CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Christine Boles
Vice Mayor Greg Wright
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
City Council Regular Meeting 1 January 12, 2026
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
January 12, 2026 (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 January 12, 2026
4:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 and paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9: Two Cases. 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Boles
Closed Session Report
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Special Presentation - HIP Housing Annual Calendar
CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.
Public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on consent agenda items must relate to that specific item.
If comments do not relate to a specific agenda item, then City will provide you with an initial warning to stay on topic. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.
Items on the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion unless a Councilmember requests, before the vote on the motion, to have an item discussed. Time limit on comments is three minutes or less.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 January 12, 2026
1. Approval of Disbursements for 12/01/25 through 12/31/25 PROPOSED ACTION: Approval of Disbursements for 12/01/25 through 12/31/25
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the November 10, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of a Local Emergency at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood.
5. Offshore Drilling Letter of Opposition
PROPOSED ACTION: Direct the Mayor to send a letter (Attachment A) opposing the proposed 11th National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
6. 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving 2024-2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025.”
7. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to approve (1) rezoning RZ-194-16 to rezone the northern portion of the project site to be developed from M-1 to C-2 and those portions of the project site to remain undeveloped to Open Space, and (2) zoning text amendment TA-116-19, to amend section 9-4.1101(b) of the Pacifica Municipal Code to add residential uses in horizontal mixed use developments as conditionally permitted uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district; and Adoption of a an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to approve Development Agreement DA-4-21 to approve and authorize a development agreement between Crespi Breakwater, LLC and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with a development project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022- 162-310) and the eastern 55 feet of the City owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420). (File No.: 2016-004, RZ-194-16, TA-116-19, DA-4-21) PROPOSED ACTION:
(1) Waive second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving (1) Rezoning RZ-194-16 to Rezone the Northern Portion of the Project Site to be Developed from M-1 to C-2 and those Portions of the Project Site to Remain Undeveloped to Open Space, and (2) Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, to Amend Section 9-4.1101(B) of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Add Residential Uses in Horizontal Mixed Use Developments as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) Zoning District”; and City Council Regular Meeting 4 January 12, 2026
(2) Waive second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Development Agreement DA-4-21 to approve and authorize a development agreement between Crespi Breakwater LLC and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with a development project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and eastern 55 feet of the City owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).”
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.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
8. Accept Update Report on Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Update Report on Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project.
9. 2026 City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments
PROPOSED ACTION: Review the list of City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments, make any modifications for the calendar year 2026, and approve the final list.
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.
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 City Council Regular Meeting 5 January 12, 2026
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
• San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, District 3, 500 County Center, Redwood City CA 94063 (650) 363-4569
• 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 • Congressman Sam Liccardo, 1117 Longworth House Office Building, Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-8104
• Senator Alex Padilla, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 • Senator Adam Schiff, SD-B40B Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3841 • President Donald J. Trump, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500
CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Christine Boles, [email protected]
• Vice Mayor Greg Wright, [email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mayra Espinosa, [email protected]
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/12/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Approval of Disbursements for 12/01/25 through 12/31/25 RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of December 2025.
STAFF CONTACT:
Lucy Xie, Deputy Finance Director
(650) 501-6014
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Staff has submitted the following Monthly Check Register Report per California Government Code, Title 4, Division 3, Part 3, Chapter 3, Section 41004:
Disbursements dated 12/01/25 through 12/31/25 are in the amount of $3,132,646.96 (Attachment 1).
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of Monthly Check Register Report is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Enhance organizational and fiscal stability: Preparation of the Monthly Check Register Report supports sound financial oversight, transparency, and adherence to adopted fiscal controls.
• Broaden public communications and collaboration: Filing of the Monthly Check Register Report promotes transparency and accountability in City financial operations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with acceptance of the Monthly Check Register Report.
ORIGINATED BY:
Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Monthly Check Register Report Dec 2025 (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 6
City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 01/06/2026 11:16
User: 5234adecano
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: All
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 5942 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000039 AVINA, ANGEL 200.00
5943 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000055 AD BRAKES 67.81
5944 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000056 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 7,128.90 5945 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000058 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES 174,060.10 5946 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001102 ALBERTSONS / SAFEWAY 409.15 5947 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000074 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 63.24 5948 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000074 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1,035.38 5949 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000078 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVI 97.99 5950 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001490 ANEL MEYER 2,604.00
5951 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000096 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 30.67 5952 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000096 AT&T 34.75
5953 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000103 AUTO GLASS NOW 328.53
5954 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000108 VWR INTERNATIONAL 2,454.95 5955 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000130 BEARING AGENCIES INC 555.43 5956 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001325 BLOCKA CONSTRUCTION 324,900.00 5957 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000151 BOLANDER & SONS, L. PH. 2,183.09 5958 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001411 CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS 11,500.00 5959 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000182 CALPICO INC. 500.15
5960 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000190 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER 1,140.00 5961 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 2,955.96 5962 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS 529.22
5963 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000011 CITY OF DALY CITY 8,225.37 5964 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000011 CITY OF DALY CITY 457.59 5965 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001312 CIVITAS ADVISORS 6,206.12 5966 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000224 COMCAST 1.67
5967 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000224 COMCAST 311.82
5968 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000224 COMCAST 98.15
5969 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000224 COMCAST 181.26
5970 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000224 COMCAST 201.56
5971 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000224 COMCAST 82.96
5972 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000224 COMCAST 167.06
5973 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001013 CONSENSUS CLOUD SOLUTIONS 33.99 5974 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000248 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 278,915.14 5975 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000248 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 8,823.75 5976 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000262 DALY CITY TOOL MART 161.52 5977 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000276 DEVIL MOUNTAIN WHOLESALE 260.95 5978 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000280 DISCOUNT PLUMBING, INC. 23,600.00 5979 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000322 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RES 27,000.00 5980 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000332 EXPERIAN 100.00
5981 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000335 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSIN 101.00 5982 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000346 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 1,388.82 5983 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000347 GOVERNANCE SCIENCES GROUP 6,900.00 5984 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000350 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 5,002.94 5985 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001078 GOOD CITY COMPANY 20,856.25 5986 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001129 GOVERNMENT FINANCE SERVIC 1,495.00 5987 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000377 GRAINGER 77.33
5988 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001180 GREG WRIGHT 538.41
5989 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000390 HACH COMPANY 1,258.00
5990 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000952 HARDY DIAGNOSTICS 500.82 5991 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000397 HDL COREN & CONE - PROP T 4,356.08 5992 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000399 HERC RENTALS INC. 1,044.03 5993 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000947 K.F. HOWELL ELECTRIC, INC 1,320.00
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report Dec 2025 [Revision 1] (6118 : Disbursements) City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 01/06/2026 11:16
User: 5234adecano
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: All
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 5994 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000427 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTRO 358.97 5995 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000430 IPS GROUP INC. 2,316.99
5996 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000431 IRVINE & JACHENS INC. 353.70 5997 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000442 JMI SOURCING LLC 9,953.13 5998 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000446 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 572.15 5999 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000446 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 383.38 6000 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000979 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 63,021.03 6001 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000462 KIMBALL MIDWEST 3,534.52 6002 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000468 KONE, INC. 60,116.89
6003 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000474 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERI 7,423.53 6004 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000484 LEHR AUTO ELECTRIC, INC. 101.20 6005 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000496 LUHDORFF AND SCALMANINI C 1,612.00 6006 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000497 LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES 256.50 6007 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000519 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COM 9,863.98 6008 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000519 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COM 117.59 6009 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000532 MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. 6,327.25 6010 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000551 MUSCIO SECURITY 516.48
6011 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000576 NICK BARBIERI TRUCKING LL 1,879.49 6012 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000582 NPFBA 388.00
6013 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000592 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 1,129.12 6014 12/05/2025 PRINTED 999998 Haroldsen, Peter 45.00
6015 12/05/2025 PRINTED 999998 Shuler, Christopher 23.00 6016 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001165 ORIGINAL WATERMEN, INC 1,785.27 6017 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001198 OSCAR RANGEL-CRUZ 500.00 6018 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001167 PACIFIC BEACH COALITION 750.00 6019 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000600 PACIFIC FIRE SAFE 416.77 6020 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000603 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, I 62.42 6021 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000612 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS-LTD 390.00 6022 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000612 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNI 708.13 6023 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000612 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Loc 1,543.50 6024 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000612 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF L24 84.00 6025 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000644 PETERSON 1,081.43
6026 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000617 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS 220.00 6027 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000616 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS 880.00 6028 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000620 PACIFICA POLICE SUPERVISO 420.00 6029 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000663 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC. 201.60 6030 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000679 QUILL CORPORATION 632.47 6031 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000680 R & H WHOLESALE SUPPLY, I 784.29 6032 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000683 RANEY PLANNING AND MANAGE 1,264.98 6033 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000982 S.R. ROSE ENGINEERING, IN 419.84 6034 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001024 SCHAAF & WHEELER 6,210.00 6035 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000730 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. 90.63 6036 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000742 SIGILLO SUPPLY, INC. 418.23 6037 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001489 SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY MAN 500.00 6038 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000025 SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO 148.07 6039 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000993 SOUTHWEST STRATEGIES LLC 2,706.25 6040 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000029 SWRCB 32,102.00
6041 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001137 STEVEN MANSKER 498.98
6042 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000769 STEWART CHEVROLET 1,327.78 6043 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000805 T-MOBILE CORPORATION 16.00 6044 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000782 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 3,299.00 6045 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000782 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 2,837.00
1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report Dec 2025 [Revision 1] (6118 : Disbursements) City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 01/06/2026 11:16
User: 5234adecano
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: All
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 6046 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000788 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS 15,666.50 6047 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000791 TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTE 903.66 6048 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001142 THE CONSULTING TEAM, LLC 5,067.20 6049 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000802 THOMSON REUTERS WEST 476.28 6050 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001482 TOAST CATERING AND EVENTS 2,009.84 6051 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001185 COLMA FIREMEN'S SOCIAL CL 360.00 6052 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000829 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVIC 567.31 6053 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000830 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPE 2,197.95 6054 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000855 VERIZON WIRELESS 322.64
6055 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000855 VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES 1,227.53 6056 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000855 VERIZON WIRELESS 2,597.90 6057 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000862 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA 4,384.60 6058 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000862 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA 4,419.24 6059 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000862 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA 67.54 6060 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000862 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA 67.54 6061 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000862 VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA 67.54 6062 12/05/2025 PRINTED 000863 CALTEST ANALYTICAL LAB 106.00 6063 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001485 WESTLAND CONTRACTORS INC 83,160.00 6064 12/05/2025 PRINTED 001033 YULIA CARTER 895.22
6065 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000915 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA G 9,014.60 6066 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000056 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 2,279.35 6067 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000074 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 1,034.95 6068 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000078 AMERICAN DEBRIS BOX SERVI 445.99 6069 12/12/2025 PRINTED 001104 ANVIL BUILDERS 416,092.78 6070 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000096 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 166.65 6071 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000096 AT&T 66.63
6072 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000096 AT&T 31.88
6073 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000110 BAAQMD 6,411.00
6074 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000130 BEARING AGENCIES INC 853.60 6075 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000160 BROADMOOR LANDSCAPE SUPPL 530.82 6076 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000178 NAF SERVICES, INC. 175.80 6077 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000213 CLEA 960.00
6078 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000213 CALIFORNIA ASSN OF PROFES 59.00 6079 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000187 CAROLLO 11,303.75
6080 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000201 CHILDCARE CAREERS 1,568.00 6081 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 1,990.87 6082 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS 227.55
6083 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000931 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEME 891.26 6084 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000240 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIAT 368.75 6085 12/12/2025 PRINTED 001319 CRITICAL REACH 605.00
6086 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000253 C.W.E.A. 502.00
6087 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000259 DAHL-BECK ELECTRIC CO., I 722.54 6088 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000287 DOOLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. 2,053.05 6089 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000293 DUBOCE JANITORIAL SERVICE 1,400.00 6090 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000315 KNIGHT SACRAMENTO CD INC 106,830.30 6091 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000321 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, IN 876.25 6092 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000350 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 5,593.58 6093 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000013 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 100.00 6094 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000013 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 100.00 6095 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000013 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 141.75 6096 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000013 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 200.00 6097 12/12/2025 PRINTED 001343 HAYDEN FRY 207.99
1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report Dec 2025 [Revision 1] (6118 : Disbursements) City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 01/06/2026 11:16
User: 5234adecano
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: All
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 6098 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000411 HEART OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 9,974.91 6099 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000947 K.F. HOWELL ELECTRIC, INC 39,069.60 6100 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000455 KASEYA US LLC 195.70
6101 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000490 LIFFEY ELECTRIC, INC. 39,163.88 6102 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000513 KERMANI CONSULTING GROUP 4,672.50 6103 12/12/2025 PRINTED 001025 MATT KELLY 424.20
6104 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000536 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQU 9,391.66 6105 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000547 MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, 5,000.00 6106 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000548 MSI FUEL MANAGEMENT INC 19,237.51 6107 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000551 MUSCIO SECURITY 105.00
6108 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000586 OCEANA SMOG TEST ONLY CEN 50.00 6109 12/12/2025 PRINTED 001002 OIL CHANGERS 280.00
6110 12/12/2025 PRINTED 001002 OIL CHANGERS 104.00
6111 12/12/2025 PRINTED 999998 Catherine Lyons 2,000.00 6112 12/12/2025 PRINTED 999998 Hideo Uyemoto 2,000.00
6113 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000603 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, I 30.73 6114 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000612 PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS UNI 708.13 6115 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000612 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF Loc 1,543.50 6116 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000612 SMC FIREFIGHTERS IAFF L24 84.00 6117 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000617 PACIFICA POLICE OFFICERS 220.00 6118 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000667 PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY 5,971.71 6119 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000679 QUILL CORPORATION 124.89 6120 12/12/2025 PRINTED 001134 RHS MISSION SQUARE 1,225.12 6121 12/12/2025 PRINTED 001492 ROBERTO VALDEZ 1,000.00
6122 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000717 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1,584.00 6123 12/12/2025 PRINTED 001024 SCHAAF & WHEELER 5,861.48 6124 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000745 HADRONEX INC. 4,376.00
6125 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000019 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC 650.00 6126 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000755 SOUTH CITY LUMBER 152.42 6127 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000004 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERV 121.00 6128 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000029 SWRCB 3,945.00
6129 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000805 T-MOBILE CORPORATION 1,015.47 6130 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000778 TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTR 5,867.86 6131 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000781 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 924.00 6132 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000781 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #350 924.00 6133 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000788 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS 4,607.00 6134 12/12/2025 PRINTED 001142 THE CONSULTING TEAM, LLC 4,250.23 6135 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000802 THOMSON REUTERS WEST 476.28 6136 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000830 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPE 1,189.46 6137 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000874 UPS STORE 1468 108.99
6138 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000879 WEX HEALTH, INC. 94.75
6139 12/12/2025 PRINTED 000900 ZEP SALES & SERVICE 2,352.78 6140 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000915 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA G 6,639.30 6141 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000056 ADAM-HILL COMPANY, THE 1,180.58 6142 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000060 AIRGAS USA, LLC 525.47
6143 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000063 ALEXANDER WILLIAM GREENWO 6,250.00 6144 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000074 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 399.89 6145 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000075 AMERICAN FIDELITY ADMINIS 325.55 6146 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001303 ANDREW M MEROVICH 245.00 6147 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000084 ANTOINETTE M KAUFFMAN 100.00 6148 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001104 ANVIL BUILDERS 243,605.36 6149 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001316 CONSOLIDATED PARTS INC. 267.28
1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report Dec 2025 [Revision 1] (6118 : Disbursements) City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 01/06/2026 11:16
User: 5234adecano
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: All
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 6150 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000096 AT&T 131.35
6151 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000096 AT&T 155.40
6152 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000106 AUTOMATIONDIRECT.COM, INC 749.35 6153 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000108 VWR INTERNATIONAL 251.40 6154 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000913 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORP 11,292.54 6155 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000130 BEARING AGENCIES INC 3,795.31 6156 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001123 BELKORP AG 249.52
6157 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001325 BLOCKA CONSTRUCTION 27,360.00 6158 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000147 BLUE RIBBON SUPPLY COMPAN 1,437.71 6159 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000152 BOOTZIN, ALEX 375.00
6160 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000160 BROADMOOR LANDSCAPE SUPPL 1,507.16 6161 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000180 GERMAN GODINEZ 500.00
6162 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001277 CENTER HARDWARE AND SUPPL 41.27 6163 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001424 CHEMTRADE CHEMICALS CORPO 8,350.13 6164 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000201 CHILDCARE CAREERS 748.00 6165 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 2,167.64 6166 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000203 CINTAS 3,139.59
6167 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000217 COAST COUNTIES TRUCK & EQ 129.11 6168 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000238 CORE & MAIN LP 182.70
6169 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000248 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 28,953.75 6170 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001368 DAYLIGHT FOODS LLC 240.32 6171 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000971 EDWARDS, GAIL 100.00
6172 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001128 ELIZABETH BROOKS 117.10
6173 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000332 EXPERIAN 100.00
6174 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000335 FASTRAK INVOICE PROCESSIN 8.00 6175 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001041 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES 3,433.66 6176 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000346 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 1,762.10 6177 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001423 FLEETROCK, LLC 676.00
6178 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000350 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 4,555.79 6179 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001272 GOLDEN BAY ELECTRIC 19,085.00 6180 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000377 GRAINGER 641.86
6181 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000385 GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESE 125,950.00 6182 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001273 HAZEN AND SAWYER 58,802.91 6183 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000401 HILL SCOTT 110.00
6184 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000406 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 2,418.15 6185 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000411 HEART OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 9,974.91 6186 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000425 INTERNATIONAL DIOXIDE. IN 9,967.98 6187 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000430 IPS GROUP INC. 1,156.45
6188 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001384 IVETTE SINGH 158.44
6189 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000446 JOHN THE SIGN GUY LLC 208.89 6190 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000452 JOHN W. HOWELL 13,245.00 6191 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001448 KATELYN SNODGRASS 942.10 6192 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001491 NEXSTAR MEDIA INC. 2,047.39 6193 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000474 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERI 1,388.69 6194 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000916 MCCAMPBELL ANALYTICAL, IN 1,210.00 6195 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000519 MC MASTER-CARR SUPPLY COM 466.48 6196 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000525 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN, 28,009.84 6197 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000536 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQU 878.67 6198 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000551 MUSCIO SECURITY 950.00
6199 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000572 NORCAL SOUND CO INC 338.09 6200 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000587 OFFICE DEPOT 965.18
6201 12/19/2025 PRINTED 999998 Edwin Chow 2,000.00
1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report Dec 2025 [Revision 1] (6118 : Disbursements) City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 01/06/2026 11:16
User: 5234adecano
Program ID: apchkrcn
FOR CASH ACCOUNT: 101 10001 FOR: All
CHECK # CHECK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME UNCLEARED CLEARED BATCH CLEAR DATE 6202 12/19/2025 PRINTED 999998 Joan Nagano 2,000.00
6203 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000603 PACIFIC MANOR HARDWARE, I 57.09 6204 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000605 U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINAN 387.55 6205 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000016 PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT 14,625.00 6206 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000016 PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT 81,379.00 6207 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000628 PARS 400.00
6208 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000633 PACIFICA COMMUNITY TELEVI 25,139.97 6209 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001495 PENINSULA COUNCIL OF LION 1,885.00 6210 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000642 PET FOOD EXPRESS 84.58
6211 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000653 AIR EXCHANGE INC 848.00
6212 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000653 AIR EXCHANGE INC 419.77
6213 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000656 POLYDYNE INC. 27,899.46
6214 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000667 PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY 6,910.30 6215 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000679 QUILL CORPORATION 311.13 6216 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000679 QUILL CORPORATION 14.61
6217 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000679 QUILL CORPORATION 173.22 6218 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000679 QUILL CORPORATION 240.14 6219 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000679 QUILL CORPORATION 307.58 6220 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001037 RACO MANUFACTURING & ENGI 400.00 6221 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000683 RANEY PLANNING AND MANAGE 27,343.46 6222 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001339 SALVADOR MENDEZ 484.00
6223 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000021 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ANIMA 55.00 6224 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000021 SAN MATEO COUNTY INFORMAT 164.51 6225 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000717 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 1,008.00 6226 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001498 SANCHEZ ART CENTER 4,504.00 6227 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001211 SMELLY MEL'S PLUMBING INC 2,000.00 6228 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000993 SOUTHWEST STRATEGIES LLC 2,225.00 6229 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000769 STEWART CHEVROLET 76.61
6230 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001099 TANNER PACIFIC, INC 1,381.00 6231 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000780 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINE 1,770.50 6232 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000782 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 3,016.00 6233 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000782 TEAMSTERS LOCAL #856 2,912.00 6234 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000807 TOM'S AUTO BODY & PAINT 1,750.98 6235 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001021 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 5,000.00 6236 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001497 TRACY MILLER CONSULTING, 4,900.00 6237 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000824 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 1,007.43 6238 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000824 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 919.87 6239 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000829 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVIC 1,193.00 6240 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000830 ULINE SHIPPING SUPPLY SPE 3,461.09 6241 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000837 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 1,547.26 6242 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000838 UNLIMITED TOOL REPAIR AND 129.66 6243 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000844 US FOODS, INC 5,807.39
6244 12/19/2025 PRINTED 001212 VIMA MANGIBIN 192.36
6245 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000870 WECO INDUSTRIES 694.25
6246 12/19/2025 PRINTED 000880 WHITE CAP CONST. SUPPLY 169.44 6247 12/23/2025 PRINTED 000621 PACIFICA RESOURCE CENTER 208,000.00 306 CHECKS CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL 3,132,646.96 .00
1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report Dec 2025 [Revision 1] (6118 : Disbursements) City of Pacifica
AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 01/06/2026 11:16
User: 5234adecano
Program ID: apchkrcn
UNCLEARED CLEARED
306 CHECKS FINAL TOTAL 3,132,646.96 .00
** END OF REPORT - Generated by Abby Decano **
1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report Dec 2025 [Revision 1] (6118 : Disbursements)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/12/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to approve the minutes for the November 10, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting.
