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve the City’s construction services agreement with DWN for construction on March 28, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated Task Orders with Schaaf and Wheeler for Engineering Services during construction on March 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023.
WHEREAS, additional level of effort required to complete engineering services during construction were exceeded the original estimates used to establish the original agreement amount plus contingency for the work; and
WHEREAS, the Project is substantially complete, and City staff require a final-project closeout change order.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, State of California to:
1. Increase the Anza Pump Station Repair Project construction contingency budget by $133,355.75 (5.5%) to the total contingency of $939.966.75 (40.5%), bringing the total construction authority to $3,265,966.75; and
3 Packet Pg. 65
Pacifica City Council 7
November 25, 2024
2. Increase the Anza Pump Station Repair Project engineering services during construction (ESDC) contingency budget by $55,896 (53%) to the total contingency of (85%), bringing the total ESDC authority to $195,526; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the close-out change order for the project. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 25th 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 Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney 3 Packet Pg. 66
CITY OF PACIFICA
Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division ORDER NO.: 35 DATE: November 12, 2024
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER STATE:
California
CONTRACT FOR: Anza Pump Station Repair Project COUNTY:
PROJECT NO: C030 San Mateo
OWNER: City of Pacifica
CONTRACTOR: DW Nicholson Corporation
CURRENT CONTRACT PRICE: $3,209,865.71
CURRENT CONTRACT TIME OF COMPLETION: 806 Working Days
NEW NO. WORKING DAYS 816 Days
TO: DW Nicholson Corporation
(Contractor)
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from to the contract plans, specifications, or other contract documents:
DECREASE INCREASE
in Contract Price In Contract Price
Furnish and Install 316SS Stainless Steel Natural Gas Piping, Valves and Fittings $5,000
TOTALS $5,000
$5,000
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE
JUSTIFICATION: The work described above was required to provide a complete pumping system at the Anza Pump Station. This CCO will increase the contract duration from 806 working days to 816 working days, resulting in a substantial completion date of July 20, 2024.
The amount of the Contract will be Increased By The Sum Of: $5,000 The Contract Total Including the adjustment to the final contract bid items and this Change Order Will Be:
$3,214,865.71
This Contract Change Order will increase the Contract time by 5 working days. The new contract duration will be: 816 days
3.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget Upon execution by representatives authorized to bind the parties, this Change Order will become a part of the contract. The consideration specified in this Change Order (whether an adjustment of the contract price, an adjustment of time, and/or other consideration) is the full and sole compensation owed to the contractor as a result of the changes and issues described in this Change Order. Such consideration includes, but is not limited to, any and all direct and indirect costs incurred by the contractor as a result of the changes and issues described in this Change Order for any labor, equipment, materials, overhead (additional, extended, field and home office), profit, or time adjustments. By signing this Change Order the contractor waives and releases the owner from any and all claims for additional compensation concerning any of the changes and issues specified in this Change Order.
The undersigned, being the ________________________________ (Title) of the Contractor, by signing this Changer Order declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, and does personally certify and attest that: the undersigned has thoroughly reviewed the attached request for change order and knows its contents, and said request for change order is made in good faith; that it is supported by truthful and accurate data; that the amount requested and the additional time requested accurately reflect the allowable expenses that would be incurred, and the time necessary, to perform the change order; and further, that the undersigned is familiar with California Penal Code Section 72 and California Government Code Section 12650 et seq., pertaining to false claims, and further knows and understands that the submission or certification of a false claim may lead to fines, imprisonment, or other severe legal consequences.
Requested __________________________________________________ _______________ (Construction Manager) (Date)
Accepted ___________________________________________________ ___________________________ (Contractor) (Date)
Recommended _______________________________________________ ________________ (City Engineer) (Date)
3.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
CITY OF PACIFICA
Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division ORDER NO.: 037 DATE: November 12, 2024
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER STATE:
California
CONTRACT FOR: Anza Pump Station Repair Project COUNTY:
PROJECT NO: C030 San Mateo
OWNER: City of Pacifica
CONTRACTOR: DW Nicholson Corporation
CURRENT CONTRACT PRICE: $3,214,865.71
CURRENT CONTRACT TIME OF COMPLETION: 816 Working Days
NEW NO. WORKING DAYS 816 Days
TO: DW Nicholson Corporation
(Contractor)
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from to the contract plans, specifications, or other contract documents:
DECREASE INCREASE
in Contract Price In Contract Price
PCO 30.1
$9841.86
PCO 39.2
$ 6,561.00
PCO 43.1 $836.68
PCO 44.1 $11,129. 29
PCO 47.1 $3,494.40
PCO 49 $ 10,509.88
PCO 51 $619
PCO 52 $6,794.64
TOTALS $ 49,786.75
$ 49,786.75
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE
JUSTIFICATION: The work described above was required to provide a complete pumping system at the Anza Pump Station. This is the final change order for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project
The amount of the Contract will be Increased By The Sum Of: $ 49,786.75 The Contract Total Including the adjustment to the final contract bid items and this Change Order Will Be:
$3,264,652.46
3.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget This Change Order covers changes to the subject contract as described herein. The Contractor shall construct, furnish equipment and materials, and perform all work as necessary or required to complete the Change Order items for a price agreed upon between the Contractor and the City. The undersigned Contractor approves the foregoing Change Order as to the changes, if any, in the contract price specified for each item including any and all supervision costs and other miscellaneous costs relating to the change in work, and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the entire work on account of said Change Order and agrees that said Change Order constitutes the total equitable adjustment owed the Contractor as a result of the change. This document will become a supplement of the contract and all provisions will apply hereto. Contractor accepts the terms and conditions stated within this Change Order as full and final settlement of and mutual accord and satisfaction for any and all claims arising out of or related to the subject of this Change Order and acknowledges that the compensation (time and cost) set forth herein comprises the total compensation due for the work or change defined in the Change Order, including all impact on any unchanged work and for any acceleration or interruption of schedules, extended overhead costs, delay, and all impact or cumulative impact on all work including any remaining work under the contract.
The undersigned, being the ________________________________ (Title) of the Contractor, by signing this Changer Order declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, and does personally certify and attest that: the undersigned has thoroughly reviewed the attached request for change order and knows its contents, and said request for change order is made in good faith; that it is supported by truthful and accurate data; that the amount requested and the additional time requested accurately reflect the allowable expenses that would be incurred, and the time necessary, to perform the change order; and further, that the undersigned is familiar with California Penal Code Section 72 and California Government Code Section 12650 et seq., pertaining to false claims, and further knows and understands that the submission or certification of a false claim may lead to fines, imprisonment, or other severe legal consequences.
Requested __________________________________________________ _______________ (Construction Manager) (Date)
Accepted ___________________________________________________ ___________________________ (Contractor) (Date)
Recommended _______________________________________________ ________________ (City Engineer) (Date)
3.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget F/J Contract
Hours
Hours Spent Hours
Remaining
AVERAGE 2022 Labor Rate PER
ATTACHED AVERAGE 2023 Rate ADD
1,107.50 1,141.00 33.50 $172.51 $181.32 $295.14
APA#10 CCO#9 F 41.23 41.23 $172.51 $181.32 $363.24
F 186.94 186.94 $172.51 $181.32 $1,646.94
J 186.94 186.94 $172.51 $181.32 $1,646.94
APA#15 CCO#14 F 21.00 21.00 $172.51 $181.32 $185.01
APA#17 CCO#16 F 14.60 14.60 $172.51 $181.32 $128.63
APA#26.2 Pending F 20.00 20.00 $172.51 $181.32 $176.20
APA#28.1 Pending F 62.97 62.97 $172.51 $181.32 $554.77
1,107.50 1,674.68 567.18 $8.81 $4,996.86
AVG Remaining
2022 Labor
Rate PER
ATTACHED
AVERAGE
2023 Rate ADD
500 500 142.71 $ 152.40 $ 4,845.00 $
Total $ 9.69 $4,845.00
Mechanical and Misc SEE ATTACHED WAGE SHEETS
ELECTRICAL SEE ATTACHED WAGE SHEETS
Source
Contract remaining AFTER June 30
APA#11.3
Source
Contract
CCO#11
Total
3.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt ELECTRICIANS 595 WEST Alameda County
EFFECTIVE DATES 6/1/2022 to
STR OT 1-1/2 DLB STR OT 1-1/2 DLB STR OT 1-1/2 DLB
TIME PREM TIME TIME TIME PREM TIME TIME TIME PREM TIME TIME Base Rate 66.75 33.38 100.13 133.50 76.76 38.38 115.14 153.52 86.78 43.39 130.17 173.56 Basic Hourly Taxable Wage 66.75 33.38 100.13 133.50 76.76 38.38 115.14 153.52 86.78 43.39 130.17 173.56 CONT ADM 1.05% 0.70 0.35 1.05 1.40 0.81 0.40 1.21 1.61 0.91 0.46 1.37 1.82 NEBF 3.00% 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.01 2.30 1.15 3.45 4.61 2.60 1.30 3.91 5.21 Union Fringe Benefits 41.96 0.00 41.96 41.96 41.96 0.00 41.96 41.96 41.96 0.00 41.96 41.96 Labor Tax-FICA 7.65% 5.11 2.55 7.66 10.21 5.87 2.94 8.81 11.74 6.64 3.32 9.96 13.28 Labor Tax-FUI 1.80% 1.20 0.60 1.80 2.40 1.38 0.69 2.07 2.76 1.56 0.78 2.34 3.12 Labor Tax-SUI 6.20% 4.14 2.07 6.21 8.28 4.76 2.38 7.14 9.52 5.38 2.69 8.07 10.76 Liability Ins 14.40% 9.61 9.61 9.61 11.05 11.05 11.05 12.50 12.50 12.50 Workmens Comp 3.65% 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.80 2.80 2.80 3.17 3.17 3.17 Safety 3.00% 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.60 2.60 2.60 Total Bare Cost 135.91 39.95 175.86 215.81 150.00 45.94 195.94 241.88 164.10 51.94 216.04 267.98 5/31/2023
JOURNEYMAN 595 (J) FOREMAN (F) GENERAL FOREMAN (G)
7/30/20249:44 AM 1 2022-2023 T&M BILLING RATES - ELECTRICIANS 1-1-23 to 5-31-23.xlsx
3.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt ELECTRICIANS 595 WEST Alameda County
EFFECTIVE DATES 6/1/2023 to
STR OT 1-1/2 DLB STR OT 1-1/2 DLB STR OT 1-1/2 DLB
TIME PREM TIME TIME TIME PREM TIME TIME TIME PREM TIME TIME Base Rate 70.20 35.10 105.30 140.40 80.73 40.37 121.10 161.46 91.26 45.63 136.89 182.52 Basic Hourly Taxable Wage 70.20 35.10 105.30 140.40 80.73 40.37 121.10 161.46 91.26 45.63 136.89 182.52 CONT ADM 1.05% 0.74 0.37 1.11 1.47 0.85 0.42 1.27 1.70 0.96 0.48 1.44 1.92 NEBF 3.00% 2.11 1.05 3.16 4.21 2.42 1.21 3.63 4.84 2.74 1.37 4.11 5.48 Union Fringe Benefits 43.52 0.00 43.52 43.52 43.52 0.00 43.52 43.52 43.52 0.00 43.52 43.52 Labor Tax-FICA 7.65% 5.37 2.69 8.06 10.74 6.18 3.09 9.26 12.35 6.98 3.49 10.47 13.96 Labor Tax-FUI 1.80% 1.26 0.63 1.90 2.53 1.45 0.73 2.18 2.91 1.64 0.82 2.46 3.29 Labor Tax-SUI 6.20% 4.35 2.18 6.53 8.70 5.01 2.50 7.51 10.01 5.66 2.83 8.49 11.32 Liability Ins 14.40% 10.11 10.11 10.11 11.63 11.63 11.63 13.14 13.14 13.14 Workmens Comp 4.30% 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.92 3.92 3.92 Safety 3.00% 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.74 2.74 2.74 Total Bare Cost 142.78 42.01 184.80 226.81 157.67 48.32 205.99 254.31 172.56 54.62 227.18 281.80 5/31/2024
JOURNEYMAN 595 (J) FOREMAN (F) GENERAL FOREMAN (G)
7/30/20249:48 AM 1 2023-2024 T&M BILLING RATES - ELECTRICIANS 1-1-24 to 6-30-24.xlsx
3.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt MILLWRIGHTS 102
EFFECTIVE DATES 7/1/2022 To
STR OT 1-1/2 DLB STR OT 1-1/2 DLB STR OT 1-1/2 DLB
TIME PREM TIME TIME TIME PREM TIME TIME TIME PREM TIME TIME Base Rate 57.20 28.60 85.80 114.40 62.70 31.35 94.05 125.40 66.20 33.10 99.30 132.40 Vacation 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85
Work Fees 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48
Basic Hourly Taxable Wage 62.53 28.60 91.13 119.73 68.03 31.35 99.38 130.73 71.53 33.10 104.63 137.73 Union Fringe Benefits 28.78 28.78 28.78 28.78 28.78 28.78 28.78 28.78 28.78 Labor Tax-FICA 7.65% 4.78 2.19 6.97 9.16 5.20 2.40 7.60 10.00 5.47 2.53 8.00 10.54 Labor Tax-FUI Rate 1.80% 1.13 0.51 1.64 2.16 1.22 0.56 1.79 2.35 1.29 0.60 1.88 2.48 Labor Tax-SUI 6.20% 3.88 1.77 5.65 7.42 4.22 1.94 6.16 8.11 4.43 2.05 6.49 8.54 Liability Ins 14.40% 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.80 9.80 9.80 10.30 10.30 10.30 Workmens Comp 9.16% 5.73 5.73 5.73 6.23 6.23 6.23 6.55 6.55 6.55 Safey 3.00% 1.88 1.88 1.88 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.15 2.15 2.15 Total Bare Cost 117.69 33.08 150.78 183.86 125.53 36.26 161.78 198.04 130.50 38.28 168.78 207.06 6/30/2023
JOURNEYMAN (102 J) FOREMAN (102 F) GENERAL FOREMAN (102 G)
3.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt MILLWRIGHTS 102
EFFECTIVE DATES 7/1/2023 To
STR OT 1-1/2 DLB STR OT 1-1/2 DLB STR OT 1-1/2 DLB
TIME PREM TIME TIME TIME PREM TIME TIME TIME PREM TIME TIME Base Rate 60.49 30.25 90.74 120.98 65.99 33.00 98.99 131.98 69.49 34.75 104.24 138.98 Vacation 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08
Work Fees 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59
Basic Hourly Taxable Wage 66.16 30.25 96.41 126.65 71.66 33.00 104.66 137.65 75.16 34.75 109.91 144.65 Union Fringe Benefits 29.74 29.74 29.74 29.74 29.74 29.74 29.74 29.74 29.74 Labor Tax-FICA 7.65% 5.06 2.31 7.37 9.69 5.48 2.52 8.01 10.53 5.75 2.66 8.41 11.07 Labor Tax-FUI Rate 1.80% 1.19 0.54 1.74 2.28 1.29 0.59 1.88 2.48 1.35 0.63 1.98 2.60 Labor Tax-SUI 6.20% 4.10 1.88 5.98 7.85 4.44 2.05 6.49 8.53 4.66 2.15 6.81 8.97 Liability Ins 14.40% 9.53 9.53 9.53 10.32 10.32 10.32 10.82 10.82 10.82 Workmens Comp 12.82% 8.48 8.48 8.48 9.19 9.19 9.19 9.64 9.64 9.64 Safey 3.00% 1.98 1.98 1.98 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.25 2.25 2.25 Total Bare Cost 126.24 34.98 161.23 196.20 134.27 38.16 172.43 210.59 139.38 40.18 179.56 219.74 FOREMAN (106 F) GENERAL FOREMAN (106 G)
6/30/2024
JOURNEYMAN (106 J)
3.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt
3.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget BASE 17% 7& Total MU %% 15% Total MU% REVISED
$ 100.00 $ 17.00 $ 7.00 $ 124.00 24.00% $ 15.00 $ 115.00 15% -9.0%
DWM ALLOWED
3.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt
3.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget BASE 17% 7& Total MU %% 15% Total MU% REVISED
$ 100.00 $ 17.00 $ 7.00 $ 124.00 24.00% $ 15.00 $ 115.00 15% -9.0%
DWM ALLOWED
3.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt DATE AWA# Description Amount Comments AWA LABOR 9% Saving 9/12/2021 47855 Open pipes on beach drainges system as diereced $ 2,694.96 AS directed by Nelson $ 1,925.23 $ 173.27 9/15/2022 47857 Chip 8" up from top of roof for roof repair $ 769.78 AS directed by Nelson $ 634.96 $ 57.15 12/10/2022 43174 Drill holes and align Entind not done by Peterson $ 1,796.24 As directed By Nelosn, possibel back charge to peterson $ 1,499.28 $ 134.94 4/20/2023 47896 Repair #4 flapgate as directed $ 3,423.76 AS directed by Nelson $ 2,574.08 $ 231.67 6/14/2023 43179 Drill holes and align Entind not done by Peterson $ 1,180.11 As directed By Nelosn, possibel back charge to peterson $ 913.47 $ 82.21 8/23/2023 47898 Move fencing as directe $ 2,108.70 As directed to accommodate City needs $ 1,833.66 $ 165.03 TOTAL $ 11,973.55 $ 844.26$ 9,380.68
SANINGS $ (844.26)
REVISED $ 11,129.29
3.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt
3.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
FARWEST INSULATION CONTRACTING
WORK SUMMARY
Anza Pump Station
Insulation Blanket Modifications
description unit quantity prc/unt cost description rate hrs cost $ - General Foreman ST $196.98 16 $ 3,151.68
$ - General Foreman OT $ -
$ - General Foreman DT $ -
$ - Foreman ST $ -
$ - Foreman OT $ -
$ - Foreman DT $ -
$ - Mechanic ST $ -
$ - Mechanic OT $ -
$ - Mechanic DT $ -
$ - Apprentice 5th ST $ -
$ - Apprentice 5th OT $ -
$ - Apprentice 5th DT $ -
$ - Apprentice 4th ST $ -
$ - Apprentice 4th OT $ -
$ - Apprentice 4th DT $ -
$ - Apprentice 3rd ST $ -
$ - Apprentice 3rd OT $ -
$ - Apprentice 3rd DT $ -
$ - Apprentice 2nd ST $ -
$ - Apprentice 2nd OT $ -
$ - Apprentice 2nd DT $ -
$ - Apprentice 1st ST $ -
$ - Apprentice 1st OT $ -
$ - Apprentice 1st DT $ -
$ - Days
$ - Travel Expense/Day $ 21.00 $ -
$ -
$ - 16 $ 3,151.68
$ -
$ - description rate hrs cost
$ - Project Manager $120.00 $ -
$ - Superintendent $110.00 $ -
$ - Field Engineer $ 90.00 $ -
$ - Clerk $ 75.00 $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
9.250% $ -
$ - 0 $ -
cost
$ 200.00 $ -
$ 224.00
$ -
$ 200.00 $ 3,151.68
$ 24.00 $ -
$ 224.00 $ 3,375.68
cost
$ - Total Hours
$ - $ 3,375.68
$ -
MATERIALS
Cartage
Sub-total
Material Total
EQUIPMENT
Total Material
SITE SUPPORT
Item
LABOR SELL
Total Labor
Total Site Support
Mark-up Total Lump Sum
SCAFFOLDING
16 description
Total Scaffolding
Bond
description
Total Scaffolding
Sales Tax
Overhead and Profit
Sub-Total
Mark-up
Total Equipment
company truck
Total Equipment
Equipment Total
Total Site Support
Total Labor
Total Material
SUMMARY
3/22/2024
7:20 AM
3.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget D. W. Nicholson
CORPORATION Industrial Mechanization Contractors
24747 Clawiter Road / P.O. Box 4197 / Hayward, CA 94540-4197 / (510) 887-0900 / Fax: (510) 783-9948 Contractor’s License No. 68847
Additional Work Proposal and Authorization #51 DWN JOB# 29882-16 Date: 08/07/2024
APA No.: 051
Owner: City of Pacifica
Project: Anza Pump Station Repair Project
Project No. C036
Item: Door Locks Electrical - Labor Escalation
DWG None
DWN: Christopher Wallis
(2) hours Mobilization and Demobilization, and (6) hours Labor Escalation from late 2022 to late 2024 labor rates for Door Lock Electrical work as part of 2022-11-01_CCO#9 - Restroom and nearby Electrical-related work.