STAFF CONTACT:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Move to approve the minutes for the November 10, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting (Attachment A).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Within budgeted operational expenses.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 14
CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer
Vice Mayor Christine Boles
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
Councilmember Greg Wright
City Council Regular Meeting 1 November 10, 2025
November 10, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on November 10, 2025 at 6:09 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor Present
Christine Boles Vice Mayor Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
Greg Wright Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Melissa Tigbao, PW Director; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Zach Harris, Human Resources Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgement.
Salute to the Flag led by Local Veterans from American Legion Post 238 / Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. League of California Cities (CalCities) Helen Putnam Award for Excellence - Internal Administration Category to City of Pacifica for Rose AI Project
2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 November 10, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse stated that winning this award speaks to what Pacifica has been undertaking on this work in creating an artificial intelligence virtual assistant which began a couple of years ago. He described their process to accomplish providing better services to Pacifica.
Montana Cruz, Public Affairs Manager of the League of California Cities, gave a brief history of the career of Helen Putnam who was the first female Mayor of Petaluma and an influential member of the League of California Cities and the first woman president of CalCities. He stated that the award winners are honored during the CalCities’ annual conference and are featured in the Western City magazine and press releases. At this meeting, they are presenting the award to the City. He stated that we can also use this award as a tool to apply for grant opportunities outside of CalCities. He stated that Pacifica won this award in 2000 for Planning and Environmental Quality for the restoration of Linda Mar Beach and reclamation of wetlands in that area. Pacifica is one of the first cities in California and the country to bring an AI-powered solution to municipal services and he is proud of Pacifica for this award.
Mayor Beckmeyer thanked him and shared that AI-driven solutions are improving all the time and you can still get connected to people in the department that you need. She stated we are excited to receive the award.
Councilmember Bier thanked Mr. Cruz for being here and stated that being at a conference of that size and watching our City get honored was special. She also thanked Asst. City Manager Carter as this was her endeavor.
Councilmember Wright echoed what Councilmember Bier said and added that Public Affairs Manager Cruz was one of the first regional people to reach out to him in the beginning and it was great being there and seeing our name in huge letters on the stage.
Vice Mayor Boles agreed and thought it would be great for the City Manager to name the staff members that worked on it as she felt it was important to recognize individuals and it was great that several of them were at the conference as we have dedicated and hardworking staff. The City tries to be creative and solve problems and be a better resource for the community.
City Manager Woodhouse stated critical staff included Asst. City Manager Yulia Carter, Mgmt.
Analyst Elizabeth Brooks, City Clerk Sarah Coffey, Dep. City Clerk Emily La, Exec. Asst. Jennie Kenway, and PW Project Manager Michelle Trayer. He stated it was a team effort.
Vice May Boles reiterated that it was important to give individual recognition and shared that real people are behind it also.
Councilmember Espinosa mentioned testing AI to work for us and she thanked everyone for a great technology.
There was no public comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if any Councilmembers wanted to pull an item, and seeing no one, she asked if there were any comments.
2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 November 10, 2025
Councilmember Wright stated he had a brief comment. He pointed out the fact from the budget we are again spending $250,000 on PG&E and he looks forward to a day when we reduce that.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
1. Approval of Disbursements for 10/01/25 through 10/31/25 PROPOSED ACTION: Approval of Disbursements for 10/01/25 through 10/31/25
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the October 13, 2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
3. Cancellation of December 22, 2025 City Council Meeting PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve cancellation of the December 22, 2025 regular City Council meeting.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
5. Quarterly Financial Report for General Fund for the quarter ending September 30, 2025 PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for General Fund for the quarter ending September 30, 2025
6. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending September 30, 2025 PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Report for the quarter ending September 30, 2025
7. Resolutions approving the Tentative Agreement (TA) between the City of Pacifica and the following represented labor groups: 1) Fire Battalion Chiefs, IAFF Local 2400 for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolutions approving the tentative agreement between the City of Pacifica and Fire Battalion Chiefs, IAFF Local 2400; for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028, including the revised salary scheduled effective November 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, and July 1, 2027. After Council approval, staff will ensure the MOUs are properly cleaned up, and all technical corrections are made, including any remaining typos, fixing the tables of contents, finalizing the documents for signature, and eventually posting online.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she met with San Mateo County Department of Housing and shared possible cuts to federal funding and encouraged everyone to check on our neighbors and share existing resources, including Pacifica Resource Center for essential services.
2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 November 10, 2025
Patrick Kobernus, Pacifica, referred to 801 Fassler Avenue project and shared his concerns regarding the applicant not following through on the plans and requirements for the property.
Anita Rees, Pacifica, provided updates on Pacifica Resource Center’s schedule and shared info on Unhoused on the Coast Outreach team responding to any unhoused citizens in Pacifica through Pescadero, in addition to their holiday programs.
Marj Davis, Pacifica, shared updated information on Pacifica Gardens programs, its holiday food drive for people in need, and its annual native plant sale. She then referred to Mr. Kobernus’ comments about 801 Fassler and hoped they would be addressed.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, shared his concerns that, on November 7, the Coastal Commission approved the conversion of almost the entire commercial space at 1300 Danmann into residential units and expressed disapproval of the City’s allowance of this action.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if staff can give any insight on 801 Fassler and 1300 Danmann.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the City Attorney’s Office and Community Development Department are researching 801 Fassler Ave.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she did not have specific information about the 1300 Danmann project but she knows that their office is working with staff on recent developments.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if it was true that the Coastal Commission approved the change.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she does not know if that is true.
Mayor Beckmeyer and Vice Mayor Boles looked forward to follow-up on both those items.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
8. Introduction of an Ordinance to Adopt by reference the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code with Local Amendments.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to take the following actions:
1) Introduce by title only and waive the first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica:
a. Repealing and replacing Chapters 1 -9 within Title 8 (Building Regulations) of the Pacifica Municipal Code related to Building Regulations and to adopt by reference the 2025 California Building Standards Code (Cal.Code Regs., Title 24): Parts 2 (California Building Code), 2.5 (California Residential Code), 3 (California Electrical Code), 4 (California Mechanical Code), 5 (California Plumbing Code), 6 (California Energy Code), 7 (California Wildland-Urban Interface Code), 8 (California Historical Buildings Code), 10 (California Existing Buildings Code), 11(California Green Building Code) and 12 (California References Standards Code); and the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code, certain appendices and making certain amendments thereto, including violation penalties;
b. Repealing and replacing Article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 (Fire Protection) of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt by reference Part 9 (California Fire Code) of the 2025 California Building Standards (California Code of Regulation, certain
2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 November 10, 2025
appendices and making certain amendments thereto; and
c. Finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
2) Set a public hearing to consider adoption of the Ordinance on November 24, 2025.
Community Development Director Updegrave presented the staff report.
Councilmember Wright asked, in a 100-unit apartment building, how many level 2 chargers at the higher output level will we end up with.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated 15% of the required parking spaces.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that, as part of Goal Setting next year, we will be looking at electrification for new buildings under a General Plan exemption, which is not the exemption that is discussed here in terms of what we have in our current Code. She asked if we will put on the work plan as well to look at increasing the numbers of chargers.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated we will need to look at what Council is thinking about and what the reliance on the General Plan would potentially be.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if we could potentially increase the numbers for commercial. She stated that is not something they gave direction on previously, but it came to her as we were looking at the exemption with the bike parking for commercial.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she can look up the commercial requirements and return with that information. She stated that it seems odd to have low power level 2 at a commercial but she does not know if that is allowed or what the percentages are.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if in the current time frame it is possible to make any changes to the final resolution.
Asst. City Attorney described the technical requirements: Council can make amendments to the ordinance before them tonight before it is introduced and, once it is introduced, they cannot make any substantive changes between the first reading and the second reading. If they make substantive changes beyond a typographical correction, they will have to reintroduce the ordinance at the next meeting as that is a second reading.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if that was something possible as it would need reintroduction at the next meeting on November 24.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the ordinance does not go into effect for 30 days and it has to go into effect before January 1. He stated that introducing it on November 24, with the second reading happening on December 8, would not meet that timeline, and it would need to be an added extra special Council meeting in order to meet that state requirement.
Community Development Director Updegrave added prior to November 30.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the difficulty is the publication requirement. With the Building Code update, they have special requirements for publications: it has to be a noticed public hearing between the first and second meeting, and there has to be a published notice twice, five days apart and 14 days before the meeting. The ordinance has to be adopted at a regular meeting.
2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 November 10, 2025
Councilmember Bier asked what the consequences be if that did not happen.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, if it was not adopted on time, the consequences are that, on January 1, 2026, the new State codes go into effect. There may be a gap of time between when the ordinance goes into effect and when the State laws go into effect, which is on January 1.
Vice Mayor Boles asked, if we need to make it, is it a change we can make when we are considering other stronger policies for electrification as an amendment.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it can certainly be considered later.
Councilmember Wright stated he is disappointed in the State for forcing our hand and now allowing us to try to adapt to our climate.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that all these Building Codes are consistent with the national and state register of historic places requirements and shared his thoughts on Pacifica’s protection of the Pacifica quarry. He stated the Building Codes reference the national register of historic places which Council is not following.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Councilmember Wright wished they could do more and he is afraid that we are shorting ourselves, our community, and our future.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that it sounds like there is an intention to put something on Goal Setting with regard to this item.
Vice Mayor Boles added as part of REACH Codes.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that we have that opportunity. She asked if there are any comments, deliberation, discussion on this and, hearing no further comments, she is ready for a motion.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she has one more question. She asked if the findings that were not in the staff report were shared with the public as part of the final ordinance now.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was shared in the public comment packet and in person at the meeting.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the findings were posted online as well and these are findings supporting the local amendment and reiterate, in some of the recitals within the ordinance itself, justifying our local amendments that we are carrying forward, i.e., have to do with Pacifica’s climatic condition, geological conditions and topographical conditions, with an added new finding that our amendments comply with AB 130 by not making substantial changes and modifications to standards applicable to residential units.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that these findings are very similar to the ones that were used at the last cycle in 2022 except for the AB 130 finding.
2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 November 10, 2025
Councilmember Wright asked in the event Council were to take a protest vote that we were not able to go far enough as a result of the State legislation what would happen.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated Council always has the ability to vote no.
Councilmember Wright asked, after that, if we can vote again and do what we are allowed to do, which is to make the statement that we wish to do more through the protest vote, and vote a second time and move it forward.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Council would need to put forward a motion for reconsideration, but that would not work if they voted no for the first time; they would need to vote yes for the first motion to have a motion for reconsideration on the floor. She thinks the answer is no, but they can always vote no or vote yes and provide some statement after the vote is taken.
Councilmember Wright asked if he could vote yes and then put forward a motion afterwards for reconsideration to voice his displeasure.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated he could put forward a motion for reconsideration if he voted yes the first time.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we could also make comments in the record that we object to AB 130 and SB 131 that the State passed without going through proper processes that have banned us from doing most of the good work we need to do for our City and our climate.
Councilmember Wright feels that our hands are tied and we are forced to do something he does not agree with.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano explained one of the reasons why AB 130 had a moratorium in provisions was to assist with the LA fires. The idea was that there were houses that needed to be rebuilt in a very quick fashion and updating the Building Codes in a way that made housing development difficult with burdens of those trying to reconstruct after the fire. She stated that was what she was told was the intent.
Vice Mayor Boles states she wrote a lot of objections to that argument to our State Senators.
Following a discussion with City Attorney Kenyon on how to have our voices there at the right places at the State level so this does not happen again, City Attorney Kenyon suggested being involved in CalCities and Vice Mayor Boles has applied to the Environmental Policy Quality Committee. She stated even CalCities was not fighting this.
Mayor Beckmeyer moved to introduce by title only and waive the first reading of an ordinance of City Council of the City of Pacifica repealing and replacing Chapters 1 through 9 within Title 8 (Building Regulations) of the Pacifica Municipal Code related to Building Regulations and to adopt by reference the 2025 California Building Standards Code; Parts 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12; and the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code, certain appendices and making certain amendments thereto, including violation penalties; repealing and replacing Article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt by reference Part 9 of the 2025 California Building Standards (California Code of Regulation), certain appendices and making certain amendments thereto; and finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; and set a public hearing to consider adoption of the Ordinance on November 24, 2025; seconded by Vice Mayor Boles.
2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 November 10, 2025
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added the ordinance includes the findings that have been amended and are at the dais before Council.
Councilmember Wright stated, for the record, he wanted to voice his opposition that he wishes he could have done more and wished his hands were not so tied.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa
NAYS: Wright
9. Appointments to the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission; Library Advisory Committee; and Economic Development Committee
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to appoint:
A) three (3) applicants to the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission for full 4- year terms to expire October 2029; and
B) six (6) applicants to the Library Advisory Committee: three (3) at-large members for full 4- year terms to expire October 2029, one (1) at-large member for a partial term to expire October 2027, and two (2) Youth members for one-year terms to expire October 2026; and
C) five (5) applicants to the Economic Development Committee: three (3) for full 4-year terms to expire October 2029 and two (2) for partial terms to expire October 2027.
City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report.
There were no public comments.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated we will start with the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission.
There are five applicants and three positions.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she is the Council liaison to EPSC. She stated that Jay Crawford and Jeanne Salisbury are on the Commission now and have applied to continue. She thinks they are doing a great job. She stated that Ms. Salisbury said, if there is someone else, she is willing to give up her spot to give someone else an opportunity. She recommended Michael Wahlman who works in an agency in San Francisco in communications and has come to some of their meetings about communication issues. She stated that Ofelia Virtucio works at a higher level in nursing and is the only person who does it at the State level for disaster drills and communicable diseases.
Councilmember Bier stated that Ms. Salisbury was so polite and kind and it is hard not to reappoint her but she thinks Ms. Virtucio is a good option.
Councilmember Bier moved to appoint Jay Crawford, Ofelia Virtucio, and Michael Wahlman to the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission for full 4-year terms to expire October 2029; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there were any other nominations or discussion.
Vice Mayor Boles wanted to tell Ms. Salisbury that she worked so hard on EPSC and is a nurse also and she was sure she will still be involved, and she encouraged her to continue. She stated,
2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 November 10, 2025
regarding Debra Etienne, there are other opportunities for leadership in Emergency Preparedness as there is a CERT program and we need more leadership there.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND SAFETY COMMISSION:
Jay Crawford (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Michael Wahlman (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Ofelia Virtucio (4-year term to expire October 2029)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Bier thanked Ms. Salisbury for her graciousness.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that, for the Library Advisory Committee, there are 3 full 4-year terms, one partial term that expires October 2027, and two one-year youth terms that will expire October 2026. She stated that she is the liaison for this committee. She recommended Stephanie Hartwell-Mandella and Jennifer Hlavin.
Councilmember Wright wished, in the youth positions, that we could approve alternates.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if she would like to weigh in on that in regards to the charter.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is not part of the charter and not the appointment that was solicited before Council tonight. The appointments are very fixed for the term that they will cover.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that she knows Maya Sinapuelas has served for a couple of years and asked if Kathleen Johnson has also been on for a few years.
City Clerk Coffey stated Kathleen Johnson was appointed one year ago for the first time.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks she asked the last time whether it might be good to think about rotating since these are positions that a lot of our youth desire and we had six youth applicants and to give someone else a chance.