Mobilization and Demobilization 2 hours $ 488
Labor Escalation, 2022 to 2024 6 hours $ 131
Total $ 619
3.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget Customer: RFQ
Project: Bid Date:
Item: ELECTRICAL ESTIMATE ESTIMATOR: CW
Item Description Units Qty. Unit Total Unit Total
Cost Cost Labor (mh) Labor (mh)
1. $0.00 0.00
2 Escalated Labor Hours 6 $0.00 1.00 6.00
3 New Mobilization/Demobilization Labor Hours 2 $0.00 1.00 2.00 4 $0.00 0.00
5 $0.00 0.00
6 06/01/2024 Labor Rate $225.94 $0.00 0.00
7 06/01/2023 Labor Rate $214.83 $0.00 0.00
8 06/01/2022 Labor Rate $204.05 $0.00 0.00
9 $0.00 0.00
10 $225.94 - 204.05 = $21.89 $0.00 0.00
11 $0.00 0.00
12 $0.00 0.00
13 $0.00 0.00
14 $0.00 0.00
15 $0.00 0.00
16 $0.00 0.00
17 $0.00 0.00
18 $0.00 0.00
19 $0.00 0.00
20 $0.00 0.00
21 $0.00 0.00
22 $0.00 0.00
23 $0.00 0.00
24 $0.00 0.00
25 $0.00 0.00
Material Subtotal = $0.00 LABOR HRS = 8.00
Sales Tax @ 10.75% $0.00
Mark-UP @ 15.00% $0.00
MATERIAL TOTAL = $ -
field labor
ratio
FM/TOTAL 2022-24 Labor Escalation MH 6.00 HRS $21.89 $131.34 1 FIELD Labor ELECTRICIAN F MH 2.00 HRS $225.94 $451.88 FIELD Labor ELECTRICIAN J MH 0.00 HRS $0.00 $0.00
PREMIUM PORTION X1.5 % OF TOTAL HRS 0% 0.00 HRS $ - $0.00 PREMIUM PORTION X2 % OF TOTAL HRS 0.00% 0.00 HRS $ - $0.00 Fabrication shop hours (inludes tax) MH 0 HRS $116.00 $0.00 ELECTRICAL TRUCK DAYS 0 $142.00 $0.00
Tools %% OF LABOR $$$ 8.00% $36.15
Electrician Subsistance DAYS 0 $16.00 $0.00
555 Bender Month 0 $314.22 $0.00
Lift Month 0 $418.00 $0.00
Lift Delivery/Pickup Each 0 $500.00 $0.00
LABOR & TOOLS TOTAL = $ 619.37
F
A
B
MANUFACTURE / VENDOR (TAX INCLUDED) $0.00
MANUFACTURE / VENDOR (TAX INCLUDED) $0.00
MANUFACTURE / VENDOR (TAX INCLUDED) $0.00
MARK UP @ 15.00% $0.00
VENDOR MATERIAL TOTAL = $ -
S
U
B
S
SUBCONTRACT $0.00
SUBCONTRACT $0.00
SUBCONTRACT $0.00
MARK UP @ 15.00% $0.00
SUBCONTRACT TOTAL = $ -
D
W
N
DWN MECHANICAL $0.00
DWN ELECTRICAL (RECORD DRAWINGS DRAWINGS) $0.00
DWN FABRICATION $0.00
DWN CIVIL $0.00
DWN DEPARTMENT TOTAL = $ -
JOB TOTAL = $ 619.37
BOND 0.00% BID AMOUNT = $ 619.37
3.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget Customer: RFQ
Project: Bid Date:
Item: ESTIMATOR:
Unit Total Unit Total
Cost Cost Labor (mh) Labor (mh)
1. $0.00 0.00
2 Relay Installation Labor 3 $0.00 8.00 24.00
3 (2) Relays and (2) Bases, tax incl 3 80.09 $ $240.26 0.00 4 $0.00 0.00
5 15A Din-rail Breakers, tax incl 3 42.00 $ $126.00 0.00 6 $0.00 0.00
7 $0.00 0.00
8 $0.00 0.00
9 $0.00 0.00
10 $0.00 0.00
11 $0.00 0.00
12 $0.00 0.00
13 $0.00 0.00
14 $0.00 0.00
15 $0.00 0.00
16 $0.00 0.00
17 $0.00 0.00
18 $0.00 0.00
19 $0.00 0.00
20 $0.00 0.00
21 $0.00 0.00
22 $0.00 0.00
23 $0.00 0.00
24 $0.00 0.00
25 $0.00 0.00
Material Subtotal = $366.26 LABOR HRS = 24.00
Sales Tax @ 0.00% $0.00
Mark-UP @ 15.00% $54.94
MATERIAL TOTAL = $ 421
field labor
ratio
FM/TOTAL FIELD Labor ELECTRICIAN GF MH 0.00 HRS $231.95 $0.00 1 FIELD Labor ELECTRICIAN F MH 24.00 HRS $181.31 $4,351.44 FIELD Labor ELECTRICIAN J MH 0.00 HRS $0.00
PREMIUM PORTION X1.5 % OF TOTAL HRS 0% 0.00 HRS 74.87 $ $0.00 PREMIUM PORTION X2 % OF TOTAL HRS 0.00% 0.00 HRS 149.74 $ $0.00 Fabrication shop hours (inludes tax) MH 0 HRS $116.00 $0.00 ELECTRICAL TRUCK DAYS 3 $142.00 $426.00
Tools %% OF LABOR $$$ 8.00% $348.12
Electrician Subsistance DAYS 3 $16.00 $48.00
555 Bender Month 0 $314.22 $0.00
Lift Month 0 $418.00 $0.00
Lift Delivery/Pickup Each 0 $500.00 $0.00
LABOR & TOOLS TOTAL = $ 5,174
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
MARK UP @ 15.00% $0.00
VENDOR MATERIAL TOTAL = $ -
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
MARK UP @ 15.00% $0.00
SUBCONTRACT TOTAL = $ -
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
DWN DEPARTMENT TOTAL = $ -
JOB TOTAL = $ 5,595
BOND 1.50% BID AMOUNT = $ 5,679
$ 1,193.12
39.1 Price 6561.00
Change 882.32
Item Description Units Qty.
S
U
B
S
Pacific Power Testing
F
A
B
MANUFACTURE / VENDOR (TAX INCLUDED)
MANUFACTURE / VENDOR (TAX INCLUDED)
DWN MECHANICAL
RTM TOTAL =
D
W
N
DWN ELECTRICAL (RECORD DRAWINGS DRAWINGS)
DWN FABRICATION
DWN CIVIL
APA 39.2
17-Oct-23
CW
SUBCONTRACT
City of Pacifica
Job# 29882-16 Anza PS
ELECTRICAL ESTIMATE for
SUBCONTRACT
MANUFACTURE / VENDOR (TAX INCLUDED)
3.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget 1 Phil Grove
From: Chris Wallis
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 10:35 AM
To: Phil Grove; Darrin Mehner; Steve Search
Subject: RE: Sumps
Per Ricardo’s earlier email,
Will we need to return to test everything in auto with Tesco? Also, the cabinets where the VFDs are installed need to be ventilated to exhaust the heat before they can be used full time.
I believe we have used up all our field service days for both the pumps and VFD’s. Additional field service days would be $1,800.00 per 8 hour day including travel time.
From: Phil Grove <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 10:31 AM
To: Chris Wallis <[email protected]>; Darrin Mehner <[email protected]>; Steve Search <[email protected]>
Subject: Sumps
Guys
Who has the picture of the CLEANED SUMPS?
Chris is there going to be a charge for Shape?
Phillip Grove
Manager of Estimating
DW Nicholson Corp.
Industrial Mechanization Contractors
Email: [email protected]
Direct: 510-723-0725
Fax: 510-783-9948
Cell: 510-812-5980
Website: www.dwnicholson.com
3.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
3.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A - Contract Change Order Anza Pump Station Repair Project (5748 : Adopt Schaaf & Wheeler
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
4699 Old Ironsides Dr, Ste 350
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1860
(408) 246-4848
November 8, 2024
Louis Sun, PE
WWTP Plant Manager
City of Pacifica
via email
Subject: Anza PS Invoice Reduction and Project Closeout Dear Mr. Sun,
We appreciate the collaborative effort that both the City of Pacific and Schaaf & Wheeler have invested in the successful advancement of Anza Pump Station Project. We understand the importance of bringing this project to a satisfactory conclusion, and as a gesture of goodwill and in the interest of a prompt resolution, we are extending a reduction of $25,000 on the outstanding invoices for this project. The adjusted invoices are included as an attachment to this letter.
Please note that this adjustment is not an admission of any errors, omissions, or other wrongdoing by Schaaf & Wheeler or our Subconsultants. It is offered solely as a good faith measure to facilitate the close-out of all outstanding matters. By accepting this reduction, the City of Pacifica agrees that this adjustment satisfies all current and future financial claims related to this project, and no additional remedies will be sought.
We value our partnership with the City and look forward to any future opportunities to work together. Please confirm your acceptance of this arrangement by sending an email notifying me of your acceptance.
Thank you once again for your cooperation in seeing this project to a successful completion.
Sincerely,
Schaaf & Wheeler
Glen M. Anderson, PE
Vice President
3.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment B - Schaaf & Wheeler Invoice Reduction and Project Closeout (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget Offices
Santa Clara
San Francisco
Salinas
Santa Rosa
Truckee
4699 Old Ironsides Drive, Suite 350
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel: 408-246-4848
Nelson Schlater
City of Pacifica
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Invoice Date: Jan 31, 2023
Invoice Num: 37127
Billing Through: Jan 31, 2023
Invoice
Anza PS Emergency Repairs (PACI.02.20:001) - Managed by (GMA) Contract Amount: $399,790.00 Amount Billed: $406,590.50 Amount Remaining: ($6,800.50) Reimbursable Expenses:
Date Vendor Description Cost Multiplier Amount
Fehr Engineering CONSULTANTS - CLIENT BILLABLE $12,890.00 1.00 $12,890.00 Company, Inc.
1/31/2023
Total Expenses: $12,890.00
Project (PACI.02.20:001) Total Amount Due: $12,890.00
Amount Due This Invoice: $12,890.00
This invoice is due on 3/2/2023
BillQuick Standard Report Copyright © BQE Software, Inc. Page 1 of 1 Negotiated Fee Reduction: $9,280.53
Updated Invoice Total: $3,609.47
3.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment B - Schaaf & Wheeler Invoice Reduction and Project Closeout (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget Offices
Santa Clara
San Francisco
Salinas
Santa Rosa
Truckee
4699 Old Ironsides Drive, Suite 350
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel: 408-246-4848
Nelson Schlater
City of Pacifica
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Invoice Date: Feb 28, 2023
Invoice Num: 37287
Billing Through: Feb 28, 2023
Invoice
Anza PS Emergency Repairs (PACI.02.20:001) - Managed by (GMA) Contract Amount: $399,790.00 Amount Billed: $420,285.50 Amount Remaining: ($20,495.50) Reimbursable Expenses:
Date Vendor Description Cost Multiplier Amount
Fehr Engineering CONSULTANTS - CLIENT BILLABLE $13,695.00 1.00 $13,695.00 Company, Inc.
2/28/2023
Total Expenses: $13,695.00
Project (PACI.02.20:001) Total Amount Due: $13,695.00
Amount Due This Invoice: $13,695.00
This invoice is due on 3/30/2023
BillQuick Standard Report Copyright © BQE Software, Inc. Page 1 of 1
3.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment B - Schaaf & Wheeler Invoice Reduction and Project Closeout (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget Offices
Santa Clara
San Francisco
Salinas
Santa Rosa
Truckee
4699 Old Ironsides Drive, Suite 350
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel: 408-246-4848
Nelson Schlater
City of Pacifica
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Invoice Date: Apr 30, 2023
Invoice Num: 37505
Billing Through: Apr 30, 2023
Invoice
Anza PS Emergency Repairs (PACI.02.20:001) - Managed by (GMA) Contract Amount: $399,790.00 Amount Billed: $450,605.50 Amount Remaining: ($50,815.50) Rate Amount
Professional Services:
Classification Hours
ASSOCIATE ENGINEER 158.00 $190.00 $30,020.00
Total Services: $30,020.00
Project (PACI.02.20:001) Total Amount Due: $30,020.00
Amount Due This Invoice: $30,020.00
This invoice is due on 5/30/2023
BillQuick Standard Report Copyright © BQE Software, Inc. Page 1 of 1 Negotiated Fee Reduction: $15,719.47
Updated Invoice Total: $14,300.53
3.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment B - Schaaf & Wheeler Invoice Reduction and Project Closeout (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget Offices
Santa Clara
San Francisco
Salinas
Santa Rosa
Truckee
4699 Old Ironsides Drive, Suite 350
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel: 408-246-4848
Nelson Schlater
City of Pacifica
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Invoice Date: May 31, 2023
Invoice Num: 37678
Billing Through: May 31, 2023
Invoice
Anza PS Emergency Repairs (PACI.02.20:001) - Managed by (GMA) Contract Amount: $399,790.00 Amount Billed: $465,615.50 Amount Remaining: ($65,825.50) Rate Amount
Professional Services:
Classification Hours
ASSOCIATE ENGINEER 79.00 $190.00 $15,010.00
Total Services: $15,010.00
Project (PACI.02.20:001) Total Amount Due: $15,010.00
Amount Due This Invoice: $15,010.00
This invoice is due on 6/30/2023
BillQuick Standard Report Copyright © BQE Software, Inc. Page 1 of 1
3.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment B - Schaaf & Wheeler Invoice Reduction and Project Closeout (5748 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Additional Budget
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/25/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Approve new job classifications for Senior Human Resources Analyst and Senior Building Maintenance Specialist positions, and add them to the classification plan to be recognized as part of the Confidential Group and Teamsters Miscellaneous 856 Unit, respectively.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution approving a new Senior Human Resources Analyst and Senior Building Maintenance Specialist classifications, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a side letter to recognize the Senior Building Maintenance Specialist Classification by the Teamsters Miscellaneous 856 Unit.
STAFF CONTACT:
Irene Camarena, HR Manager
650-738-7303
[email protected]
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
650-738-7402
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On June 24, 2024 the City adopted the FY 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget that included addition of the Senior Human Resources Analyst and Senior Building Maintenance Specialist positions to increase the staff’s capacity in the Administrative Services and Public Works Departments.
The new Senior Human Resources Analyst is a critical position within the Human Resources Division of the Administrative Services Department to enhance support across all departments, to accomplish the Human Resources priorities to ensure operational efficiency for day-to-day operations and delivery of high-priority projects, including the classification study and upcoming labor negotiations. This position is especially critical considering the upcoming retirement of the Human Resources Manager in December 2024.
The Senior Building Specialist position resides within the Field Services Division of the Public Works Department to help facilitate and coordinate maintenance, repair, and upgrades to the City’s aging facilities to keep our facilities operating safely and efficiently. Adding this position will help reduce an unsustainable workload of current personnel and have a singular person to oversee subcontractors and manage work orders for repairs and maintenance to ensure the work is completed in a timely manner. The City’s building facilities are in need of significant repair due to deferred maintenance over the years.
Chapter 5 Article 4 - Personnel system of the Pacifica Municipal Code, establishes the 4 Packet Pg. 114
Pacifica City Council 2
November 25, 2024
procedures for the City Manager, as Personnel Officer that require the Council’s approval of any revisions to a position classification plan covering all positions in the City service. Any new or revised classification is established upon adoption by the City Council. After the Council’s approval of a new job classification and salary schedule, the City could proceed with the recruitment.
The classifications for these two positions were developed and reviewed by staff and the consulting team that is currently working on the citywide classification study.
The classification titles are consistent with the organizational structure in other departments citywide and will fall under the Unrepresented Management and Confidential Group and the Teamsters Miscellaneous 856 Bargaining Group respectively. The salary ranges adopted in FY2024-25 Budget for each of these classifications is as follows:
Senior Building Maintenance Specialist $6,623 - $10,463 Senior Human Resources Analyst $9,745 - $11,845
With the Council’s adoption of the FY 2024-25 Budget on June 24, 2024, the Council has already approved this recommendation as a matter of position control with the understanding that staff would bring forward a job classification for the Council's adoption at a future meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no additional fiscal impact related to the approval of these Classifications, as addition of these positions has been already included in the Adopted FY 2024-25 Budget. The actual fiscal impact will be dependent on the future employee’s placement within the positions’ salary range.