Councilmember Bier stated there could be cumulative learning with the current youth members.
She stated that the other two were good too, Grace Zaheed and Parker Witte.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we can nominate two people.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated two of the youth applicants that had indicated an interest in the Library Advisory Committee have been appointed to other committees and it would leave the four, two would be reappointments and two new applicants.
Councilmember Wright thinks there is some service to allowing more opportunities. He wished we had more of these type of opportunities for this quality of student to be able to avail themselves, but at the same time want to make as much available for Pacifica youth as possible. This is one of the limited opportunities we have in Pacifica.
2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 November 10, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles thought it might be good to rotate to give other people an opportunity.
Mayor Beckmeyer moved to appoint Grace Zaheed and Parker Witte to the Library Advisory Committee for two youth one-year terms to expire October 2026; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Grace Zaheed (youth term to expire October 2026)
Parker Witte (youth term to expire October 2026)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Bier thanked Maya Sinapuelas and Kathlee Renfroe Johnson for their service and creating a path for other youth to participate in leadership.
Mayor Beckmeyer referred to the three full 4-year terms and one partial term.
Councilmember Wright recommended Stephanie Hartwell-Mandella, Jennifer Hlavin, and Kathy Long.
Councilmember Bier thought Theo George Coppola is a good fit.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that Kathy Long is currently serving on a committee and she served on the previous committee too.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that brings years of library experience.
Vice Mayor Boles stated one of the notes she had for Brianne Miller was her passion and experience with public relations and outreach which is a critical part of where we need to bring the library forward. She recommended Brianne Miller, Stephanie Hartwell-Mandella, and Jennifer Hlavin.
Councilmember Bier stated she hears Stephanie Hartwell-Mandella, Jennifer Hlavin, and Kathy Long. She did not hear consensus for the other two.
Vice Mayor Boles thought it was Theo George Coppola and Brianne Murphy Miller.
Councilmember Espinosa supported Brianne Murphy Miller.
Vice Mayor Boles moved to appoint the Library Advisory Committee Stephanie Hartwell-Mandella, Jennifer Hlavin, and Kathy Long to the 4-year terms to expire in October 2029 and Brianne Murphy Miller to the partial term to expire on October 2027; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa
2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 November 10, 2025
APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Stephane Hartwell-Mandella (4-year term to expire October 2029) Jennifer Hlavin (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Kathy Long (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Brianne Murphy Miller (partial term to expire October 2027) RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor Beckmeyer stated Economic Development Committee has five open positions, three full 4-year terms and two partial terms.
Councilmember Espinosa wanted to give the opportunity to Oscar Baud and Brandan Berman for the 4-year terms.
Councilmember Bier stated that we should also offer Cole Dalton the 4-year term.
Mayor Beckmeyer and Councilmembers Espinosa and Wright agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles was in agreement with all those and she liked Floriane Gramlich as Council interviewed her in the first round for the Climate Action and Resilience Committee and they were all saying they wanted to save her for this as she has a ton of international experience in marketing.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Councilmember Espinosa stated they needed one more for the partial term.
Councilmember Bier stated Greta Sieglock has been serving and she thinks it would be fine to offer her the partial term as Remi Tan is already serving on another committee.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that, of the people who are already serving, she wanted to see their attendance as it is important to her that they are all attending the meetings.
Vice Mayor Boles stated Greta Sieglock missed half of the meetings this year but was not sure if the absences were recused or not. She also stated that Teresa Sulcer has missed a lot of BAC meetings but she thinks some of them were recused.
Councilmember Bier thinks Greta Sieglock has a lot of connections in our community and she puts her foot forward when she is able to attend.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that there is also something to be said for some continuity as we lost so many members from EDC in the last year and she can go with that.
Councilmember Bier moved to appoint Oscar Baud, Brendan Berman, and Cole Dalton to the Economic Development Committee for full 4-year terms to expire October 2029 and Floriane Gramlich and Greta Sieglock for two partial terms to expire October 2027; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.
2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 November 10, 2025
APPOINTMENTS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
Oscar Baud (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Brendan Berman (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Cole Dalton (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Floriane Gramlich (partial term to expire October 2027) Greta Sieglock (partial term to expire October 2027)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Bier referred to Remi Tan who keeps on serving on OSPAC and showing up to everything else. She stated that he is at every meeting all over the county.
Mayor Beckmeyer proposed a break before their next item and then reconvened the meeting.
10. Council Study Session – Revenue Generation Opportunities and Pacifica’s Financial Sustainability Challenges
PROPOSED ACTION: Hold a Council Study Session on Pacifica’s financial sustainability challenges and revenue generation opportunities. Provide direction to the City Manager on Options to address these challenges to maintain the Current Level of City Services and address Unfunded Capital Project and Other Operating Needs.
City Manager Woodhouse, Asst. City Manager Carter, Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez, and Consultant Brian Moura presented the staff report.
Vice Mayor Boles thanked staff for all their work. She asked if the polling we did years ago for an infrastructure bond was a General Obligation (GO) bond.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively. We did polling and the top line conclusions of that report are on the City’s website. It was a split sample polling in the results for a GO Bond and was testing the bond for infrastructure and a library; we had results on both of those but neither were feasible with the two-thirds threshold.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if it was close at all for either of those and she asked if there was any feedback from the public.
City Manager Woodhouse thought he recalled 59% for infrastructure on the results, and less for the library, meaning it was not recommended to move forward with the bond measures.
Vice Mayor Boles stated, from talking to other people, we have tried some of these other things before, i.e. utility user taxes in 2014 that failed by a large majority.
City Manager agreed and added that each year will be different and the needs are becoming more dire. He thinks, in Pacifica’s history, there was a sales tax that was tested or run and did not pass.
However, Measure Y did pass, adding they are each different in the year being conducted.
2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 November 10, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles asked, in terms of bonds, about our credit rating and interest rates, etc., but another nuance to that question was about bond capacity. She thinks it relates to how much income we are making as a city. She asked what our capacity is based on our income to raise money on bonds.
Consultant Moura stated that we can research that aspect, but he thinks the other thing we need to wrestle with in terms of issuing bonds is how we are going to fund the bonds and the challenge with things like the GO bonds is that we need a 2/3 vote. Regarding City Manager’s observation earlier, he thinks one of the things we are seeing, not just in Pacifica but other cities in the Bay Area in this coming cycle, is because we have passed in recent years hotel tax and sales tax and maxed those two out, he is seeing the same thing in a series of other cities and many cities are looking at parcel tax as it is one of the few options left, other than utilities or tax, which can be challenging. Even though it is challenging, it is one thing where we are running out of options in terms of ongoing operations and we may have to face it even though it was not something that was highly considered in prior years.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if there were exceptions to the parcel tax for people on fixed incomes or low incomes generally.
Consultant Moura stated that there can be but up to Council when they frame it. He explained a common approach to that: PG&E has a program called CARES which people fill out and document each year that they are low income and qualify for an exemption to the standard PG&E rates and many cities use that framework; if people can show their CARE certificate, they will give them the exemption. The reason for that is that a small city like Pacifica does not necessarily want to get into the business of asking for people’s income statements annually and PG&E has already done that work and we can use that framework. The answer to her question is yes.
Vice Mayor Boles asked about options for community finance districts, IFDs, etc. She stated we are looking at taxing mostly residents but are there ways to look at taxing new development in certain areas.
Consultant Moura stated the first concept is called an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). It is similar to the tax increment tools back in the day with redevelopment. The main difference is that the schools cannot participate in the EIFD whereas they could participate in redevelopment so the number of taxing agencies that the City could partner with are limited, i.e. mostly the City and County. He stated that the way an EIFD works is that the City establishes a financing district in a specific area in the part of the City that we think is likely to develop, and once we do that, we create a base value and the annual increase in property tax (2% per year) continues to flow to our General Fund. However, regarding the amount of revenue coming from the growth from that area that is suddenly going to develop, Council has a choice. We can either put some or all of that growth money into a different pot, such as the infrastructure district. If we do that, what happens is that over time, we can generate enough money to bond against and the magic of the EIFD and the redevelopment agency is that we can do major borrowing or bonds without going to the voters to get the 2/3 approval. There are downsides to that approach: First, it takes typically 5-10 years to roll up enough money in that EIFD tool to be able to issue bonds; second, to the extent that we are taking money that would be going to the General Fund and putting it in a different pot, that is going to be a problem, particularly if we have a General Fund deficit, which in Pacifica we do. He stated that an EIFD is a way to allocate money differently; it does not raise any taxes but changes who gets what share of the pie. The other question on the EIFD is will the County participate in our EIFD. In some cases, where there is unincorporated land adjacent to the community, the County has an interest in us improving the roads or putting
2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 November 10, 2025
in a library, etc., that will serve the City’s community and the unincorporated area, and the county may say they will put some of their property tax money into our EIFD. If we do that, suddenly the EIFD gets interesting for the City as now we have access not only to the growth on the City’s share of the property tax but also the County’s share. Many of the EIFDs that have been formed, about 30 to date in Southern California, typically are partnerships with LA County. The Community Facilities District (CFD) is a different tool; it is a special tax, requires a 2/3 vote, and is used primarily in cases where we have a defined area, likely to develop. Because of the 2/3 requirement, often the tax is levied before the development occurs. The reason for that is, if we levy it before the development occurs, the only person who has to vote to yes on the 2/3 election is the property owner. If the property owner partners with the City, they are likely to say yes, whereas, if we wait until the property is developed, the voters in that area have to pass it by a 2/3 vote and it is rarely done that way. He stated that tool has traditionally been used to fund infrastructure for that new development and can also help the developer pay for some of all of their impact fees due to the City and there is a third piece to that tool that has not been used until recently. The third piece of the puzzle on the Community Facility District is if a city partners with the developer and the developer approves the agreement, thus the 2/3 vote of one, it can cover some of the General Fund costs for that particular area about to be developed. It can cover some of police and fire costs, PW costs, infrastructure, streetlights, and landscaping. It does not cover all of the General Fund costs in that area but a substantial portion of it. What they have seen in the last year or two in California is a lot of cities saying they are happy to help developers and property owners set these districts up because, with the rising interest rates and downturn of the economy, in some cases even if projects, particularly housing projects, are approved, they are sometimes stuck. By virtue of authorizing one of these Community Facility Districts, we can unstick these projects by helping to fund the infrastructure and development impact fees. What is happening with cities and counties in the last year or two is that they are saying if they are going to set one of these up and help developers, they want developers to help the cities, which is to authorized that third piece of the puzzle, i.e., creating an ongoing revenue flow for the city to get money for their General Fund and infrastructure needs on an operation of making spaces. That is unlike the Facility District which is reallocating existing property tax and no increase in taxes.
A Community Facilities District is increasing taxes and, again, it could be used for infrastructure or infrastructure plus development impact fees but it also can be used for those two plus some city costs, including public safety and PW. That is the area in the last year or two where there is growth and many cities and counties are doing that. That is another tool in the toolkit that Pacifica could explore.
Councilmember Bier feels she needs a matrix of the strengths and weaknesses, estimated revenue, and community impacts. She feels she does not have enough visual information, even though the presentation was great, in order for her to have any idea of how we move forward.
Consultant Moura agreed, and if that is part of Council’s direction, they can get more detail. As City Manager and Asst. City Manager said, they are trying to paint the big picture for both our short-term and long-term challenges and some of the tools available and hear from Council on what is their interest or if they want to see more information.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if our main option was going to be taxing people. She would like to see self-sustainable resources. In the area where she lives, it is very difficult to pay mortgages, insurance company rates are high, and there is also Measure EE. She stated we need to find ways to be sustainable and not resort to continually taxing people.
City Manager Woodhouse was glad she brought it up and made that comment, and he emphasized that there are different strategies here. Voter-approved tax measures are one and
2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 November 10, 2025
the most immediate possibility for the City to be sustainable unless we cut services dramatically by $3-$6 million. He stated that the important thing to recognize is that all of those other strategies, new and redevelopment, that drives development impact fees and property tax, which then perpetuates sales tax revenue increases and supports our businesses, are the non-tax measures that are available, i.e., building a hotel to then generate transient occupancy tax, property tax, and sales tax. Those non-tax measures are longer term tiers to our long-term financial sustainability strategy that needs to be developed. Redevelopment, including the tax increment districts, etc., are all contingent on building happening in the City and things do not get built fast. He stated that those are the longer-term non-tax measures and he thinks this is the dilemma that Pacifica has for a short term been balancing. The option is potentially a tax measure or reducing expenditures while continuing all the other things we are doing with our economic development efforts.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, if we are going to tax people, how are we going to use that money, such as producing more money with it or only spending it. She stated this is her problem.
If the money was used to build a better Community Center as she has seen in different cities, it is going to be revenue to the city. However, just taxing to pay bills will in the next five years lead to the same problem. She stated that, if we are going to use the money to create more revenue, that will be a good idea, but just to tax people is not. She would like to see investments.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we are not talking taxing people to spend money but talking about potential tax measures to maintain essential City services to provide fire and PW services.
Councilmember Espinosa understands but we have to make sure we are not overtaxing people.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated we need to focus this part of the meeting on questions and then have discussion and deliberation after public comments. She suggested asking those clarifying questions and then we will go to public comment.
Councilmember Espinosa asked for an explanation of the other financing alternatives, like Certificate of Participation and Parcel Security Bond.
Consultant Moura stated there are three options their financial advisor came up. With Certificates of Participation, which sometimes are known as Lease Revenue Bonds, what often happens is that the City will pledge a piece of property as our asset and we borrow against that and each year the City pays a lease towards that property as previously owned and, in exchange, the financial institution loans us money with the direct bank placement which is what the City used a couple of years ago to improve the Civic Center authority. The strategy there was that it was a project where we were able to identify fund balances in several of the City’s funds to pay for a portion of that project and for the balance ($4-7 million) we then got a loan directly from a bank, hence a direct bank placement. He is not as familiar with the Parcel Tax Secured Bonds, but it is another variation on a theme in terms of financial tool, although he would say that all three of these tools are ones that we would probably use for project in the $5-10 million range but would not necessarily use them for some of the big ticket items, like the library which was $55 million or the street which is $95 million. He stated that this is a question Council will have to address at some point, maybe in 2028, i.e. our priorities are and how much money we are going to attempt to raise. As part of that, staff can work with the financial experts to tell us how much money could be raised and what kind of tax burden that it would create for residents.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that, when we talked about different solutions, the staff recommendation was to address the operating deficit first because that is the most critical, painful
2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 November 10, 2025
problem if we do not address it timely for the budget. If we are talking about the infrastructure investment as the next step after that, we could consider a different combination of things. If we are not talking about the GO bonds immediately, we could explore Certificates of Participations if we were to pay up a million dollar annual payment that would allow us to borrow about $17 million.
For priorities in every year as part of the budget process, we are talking about priorities in the CIP, and when the discussion comes in front of Council, they can look at different solutions on how to time infrastructure needs. As Consultant Moura said, they are not going to be addressed by all the alternatives.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that Menlo Park, Burlingame, and San Carlos were not comparable cities with Pacifica and agreed with Councilmember Espinosa regarding not overtaxing people.
He reminded the City that neutral language must be used on any ballot measure and City assets cannot be used to support passing a tax. He stated the City needed a 9.2% staff cut. He also raised concerns about the lack of funding for infrastructure needs.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared her appreciation of staff. She raised issue with the lack of coastal cities in the comparison of cities, stated new housing does not generate local construction jobs, and posed the idea of being served by the Sheriff’s Office. She stated local environmental concerns need to be prioritized before housing.
Mike Wahlman, Pacifica, asked if a 2/3 bond measure could be considered alongside Brisbane and Daly City as part of the North County Fire Authority, posed challenges about constructing hotels and housing without funding the seawall project with a 2/3 infrastructure bond measure, and identified the Council Chambers and the Rockaway Quarry as opportunities sites.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, recommended getting a new library to generate community programs and economic revitalization. She also supported a 1% impact fee for the arts and public spacemaking. She also raised concerns about lack of commercial and experiential development and stated we need visitor-serving and commercial activities.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, stated Pacifica does not have a great deal of business or commercial development. He also disagreed that building more housing generates more economic development, infrastructure, etc. He stated we need more visitor-serving and commercial sites.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, thanked Councilmember Espinosa for her thoughts on a sustainable city and supported Ms. Finale, Ms. Abbott, and Mr. Reinero’s comments. She also stated the recent sales tax measure happened in a secure economic moment that is no longer present and her experience was that Pacifica would not support a tax measure.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, raised concerns about the references used for the revenue generation study session. He also disagreed that building more housing generates more economic development, infrastructure, etc. He stated we need more visitor-serving and commercial sites.
He stated the City should conduct its own cost study.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated at 10:00 pm that we need to decide if we will complete work before 11:00 p.m. If not, we will need to have a vote to extend the meeting before 11:00 pm.
2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 November 10, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles thought we would not finish the discussion in an hour.
Mayor Beckmeyer and Councilmember Wright agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles asked about coming back and shared concerns about losing momentum.
City Manager Woodhouse thought that the one specific direction we need at this meeting is whether we are going to pursue additional research and feasibility analysis of any of the potential voter-approved revenue measures. He needs direction tonight as we will not have another study session this year on this because of the agenda load of other priority projects.
Councilmember Wright stated he has been asking for this study session and he would prefer to both stay late and have another meeting this month.
Vice Mayor Boles referred to the November 24 meeting as a potential date for continuance.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there may be some capacity which depends if any of the items are juggled to the special meeting. He stated it is possible but the time is ticking on the research and feasibility analysis work we need to do.
Councilmember Bier suggested we start talking and see what happens.
Vice Mayor Boles suggested focusing on the key questions and ideas.
Councilmember Wright asked how much cheaper would having the Sheriff’s Office be.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that a new study would need to be done. The previous study that was done, at least a decade ago when we considered that, showed that contracting with the Sheriff’s Office would not save money for the City compared to its own Police Department.
Councilmember Wright agreed. He stated that we have cut everything we can cut and we are woefully behind on maintaining our public safety that should be our biggest priority and therefore biggest expense. He pointed out our officers do a remarkable job with almost nothing. He asked about the State mandate for the City to build a certain amount of housing.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the City does not build the housing but we have to facilitate in our Housing Element the building of that housing and there are risks that come to the City if that housing needs allocation is not met in the Housing Element cycle.
Councilmember Wright asked about the risks.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, generally, it comes to loss of local control related to housing and that is the threat that looms out there in not creating an environment in which our 1,892 housing units are going to get built during this cycle.
Councilmember Wright asked if the Sharp Park Specific Plan is an attempt to address some of our commercial shortfall with all the mixed use development and all our other mixed use developments identified in our Housing Element.