ORIGINATED BY:
Human Resources
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Sr Human Resources Analyst (DOCX)
Senior Building Maint Specialist v.2 (DOCX)
4 Packet Pg. 115
Pacifica City Council 3
November 25, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING A SENIOR
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST AND SENIOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADDING THEM TO THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN TO BE
RECOGNIZED AS PART OF THE CONFIDENTIAL GROUP AND TEAMSTERS MISCELLANEOUS 856 UNIT
______________________________________________________
WHEREAS, Chapter 5, Article 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code establishes a civil service personnel system and procedures for the administration of personnel matters; and WHEREAS, aid Chapter requires that the City Manager, as Personnel Officer, prepare and recommend to the City Council a position classification plan, class specifications, and revisions thereto; and
WHEREAS, said Chapter requires that personnel rules and policies be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, adding new Senior Human Resources Analyst and Senior Building Maintenance Specialist positions will improve the service level delivery provided by the Administrative Services and Public Works Departments; and the new classifications are consistent with the organizational structure in other departments; and WHEREAS, the FY 2024-25 Adopted budget includes the budget allocation for both positions;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that the new proposed job classifications are hereby approved, and the City Manager or his designee is authorized to include them to the Classification Plan to be recognized as part of the Confidential Group and Teamsters Miscellaneous 856 Unit, respectively. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 25th 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 Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney 4 Packet Pg. 116
City of Pacifica
SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST
DEFINITION
Under direction provides analytical support to the Finance and Administrative Services Department/Human Resources Division in carrying out complex work involving recruitment and selection, performance management, benefits administration, classification and compensation, workers’ compensation and safety, training and development, employee and labor relations and other professional human resources functions.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
Incumbents provide consultation, advice and direct service to City departments and employees regarding sensitive personnel and organizational issues. Job emphasis is on responsibility for analysis of problems, issues, and situations arising from work assignments, and for development, communication, and implementation of recommendations. May be assigned as lead in functional area of expertise or on special projects including responsibility for budgeting.
The Senior Human Resources Analyst is an advanced journey-level classification in the Human Resources Analyst series. They perform the most difficult and complex analysis assignments, act as subject matter experts, manage complex projects, and provide technical supervision. Incumbent provides technical direction and guidance on a day-to-day basis and is responsible for decision making requiring a high degree of technical knowledge and supervision. Their responsibilities include policy development, recruitment, classification, benefits administration, employee training, safety and equal employment opportunity compliance. They also assist in departmental planning activities and provide consulting services to City departments.
SUPERVISION RECEIVED/EXERCISED
Receive direction from the Human Resources Manager. Responsibilities may include supervision of Human Resources staff and interns. Exercises discretion and independent judgment with respect to assigned duties.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS - INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
• Performs a variety of analytical and administrative activities related to human resources functions within their area of assignment.
• Provides advice and assistance to City departments to interpret and apply rules and regulations relating to human resources practices while ensuring compliance with State and Federal laws, Administrative Policies, Memorandum of Understandings and best practices. • Provides consultation to City department heads, on human resources and organizational development problems and issues including staffing and placement, performance management, classification and job restructuring, and offers alternatives for early resolution to issues. • Provides information to employees and supervisors concerning implementation of policies and procedures, and labor regulations.
• Provides direct assistance to employees to answer questions, concerns, or complaints: clarifies and identifies issues, provides information on procedures and entitlements, works with managers, staff and union representatives to resolve issues. • Researches, analyzes, and prepares reports on a broad range of human resources issues, including salary and benefit surveys, human resources practices, statistical data and other projects.
4.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Sr Human Resources Analyst (5803 : New Job Classifications - Senior HR Analyst, Senior Building Maintenance Specialist) • Plans and coordinates all facets of recruitment and selection activities, ensuring fair employment practices are followed.
• Develops, evaluates and validates selection instruments such as written, oral, and performance examinations.
• Conducts compensation and classification studies and provides written reports with recommendations.
• Assists departments with the investigation of allegations of misconduct, including discrimination, and provides information on procedural requirements.
• Provides guidance and/or conducts investigations.
• Prepares and/or reviews disciplinary notices.
• Works with outside counsel to prepare and/or review case files for responding to complaints. • May work with union representatives and employees in dispute settlement discussions on behalf of the Human Resources Manager or Finance and Administrative Services Director. • May prepare background materials for labor negotiations. • May assist with departmental policy development.
QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of
• Principles, methods and practices of human resources management, local government organization, and administration, including recruitment and selection, classification and compensation, and employee/labor relations.
• Organizational and management practices as applied to the analysis and evaluation of programs, policies, and operational needs, in the area of human resources. • Codes, ordinances, resolutions, employment laws, recent developments, current literature and sources of information.
• English, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and vocabulary. • Customer service concepts.
• Principles and practices of collecting and analyzing data and information. • Statistical concepts and methods.
• Record-keeping and report preparation techniques
Skill/Ability to
• Review job classification and desk audits to ensure that employees are working in the appropriate level.
• Develop, analyze, evaluate, and administer written and oral performance examinations and other selection instructions.
• Conduct in service training.
• Serve as the City representative on a variety of committees. • Interpret, apply and explain applicable rules, regulations, laws, policies and procedures. • Provide professional and technical advice and assistance to line departments on human resources issues.
• Communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, and interact well with staff and public. • Handle and prioritize a variety of assignment and meet deadlines. • Perform with a minimum of supervision.
• Interpret, apply and explain applicable rules, regulations, laws, policies and procedures. • Analyze facts, information and data.
• Maintain accurate records and files.
• Maintain confidentiality of sensitive and privileged information.
4.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Sr Human Resources Analyst (5803 : New Job Classifications - Senior HR Analyst, Senior Building Maintenance Specialist) • Work and act as a team player in all interactions with other City employees. • Provide a high level of customer service at all times. • Project and maintain a positive image with those contacted in the course of work. • Develop and maintain collaborative and respectful working relationships with team members and others.
• Consistently provide quality service.
Experience and Training Guidelines
Any combination of experience and training that would likely provide the required knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be:
Experience:
Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university with major work in personnel management, public administration, business, psychology or a related field.
Training:
Three (3) years of experience as a Human Resources Analyst II or comparable position with at least two (2) of these years equivalent to Human Resources Analyst II, preferably with the City of Pacifica or other public agency. Direct supervisory responsibility may substitute for one (1) year of the three years of required experience.
License
Possession and maintenance of a California Class C driver’s license and have a satisfactory driving record.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Physical Skills
Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer and to operate a motor vehicle to visit various city departments and meeting sites; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person and over the telephone or virtual meetings. Standing in and walking between work areas is frequently required. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification frequently bend, stoop, kneel, and reach to perform assigned duties, as well as push and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. Employees must possess the ability to lift, carry, push, and pull materials and objects up to 25 pounds with the use of proper equipment.
Work Environment
Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions, and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees may interact with upset staff and/or public and private representatives in interpreting and enforcing departmental policies and procedures.
FLSA - exempt
4.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Sr Human Resources Analyst (5803 : New Job Classifications - Senior HR Analyst, Senior Building Maintenance Specialist)
CITY OF PACIFICA
SENIOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST
DEFINITION
Under direction to do skilled carpentry, plumbing, mechanical and electrical work involving rough and finished construction, installation, and repair work, lead a group of other workers, order materials, and obtain bids or quotes for Public Works projects.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
This is the lead level class in the building maintenance series.
SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
Receives direction from higher-level staff.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS - INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
• Leads a small crew
• Operates woodworking machinery such as sanders, planers, and power saws in the construction of cabinets, shelves, stairways, and other wooden articles or structures;
• Hangs doors and installs wooden window sashes;
• Lays finished flooring;
• Installs, remodels, repairs and maintains electric, HVAC, wiring and plumbing systems, furniture, roofs, and other general repairs to buildings; • Performs general repairs on buildings;
• installs wall board;
• Prepares walls for plastering and refinishing;
• Maintains and services carpentry equipment and tools; • Conducts safety meetings with team;
• Repairs small motors, heaters, boilers, and broken water lines; may do occasional general public works construction and maintenance work; • Perform related duties and responsibilities as required.
QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of
• Materials and methods used in both rough and finished carpentry and most other areas of the construction field;
▪ Plumbing maintenance installation and finishing
• Supervisory practices
• Automated office applications including MS Word and Excel.
Skill/Ability to
• Lead the work of others
• Prepare rough sketches of work and estimates of materials and labor; • Read blueprints and work according to plans and specifications; • Order materials, obtain bids or quotes for Public Works projects • Carry out oral and written directions;
• Work with and direct the work of others.
• Use and operate mechanical tools;
• Operate a computer to perform work duties, including responding to emails; • Carry out oral and written directions;
4.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Senior Building Maint Specialist v.2 (5803 : New Job Classifications - Senior HR Analyst, Senior Building Maintenance Specialist) Education and Training
Any combination of education and experience that would likely provide the required knowledge, skills and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to qualify is:
Experience: Three years of progressively responsible experience performing public works building maintenance duties including two years of progressively responsible experience leading a team, or completion of a apprenticeship in a building trade.
Training: Graduation from high school and completion of an accredited four-year apprenticeship in the construction field.
LICENSE
Ability to drive and possess a valid California driver’s license. May be required to qualify for and obtain a Class A or Class B driver’s license and be subject to random drug and alcohol testing under the Department of Transportation regulations.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Physical Skills: Able to sit, stand, walk (on uneven surfaces), kneel, crouch, bend, stoop, squat, crawl, twist, and climb; lift and carry 75 pounds; dexterity to drive trucks and large vehicles; distinguish among various colors; distinguish various computer generated auditory signals; use common hand and power tools; vision to read printed materials, a computer screen, and to test equipment in varied field settings; hearing and speech to communicate in person and over the telephone.
Working Environment: Work in a shop and field setting; exposure to inclement weather, cold, heat, noise, outdoors, dust, dirt, vibration, chemicals, traffic, traffic hazards, confining workspace, mechanical hazards, electrical hazards, and explosive hazards.
May work protracted and irregular hours; take 24-hour call and stand-by; available for evening meetings; available for unusual hours in emergencies.
FLSA – Non-exempt
4.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Senior Building Maint Specialist v.2 (5803 : New Job Classifications - Senior HR Analyst, Senior Building Maintenance Specialist)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/25/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Reject all bids for the Playground Equipment Improvement Project (aka FY24-25 Priority Parks Project)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Reject all bids for the Playground Equipment Improvement Project (aka FY24-25 Priority Parks Project).
STAFF CONTACT:
Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Scott Leslie, PB&R Director
(650) 738-7387
[email protected]
David Harvey, Assistant Civil Engineer
(650) 738-3772
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City Council approved the FY 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in June of 2021. The CIP included the Playground Equipment Improvement Project meant to improve outdated citywide parks playground equipment. The City manages and maintains nineteen (19) total parks throughout the City of Pacifica and over the last several years Public Works (PW) and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation (PB&R) staff have been working on assessment of the City parks needs due to aging infrastructure. This included a consultant playground equipment assessment study that was presented and discussed at a Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission study session in September of 2019. Although Public Works staff does address spot repairs and replacements in the City’s parks, addressing these needs in City parks that require all equipment upgraded is beyond the capacity of PW staff. Based on the assessment study and discussions between PW and PB&R staff, a priority list was created. The Community Center and Fairmont West Childcare Center playgrounds were selected for replacement and both projects were completed in spring of 2020. It was also determined that four additional parks required complete replacement of all park equipment. These parks include the following:
• Skyridge Park located on Skyridge Drive
• Imperial Park located on Imperial Drive
• Marvilla Park located at 201 Marvilla Place
• Brighton Mini Park located at 497 Brighton Road
On January 24, 2022, the City Council approved a Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Consultants Services related to the FY21-22 Priority 5 Packet Pg. 122
Pacifica City Council 2
November 25, 2024
Parks Project. NCE worked closely with City staff and created a Community Engagement Plan that included postcards mailed to residents within 500’ of each park, pop-up events at each park, on-line surveys, and social media postings. NCE presented the options for each park to City staff for their initial comments and suggestions. Based on the input received from City staff, NCE prepared a preferred alternative plan for each park. The preferred alternatives were presented to the PB&R Commission, and residents notified of the proposed park renovations.
The landscape architect produced 100% construction documents, which included the construction plans, technical specification, and cost estimates. City staff reviewed the construction documents for value-engineering revisions intended to keep costs down and within the project budget. The final plans were reviewed by the PB&R Commission at the August 28, 2024 Meeting.
The Project was advertised for construction bids on October 23, 2024. On November 12, 2024, the bid opening was held via video conference by the City Clerk and the results are as follows:
Company Total Bid
1.) Azul Works Inc $2,844,000.00
2.) DRYCO Construction, Inc. $3,090,098.00
3.) Galeb Paving Inc. $3,278,300.00
The apparent low bidder is Azul Works Inc. with a bid amount of $2,844,000.00. All required documentation was submitted with their bid. The original engineer’s estimate at bid time was $1,384,503.00, meaning the low bid came in $1,459,497.00 or 105% higher than expected.
The high bid amounts received may be related to the project specification requirement to phase construction such that two of the parks remain open at any given time, the expedited schedule to complete the project before summer 2025, and bidding the project as lump sum instead of breaking out individual bid items.
Based on these bid results, staff is recommending that the Council reject all bids. Staff plans to amend the bid documents, re-evaluate the current scope of work, and determine if bidding one of the locations as an alternate is necessary. Staff proposes to re-advertise the project with these revisions in the coming months for a more favorable bid.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may direct staff to award the project to the low bidder, Azul Works Inc., for $2,844,000 with a 10% contingency for a total potential construction cost of $3,130,000. This would require a corresponding fiscal action to increase the project budget by $1,000,000. Staff does not recommend this alternative because of the high bids.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the recommended actions is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Improve and steward of City Infrastructure, streets, and facilities: This construction project will renovate four parks in the City. 5 Packet Pg. 123
Pacifica City Council 3
November 25, 2024
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact is associated with rejecting all bids. The scope of the project will be evaluated and/or additional funding may be required at a future date.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
5 Packet Pg. 124
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/25/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Recology of the Coast’s application for rate increase for 2025 and Consideration of Proposed Third Amendment to Agreement with Recology for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste Collection Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to Adopt a Resolution that:
1. Confirms the Recology of the Coast’s (“Recology”) 2025 Rate Application for a rate increase of 5.09% is accurate and consistent with the annual rate adjustment procedures specified in the agreement with Recology for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste Collection Services (“Agreement”);
2. Approves a Third Amendment to the Agreement with Recology of the Coast to revise section 5.5.02.D.5 of the Agreement to provide grit and screenings disposal services for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and to revise Section 6.01.A, “Designated Disposal Facilities” and Attachment A of the Agreement to revise the location of the organic material disposal facility and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment; and
3. Finding the confirmation of the rate increase and the approval of the Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308.
STAFF CONTACT:
John Mullins, Interim Director of Public Works
(650) 501-6523
[email protected]
Louis Sun, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected] <<<mailto:[email protected]>>>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In February 2010, the City of Pacifica entered into a franchise agreement with Recology of the Coast (“Recology”) for recyclable materials, organic materials, and solid waste collection services (“Agreement”).
The City and Recology executed a First Amendment to the Agreement on March 11, 2013.
On October 24, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 67-2016, extending the term of the Agreement for an additional five years until December 31, 2022.
The Agreement generally grants Recology the exclusive right and franchise to collect waste materials in Pacifica. This includes solid waste, targeted recyclable material and organic materials on residential, commercial and City premises as well as construction and demolition debris.
On October 10, 2022, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Agreement, which among other things, extended the term an additional 10 years, with an option to extend an additional five years. The Second Amendment also revised the Annual Rate Application Process identified in the Agreement to clarify that Recology 6 Packet Pg. 125
Pacifica City Council 2
November 25, 2024
ultimately sets the rate charged to the ratepayers. For future rate adjustments, the City’s role would be to undertake an administrative review of the application for a rate increase to confirm accuracy and consistency with the Rate Adjustment procedures specified in the Agreement Given that the City does not set, establish, or impose the rates charged to the ratepayers, the City is not obligated to follow the procedures for establishing or increasing a proposed assessment under Proposition 218 (Article XIII D of the California Constitution).
Recology 2025 Rate Application
The City received Recology's application for an annual rate increase on August 28, 2024. In the fall of 2024, the City engaged HF&H Consultants to conduct a financial review of the proposed 2025 rate increase in accordance with Section 11.03(B) of the Agreement.
HF&H worked closely with Recology to verify the index-based cost increases applicable for 2025. The findings were documented in a report dated November 8, 2024 (Attachment #1).
HF&H confirmed that a 5.09% rate increase is applicable for Recology’s services to the City of Pacifica in 2025. This increase is below the maximum allowable rate adjustment of 6%, as outlined in the Agreement, and aligns with the Agreement's rate adjustment procedures.
The primary driver of the increase is a compliance issue at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill in Half Moon Bay, which no longer meets SB 1383 requirements. As a result, Recology now disposes of residential organic materials at South Valley Organics and commercial organic materials at South Bay Waste Management Authority. This operational change has introduced additional handling and trucking costs, as well as higher processing fees per ton which is shown as Organic Processing on the Rate Adjustment Components table below. These factors contribute 3.09% to the total 5.09% rate adjustment.
The table below summarizes the components of the recommended 5.09% rate adjustment:
Rate Adjustment Components
Operating Expenses:
Labor Costs 1.49%
Vehicle-Related Costs 0.22%
Fuel -1.92%
Organics Processing 3.09%
Lease Costs 0.00%
Other Costs 0.37%
Total Operating Expenses 3.24% a
Profit 0.36% b
Pass-through Costs: City
Fees
0.19%
Recyclable Processing 0.41%
Disposal 0.89%
Total Pass-through Costs 1.49% c
Total Rate Adjustment 5.09% =a+b+c
Based on the findings of HF&H’s financial review, the City Manager recommends that the City Council approve a resolution confirming Recology of the Coast’s proposed 5.09% annual rate increase for 2025. The proposed increase does not exceed the allowable maximum rate of 6% and has been verified for accuracy and consistency with the Rate Adjustment procedures specified in the Franchise Agreement.
Proposed Third Amendment to Franchise Agreement
Due to limited staffing and the high costs associated with vehicle maintenance for grit and screenings disposal, the City requested a proposal from Recology of the Coast to resume providing these services, as they had done prior to 2020. The proposed Third Amendment to 6 Packet Pg. 126
Pacifica City Council 3
November 25, 2024
the Agreement would revise section 5.02.D.5 of the Agreement to provide that Recology will collect grit and screenings from the City’s sewage treatment plant and pump stations. The materials will be disposed of at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill on at least a weekly basis.