2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 November 10, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, stating that mixed use in the Sharp Park Specific Plan along Palmetto is a major driver for the policies behind that plan.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if staff can tell Council where we are on regarding submission to the Coastal Commission, changes based on the LCLUP, etc.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we are in the process of preparing the submission. We have already had our preliminary meeting with Coastal Commission and are preparing the analysis and anticipate submitting prior to the end of this calendar year.
Councilmember Wright stated that, in three years, we are going to renegotiate with labor again and thought we have been balancing our budget for years on their backs. We underpay them and understaff things, so we are asking them to do more work for less. He stated that we are coming up $15.4 million a year short in renewable revenue. That is what he would like staff to look at, as how do we come up with $15.4 million in renewable revenue. There are a number of different things we can do to do that, such as building more hotels, tax measures, etc. and he wants to see a plan that we can do it in three years so we do not continue to ask people to do more for less. He asked how it costs us when we have an average turnover, including how much productivity we lose from training, and asked if we have any idea what that expense is.
City Manager Woodhouse cannot speak to the specific cost about that but what happens organizationally, which is part of the organizational sustainability that is part of Goal No. 1 in the Strategic Plan, is that an organization gets to the point of the death spiral where employees are not getting paid enough so they leave, so we cannot retain them or recruit quality employees, and employees that are recruited who are willing to work at that lower pay are not as qualified which is when an organization starts to dissolve in being able to provide the services that the community is expecting of the City to provide. He stated, when we hit that point, that is the existential question that Pacifica is getting to at this point in time, despite so many successes, despite voter support for the half cent transactions and use tax to help sustain and balance the budget and maintain existing levels of services.
Councilmember Wright stated that he is looking for an average level of service from an average number of employees who are getting paid an average amount of money to do their jobs. He asked, in terms of population, if there are some benefits if we build more housing and end up with more population, if it makes any grants easier and does it help support our schools. He asked what some of the auxiliary benefits are to having more people.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he will not speak to the school financing front, but when we do have more children, that increases the daily amount that schools get. He stated that the increased population has ripple effects, as we have more local support of services. When we have more support of the local economy, other businesses take interest in the community because perhaps there are services that are not being met and there are more people needing those services. He stated that it is a supply and demand formula.
Consultant Moura stated that there is an expression when you talk to people who want to bring in commercial and retail into a city and their first question is how many rooftops do you have. To the extent you are bringing in more housing units, you also can make a better case, whether it is a grocery store or whatever business you attract, that you have more potential customers.
Related to that, it may not be a priority in Pacifica but, one of the things you see cities doing is when they are trying to both create and enhance a downtown, they tend to put higher density housing near the downtown as you have walkable customers. A great example of that is in San
2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 November 10, 2025
Carlos. What happens in San Carlos, while not saying it is an ideal case study, up in the hills, the housing density is very minimal and as you get closer and closer to the downtown it goes up and up. He thinks there is clearly a link between housing units and desirable businesses and also a case of strategy in terms of where you put that housing and how dense it is and where the density happens. There are some planning principles at work that you can apply, as some of them are more longer-term strategies and more economic development strategies.
City Manager Woodhouse referred to one of the public comments describing if the City ten years ago had started building a lot more housing, the City’s General Fund today would be that many more millions of dollars in annual revenue and all of the related commercial would have evolved over that time. That has not happened because Pacifica has not built housing in many years.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that, when we talk about growth, we are not talking about transforming Pacifica from a bedroom community to something completely different. The current average household size in Pacifica is 2.67. If we are talking about RHNA numbers, we are talking about adding 5,000 residents. It is not like we are talking about thousands and thousands of people and accommodating infrastructure. Adding commercial mixed use development could be transformational for Pacifica without that much of an impact.
Councilmember Wright asked, as we are bounded by the ocean, if we are considered infill development or sprawl development and what are some of the savings that we see from infill development, such as not needing to build a new police station, not being able to serve with a current safety infrastructure, already having the sewers run past the lots we are building on.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks all of the economic opportunity sites and Housing Element sites are all infill development in Pacifica, as everyone knows our Hillside Preservation Ordinances and protecting hillsides, etc. It is all infill development and, as was stated in the report in the presentation, there are numerous aspects of that which make those much more cost-effective and revenue generating compared to increasing services. He stated that the classic example of suburban sprawl on the fringes of San Jose where they are building huge new subdivisions or South East Reno building huge new developments out there and new fire stations. That is where a lot of the increased services and expenditures are required and the net revenue increase from housing is perhaps not as much in the sprawl situation, but in infill, there are many factors that relate to enhancing the revenue generation of that. He wants to make a point that this conversation is not about building housing or new or redevelopment or commercial redevelopment to generate revenue. Council has policy goals related to why those things need to happen to help Pacificans thrive into the future. The ancillary benefit is the revenue that is generated from that and will help Pacifica dig its way out of its financial challenges.
Councilmember Wright stated we have already cut everything to the bone and that is why it is that we did not necessarily fund everything that we should have. He also referenced the South San Francisco Library and wished that for Pacifica.
Councilmember Bier stated that we see every month what other cities are building.
Councilmember Wright asked what fiduciary responsibility means and what is their responsibility here with this problem.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that fiduciary duty is that we have an obligation to the City to do the best we can to research, analyze, understand, and ultimately make a decision that benefits
2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 November 10, 2025
the City financially. She added Councilmembers have discretion to decide that and they have the duty to the City to do the best they can and make the decision that promotes fiscal responsibility.
Councilmember Wright asked City Manager what happens if we go broke and do we have any discretion over what gets built here if we go broke and the County takes us over.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he has never been through that but our responsibility as staff is to every year recommend a balanced budget. He thought Consultant Moura may know a case of cities going through bankruptcy or dissolving, turning over to the County, unincorporating, etc. If we are left cutting $3 million from the budget next year, there will be significant service cuts and that is the process we have to go through every year.
Councilmember Wright asked if a balanced budget means we are fully staffed with fully paid people.
City Manager Woodhouse stated no, a balanced budget is we are only expending the revenues that are coming in. We can have a structurally balance budget where the ongoing revenues coming in fund the ongoing expenditure or have an un-structurally balanced budget where we are taking one-time savings in order to fund those expenditures for that year in order to bridge to hopefully a brighter financial future. He stated that is what we are.
Councilmember Wright stated that we will still be 13% understaffed and growing, depending on if we need to cut people and still pay people 17% less.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding possibly more understaffed if layoffs are part of the formula that Council approves for balancing the budget.
Councilmember Bier thanked Councilmember Wright for bringing up the community outreach. We cannot do things without listening to the community first, then educating, and finally polling. She understands that a smart infill growth and development is good for cities. She thinks the one place we fall short on is the walkability because where are they going to walk to, as our transportation system is not nearly what it can be. She thinks that is where we fall short on the smart growth model where we have multi-use infill development. She thinks there is a difference between new development and existing housing stock and what is the difference in the tax income from those two separate things. She feels like she needs a lot more information generally in a simple, clear, what works, what does not work, etc. manner.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated it is disturbing to see your City not shine, citing Rockaway as one of our economic drivers but facing challenges. She knows it is because we do not have enough staff to cover all of it, as we have to deploy them to the most important, highest priority areas; oftentimes, that is the potholes that are so enormous they are causing peoples’ cars to need additional repair.
Our Pavement Condition Index is the worst in 101 cities in the Bay Area and we have taken tiny incremental steps to improve a process and do a better job of analyzing our streets so we can take the dollars we have to extend the life of those streets as long as possible. However, meanwhile, we have streets we are not touching at all because we cannot. She stated that this has been an ongoing theme. She feels that our community needs more information and we have not done a good job of explaining where the City has cut services but not in the form of a layoff or a dramatic way. We did it in an incremental way, not filling positions, putting more work on people’s plates, etc. just to keep the City functioning. Considering our financial situation, we have an amazing staff as everyone goes 110% to make it possible. As Councilmember Wright phrased it, we are balancing our budget on their backs and that is the harsh truth when we look at what
2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 November 10, 2025
was presented at this meeting about how underpaid our staff is, look at how fewer staff members we have relative to other cities. She appreciated the point about comparing ourselves to coastal cities as that is a valid point. The first one that popped to her mind is Santa Cruz, as it experiences many of the same challenges Pacifica does in terms of impact of weather and erosion impacts, their different downtown areas, the amount of building they are doing as infill, increased number of hotels they have put in over the last few years, etc. She then referred to hotels and the shortterm rental challenges and the pain neighbors were feeling with their neighborhoods being negatively impacted by having unregulated hotel operators in our neighborhood with the larger full home STRs. She stated that we made a policy decision and that decision has consequences, possibly $1.5 million in terms of the projected loss of temporary occupancy tax. She stated we often heard that people need to stay in hotels, not STRs, but relative to the size of our community, we have a very small number of hotel rentals. Our community has done what we asked, increasing our Temporary Occupancy Tax. However, if you have a 15% TOT tax rate and you do not have very many hotel rooms to apply that to, you are not generating much revenue. She heard people comment that our hotels are not full, but she needs that data. As we move into our BID process with, SF Peninsula, formally known as San Mateo and Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, they are very skilled and she is excited looking forward to hearing data. They have access to information that we have never been able to generate to have a better handle on our occupancy, what we can do to improve our hotel fill rate, but they need more hotel rooms to fill them. She cannot believe, with the amount of visitors we have, plus them driving through Pacifica to go to Half Moon Bay that has 17 hotels and a mix of different opportunities. She has heard the arguments and understands the concerns about coastal development and the risks and there are opportunities to develop in a way that works with changing coastal conditions. She feels we need to take a shot in terms of generating that TOT. She stated that there are other opportunities in town that are working and available. She finds that as a bright hope and opportunity for Pacifica to generate renewable revenue in a sustainable way as we know people want to come here. She stated our infrastructure is in big trouble, and while she thinks we need to educate the community and hear from them, we will tell them that our road needs to be repaired.
She has heard comments this night about our wastewater treatment facility being inadequate to address what Pacifica needs now, but she is not sure it is factually true. She knows when they got our RHNA, her first question was can our wastewater treatment plant handle that. She stated, when we have peak rain and storm events, there are challenges but not every single day; we have ways to address that with the EQ basin. She stated this Council has been listening and taking the steps to authorize the studies, and we now have to make some decisions about what we are going to do. She was in favor of exploring a revenue measure that would have to do with infrastructure, whether it be streets bond, community infrastructure district, etc. From her point of view, infrastructure improvement is something she thinks most people who live here get and understand the need for. She would like to find out from the community what is their appetite and ability. She is not insensitive to the idea that people cannot afford things. She stated some people can and we have to figure out where is the right point.
Councilmember Espinosa stated it could be about property value, as properties above a certain amount may be taxed higher. Another concern is that we came here thinking we will be bringing ideas but we are more listening to ideas. She would like to see the City being self-sustainable which is important. She believed that we need more rooms, hotels, restrooms, etc. We need locals and tourists to shop and go to the restaurants.
Mayor Beckmeyer feels that we need to move forward with some of the things we are already doing, i.e. the Sharp Park Specific Plan addresses the infill kind of development we were talking about, with higher density in the areas where there is more business and more opportunity for businesses, as well as the plans in the Housing Element that relate to putting housing in the areas
2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 November 10, 2025
where our shopping centers are. It takes time and we cannot do it unless we have the documents in place to do it. What she heard and saw tonight makes her scared for our City and our fiduciary responsibility, but more than that, for our staff and citizens, and she wants to take the steps to address that, educate the community on why we need to do this measure, why a hotel needs to be built, how it ties into not having short-term rentals, etc. She stated that we need to get the facts out and get feedback from our community. She thinks the way to do that is polling and if we can get to a place where we see the need for or want to pursue a revenue measure.
Vice Mayor Boles stated the focus right now is what are we asking staff to bring back, what information do we need to be able to evaluate these measures, and talk about other ideas. She stated one idea that she saw in San Bruno to help our police and fire and to fix the fire stations which is the City’s responsibility. She stated that San Bruno had a special public safety bond measure of $2-3 million. She stated that we have to think about what can get passed in our community and the community wants to see the benefit of what we are getting. It is easier to get them to vote for those things that they see the need for, so that may be something we can consider if that is easier to approve.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought doing that for facilities or staffing might be a parcel tax, not a bond.
Vice Mayor Boles stated San Bruno did a public safety special tax that brings in $2.2 million a year. She asked about the percentage of businesses paying business tax and is it fair to be asking businesses that are already paying and doing their fair share if we are not enforcing and trying to collect the money from other businesses. She would like to hear from Economic Development staff what they are hearing from the businesses. On the utility users tax, we are already taxing more than other cities for electricity and gas, which is the greatest hardship for people now who cannot afford to turn on their heat. She stated we may be able to lower those and raise other things. She stated that, as Councilmember Espinosa mentioned, many people are struggling to stay in their homes now. She asked what is simple to explain and what are the easy points to try to bring some extra money in.
Mayor Beckmeyer agrees and thought public safety is an area that people would support.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she did not want to put off infrastructure until 2028, as we have a lot of needs now that we cannot meet. She wants to explore these community finance districts that are trying to get new development to bring in some of that money to help pay for this infrastructure.
They should be paying their way. She thought the Toll Brothers analysis was faulty as it did not cover sewers, just the bare maintenance, not the replacement value. She stated that we have many old aging things we need to replace and they need to pay their fair share in that also. She is not convinced that new housing pays for itself. Having one analysis from a developer for a project that they are trying put forth is not giving her the information she needs. She has not seen the data from Kosmont yet, and she thought if staff can ask for that, it would be helpful. She stated San Carlos, Burlingame, and Menlo Park have huge businesses and they are not a comparison at all. We are just residential. She stated that San Carlos was mostly residential and made a decision to diversify and that is not in our plan. She stated that every time we turn around, we are reducing our zoned commercial land. She thinks we need to be looking at all of those rezoning decisions very carefully because, once we lose that commercial opportunity, it is gone forever. We need not only income, but also jobs, because jobs and people working here will also spend more money in our businesses and restaurants during the day and during the week when they have nobody coming now.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed.
2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 November 10, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles asked what else we need staff to bring back.
Councilmember Wright asked if Council agreed on the 15.4 and the 371.
Vice Mayor Boles stated 371 does not include our sewer money and it only includes identified immediate projects, not infrastructure that has been depreciated that will need to be replaced which is longer term planning. She stated it is a bigger number than that. She thought the sewer tax was coming next year and that is another huge request for residents.
Councilmember Wright stated that we need to instruct staff to look into different tax revenues and the feasibility to try to address both the capital improvement side and the staffing side.
Vice Mayor Boles stated staffing is included in the total budget and General Fund. Those are two different measures.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated it sounds like the community facility districts have revenue for staffing.
Consultant Moura agreed, adding that they can be used for some staffing, i.e. police, fire, PW, but the rest of it is towards maintenance of infrastructure. Regarding the comments he heard from Council, they are correct that those are seen as a way to have new development pay its way, both in terms of maintaining the infrastructure it put in and to pay for a portion of the General Fund cost. He thinks that is the reason we are seeing in the last two years cities rushing in that direction and that is something that could be part of what we do here.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that is something she would like more information about as they are poised for more growth. She understand that we have to do it in an area that is likely to develop prior to the development occurring.
Councilmember Wright stated like Sharp Park.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that it is time critical.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles stated the infrastructure financing district seems less interesting to her as it was described as a shifting of General Plan money, not bringing in any more money.
Consultant Moura stated, at the risk of making it too complicated, one thing they have seen some cities do is do both, called stacking. Because the money for the EIP does not show up for 5 or 10 years, you start out with a facility district as their money comes in on day one. Then, over time, as the value increases, you can decrease the amount of the facility district tax. The problem he sees here is that approach works for cities that have General Fund surpluses but it is not where Pacifica is at the moment. The facility district may be more appealing in the short term, and if you can identify areas where you think there are going to be developments in the future, that is a good time to have that discussion before they develop because then the 2/3 vote is the 2/3 vote of the property owner and not the 2/3 vote of the voters in that area after the housing or commercial gets built. He thinks that is consistent with the big picture discussion they are having at this time.
2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 November 10, 2025
Councilmember Wright moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Wright asked how much TOT 100 hotel rooms generates.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that 100 hotel rooms would generate $900,000 to $1 million.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the staff report estimates proposal as $1 million for TOT but altogether can generate $1.2 million.
Councilmember Wright asked if we can look into the County participation as well.
City Manager Woodhouse stated a conversation with the County regarding tax increment districts would be premature as we do not know exactly what area we will be talking about and we need to know the area in order to make the pitch to the County that it is in their interest to participate with us. He added that he did not think right now was the greatest time to be talking about the County about foregoing some of their property tax revenue.
Councilmember Wright stated, in terms of revenue, if we built their RHNA numbers, how much money is that to make that 15.4 smaller.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we estimated about $4 million in property tax, but it depends on the time, how we build, and the development impact fees collected for each unit, plus local spending and increase in sales tax related to that, especially if it is mixed used development.
Vice Mayor Boles added that it does not include cost of services for those residential units, such as police.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the $4 million is the net.
Councilmember Wright thought, when we talked about the $15.4 million, we added full staffing.
City Manager Woodhouse asked what kind of direction we have related to our immediate shortterm structural deficit challenge. Many different revenue ideas are longer term but, if we are going to be evaluating the feasibility of anything on the ballot for November 2026, that is the direction he needs to know and we need to start working with the consultants on developing that feasibility analysis.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks we need more time to talk about that and have a presentation to evaluate these options so we can understand them better.
Councilmember Wright stated that, when he did his math, he came up with $7 million to look for immediately.
2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 November 10, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse stated staff is focusing on our forecasted estimate of $3 million next year deficit which rises to $6 million in the year after. Any kind of approved measure in November 2026 is not going to be generating revenue until 2027 so we are looking at the $6 million goal. In terms of more information about short-term revenue potential, he needs to hear more about that because, if we are talking about continuing this discussion on November 24, we will not be able to generate more information. From looking at the feasible measures in the report, business tax, utility user tax, and the parcel tax, as Consultant Moura said, the parcel tax is the most feasible.
If it is something else that would be on the ballot, he needs to hear what that is. Staff do not have a separate recommendation. He stated that CFDs are unique as they are driven by particular development projects in certain areas and that would not be polled out.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that Vice Mayor Boles brought up a point about public safety parcel tax.
Consultant Moura stated business license tax and utility tax are majority measures, whereas parcel tax is two thirds. In general terms, if you do something other than a parcel tax majority measure, the moment you earmark it, it becomes a 2/3 measure. One of the interesting features of the parcel tax is that, since it is already a 2/3 measure, you could earmark it for a specific purpose. In this case, since you need $6.6 million for all of your services, he is not sure it works.
That is a direction Council could go if you feel that is going be it.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that those are our biggest expenses and we could take that money out of that piece that is now used for General Fund, presumably for those specific services.
Consultant Moura stated that is a discussion we could have with the outreach expert.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed, adding that it does not get us to fuller staffing or higher wages, but that maintains if we just use it as a new funding source, as Vice Mayor Boles said, taking that money coming from the General Fund now and applying it to other things.
Vice Mayor Boles agreed. She is not saying we necessarily put more of that budget in police but it will help other staffing if we can take that money out for others.
Mayor Beckmeyer emphasized what do people comprehend, absent a long communication plan to help address our impending shortfall. People understand public safety, bonds for roads, and the value of a library. However, whenever we poll rank order of priorities, library is not high in that list of priorities, despite the positives it brings to the community. We have to build the library and the way we have to build in Pacifica is to pass a general obligation bond and that GO bond needs to be around $55 million. She thought it might not be worthwhile to poll about a new library.
Councilmember Bier asked if it poll better than parcel tax.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she would not know if parcel tax is for public safety.
Consultant Moura thinks the key to remember is, on a General Obligation bond, it is for infrastructure only, not for the operating budget. He thought we have these two major challenges and the question is how do you move forward with each and when, with the City Manager suggesting the operating challenges first and the other may come later.
Councilmember Wright stated he was concerned that we are not taking care of our people. He thought we need to have different plans. His ideal coming into this meeting was that, in three
2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 November 10, 2025
years, we would be able to figure it out for our next round of salary negotiations and bring everybody up to the average. He stated maybe that needs to be a five-year plan and by then we can build some hotel rooms and our RHNA numbers. If we do a parcel tax for $6 million, that problem is solved, but that would not address the capital problem. The roads are also the worst on Pedro Point and in Vallemar, so we could do a special tax just in those two areas at some low amount that all that money that comes from those two districts on that special tax that only goes to fix their roads so they can see a slow progression. That does not mean that some of our other grant funding does not go to address that as well, but it means it is dedicated funds towards progress on the roads getting repaired.
Mayor Beckmeyer had a hard time imagining people in the back of the valley saying yes to a parcel tax or GO Bond with the primary purpose to fix roads for only those two sections.
Councilmember Wright stated assessment district only for the neighborhoods affected.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if we do that for other capital projects and where do we stop that line.
Councilmember Wright stated that the sea wall is different and he thinks we need federal and state help, and the split he sees on that is the 65% federal investment, 25% state investment.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we are not getting either of those funds right now.
Councilmember Wright agreed with that now with the present administration.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if we are interested in the business license tax or the utility users tax.
Councilmember Wright stated he is interested in the utility user tax and whether it would function.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if business license tax meant figuring out who has not been paying.
Vice Mayor Boles stated enforcement and review of our policies and increasing those taxes.
Councilmember Wright stated he is a no because it is only $500,000 and we want to encourage businesses, not push them away.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked, by the same token, the UUT.
Councilmember Wright stated that is slightly different.
Mayor Beckmeyer thinks it is too hard to explain and it hits people in their pocketbook, housing costs, and budget. She does not see it passing.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we are already charging too much for the two we do charge for.
She is not sure how much extra it will bring.
Councilmember Bier stated that we are not moving forward with either the business license tax or the utility user tax.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked Councilmember Wright if he thinks the UUT would get approved.
2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 November 10, 2025
Councilmember Wright thinks it is something we should get information about, but that does not mean we do it.
Consultant Moura stated that one other variable to think about is that because the business license and the UUT are only majority votes and the other is parcels 2/3, in some cases, you may want to poll on at least one of the majority items just in case parcel tax has support but not 2/3 if one of the others might have a majority, theoretically.
Mayor Beckmeyer referred about stormwater fee charges. She knows we have stormwater problems and she wondered if we financed our stormwater improvement only through our sewer tax. She asked if it is possible to fund stormwater infrastructure improvement through that stormwater fee.
City Manager Woodhouse was not familiar with that stormwater charge on the property tax bill.
Consultant Moura stated it started out as a C/CAG assessment and then later some cities charged an additional amount because the C/CAG assessment was not covering it. They probably need to research what is going on today.
Mayor Beckmeyer would like to know, in light of projects, other places that a project could be funded at CIP through an incremental amount.
Councilmember Wright stated that if SB 63 passes, we may get some revenue towards our roads.
Councilmember Bier thinks we need to understand what our community feels about either a general obligation bond or parcel tax.
Consultant Moura stated a key thing to point out is those two revenues fund two different things.
The parcel tax is to keep your current service in your General Fund. Your general obligation bond is to address your infrastructure.
City Manager Woodhouse asked Councilmember Bier if she is suggesting for the Council’s consideration if they were to direct staff in terms of their research and polling feasibility analysis, we would poll about an infrastructure bond measure and a parcel tax. He wants to be clear that the way you find out what the community feels is by doing polling. In doing polling, you are limited in how many things you can poll about. One example in the poll two years ago, we were able to do two different applications of the infrastructure GO bond poll and, at the end of the polling, there was a very short question about the TOT increase. We are limited in what we can design a statistically relevant survey within the time people are willing to spend to answer that survey.
Councilmember Bier stated that we need to do something for a short term in order to look at the renewable things we can build upon, like hotels. She asked how Council feels about it.
Vice Mayor Boles added that even these we heard are not money for next year and are not short term either if something is on the ballot in November. That would not help budget planning in spring 2026.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed and stated that we need to do some sort of interim bridge budgeting and that is why we have strategic economic stabilization reserves, etc., that helps until that revenue flows if it were successful.
2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 November 10, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles asked if the revenue would start flowing in January 2027.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it depends on the kind of measure.
Consultant Moura stated, if it is a parcel tax, it would probably be delayed until the next property cycle, but the City Manager’s point is correct that we would use reserves or other funds to get between the election and when it kicked in the following fiscal year. To the other point, the parcel tax is one of the short-term potential solutions. It sounds like there is some interest in exploring.
Councilmember Wright asked if it was part of the presentation that we only have two years’ worth of reserves to do that.
Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez thinks the City Manager mentioned our budgetary stabilization funds (10% of the budget set aside) in addition to the unassigned fund balance that we show as going depleted in fiscal year 2028. There are two separate pots in the General Fund balance.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that the presentation showed hypothetical scenario if the budget deficit remains unaddressed which is not going to be the case. We always balance the budget.
When we look at expenditures, staffing, and capacities, a lot of things go into this and Council made some of the tough decisions in the last budget cycle.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that it puts it in perspective.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed.
Councilmember Bier stated that Councilmember Espinosa mentioned something about taxing parcels at a certain price point.
Councilmember Wright suggested doing it by square footage.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed, adding smaller parcels pay less or there is a flat amount that is low and larger parcels will pay more or we can do it by square footage.
Councilmember Espinosa stated we do not have to fund everything with property tax.
Councilmember Bier stated for short term.
Councilmember Espinosa stated make it three years or four years, but not forever.
Mayor Beckmeyer heard a combination of the amount of the parcel per square footage but also the terms over which it lasts.
Councilmember Espinosa thinks people may be okay with a limited-year tax if the City is suffering.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we then have to do our jobs building other things, so the community is trusting that Council is doing all we can to not continue to put that burden on them.
Councilmember Espinosa stated the idea was to talk about revenue generation but she does not think taxing people is revenue generation. She does not think it is okay to put people at risk. She asked we figure out how we can bring money to the City without taxing people. She stated if it is
2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 November 10, 2025
short term and we may not be able to fund everything the City wants to fund. We have to think about the people needing to fund their own home.
Councilmember Bier stated that it is not just what the City wants, but what our residents need.
There is a difference in the language as it is not that the City is going to spend all the money but what do our residents need.
Mayor Beckmeyer added public safety, fire, police, and PW.
Councilmember Espinosa stated we need to know what the public thinks about this before we put something on the ballot.
Councilmember Bier stated we are trying to figure out what our community thinks about it now.
Councilmember Espinosa thinks we should have started earlier and we do not have enough time.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that she was looking forward to Economic Development study session as that is the other piece as there is so much opportunity there that we are not capitalizing on.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if there is Council consensus about direction about further research on mostly about parcel tax. In addition, he needs to know whether we are continuing this meeting in discussion to November 24 or a date uncertain. The most Important thing is the direction about research that we need to be starting immediately. He supposes we can start some wheels in motion for November 24 and confirm on that date. His preference would be to get that direction at this meeting but no later than November 24; anytime later than that, we are talking about an infeasible work plan for anything that would be targeted in November 2026.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated what she would want on November 24 is a timeline. In addition, Councilmember Bier asked for a chart comparing all the various revenue measures we discussed.
Councilmember Wright asked if we have one that we agree on now for staff to have something to start working on while we are still figuring out what else we might want to have them look at, such as a square footage parcel tax.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought a square footage parcel tax and an infrastructure bond like streets.
Vice Mayor Boles is still interested in the public safety one. She thinks the parcel tax is going to be hard to pass and she is looking for other options that can bring some money in.
Councilmember Wright stated that is what the next meeting will be about. We are just looking for something for right now.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated the public safety one is a parcel tax.
Vice Mayor Boles knows that but it is very specific as opposed to just general City funding and she thinks it would be easier to pass.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed. She asked if Councilmember Wright was saying a general parcel tax or for public safety.
Councilmember Wright stated for public safety.
2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 November 10, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that they are all in agreement.
Councilmember Wright stated public safety and other essential employees.
Vice Mayor Boles asked some of PW people can be public safety.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed they were first responders.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if we are continuing the meeting until November 24.
There was Council consensus.
Vice Mayor Boles added some comparisons with other similar coastal cities that are more residential.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we cannot provide that research information for November 24.
Mayor Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 11:35 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:35 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Council Communications.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Staff Communications.
ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer acknowledged the passing of Shirley Gibbs. She stated that she was a stalwart of this community for decades. She and her husband raised their family here and she served with Ms. Gibbs on the Lion’s Club. She was a member for only 15 years and Shirley has been a member from the time a woman could be a Lion. In the sorority, she served in the Historical Society. The Little Brown Church would not exist as our museum were it not for Shirley Gibbs.
The rail car would not have happened without Shirley Gibbs. The Resource Center would not have a home without Shirley Gibbs. The amount she has given to our community and her family is indescribable and she is going to miss her so much but she knows she gave a lot for 95 years.
She knows the woman and, if she could still be here, she would. She thanked her for all she gave to the community. She then adjourned the meeting at 11:31 p.m.
2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 November 10, 2025
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-10-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6122 : Approval of Minutes)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/12/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
STAFF CONTACT:
Roland Yip, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer 650-738-3767
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On January 22, 2016, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency along the Pacifica coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard due to El Nino storm activity. Extreme wave heights for extended periods of time caused top-of-bluff retreat at several locations along the Pacifica coast and damage to City infrastructure. Since this date, the Director of Emergency Services has proclaimed the existence of other local emergencies along this same stretch of coastline. These emergencies are described below:
• The January 22, 2016 storm caused a failure of the Beach Blvd. seawall near Santa Maria Avenue, which has been repaired.
• The January 22, 2016 storm also caused the undermining of an eight-foot diameter storm drain outfall and concrete headwall for the discharge of Milagra Creek into the Pacific Ocean near 700 Palmetto Avenue from the. The project was completed on April 24, 2023.
• During the 2016-2018 storms, the 300 & 400 blocks of Esplanade Avenue experienced episodic bluff erosion. The bluff erosion has progressed to a point where the erosion is now threatening public infrastructure and utilities.
• On December 16, 2020, a failure of the Beach Blvd. seawall near Santa Rosa Avenue and the Pier created a large void (approx. 25’ w x 25’ l ). The repairs were completed by February 22, 2021.
• On December 29, 2020, another void ( approx. 10’ w x 15’ l) around 150-200 feet north of the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Santa Rosa Avenue. The repairs were completed by February 2021.
3 Packet Pg. 46
Pacifica City Council 2
January 12, 2026
• On January 14, 2021, a combination of high tides and large waves damaged a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west facing deck and concrete railing. The railing repair was beyond what had been funded for the project, the City pivoted to do further inspections on the pier before a sizable investment is made in fixing the rails, since it was prudent for the City to understand the full needs of the pier. The 2023 Pier Condition Assessment Report has been finalized and is able to be viewed at www.cityofpacifica.org/pier. A rough order of magnitude of up to $20 million for the repairs is and design and permitting. The structural engineers recommended limiting public access on the pier to approximately half of the main pier deck until repairs to the more severely damaged areas.
• In November of 2023, a failure behind the seawall was discovered at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Salada Ave. A void (approx. 2’-7’ w x 40’ l) was found behind the seawall and was repaired with concrete and cement slurry. The repairs were completed by the end of December 2023.
• On December 29, 2023, another failure (approx. 300 sf) behind the seawall was discovered at Beach Blvd. and San Jose Ave. and was temporarily plugged. The repairs were completed by January 10, 2024. This also caused damage to the Milagra storm drain outfall and left substantial sand deposits on the Beach Boulevard Prominade and on the southern Beach Boulevard rock revetment.
• In March of 2024, City staff received an Emergency Coastal Development Permit (ECDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for removal of the substantial sand deposits left on Beach Boulevard Promenade and southern rock revetment as well as for the repair of the damage to the Milagra outfall. Repairing the outfall and removal of the sand on the Beach Boulevard Promenade and removal of the sand from the southern Beach Boulevard Rock Revetment was completed by mid-May of 2024. • In May 2024, a sink hole (approx. 5’ w x 25’ l) was discovered behind the seawall on Beach Blvd. to the north of Santa Maria. The hole was repaired through an emergency contractor.
• In November 2024, a new sink hole (approx. 8’ w x 30’ l) was discovered behind the seawall on Beach Blvd. between Carmel Ave and Santa Maria Ave. The hole was repaired through an emergency contractor by December 16, 2024. • On November 13th, 2025, two sink holes (approx. 3’ w x 16’ l and 8’ w x 10’ l) were discovered behind the seawall on Beach Blvd and between Santa Maria Avenue and San Jose Avenue. Another sink hole (approx. 12’ w x 16’ l) was discovered behind the seawall near Chit Chat Cafe while making repairs to the first 2 sink holes. All sinkholes were repaired through an emergency contractor by December 16, 2025.
The City Council first ratified this proclamation (Attachment A) at its regular meeting of January 25, 2016. Since that date, additional damage has occurred along Beach Boulevard and Esplanade Avenue as noted above.
Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on January 25, 2016, and since that time staff have brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists within the Pacifica Coastline 3 Packet Pg. 47
Pacifica City Council 3
January 12, 2026
from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard every 30 days with December 8, 2025 being the most recent.
The City is using a combination of city staff, contractors, and consultants to manage the discussed emergency work. Staff will bring recommendations to the Council to end the emergency designation for projects on the list once conditions stabilize and the projects are no longer in need of the emergency designation.
The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 48
"ATTACHMENT 1"
3.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (6116 : Continuation of "ATTACHMENT 1"
3.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (6116 : Continuation of
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/12/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Continuation of Proclamation of a Local Emergency at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood.
STAFF CONTACT:
Melissa Tigbao, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 501-6016
[email protected]
Louis Sun, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works – Wastewater (650) 738-4660
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On August 6, 2025, Public Works Wastewater Division staff received a call from a resident observing a crack on the 6-inch sewer main crossing Calera Creek near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue. Public Works Wastewater Division staff responded to the notification and inspected the sewer main and discovered evidence of corrosion on the sewer main. Staff also conducted a temporary repair. The temporary repair is inadequate for the long term, and the cracked sewer main requires immediate repair to prevent potential sanitary Sewer Spills and threaten the safety of persons and property, including polluting the Calera Creek watershed.
On August 20, 2025, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency at the sewer mains crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue due to corroded conditions and potential collapse of the 6-inch sewer main crossing Calera Creek (Attachment 1). Since this date, the Director of Emergency Services has proclaimed the existence of these emergencies as described below:
• There is a potential for leakage during wet weather flows. The potential for sewer main failures and resulting sanitary sewer spills threatens the creek. • Sewer mains cross Calera Creek in three locations in the Vallemar neighborhood. These sewer mains have been identified as health and safety of persons and property, including critical public infrastructure for replacement as part of the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard 4 Packet Pg. 51
Pacifica City Council 2
January 12, 2026
Areas Sewer and Rehabilitation and Repair Project. The design of this project (approved by Council August 26, 2024) is in progress. The City is fast-tracking the creek crossings portion of the project, and construction documents are underway.
• The creek crossing near Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenues has deteriorated further since inspection earlier this year, and there is a risk that the other creek crossings in the neighborhood are deteriorating further and may result in sanitary sewer spills.
The City Council first ratified this proclamation (Attachment 2) at its regular meeting of August 25, 2025. Since that date, staff is expeditiously working towards a permanent repair solution. • Design documents were completed in September, staff issued 100% plans for informal bidding in October and received two bids, and selected the apparent low bidder, Ranger Pipelines.
• Staff have finalized contract documents and scheduled a pre-construction meeting on November 13, 2025.
• Staff issued a Notice to Proceed on December 4, 2025.
Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency at the sewer mains crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on August 25, 2025. Staff will bring up the continuance of Proclamation every 30 days, with January 12, 2026, being the most recent.
The City is using a combination of city staff, contractors, and consultants to manage the discussed emergency work. Staff will bring recommendations to the Council to end the emergency designation for projects on the list once conditions stabilize and the projects are no longer in need of the emergency designation.
The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that the conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the sewer mains crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose to not to adopt the Proclamation Confirming Existence of Local Emergency at the sewer mains crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar neighborhood, however this is not recommended. Delaying the work increases the risk of Sanitary Sewer Spills into Calera Creek and may cause health and safety issues to persons and property, including critical public infrastructure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the emergency declared.
ORIGINATED BY:
4 Packet Pg. 52
Pacifica City Council 3
January 12, 2026
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment 1 - PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY at Calera Creek Oneonta - Minerva (PDF)
Attachment 2 - ResolutionNo74-2025_RatifyingProclamationLocalEmergency_SewerMainVallemar_EXECUTED (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 53
CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue • Pacifica, California 94044-2506 www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Sue Beckmeyer
MAYOR PRO
TEM
Christine Boles
COUNCIL
Mary Bier
Mayra Espinosa
Greg Wright
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council at the earliest possible time; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, Public Works Wastewater Division received a notification from the public regarding observation of a crack on the 6-inch sewer main crossing the Calera Creek near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue in Vallemar neighborhood; and WHEREAS, Public Works Wastewater Division staff responded to the notification and inspected the sewer main and discovered evidence of corrosion, which caused a crack that was dripping; and WHEREAS, Staff made a temporary repair that would help to prevent complete failure of the sewer main by wrapping pipe repair tape; and
WHEREAS, the temporary repair is inadequate for the long term, and the cracked sewer main requires a more extensive immediate repair to prevent potential sanitary Sewer Spills and threatens the safety of persons and property, including polluting the Calera Creek watershed; and WHEREAS, such conditions are or are likely to be beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency 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 at the sewer main crossing the Calera Creek near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue in the Vallemar neighborhood.