Recology will charge the City an initial per-haul rate of $353.00, in addition to the actual disposal costs incurred. Starting January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, the per-haul rate will be adjusted using the index-based adjustment methodology outlined in the Franchise Agreement.
This change will not include grit and screening disposal cost in the Recology Rates. The disposal of grit and screenings will be funded through the sewer fees.
The proposed Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Recology is necessary to revise section 6.01.A of the Agreement to reflect the change to the Designated Disposal Facility for organic materials per SB 1383 from Ox Mountain to South Valley Organics. The Ox Mountain facility does not comply with SB 1383 and thus the City needs to have the organic materials disposed of in a manner that does comply with SB 1383 disposal standards. The approval of the proposed Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement to revise Section 6.01 (Designated Disposal Facilities) ensures compliance with SB 1383 regulations and supports the City’s ongoing waste management operations while maintaining financial transparency and accountability.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council may choose not to adopt the resolution confirming the Recology rate increase, however, this would not be in accordance with the Agreement the City signed with Recology of the Coast and is not recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Recology of the Coast rates would increase by 5.09% starting in 2025.
Recology will charge the City an initial per-haul rate of $353.00, in addition to the actual disposal costs incurred. Starting January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, the per-haul rate will be adjusted using the index-based adjustment methodology outlined in the Franchise Agreement.
This change will not include grit and screening disposal cost in the Recology Rates. The disposal of grit and screenings will be funded through the sewer fees.
CEQA:
The confirmation of the rate increase, the approval of the Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement and the change in the hauler of the grit and screening would be exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that approval would cause no significant effect on the environment as it primarily an administrative item.
Additionally, the amendments to the Franchise Agreement undertaken to ensure compliance with SB 1383 and the City’s regulations relating to SB 1383 and the management of organic waste are exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15308 (Class 8- Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) because it is authorized by local ordinance to assure the protection of the environment.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works - Wastewater Division
Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:
6 Packet Pg. 127
Pacifica City Council 4
November 25, 2024
Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (PDF) Attachment 2 - Recology 2025 Pacifica Rate Application (PDF) Attachment 3- Recology Contract_Third Amendment to Franchise Agreement 11-20-24 (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 128
Pacifica City Council 5
November 25, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA CONFIRMING RECOLOGY OF THE COAST’S (RECOLOGY) 2025 RATE APPLICATION FOR A RATE INCREASE OF 5.09% IS ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES SPECIFIED IN THE RECOLOGY AGREEMENT; APPROVING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT TO REVISE SECTION 5.02.D.5
TO PROVIDE GRIT AND SCREENING DISPOSAL SERVICES FOR THE CALERA CREEK WATER RECYCLING PLANT AND TO REVISE SECTION 6.01.A, “DESIGNATED DISPOSAL FACILITIES” AND ATTACHMENT A OF THE AGREEMENT TO REVISE THE LOCATION OF
THE ORGANIC MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT; AND FINDING THE ACTIONS EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15061(B)(3) AND 15308 WHEREAS, in February 2010, the City of Pacifica entered into a franchise agreement with Recology of the Coast (“Recology”) for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste Collection Services (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the City and Recology executed a First Amendment to the Franchise Agreement on March 11, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 67-2016, extending the term of the Agreement for an additional five years until December 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Agreement generally grants Recology the exclusive right and franchise to collect waste materials in Pacifica. This includes solid waste, targeted recyclable material and organic materials on residential, commercial and City premises as well as construction and demolition; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving a Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement, which among other things, extended the term an additional 10 years, with an option to extend an additional five years; and WHEREAS, the Second Amendment also revised the Annual Rate Application Process identified in the Agreement to clarify that Recology ultimately sets the rate charged to the ratepayers and that for future rate adjustments, the City’s role would be to undertake an administrative review of the application for a rate increase to confirm accuracy and consistency with the rate adjustment procedures specified in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City received Recology's application for an annual rate increase on August 28, 2024. In the fall of 2024, the City engaged HF&H Consultants to conduct a financial review of the proposed 2025 rate increase in accordance with Section 11.03(B) of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, HF&H have confirmed the accuracy and consistency of the requested Recology rate adjustment procedures specified in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, approving a Third Amendment to the Agreement to allow the change in disposal sites for organic materials to be compliance with SB1383; and 6 Packet Pg. 129
Pacifica City Council 6
November 25, 2024
WHEREAS, approving the Third Amendment to the Agreement to return to the past practice of having Recology of the Coast provide grit and screenings disposal services for Calera Creek water recycling plant would ensure reliable disposal of grit and screenings.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby resolve as follows:
1. The confirmation of the rate increase and the approval of the Third Amendment to the Agreement would be exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that approval would cause no significant effect on the environment as it is primarily an administrative item. Additionally, the amendments to the Franchise Agreement undertaken to ensure compliance with SB 1383 and the City’s regulations relating to SB 1383 and the management of organic waste are exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15308 (Class 8- Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) because it is authorized by local ordinance to assure the protection of the environment.
2. Recology of the Coast’s application for rate increase of 5.09% is accurate and consistent with the annual rate adjustment procedures specified in the Agreement and does not exceed the allowable maximum rate of 6%.
3. Approve a Third Amendment to the Agreement, attached hereto, to revise section 6.01, “Designated Disposal Facilities” and Attachment A of the Agreement and to revise section 5.02.D.5 of the Agreement to provide grit and screening disposal services for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 25
th 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 6 Packet Pg. 130
6.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment 1- HFH Review of Recology 2025 Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of
6.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Recology 2025 Pacifica Rate Application (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution Confirming Accuracy of Recology
THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH RECOLOGY OF THE COAST This THIRD AMENDMENT to the Franchise Agreement (“Third Amendment”) hereinafter referenced is entered into and effective as of November 25, 2024 between the City of Pacifica, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and Recology of the Coast, a California corporation (“Contractor”). City and Contractor may be referred to individually or collectively referred to as “parties.”
WHEREAS, in February, 2010, the City and Contractor entered into a Franchise Agreement Between the City of Pacifica and Recology of the Coast for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials and Solid Waste Collection Services (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2013, the City and Contractor entered into a First Amended Franchise Agreement for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste Collection Services; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2016 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 69- 2022, extending the term of the Agreement for an additional five years until December 31, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022 the City and Contractor entered into a Second Amendment to Franchise Agreement, extending the term of the Agreement for an additional ten years until December 31, 2032 and making certain other mutually agreed upon changes; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as set forth herein to make certain revisions to the services provided by Contractor.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Third Amendment and for other good and valuable consideration, City and Contractor agree as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated as terms into this Third Amendment.
2. Section 5.02.D.5 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“5. Grit and Screenings. Contractor shall Collect grit and screenings from the City’s sewage treatment plant and pump stations and Dispose of the materials on a not less than weekly basis at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. Contractor shall provide, at its own cost, two grit boxes suitable for the collection and hauling of the grit and screenings.
Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, Contractor shall charge and City shall pay Contractor an initial rate per haul of $353.00 plus the actual disposal costs incurred by Contractor for the disposal of the grit and screenings. Effective January 1, 2025 and each January 1 thereafter during the term of the Agreement, the per haul rate shall be
6.c
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment 3- Recology Contract_Third Amendment to Franchise Agreement 11-20-24 (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution adjusted using the index-based adjustment methodology set forth in Section 3 of Attachment K. At the end of the Term of the Agreement, Contractor shall transfer ownership of the grit boxes to City at no additional cost to City. In the event Contractor is no longer able to deliver grit to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill (due to changes in acceptance standards or other reasons), the parties agree to adjust the per haul rate over and above the index-based adjustment amount in an amount sufficient to compensate Contractor for any increased transportation costs or tip fees associated with the change in disposal facility.”
3. Section 6.01.A of the Agreement shall be amended to add the following paragraph at the end of subsection A:
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Designated Disposal Facility for residential organic materials shall be South Valley Organics and commercial organic materials shall be South Bay Waste Management Authority.”
4. The definition of “Designated Disposal Facility” in Attachment A of the Agreement shall be deleted and replaced with the following:
““Designated Disposal Facility” means (i) the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill located at 12310 San Mateo Road, Half Moon Bay California, which is owned and operated by Republic Waste Services, or (ii) any other permitted landfill selected by Contractor pursuant to Section 6.01, or (iii) for Residential organic materials the Designated Disposal Facility shall be South Valley Organics and for commercial organic materials the Designated Disposal Facility shall be South Bay Waste Management Authority.”
5. Except as expressly modified by this Third Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement. All references in this Third Amendment to Articles, Sections and Exhibits refer to articles, sections and exhibits of the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized representatives of the parties have executed this Third Amendment to Franchise Agreement as of the date first written above.
City of Pacifica
By:
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Recology of the Coast
By:
Salvatore M. Coniglio
Chief Executive Officer
ATTEST:
6.c
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment 3- Recology Contract_Third Amendment to Franchise Agreement 11-20-24 (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution ________________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
_______________________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
6.c
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment 3- Recology Contract_Third Amendment to Franchise Agreement 11-20-24 (5778 : Resolution - Adopt Resolution
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
11/25/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approving a Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse as City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to adopt Resolution approving the Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse.