DATED: August 20, 2025
By:
_____________________________
Kevin Woodhouse
Director of Emergency Services
4.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment 1 - PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY at Calera Creek Oneonta - Minerva (6102 : Continuation of Proclamation RESOLUTION NO. 74-2025
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA
RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION CONFIRMING EXISTENCE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY AT
THE SEWER MAINS CROSSING CALERA CREEK IN THE VALLEMAR NEIGHBORHOOD WHEREAS, Section 4-2.05 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) designates 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 August 5, 2025, the Department of Public Works Wastewater Division staff, observed a crack in the six-inch sewer main crossing Calera Creek between Oneonta Avenue and Reina del Mar Avenue; and
WHEREAS, failures of corroded sewer mains would create a hazardous condition including potential Sanitary Sewer Spills and threaten the safety of persons and property, including critical public infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the damaged sewer main threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, 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 or are likely to be beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contract, pursuant to Public Contract Code 22050; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2025, 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 6-inch sewer main crossing Calera Creek near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva
4.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment 2 - ResolutionNo74-2025_RatifyingProclamationLocalEmergency_SewerMain-Vallemar_EXECUTED (6102 :
4.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment 2 - ResolutionNo74-2025_RatifyingProclamationLocalEmergency_SewerMain-Vallemar_EXECUTED (6102 :
RESOLUTION NO. 74-2025
ATTACHMENT A
4.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment 2 - ResolutionNo74-2025_RatifyingProclamationLocalEmergency_SewerMain-Vallemar_EXECUTED (6102 :
CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue • Pacifica, California 94044-2506 www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Sue Beckmeyer
MAYOR PRO
TEM
Christine Boles
COUNCIL
Mary Bier
Mayra Espinosa
Greg Wright
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council at the earliest possible time; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, Public Works Wastewater Division received a notification from the public regarding observation of a crack on the 6-inch sewer main crossing the Calera Creek near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue in Vallemar neighborhood; and WHEREAS, Public Works Wastewater Division staff responded to the notification and inspected the sewer main and discovered evidence of corrosion, which caused a crack that was dripping; and WHEREAS, Staff made a temporary repair that would help to prevent complete failure of the sewer main by wrapping pipe repair tape; and
WHEREAS, the temporary repair is inadequate for the long term, and the cracked sewer main requires a more extensive immediate repair to prevent potential sanitary Sewer Spills and threatens the safety of persons and property, including polluting the Calera Creek watershed; and WHEREAS, such conditions are or are likely to be beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency 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 at the sewer main crossing the Calera Creek near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue in the Vallemar neighborhood.
DATED: August 20, 2025
By:
_____________________________
Kevin Woodhouse
Director of Emergency Services
4.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment 2 - ResolutionNo74-2025_RatifyingProclamationLocalEmergency_SewerMain-Vallemar_EXECUTED (6102 :
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/12/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Offshore Drilling Letter of Opposition
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Direct the Mayor to send a letter (Attachment A) opposing the proposed 11th National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
STAFF CONTACT:
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On December 19, 2025, Councilmember Beckmeyer requested this item be added to the January 12, 2026 City Council meeting agenda due to a January 23, 2026 comment period deadline on this matter.
On January 6, 2025, President Biden used Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act to prohibit new oil and gas leasing in 625 million acres of federal waters. This includes areas off the west and east coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and parts of Alaska's Northern Bering Sea. In response, President Trump expressed his intention to reverse this action. On April 30, 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) opened a public comment period regarding a plan to reopen federal waters for development.
The BOEM, a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior, states on its website that certain areas are excluded from offshore development. According to a Presidential Memorandum issued in accordance with section 12(a) of the OCS Lands Act, on July 14, 2008, any National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) designated by that date is withdrawn from oil and gas leasing indefinitely. However, any NMS created or expanded after that date is not automatically withdrawn from leasing. Specific rules and regulations governing the designation and management of each NMS may still restrict or prohibit certain activities within those sanctuaries.
Initiating a new National OCS Program development process is a key aspect of implementing President Trump's Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, titled “Unleashing American Energy,” issued on January 20, 2025, along with Secretary's Order 3418, also called “Unleashing American Energy,” issued on February 3, 2025. The E.O. emphasizes that it is “in the national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources” and establishes a policy for the United States to encourage energy exploration and production on federal lands and in federal waters, including the OCS. The E.O. aims to meet the needs of American citizens and solidify the United States as a global leader in energy.
In the Pacific OCS Region, no oil and gas lease sales were included in the 10th National OCS Program for the four planning areas. Between 1963 and 1984, 11 OCS oil and gas lease sales were held in the Pacific Region, resulting in a total of 470 issued leases. As of April 1, 2025, 5 Packet Pg. 59
Pacifica City Council 2
January 12, 2026
there are 30 active leases offshore Southern California, all of which produce hydrocarbons.
BOEM estimates a mean undiscovered oil and gas resource volume in the Pacific OCS to be
13.06 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BBOE).
Due to Congressional moratoria, subsequent Presidential actions, and consistent opposition from the States of Washington, Oregon, and California regarding offshore activities, the Pacific OCS has not been included in any National OCS Program since the 1987-1992 Program.
Not all unleased land on the OCS is available for oil and gas leasing. Under Section 12(a) of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341), the President of the United States can withdraw any unleased lands from disposition at any time. Restrictions on leasing may also be imposed through other avenues, such as Presidential proclamations, acts of Congress, regulatory restrictions, and management plans. BOEM maintains a list of regulations applicable to the OCS on its “Areas Under Restriction” webpage. For more information, please visit BOEM's Areas Under Restriction page at <https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasing/areas-under-restriction>.
The Bureau of Energy Management will analyze all 27 OCS planning areas, including those that may currently be unavailable for leasing. An area that is presently unavailable could still be part of a National OCS Program, but could not be offered for sale until Congress and/or the President makes it available.
Oil spills in Southern California have released thousands of gallons of oil throughout California’s waters, harming sensitive environmental habitats, damaging coastal infrastructure, and disrupting local industries that rely on a healthy coastal environment. Although oil plays a significant role in the daily lives of Pacifica residents, it is important for local communities to take proactive steps to reduce their reliance on oil and to support more sustainable and safer forms of energy that will not harm our environment. The City of Pacifica has been actively working to support sustainable practices and in 2025 adopted a new Climate Action and Resilience Plan.
The Pacifica City Council may further strengthen these efforts by opposing offshore oil and gas drilling in the proposed 11th National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council could choose not to send this opposition letter, or to make revisions to the letter before sending.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN:
Opposition to offshore drilling relates to the City’s environmental sustainability and resource stewardship parts of its Mission, Vision, and Values, as well as the City’s goal to pursue climate change adaptation and mitigation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of directing the Mayor to send this opposition letter.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Manager's Office
5 Packet Pg. 60
Pacifica City Council 3
January 12, 2026
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Draft Opposition Letter (PDF)
5 Packet Pg. 61
CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue • Pacifica, California 94044-2506 www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Christine Boles
VICE MAYOR
Greg Wright
COUNCIL
Sue Beckmeyer
Mary Bier
Mayra Espinosa
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
January 12, 2026
Ms. Kelly Hammerle
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (VAM-LD)
45600 Woodland Rd.
Sterling, VA 20166-9216
Also submitted to https://www.regulations.gov via navigating to BOEM-2025-0483-0001 Re: Comments on 11th National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Docket ID: BOEM2025-0483-0001 MAA104000 pursuant to Federal Register Number 2025-20760.
Dear Ms. Hammerle:
I hereby submit these detailed comments on behalf of the City of Pacifica, California, City Council in response to the proposed lease sale schedule and Draft Proposed Program (DPP) for the 11th National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program at Docket ID: BOEM-2025-0015. Further, we object to the scheduling of any of the DPP’s proposed OCS lease sales offshore California and we hereby request a written response from the Secretary of Interior (the Secretary) to each point we raise in these comments.
Further, we also hereby request an extension of the foreshortened public comment period being provided on this inadequate DPP document. The current DPP document fails to comply with Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act and its implementing regulations (30 CFR part 556) due in part as a result of, but not limited to, the obvious lack of a transparent public process being considered at the Department of Interior (DOI), a foreshortened comment period timed to begin immediately prior to two major national holidays during which most public agencies are closed, and the curtailment of public comment opportunities caused by lack of any DOI public hearings in the affected communities. We therefore request an extension of the public comment period beyond the initially advertised deadline and that DOI schedule and conduct a minimum of six duly noticed public hearings to be held in local jurisdictions along the California coast, with two each of such hearings to be held adjacent to all three of the affected OCS Planning Areas.
5.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Opposition Letter (6121 : Offshore Drilling Letter of Opposition) As BOEM is aware, all Pacific Coast OCS Planning Areas in the DPP are clearly included in the January 6, 2025, permanent Executive OCS Withdrawal issued under Section 12(a) of the OCS Lands Act (OCSLAA) 43 U.S.C. 1341(a) to protect all unleased federal waters along the U.S.
Atlantic, Pacific, and Florida Gulf Coasts, as well as portions of the Northern Bering Sea, from offshore oil and gas leasing for a time period without specific expiration. This includes the entire California coastline. Further, BOEM must also abide by the “Areas Under Restriction” parameters defined at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/17/2025- 01464/withdrawal-of-certain-areas-of-the-united-states-outer-continental-shelf-from-oil-andnatural-gas Because broad swaths of the federal OCS Leasing Program were already recently arbitrarily deleted from Interior’s drilling consideration under political pressure, as was the case with the Atlantic Coast, the Pacific Northwest, and parts of Florida’s waters, the DPP and the leasing proposal therein would appear to be in violation of the “critical balancing” requirements of the OCS Lands Act as Amended by placing an obviously disproportionate burden of adverse impacts on California’s shoreline communities in comparison to other OCS regions, essentially forcing California’s affected local governments to unwillingly sacrifice their longstanding duly-adopted coastal protection and climate mitigation priorities.
While the DPP informally suggests that only geographic areas smaller than an OCS Planning Area can be identified for exclusion from consideration for offshore oil and gas leasing, our coastal communities are united in our request that the California Coast in its entirety be now removed from the DPP at this step in the process, as was recently undertaken by BOEM for all of the Atlantic Coast, substantial portions of Florida, and the entire coast of our neighboring states of Oregon and Washington. The required balancing of environmental risks and economic benefits among the OCS regions clearly stipulates equivalent consideration of similar protective treatment for the California Coast according to OCSLAA. We further join with our colleagues in other California coastal jurisdictions in hereby submitting a negative nomination for all tracts in all three OCS Planning Areas offshore California.
A state such as California, with a federally-approved Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP), will eventually likely be compelled to exercise its duly-held authority over any federal action that directly affects the land and water uses of the affected state. If and when Interior’s proposed offshore OCS leasing process goes forward, the State of California and its coastal local governments will inevitably be appropriately raising this issue of Federal Consistency in order to protect their intrinsic rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
Our nearby National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) protections play a central role in this region’s economic well-being, the health of our surrounding ecosystems, the quality of life and recreational opportunities enjoyed by our citizens, and our community’s ability to plan for a sustainable future. Our jurisdiction played a constructive role in obtaining the designation of our National Marine Sanctuaries, and the timing of the designation of each Sanctuary or portion thereof plays no role in whether or not BOEM can consider its waters are permanently protected from OCS leasing and related activities. All of our Sanctuary waters are permanently protected from offshore oil and gas leasing and all related activities.
5.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Opposition Letter (6121 : Offshore Drilling Letter of Opposition) Every National Marine Sanctuary has a Designation Document, a Management Plan, and Site Regulations, and for those Sanctuaries offshore California, each of these documents contains a strict prohibition on offshore oil and gas leasing and related activities, as stipulated in various ways in each of those documents. The overarching regulatory framework, among other protocols, lists as prohibited or otherwise regulated activities, essentially the following: (1) Exploring for, developing, or producing hydrocarbons within the Sanctuary, (2) Exploring for, developing, or producing minerals within the Sanctuary, (3) Discharging or depositing from within or into the Sanctuary any material or other matter, except as narrowly identified, (4) Discharging or depositing from beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary any material or other matter that subsequently enters the Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or quality, except as specifically identified, and (5) Drilling into, dredging, or otherwise altering the submerged lands of the Sanctuary, or constructing or placing any structure, material, or other matter on or in the submerged lands of the Sanctuary, except as incidental and necessary for certain narrowlyauthorized purposes. Further regulations within California’s National Marine Sanctuaries also preclude taking or possession of certain marine mammals and birds, defacing signage, release of an introduced species with certain exceptions, and additional prohibited or otherwise regulated activities within marine reserves and marine conservation areas. It should be noted that any federal effort to lease OCS tracts inside of a National Marine Sanctuary is precluded, or to in any way attempt to modify any of the applicable governing documents mentioned above, would of necessity trigger a transparent public process involving extensive comment opportunities and requiring related public hearings. In the case of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, whose creation was reinforced by the H.R.2027 - Hurricane Andrew Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1993 during the 103rd Congress (1993-1994), issuing any notice of intent to engage in any pre-lease of OCS leasing activities would require a new Act of Congress.
The DPP Fails to Consider:
1) Which areas of the OCS to lease for oil and gas development by considering the “existing information concerning the geographical, geological, and ecological characteristics” of each OCS region when developing the Five-Year OCS Program. 2) Equitable sharing of developmental benefits and environmental risks among the regions.
3) Existing information concerning the geographical, geological, and ecological characteristics of such regions.
4) The location of affected regions with respect to, and the relative needs of, regional and national energy markets.
5) The location of such regions with respect to other uses of the sea and seabed, including fisheries, navigation, existing or proposed sealanes, potential sites of deepwater ports, and other anticipated uses of the resources and space of the OCS. 6) The interest of potential oil and gas producers in the development of oil and gas resources as indicated by exploration or nomination.
7) Laws, goals, and policies of affected States which have been specifically identified by the Governors of such States as relevant matters for the Secretary's consideration.
5.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Opposition Letter (6121 : Offshore Drilling Letter of Opposition) 8) The relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of different areas of the OCS.
9) Relevant environmental and predictive information for different areas of the OCS. 10) Industry’s backlog of undeveloped active OCS leases throughout the Gulf of America, and elsewhere.
BOEM must address California’s existing state waters moratoria rules which preclude new state waters offshore oil and gas leasing and any expansion of existing infrastructure for petroleum activities on adjacent federal leases.
Interior’s current DPP also ignores California’s pre-existing network of 27 local land use ordinances that effectively preclude or complicate any future local permitting of onshore facilities that would be required to deploy equipment or to construct exploratory or development rigs or to process offshore oil and gas along much of the California Coast.
The Federal Register Notice fails to substantiate how BOEM justifies the use of Section 8(k) of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)) for the described oil and gas leasing activity. The cited Executive Orders and accompanying notices do not legally justify proceeding with the described leasing procedures under the OCS Lands Act (OCSLAA).
Because the primary economic base of our coastal region relies on our thriving visitor-serving industry and commercial and sport fishing activities, the City of Pacifica continues to support permanent protection from any new offshore oil and gas leasing for the entire California Coast.
Thank you for soliciting these comments on behalf of the City of Pacifica, California as duly submitted.
Sincerely,
Christine Boles
Mayor, City of Pacifica
cc: City Council
5.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Opposition Letter (6121 : Offshore Drilling Letter of Opposition)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/12/2026
1 SUBJECT:
2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving 2024-2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025.” STAFF CONTACT:
Melissa Tibgao, Public Works Director
650-501-6016
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Marisol Gómez, Director of Finance and Administrative Services 650-501-0257
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City of Pacifica, like many other local agencies, levies fees on new development within the City in order to fund public capital improvements necessitated by such development (Development Fees). In 1987 the State enacted Assembly Bill No. 1600, adding Section 66000 et seq. to the Government Code, commonly known as AB 1600 or the Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act imposes certain accounting and reporting requirements on local agencies that collect Development Fees. The proposed action before the City Council is designed to ensure that the City complies with the accounting and reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
1. A local jurisdiction must follow the process to make certain determinations regarding the purpose and use of the fees and to establish a “nexus” or connection between a development project and the public improvement being financed with the fee.
2. The fee revenue must be segregated from the general fund in order to avoid commingling of public improvement fees and the general fund.
3. If a local jurisdiction has had possession of a development fee for five years or more and has not committed that money to a project or actually spent that money, then it must make findings describing the continuing need for that money each fiscal year after the five years has expired.
4. If a local jurisdiction cannot make the findings required under paragraph 3, then the City must go through a refund procedure.
The City of Pacifica’s Municipal Code authorizes collection of the following Development Fees covered by the Mitigation Fee Act:
1. Traffic Impact Mitigation Improvement Fees for Highway One Improvements (Chapter 15,Title 8) - Fund 312
6 Packet Pg. 66
Pacifica City Council 2
January 12, 2026
Fees are imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Traffic Impact Mitigation Improvement Fund for Highway One Improvements, Chapter 15, Title 8, as added by Ordinance No. 318-C.S.). The purpose of the Highway 1 impact mitigation fee is to defray the actual or estimated costs of constructing improvements to Highway One in the City from Westport Drive south to the southern City limits, which improvements will be required to accommodate the increased traffic flow in the area resulting from future development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing traffic and street improvements to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing traffic and street projects that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the traffic generated by the respective development, measured by the square footage of the new development, and the new development’s proportionate cost to construct the improvements required to serve the traffic generated by the new development. In addition, the traffic impact mitigation fee is imposed in two impacting areas. The primary impacting area is that area lying south of Sharp Park Road. The secondary impact area is that area lying north of Sharp Park Road. The fee is imposed on new residential, commercial, and retail development.
2. Street Improvement Fee, (Section 214, Article 2, Chapter 2, Title 7 and Chapter 21, Title 8) - Fund 213
The City of Pacifica is responsible for maintaining over 90 centerline miles of street pavement. The City’s Street maintenance program has been chronically underfunded and as a result the City currently has one of the lowest pavement condition index (PCI) score in the bay area cities and faces a growing deficit in needed pavement maintenance and rehabilitation funding.
Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee (PMC Section 7-2.214). The Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee is imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee, Section 214, Article 2, Chapter 2, Title 7). Excavations in paved streets owned and maintained by the City degrade and shorten the life of the surface of the streets, and this degradation increases the frequency and cost to the public of necessary resurfacing, maintenance and repair.
These excavations cause degradation of the streets even where the excavations are refilled and repaired in conformity with applicable standards and requirements. It is appropriate that entities responsible for excavating into the City right-of-way bear the burden of the resulting cost of this degradation and shortened life of the surface rather than the taxpayers of the City. In addition, establishment of a Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee will create an incentive for utilities to coordinate excavations in the streets.
The purpose of this Utility Pavement Cut Recovery impact fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of restoration and maintenance of City pavement related to the increased use and degradation of paved streets owned by the City resulting from pavement excavations for new development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing traffic and street projects to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing traffic and street projects that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the "Council-Approved Rate" contained in the Citywide Fee Schedule adopted on June 23, 2025, effective July 1, 2025.. The fee is imposed on residential/commercial/retail development.
6 Packet Pg. 67
Pacifica City Council 3
January 12, 2026
Construction Vehicle Impact Fee (PMC Title 8, Chapter 21). The Construction Vehicle Impact Fee is imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Construction Vehicle Impact Fee, Chapter 21, Title 8). The purpose of the Construction Vehicle Impact fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of restoring City streets to accommodate the increased use and deterioration resulting from heavy construction vehicles associated with future development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing traffic and street projects to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing traffic and street projects that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the deterioration of City streets caused by new development’s construction vehicles, measured by the square footage added by the new development, and the new development’s proportionate cost to restore the damaged City streets. The fee is imposed on all developments in the City that require a building permit and add new residential or nonresidential building square footage.
3. Manor Drive Improvement Fund Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees for the Improvement of the Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard Intersection (Chapter 18, Title 8) - Fund 314
The Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard Intersections Improvement Fees are imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees for the Improvement of the Subject Intersection, Chapter 18, Title 8, as added by Ordinance No. 422-C.S.). The purpose of establishing traffic impact mitigation fees is to defray the actual costs of constructing improvements to the Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard intersection, which improvements will be required to accommodate the increased traffic flow in the area resulting from future building activity in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing traffic and street improvements to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing traffic and street projects that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the traffic generated by the respective development uses and the estimated cost to construct the required improvements. The traffic impact mitigation fee is imposed on the areas lying north of Paloma Avenue within the Pacifica City limits. The fee is imposed on new residential, commercial, and retail development.
4. Planned Local Drainage Fund Planned Drainage Facilities Fees (Article 1, Chapter 4, Title 7) - Fund 319
The Planned Drainage Facilities Fee is imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Article 1, Chapter 4, Title 7, as added by Ordinance No. 333-C.S.). The purpose of the Local Drainage impact mitigation fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of constructing planned drainage facilities for the removal of surface and storm drainage waters to accommodate the increased drainage needs resulting from future development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing planned drainage facilities to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing planned drainage facilities that will serve new development. 6 Packet Pg. 68
Pacifica City Council 4
January 12, 2026
The fee amount collected is based on the required storm water drainage improvements generated by the respective development, measured by the location and acreage of the new development, and the new development’s proportionate cost to construct the improvements required to serve the increased use generated by the new development.
The fee is imposed on new residential, commercial, and retail development.
5. Capital Projects Fees (Article 2, Chapter 4, Title 7) - Fund 322.
The Capital Improvements Fees are imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Capital Projects Fund, Article 2, Chapter 4, Title 7, as added by Ordinance No. 7-C.S.). The purpose of the General Capital Improvement impact mitigation fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of constructing new public safety facilities to accommodate the increased service needs resulting from future development in the City. The fee is used to develop capital programs and to provide for the capital outlays necessary to provide added services and facilities as a result of such new construction, and to safeguard life, limb, and the public health and safety. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing new public safety facilities to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing new public safety facilities that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the estimated cost to construct the required capital improvements for new residential, commercial, and retail development, measured by the number of bedrooms or hotel or motel units or the permit valuation of the new development, and the new development’s proportionate costs to construct the improvements required to serve the increased use generated by the new development. It is to be used for the acquisition, construction, and improvement of major capital facilities of the City.
6. Housing In-Lieu Fee (Resolution No. 24-2007) - Fund 224 For any residential development that is not located within the redevelopment project area, the developer may propose to pay the City an amount of money in lieu of providing a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit. The purpose of the Housing In-Lieu fee is to provide funding assistance for the provision of affordable housing in-lieu of the BMR unit required for new development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of providing funding assistance for affordable housing to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of providing funding assistance for affordable housing that will serve new development.
The in-lieu fee amount collected shall be based on the estimated cost to provide the BMR unit and shall be set forth in a resolution adopted by the City Council. In-lieu payments shall be paid prior to occupancy of the first market rate unit to be developed within the residential development.
7. In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee (Resolution No. 17-86, amended April 27, 2020 by Resolution 23-2020) - Fund 225
The In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee is imposed on private development projects in Rockaway Beach and Sharp Park areas. The purpose of the Rockaway Beach and Sharp Park In-Lieu Parking Fee is to provide additional public parking at West Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park consistent with the goals of the Rockaway 6 Packet Pg. 69
Pacifica City Council 5
January 12, 2026
Beach and Sharp Park Specific Plan to encourage shared parking facilities and accommodate the increased demand for parking resulting from future development in the Rockaway Beach and Sharp Park areas. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing additional public parking to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing additional public parking that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the fee update study adopted by City Council Resolution No. 23-2020 on April 27, 2020, and the approximate cost of constructing a parking space in an above grade parking structure.
8. Dedications and Fees for Park and Recreational Purposes (Chapter 19, Title 8) - Fund 326
The Park Facilities Impact Fee is imposed on private residential development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Park Facility Impact Fee Chapter 19, Title 8). The purpose of the Parks Facilities impact fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of constructing additional parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces to accommodate the increased needs resulting from future development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing additional parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing additional parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the increase in use of parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces generated by the respective development, measured by the number of residents due to residential construction, and the new development’s proportionate cost to construct the required recreational facilities and purchase the needed land and open space.
9. Tree In-Lieu Fee (Section 4-12-23, Chapter 12, Title 4) - Fund 229 The City established the Tree Fund for the preservation of protected trees on public and private property and to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City, while recognizing individual rights to develop, maintain, and enjoy private property. (Establishment of Tree Fund, Section 4-12-23, Chapter 12, Title 4). The Tree In-Lieu fee is an agreed upon restoration payment. The purpose of the Tree In-lieu fee is for payment of the full replacement value of a mature tree or trees in lieu thereof if onsite replacement is not feasible. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of replacing and restoring trees to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of replacing and restoring trees that will serve new development.
The City shall administer and use the Tree Fund for the following purposes: (1) Purchasing, planting, and maintaining trees within the City; (2) Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving trees within the City to remain in a naturalistic state in perpetuity; (3) Performing and maintaining a City-wide tree inventory; (4) Educating residents and developers on the preservation, care, maintenance, benefits and value of trees within the City of Pacifica; and (5) Supporting programs for the purpose of increasing the tree canopy within the City of Pacifica as approved by the Council. 6 Packet Pg. 70
Pacifica City Council 6
January 12, 2026
To mitigate the adverse effects of tree removal, a tree removal permit shall include conditions that require relocation of tree(s) on-site as recommended by a certified arborist, and/or replacement planting of a minimum of two (2) replacement trees for every otherwise healthy tree removed and may be required to pay the replacement value of the mature protected tree minus the cost of the two (2) replacement trees or payment of the full replacement value of a mature tree or trees in lieu thereof if on-site replacement is not feasible. No applicant shall be required to expend more on the replacement trees than the appraised value of the trees for which a permit is required.
The Director shall determine the replacement value of the trees utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
10. Sewer Connection Charges, (Article 1, Chapter 11, Title 6) - Fund 518 The Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fee is imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Sewer Connection Charges, Chapter 11, Title 6). The purpose of the Sewer Facility capacity fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of acquisition, construction, and operation of City sanitation and sewage facilities to accommodate the increased use of the facilities resulting from future development in the City. The sewer connection fees (PMC Section 6-11.102 and 6-11.103) are designed to offset future costs for the replacement and expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and related sewage collection facilities. The inflow and infiltration charges (PMC Section 6-11.104) reflect the contribution necessary to maintain the existing capacity of the collection system to serve new development by providing facilities to eliminate an equivalent volume of inflow and infiltration as the new flows contribute to the sewage system. The sewer tap fee (PMC Section 6-11.301) applies only if the City performs the tap and it reflects the actual cost of the service.
The fee amount collected is based on the required sanitary sewer improvements which are based on the proposed new projects generated by the respective uses and the estimated cost to construct the required improvements. The fee is imposed on new residential, commercial and retail development.
The current fee amount of the Impact Fees can be found on pages 8 to 12 of the report.
The Mitigation Fee Act mandates that for accounting purposes, Development Fees and related interest must be accounted for separately and used only for the purposes for which the Development Fees were collected. The City tracks Development Fee activity through dedicated revenue accounts and specific expenditure allocations to appropriate projects.
Mitigation Fee Act Reporting Requirements
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that, within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year, the City must make available to the public the following information regarding each of its Development Fee funds:
• A brief description of the type of Development Fee in the fund. • The amount of the Development Fee.
• The beginning and ending fund balance for the fiscal year. • The amount of Development Fees collected and interest earned. • An identification of each public improvement on which Development Fees were expended together with the amount of such expenditures. • Information regarding the schedule for commencement of certain public 6 Packet Pg. 71
Pacifica City Council 7
January 12, 2026
improvements to be funded with Development Fees.
• A description of any inter-fund transfers or loans made from the fund. • The amount of any refunds made.
To comply with these requirements, staff has prepared the attached Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees. Pursuant to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, this report is being presented to the City Council for review at a regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after the information was made available to the public. The 2024-2025 report was filed with the City Clerk’s office and made available for public review on December 22, 2025, and is attached as Exhibit A.
In addition, notice of the time and place of this meeting must be mailed at least 15 days prior to the meeting to all interested parties who filed a written request for such a notice. The City has received no such requests for notice.
Findings Regarding Unexpended Fees
For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund, and every five years thereafter, the City is required to make certain findings with respect to that portion of the fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted. Gov. Code § 66001(d)(1). The findings are:
• The purpose to which the Development Fee is to be put. • There is a reasonable relationship between the Development Fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
• Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements to be funded by the Development Fee. • Designate the approximate date on which the financing of the incomplete improvements will be complete.
Staff prepared a five-year analysis of the development fees. Staff finds that the purpose for each Development Fee is sufficiently described in the attached report. In addition, the original nexus study creating or amending the fee establishes the reasonable relationship between the Development Fee and the purpose for which it was created, the other sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of the projects where the Development Fee are part of the funding and the approximate dates on which the financing of the incomplete improvements will be completed are outlined in the City’s CIP budget each year. Detailed information by fee can be found on pages 13 to 24 of the report.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
No alternative action has been identified for the approval of the 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Annual Report of Development Fees.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the 2024-2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025 is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Enhance organizational and fiscal stability: the mitigation fees provide vital financing mechanism for City infrastructure.
• Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities: the mitigation fees assist in the development and improvement of City infrastructure. 6 Packet Pg. 72
Pacifica City Council 8
January 12, 2026
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. All development impact fees collected to date have been committed or expended and are not subject to refund.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (PDF)
6 Packet Pg. 73
Pacifica City Council 9
January 12, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ____-2026
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING THE 2024-2025 ANNUAL AND FIVE-YEAR IMPACT FEE REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2025
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq., the City of Pacifica is required to prepare an annual report regarding development impact fees within 180 days after the close of each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Staff has prepared the 2024-2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Impact Fee Report”), and incorporated by reference, which satisfies the reporting requirements stated in the Mitigation Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66006(b)(2), the Impact Fee Report has been available for public review at the Clerk’s office since December 22, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City imposes development fees that are subject to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.): the Traffic Impact Mitigation Improvement Fees for Highway One Improvements, the Street Improvement Fee, the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees for the Improvement of the Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard Intersection, the Planned Drainage Facilities Fees, the Capital Projects Fees, the Housing In-Lieu Fee, the InLieu Parking Facilities Fee, the Park Facilities Impact Fee, Tree In-Lieu Fee and the Sewer Connection Charges; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66001(d) requires a local agency to make findings with respect to any unexpended funds for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account or fund; and
WHEREAS, staff prepared a five-year analysis of the development fees. Staff finds that the purpose for each Development Fee is sufficiently described in the attached report. In addition, the original nexus study creating or amending the fee establishes the reasonable relationship between the Development Fee and the purpose for which it was created, the other sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of the projects where the Development Fee are part of the funding and the approximate dates on which the financing of the incomplete improvements will be completed are outlined in the City’s CIP budget each year.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The Council hereby approves, accepts, and adopts 2024-2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and makes the findings set forth in this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pacifica finds as follows:
6 Packet Pg. 74
Pacifica City Council 10 January 12, 2026
1. In accordance with Government Code Section 66000 et seq., the City has conducted an annual and five-year review of its development impact fees and the Council has reviewed the Impact Fee Report for the Fiscal Year 2024-2025.
2. The funds have been and shall be used for the purposes stated in said report and are necessary to mitigate impacts resulting from development in the City and there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 12th day of January, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 6 Packet Pg. 75
Pacifica City Council 11 January 12, 2026
EXHIBIT A
6 Packet Pg. 76
Path of Portola 1769 • San Francisco Bay Discovery Site 4936-1109-8373 v3
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
City of Pacifica
Annual and Five-Year Impact
Fee Report
For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025
6.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) Path of Portola 1769 • San Francisco Bay Discovery Site 4936-1109-8373 v3
Table of Contents
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ………........................................................................................................ I CITY COUNCIL AND ELECTED OFFICIALS ......................................................................................... II INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORTING ............................................... 1 ANNUAL REPORT - CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66006(b) ............................................ 1 FIVE-YEAR REPORT - CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(d) ........................................ 2
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, IDENTIFICATION OF PURPOSE OF FEES, AND REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEE AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS CHARGED ....... 4 CURRENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES ........................................................................................................... 8 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT ....................................................................................................... 13 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ............................. 13 HIGHWAY 1 IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 14 STREET IMPROVEMENT FEE ...................................................................................................................... 14 MANOR DRIVE/PALMETTO AVENUE/OCEANA BOULEVARD INTERSECTIONS ..................................... 17
PLANNED DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEES AND RESERVE FOR DRAINAGE FACILITY CONSTRUCTION FUNDS ............................................................................................................................................................ 18 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS ........................................................................................................................ 19 HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE .................................................................................................................................. 20 IN-LIEU PARKING FACILITIES FEE .............................................................................................................. 21 PARK FACILITIES IMPACT FEE .................................................................................................................... 22 TREE IN-LIEU FEE ......................................................................................................................................... 23 SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES ............................................................................................................... 24
6.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report i
4936-1109-8373 v3
January 12, 2026
The Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and Citizens of Pacifica Dear Mayor, Members of the City Council and Citizens of Pacifica:
State law requires any local agency that imposes development impact fees to prepare an annual report providing specific information about those fees. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code Sections 66006(b), 66001(d), and 66013(d), I hereby submit the Annual Report of Development Impact Fees (“Report”) for the City of Pacifica, California for the fiscal year (FY) ended June 30, 2025.
Development impact fees are charged by local governmental agencies in connection with approval of development projects. The purpose of these fees is to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project. The legal requirements for enactment of a development impact fee program are set forth in Government Code §§ 66000-66025 (the "Mitigation Fee Act"), the bulk of which was adopted as 1987’s AB 1600 and thus commonly referred to as “AB 1600 requirements”.
In Pacifica, fees are used to finance the acquisition, construction and improvement of public facilities needed as a result of this new development.
State law requires the City prepare and make available to the public the Report within 180 days of each fiscal year. The City Council must review the Report at a regularly scheduled public meeting not less than fifteen days after the information is made available to the public. A draft of this Report was filed with the City Clerk’s office and available for public review on December 22, 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
Marisol Gómez
Director of Finance and Administrative Services
CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue • Pacifica, California 94044-2506 www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Christine Boles
VICE MAYOR
Greg Wright
COUNCIL
Sue Beckmeyer
Mary Bier
Mayra Espinosa
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
6.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report ii
4936-1109-8373 v3
CITY OF PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
CHRISTINE BOLES
Mayor
GREG WRIGHT
Vice Mayor
SUE BECKMEYER
MARY BIER
MAYRA ESPINOSA
Members of City Council
KEVIN WOODHOUSE
City Manager
MICHELLE MARCHETTA KENYON
City Attorney
OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS
YULIA CARTER
MARISOL GÓMEZ
SAMANTHA UPDEGRAVE
Assistant City Manager
Director of Finance and Administrative Services
Director of Community Development
MARIA SARASUA Police Chief
RON MYERS Fire Chief
MELISSA TIGBAO Director of Public Works
SCOTT LESLIE Director of Parks, Beaches & Recreation
SARAH COFFEY City Clerk
OFFICIAL COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CLIMATE ACTION & RESILIENCE COMMITTEE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS & SAFETY COMMISSION
LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEASURE Y CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
OPEN SPACE AND PARKLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION
6.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 1
4936-1109-8373 v3
INTRODUCTION
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORTING In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of development impact fees. This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. (“Mitigation Fee Act”). The Mitigation Fee Act went into effect on January 1, 1989.
The City currently collects 10 development impact fees: (1) Highway 1 Impact Fee, (2) Street Improvement Impact Fee, (3) Manor Drive Impact Fee, (4) Drainage Impact Fee, (5) Capital Improvement Impact Fee, (6) Housing In-Lieu Fee, (7) Parking In-Lieu Fee, (8) Park Facilities Impact Fee, (9) Tree In-Lieu Fee, and (10) Sewer Facility Fee.
The Mitigation Fee Act imposes certain accounting and reporting requirements with respect to the fees collected.
The fees must be deposited in a special account to avoid co-mingling the fees with the City’s other revenues or funds. Interest on each development fee fund or account must be credited to that fund or account and used only for those purposes for which the fees were collected.
The Mitigation Fee Act also requires any local agency that imposes development impact fees to prepare a report containing annual findings, five-year findings, and capacity fee findings that provide specific information about those fees. This report serves those functions and has been prepared for the City of Pacifica for the fiscal year (FY) ended June 30, 2025 in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code Sections 66006 (b), 66001 (d), and 66013 (d).
ANNUAL FINDINGS - CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66006(b) Pursuant to Government Code 66000 et seq. and specifically Government Code section 66006(b), the City is required to prepare annual findings regarding any fee imposed to provide for an improvement to be constructed to serve a development project, or which is a fee for public improvements within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 66000, and that is imposed by the local agency as a condition of approving the development project.