STAFF CONTACT:
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City and City Manager, Kevin Woodhouse, entered into an Employment Agreement in September 2017. The City and City Manager Woodhouse then entered into a Restated Employment Agreement on December 13, 2021 providing for the terms and conditions of employment of Kevin Woodhouse. The Council and City Manager then entered into a First Amendment to the Restated Employment Agreement on November 28, 2022 and Second Amendment to the Restated Employment Agreement on November 27, 2023. In November of this year, the Council held an annual performance review which was facilitated by Dan Keen of Daniel Keen Consulting. Following the completion of the performance review, the City Council authorized Mayor Vaterlaus and Mayor Pro Tem Beckmeyer to work with the City Manager and City Attorney to negotiate amendments to the City Manager’s compensation and benefits in the form of a Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement. (“Third Amendment”).
The Third Amendment provides for the following modifications to salary and benefits for the City Manager: 1) effective the first pay period after October 9, 2024, a 3% increase in salary which equates to an annual base salary of $314,087.00 and 2) a modification to the City Manager’s employment health benefits to reflect the same health benefits provided to other Department Heads in the City.
This proposed salary increase is consistent with the compensation increase structure applied to other bargaining units in the City for Fiscal Year 2024-25 -- a Cost of Living increase of 2% plus an Equity Tier adjustment of 1% which is merited due to the fact that the City Manager is still at least 9% below median of comparator City Managers in the region. The modification to the City Manager’s health benefits reflects the same health benefits provided to other employees.
In making a compensation recommendation, the subcommittee sought to balance labor market competitiveness considerations, Pacifica’s financial challenges, and consideration of the organization’s stability and productivity under Kevin’s leadership. In light of these considerations, it is recommended that the Council approve the attached Resolution which approves the Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of 7 Packet Pg. 150
Pacifica City Council 2
November 25, 2024
Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“A Strong Workforce Infrastructure” includes strategies to address employee retention and attraction challenges, engaging staff in decision-making, and recognizing staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this Third Amendment to the Restated Employment Agreement will result in a total fiscal impact of $9,148 per year, with approximately $6,404 of that total expended during FY2024-25. This amount can be covered by the current FY2023-24 City Manager’s Office budget.
ORIGINATED BY:
Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee
Mayor Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer
ORIGINATED BY:
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse (PDF)
7 Packet Pg. 151
Pacifica City Council 3
November 25, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING THE
THIRD AMENDMENT TO RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF
PACIFICA AND KEVIN WOODHOUSE
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica (“City”) and Kevin Woodhouse have previously entered into an Employment Agreement to employ Kevin Woodhouse as City Manager; WHEREAS, the City and Kevin Woodhouse have previously entered into a Restated Employment Agreement effective December 13, 2021;
WHEREAS, the City and Kevin Woodhouse have previously entered into a First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement effective November 28, 2022; WHEREAS, the City and Kevin Woodhouse have previously entered into a Second Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement effective November 27, 2023; WHEREAS, the City and Kevin Woodhouse now desire to enter into a Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement to modify the terms and conditions of Manager’s employment as City Manager;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves the Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse in substantially the same form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute same for and on behalf of the City of Pacifica.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 25
th 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 7 Packet Pg. 152
Pacifica City Council 4
November 25, 2024
EXHIBIT “A”
Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement
Between City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse
7 Packet Pg. 153
4885-4672-1527 v2 1
THIRD AMENDMENT TO
RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
between
CITY OF PACIFICA AND KEVIN WOODHOUSE
1. PARTIES AND EFFECTIVE DATE
The parties to this Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement (“Second Amendment”) are the City of Pacifica (“City”) and Kevin S. Woodhouse (“Manager”). The effective date of this Third Amendment shall be November 25, 2024.
2. PURPOSE
The parties have previously entered into a Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse effective as of December 13, 2021, a First Amendment To Restated Employment Agreement on November 28, 2022, and a Second Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement on November 27, 2023 (collectively referred to as “Employment Agreement”) . The City and Manager hereby desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below.
3. AMENDMENT
A. Section 6.a. is hereby modified to read in its entirety as follows:
6. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS.
a. Salary. Effective the first pay period following October 9, 2024, City Manager shall be entitled to a three percent (3%) increase in salary and City agrees to pay Manager for his services rendered pursuant hereto as City Manager the sum of $314,087.00 annually payable in installments at the same time as other employees of the City are paid.
B. Section 6.d.iii. is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
d. Holidays and Other Employee Benefits. Manager shall
receive the following additional benefits:
iii. Health Insurance: City contracts with CalPERS for the provision of health care services which include both Preferred
7.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment A - Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse (5802 :
4885-4672-1527 v2 2
Provider Organization Plans and Health Maintenance
Organization Plans and Manager may choose from any
CalPERS provided plans for provision of health care services.
City’s contribution to Manager’s health insurance plan shall be as set forth in the rate schedule attached hereto and
hereinafter incorporated by reference as Exhibit “A.”
4. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT
Except as specifically modified herein, all remaining terms and obligations set forth in the Employment Agreement between the City and Manager shall remain in full force and effect.
CITY OF PACIFICA
By:
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
Dated:
MANAGER:
By:
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
7.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment A - Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse (5802 :
4885
-4672-1527 v23
EXHIBIT “A”
Health Insurance Plan Rate Schedule
7.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment A - Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse (5802 :
2025 – Benefit Rates
The following document includes details regarding plan rates for health related benefits (medical, dental, and vision) CalPERS Medical Plans – HMO
Plan and Coverage Level Region 1 Monthly
Premium
City Monthly
Contribution
Monthly Expense
to Employee
Anthem HMO Traditional
Employee Only $1,500.40 $1,026.03 $474.37
Employee + 1 Dependent $3,000.80 $1,988.42 $1,012.38
Employee + Family $3,901.04 $2,584.97 $1,316.07
Blue Shield Access+
Employee Only $1,170.17 $1,026.03 $144.14
Employee + 1 Dependent $2,340.34 $1,988.42 $351.92
Employee + Family $3,042.44 $2,584.97 $457.47
UnitedHealthcare
SignatureValue Alliance
Employee Only $1,184.58 $1,026.03 $158.55
Employee + 1 Dependent $2,369.16 $1,988.42 $380.74
Employee + Family $3,079.91 $2,584.97 $494.94
Kaiser Permanente
Employee Only $1,112.90 $1,026.03 $86.87
Employee + 1 Dependent $2,225.80 $1,988.42 $237.38
Employee + Family $2,893.54 $2,584.97 $308.57
7.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment A - Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse (5802 :
2025 – Benefit Rates
CalPERS Medical Plans – PPO
Plan and Coverage Level Region 1 Monthly
Premium
City Monthly
Contribution
Monthly Expense
to Employee
PERS Platinum
Employee Only $1,476.10 $1,026.03 $450.07
Employee + 1 Dependent $2,952.20 $1,988.42 $963.78
Employee + Family $3,837.86 $2,584.97 $1,252.89
PERS Gold
Employee Only $1,013.70 $1,026.03 $0
Employee + 1 Dependent $2,027.40 $1,988.42 $38.98
Employee + Family $2,635.62 $2,584.97 $50.65
PORAC – PPO (Open to
PORAC members only)
Employee Only $975.00 $975.00 $0
Employee + 1 Dependent $2,218.00 $1,988.42 $229.58
Employee + Family $2,777.00 $2,584.97 $192.03
7.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment A - Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse (5802 :
2025 – Benefit Rates
Delta Dental Plan
Class/Unit City Contribution Employee Cost
Class 1: Police Officers, WWTP, & City Council $119.00 $0 Class 2: Battalion Chiefs $119.00 $0
Class 2: Firefighters $119.00 $0
Class 3: PPSA, PPMA $119.00 $0
Class 4: Directors, Managers, & Confidential / Unrep $119.00 $0 Class 5: Misc. 856 $119.00 $0
VSP Vision Plan
Vision Coverage Level City Contribution Employee Cost
Unrep, Mgmt 350, Battalion Chiefs, Misc 856, Police, PPMA, PPSA, & WWTP Employee Only $17.32 $0
Employee + 1 Dependent $25.11 $0
Employee + Family $45.02 $0
Firefighters
Employee Only Cafeteria Plan $17.32
Employee + 1 Dependent Cafeteria Plan $25.11
Employee + Family Cafeteria Plan $45.02
7.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment A - Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse (5802 :
2025 – Benefit Rates
Firefighters Cafeteria Plan
The City will place $1,200.00 per month in a cafeteria plan for health insurance coverage for employees, or employees with dependents. Any unused health insurance portion of the cafeteria plan contribution will be returned to the cafeteria plan for other health related expenses. This plan is pending contract ratification and may change.
Teamsters Plan (Local 856)
Plan and Coverage
Level
Teamsters
Monthly Premium
City Monthly
Contribution –
Medical
City Monthly
Contribution –
Dental & Vision
Monthly
Expense to
Employee
Employee Only $1,501.00 $1,056.21 $163.00 $281.79
Employee + 1
Dependent $2,342.00 $2,054.17 $163.00 $124.83
Employee + Family $3,039.00 $2,672.98 $163.00 $203.02
*The City has made every attempt to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information provided in this document. However, the information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. The City does not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this document. Questions or concerns regarding this document should be directed to [email protected].
7.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment A - Third Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Kevin Woodhouse (5802 :