California Government Code Section 66006(b) requires local agencies that impose development impact fees on new development to make publicly available the information shown below for the most recent fiscal year. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund (pages 4 to 7). The amount of the fee (pages 8 to 12).
The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund (pages 14 to 23). The amount of the fees collected, and interest earned (pages 14 to 23). An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees (pages 14 to 23).
An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and an identification of each public improvement identified in a previous report and whether construction began on the approximate date noted in the previous report (pages 14 to 23).
6.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 2
4936-1109-8373 v3
A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan (page 2).
The amount of refunds made due to sufficient funds being collected to complete financing on incomplete public improvements, and the amount of reallocation of funds made due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded (page 2).
City Actions Regarding this Section:
For the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the City did not provide any refunds of development fees. For the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the City did not transfer or loan any development fees. For the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the City reviewed the Annual Findings, and there are no actions to report.
FIVE-YEAR FINDINGS - CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(d) For all funds established for the collection and expenditure of development impact fees, California Government Code Section 66001(d) has additional requirements. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put (pages 4 to 7). Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and purpose for which it is charged (pages 4 to 7).
Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements (pages 14 to 23).
Designate the approximate dates on which the funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund (pages 14 to 23).
City Actions Regarding this Section:
For the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the City reviewed the 5-Year Findings, and there are no actions to report.
CAPACITY FEE FINDINGS – CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION California Government Code Section 66013 (d) requires that for each capacity fee fund or account established, the local agency shall make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year:
A description of the fee (page 7).
The beginning (July 1) and ending (June 30) balances of each fund for which, the fees were collected. The amount of fee collected (pages 24-25).
6.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 3
4936-1109-8373 v3
An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amounts expensed on each such improvement including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with the fees (pages 24-25).
Each public improvement, either wholly or partially funded by fees, that was completed this past fiscal year (pages 24-25).
Future public improvements funded, either wholly or partially, by fees (pages 24-25). Description of each interfund transfer or loan. The description of the interfund transfer shall identify the projects the transferred money is for. The description of the interfund loan shall include the date the loan will be repaid and the interest rate (page 2).
City Actions Regarding this Section:
For the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the City reviewed the Capacity Fee Findings, and there are no actions to report.
State law requires the City to prepare and make available to the public the above information within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year. The City Council must review the Report at a regularly scheduled public meeting not less than fifteen days after the information is made available to the public. This report was filed with the City Clerk’s office and available for public review on December 22, 2025.
6.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 4
4936-1109-8373 v3
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, IDENTIFICATION OF PURPOSE OF FEES, AND
REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEE AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS CHARGED 66006(b)(1)(A), 66013(d)(1), and 66001(d)(1)(A) and (B) The City has ten (10) development impact fees.
1. Highway 1 Improvement Fund. Fees are imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Traffic Impact Mitigation Improvement Fund for Highway One Improvements, Chapter 15, Title 8, as added by Ordinance No. 318-C.S.). The purpose of the Highway 1 mitigation impact fee is to defray the actual or estimated costs of constructing improvements to Highway 1 in the City from Westport Drive south to the southern City limits, which improvements will be required to accommodate the increased traffic flow in the area resulting from future development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing traffic and street improvements to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing traffic and street projects that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the traffic generated by the respective development, measured by the square footage of the new development, and the new development’s proportionate cost to construct the improvements required to serve the traffic generated by the new development. In addition, the Highway 1 mitigation impact fee is imposed in two impacting areas. The primary impacting area is that area lying south of Sharp Park Road. The secondary impact area is that area lying north of Sharp Park Road. The fee is imposed on new residential, commercial, and retail development.
2. Street Improvement Fee. The City of Pacifica is responsible for maintaining over 90 centerline miles of street pavement. The City’s Street maintenance program has been chronically underfunded and as a result the City currently has one of the lowest pavement condition index (PCI) score in the bay area cities and faces a growing deficit in needed pavement maintenance and rehabilitation funding.
Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee (PMC Section 7-2.214). The Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee is imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee, Section 214, Article 2, Chapter 2, Title 7). Excavations in paved streets owned and maintained by the City degrade and shorten the life of the surface of the streets, and this degradation increases the frequency and cost to the public of necessary resurfacing, maintenance and repair. These excavations cause degradation of the streets even where the excavations are refilled and repaired in conformity with applicable standards and requirements. It is appropriate that entities responsible for excavating into the City right-of-way bear the burden of the resulting cost of this degradation and shortened life of the surface rather than the taxpayers of the City. In addition, establishment of a Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee will create an incentive for utilities to coordinate excavations in the streets.
The purpose of this Utility Pavement Cut Recovery impact fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of restoration and refurbishment of City pavement related to the increased use and degradation of paved streets owned by the City resulting from pavement excavations for new development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing traffic and street projects to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing traffic and street projects that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the "Council-Approved Rate" contained in the Citywide Fee Schedule adopted on June 23, 2025, effective July 1, 2025. The fee is imposed on residential/commercial/retail development.
6.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 5
4936-1109-8373 v3
Construction Vehicle Impact Fee (PMC Title 8, Chapter 21). The Construction Vehicle Impact Fee is imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Construction Vehicle Impact Fee, Chapter 21, Title 8). The purpose of the Construction Vehicle Impact fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of restoring City streets to accommodate the increased use and deterioration resulting from heavy construction vehicles associated with future development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing traffic and street projects to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing traffic and street projects that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the deterioration of City streets caused by new development’s construction vehicles, measured by the square footage added by the new development, and the new development’s proportionate cost to restore the damaged City streets. The fee is imposed on all developments in the City that require a building permit and add new residential or nonresidential building square footage.
3. Manor Drive Improvement Fund. The Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard Intersections Improvement Fees are imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees for the Improvement of the Subject Intersection, Chapter 18, Title 8, as added by Ordinance No. 422-C.S.). The purpose of establishing traffic impact mitigation fees is to defray the actual costs of constructing improvements to the Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard intersection, which improvements will be required to accommodate the increased traffic flow in the area resulting from future building activity in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing traffic and street improvements to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing traffic and street projects that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the traffic generated by the respective development uses and the estimated cost to construct the required improvements. The traffic impact mitigation fee is imposed on the areas lying north of Paloma Avenue within the Pacifica City limits. The fee is imposed on new residential, commercial, and retail development.
4. Planned Local Drainage Fund. The Planned Drainage Facilities Fee is imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Article 1, Chapter 4, Title 7, as added by Ordinance No. 333-C.S.). The purpose of the Local Drainage impact mitigation fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of constructing planned drainage facilities for the removal of surface and storm drainage waters to accommodate the increased drainage needs resulting from future development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing planned drainage facilities to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing planned drainage facilities that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the required storm water drainage improvements generated by the respective development, measured by the location and acreage of the new development, and the new development’s proportionate cost to construct the improvements required to serve the increased use generated by the new development. The fee is imposed on new residential, commercial, and retail development.
5. General Capital Improvement Fund. The Capital Improvements Fees are imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Capital Projects Fund, Article 2, Chapter 4, Title 7, as added by Ordinance No. 7-C.S.). The purpose of the General Capital Improvement impact
6.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 6
4936-1109-8373 v3
mitigation fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of constructing new public safety facilities to accommodate the increased service needs resulting from future development in the City. The fee is used to develop capital programs and to provide for the capital outlays necessary to provide added services and facilities as a result of such new construction, and to safeguard life, limb, and the public health and safety. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing new public safety facilities to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing new public safety facilities that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the estimated cost to construct the required capital improvements for new residential, commercial, and retail development, measured by the number of bedrooms or hotel or motel units or the permit valuation of the new development, and the new development’s proportionate costs to construct the improvements required to serve the increased use generated by the new development. It is to be used for the acquisition, construction, and improvement of major capital facilities of the City.
6. Housing In-Lieu Fee. For any residential development that is not located within the redevelopment project area, the developer may propose to pay the City an amount of money in lieu of providing a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit. The purpose of the Housing In-Lieu fee is to provide funding assistance for the provision of affordable housing in-lieu of the BMR unit required for new development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of providing funding assistance for affordable housing to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of providing funding assistance for affordable housing that will serve new development.
The in-lieu fee amount collected shall be based on the estimated cost to provide the BMR unit and shall be set forth in a resolution adopted by the City Council. In-lieu payments shall be paid prior to occupancy of the first market rate unit to be developed within the residential development.
7. In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee. The In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee is imposed on private development projects in Rockaway Beach and Sharp Park areas. The purpose of the Rockaway Beach and Sharp Park In-Lieu Parking Fee is to provide additional public parking at West Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park consistent with the goals of the Rockaway Beach and Sharp Park Specific Plan to encourage shared parking facilities and accommodate the increased demand for parking resulting from future development in the Rockaway Beach and Sharp Park areas. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of constructing additional public parking to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing additional public parking that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the fee update study adopted by City Council Resolution No. 23- 2020 on April 27, 2020, and the approximate cost of constructing a parking space in an above grade parking structure.
8. Parks Facilities Impact Fee. The Park Facilities Impact Fee is imposed on private residential development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Park Facility Impact Fee Chapter 19, Title 8).
The purpose of the Parks Facilities impact fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of constructing additional parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces to accommodate the increased needs resulting from future development in the City. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of
6.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 7
4936-1109-8373 v3
constructing additional parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of constructing additional parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces that will serve new development.
The fee amount collected is based on the increase in use of parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces generated by the respective development, measured by the number of residents due to residential construction, and the new development’s proportionate cost to construct the required recreational facilities and purchase the needed land and open space.
9. Tree In-Lieu Fee. The City established the Tree Fund for the preservation of protected trees on public and private property and to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City, while recognizing individual rights to develop, maintain, and enjoy private property. (Establishment of Tree Fund, Section 4-12-23, Chapter 12, Title 4). The Tree In-Lieu fee is an agreed upon restoration payment. The purpose of the Tree In-lieu fee is for payment of the full replacement value of a mature tree or trees in lieu thereof if on-site replacement is not feasible. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because the fee represents the City’s proportionate costs of replacing and restoring trees to serve new development and the fee revenues will be used for the purpose of replacing and restoring trees that will serve new development.
The City shall administer and use the Tree Fund for the following purposes: (1) Purchasing, planting, and maintaining trees within the City; (2) Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving trees within the City to remain in a naturalistic state in perpetuity; (3) Performing and maintaining a City-wide tree inventory; (4) Educating residents and developers on the preservation, care, maintenance, benefits and value of trees within the City of Pacifica; and (5) Supporting programs for the purpose of increasing the tree canopy within the City of Pacifica as approved by the Council.
To mitigate the adverse effects of tree removal, a tree removal permit shall include conditions that require relocation of tree(s) on-site as recommended by a certified arborist, and/or replacement planting of a minimum of two (2) replacement trees for every otherwise healthy tree removed and may be required to pay the replacement value of the mature protected tree minus the cost of the two (2) replacement trees or payment of the full replacement value of a mature tree or trees in lieu thereof if on-site replacement is not feasible. No applicant shall be required to expend more on the replacement trees than the appraised value of the trees for which a permit is required. The Director shall determine the replacement value of the trees utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
10. Sewer Facility Construction Fund. The Planned Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fee is imposed on private development projects pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (Sewer Connection Charges, Chapter 11, Title 6). The purpose of the Sewer Facility capacity fee is to defray the actual or estimated cost of acquisition, construction, and operation of City sanitation and sewage facilities to accommodate the increased use of the facilities resulting from future development in the City. The sewer connection fees (PMC Section 6-
11.102 and 6-11.103) are designed to offset future costs for the replacement and expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and related sewage collection facilities. The inflow and infiltration charges (PMC Section 6-11.104) reflect the contribution necessary to maintain the existing capacity of the collection system to serve new development by providing facilities to eliminate an equivalent volume of inflow and infiltration as the new flows contribute to the sewage system. The sewer tap fee (PMC Section 6-11.301) applies only if the City performs the tap and it reflects the actual cost of the service.
The fee amount collected is based on the required sanitary sewer improvements which are based on the proposed new projects generated by the respective uses and the estimated cost to construct the required improvements. The fee is imposed on new residential, commercial and retail development.
6.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 8
4936-1109-8373 v3
CURRENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES
66006(b)(1)(B)
Highway 1 Improvement Impact Fee
Table 1 Current Highway 1 Improvement Impact Fee
(a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Municipal Code Section 8-15.03) Fee
(1) Per new residential unit $6,675
(2) Per new second residential unit $3,291
(3) Per new commercial unit (per square foot of gross floor area) $2.68
(b) Secondary Impacting Area (as defined in Municipal Code Section 8-15.03) Fee
(1) Per new residential unit $2,229
(2) Per new second residential unit $1,135
(3) Per new commercial unit (per square foot of gross floor area) $0.85 Street Improvement Fee
Table 2 Current Street Improvement Fee
Utility Pavement Cut Fee
Functional Class Age Group
Cut Area (Percent Section Area)
<10% of Section Area ≥10% of Section Area
Arterials/Collector
s
<10 years $2.54 $4.07
≥10 years $1.53 $2.54
Residential
<10 years $1.53 $3.05
≥10 years $1.02 $2.54
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): Utility Pavement Cut Fee shall not be charged for any ADU that is under 750 square feet or an ADU of any size when the ADU is being constructed at the same time, under the same permit, as a new main residential unit or an expansion of the main unit that make payment of the fees as required.
Partial or Full Credit Utility Cut Fees for Developments with Pavement Improvements: A credit my be applied against the Utility Cut Fees for completing frontage roadway paving.
6.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 9
4936-1109-8373 v3
Reduced Utility Cut Fees Related to Sewer Lateral Repairs Not Requiring a Lateral Compliance Certificate: A minimal fee of $500 will be charged for pavement cuts fees related to fixing a sewer lateral not requiring a Sewer Lateral Compliance Certificate.
Construction Vehicle Impact Fee
Residential Unit /
Multi-Family Fee
Non-Residential
Unit Fee
Per Square Foot $1.19 / sq. ft. $1.28 / sq. ft.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): Construction Vehicle Impact Fees shall not be charged for any ADU that is under 750 square feet or an ADU of any size when the ADU is being constructed at the same time, under the same permit, as a new main residential unit or an expansion of the main unit that make payment of the fees as required.
Manor Drive Improvement Impact Fee
Table 3 Current Manor Drive Improvement Impact Fee
(a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 18, Title 8) Fee
(1) Per daily trip generated. $487
Planned Local Drainage Impact Fee
Table 4 Current Planned Local Drainage Impact Fee
(a) Area Number (as defined in Municipal Code Section 7-4.101):
Area Number Watershed Title Fee per acre
1 Globe $0
2 Edgemar $7,245
3 Pacific Manor $7,052
4 Salada Beach $7,052
5 Brighton $8,416
6 Fairway Park $15,730
7 Vallemar $11,145
8 Rockaway Beach $20,760
9 Lower Linda Mar $0
10 Linda Mar $7,443
11 San Pedro Terrace $26,340
6.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 10
4936-1109-8373 v3
General Capital Improvement Impact Fee
Table 5 Current General Capital Improvement Impact Fee
(a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Municipal Code Article 2, Chapter 4, Title 7) Fee
(1) Per bedroom in a dwelling unit $329
(2) Per hotel or motel unit $164
(3) each other new structure (except accessory buildings and buildings or structures primarily used for Boys' or Girls' Clubs, Boy or Girl Scouts, or other nonprofit activities for which the Council may waive the fee).
2.0039%
of the
valuation
Housing In-Lieu Fee
Table 6 Current Housing In-Lieu Fee
(a) For a BMR Unit affordable to a Lower Income Household (Resolution No. 24-2007) Fee
Rental Unit: $205,416
For Sale Unit:
Detached Single Family: $561,910
Condominium/Townhouse: $356,910
(b) For a BMR Unit affordable to a Moderate Income Household (Resolution No. 24-2007) Fee
Rental Unit: $26,732
For Sale Unit:
Detached Single Family: $465,023
Condominium/Townhouse: $260,023
6.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 11
4936-1109-8373 v3
In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee
Table 7 Current In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee
On April 27, 2020 City Council approved the increase of the In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee for the Rockaway Beach Specific Plan Area (a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Resolution No. 23-2020) Fee
(1) Fee per in-lieu parking space. $46,814
On May 11, 2020 City Council approved Resolution No. 25-2020 to establish the In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee for the Sharp Park Specific Plan Area
(a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Resolution No. 25-2020) Fee
(1) Fee per in-lieu parking space. $46,814
Parks Facilities Impact Fee
Table 8 Current Parks Facilities Impact Fee
(a) Primary Impacting Area (as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 19, Title 8) Park Facilities Impact Fee (Mitigation Fee Act)
Bedrooms Fee
Zero $9,777.44
One $11,465.66
Two $17,514.77
Three $21,243.10
Four $24,267.65
Five $28,066.15
Each after Five $3,798.50
Tree In-Lieu Fee
Table 9 Current Tree In-Lieu Fee
IN-LIEU TREE FEES (SEC. 4-12.04 (e))
Fee
Per Tree The appraised value of the tree(s) for which a tree removal permit is required.
The Director of the Department of Public Works shall determine the replacement value of the trees utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
6.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 12
4936-1109-8373 v3
Sewer Facility Construction Impact Fee
Table 10 Current Sewer Facility Construction Impact Fee SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES (SEC. 6-11.102)
Residential or Commercial
Meter Size Cost/Meter size
1" $12,497
1.5" $24,994
2.0" $39,990
3.0" $74,982
4" $124,970
6" $249,941
8" $372,674
Accessory Dwelling Unit "ADU"
Cost per Drainage Fixture Unit "DFU" ** $658
SEWER TAP FEES (SEC. 6-11.301)
Cost per Sewer Tap $553
6.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 13
4936-1109-8373 v3
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE As of the date of this publication, the final audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for Fiscal Year 2024-45 has not been issued, and numbers stated herein are the best available figures at this time as reviewed by the Finance Department. It is also important to note that the figures represented in the tables in this section are the impact fee related portion of revenues, expenditures, and fund balance. Because of this the fund balance may not equate to the ACFR fund balance for the given year.
6.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 14
4936-1109-8373 v3
HIGHWAY 1 IMPROVEMENTS
Table 11 Highway 1 Improvements - Fund 312
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2025
Description FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $12,540 $10,592
Interest $9,536 $12,997
Total Revenues $22,076 $23,589
EXPENDITURES [1] % From Fees % From Fees
Capital Improvements $0 0% $0 0%
Pacifica State Beach Trail Rehabilitation Project $20,953 100% $15,438 100% Total Expenditures $20,953 $15,438
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $1,123 $8,151
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
Beginning of the Year $153,133 $154,256
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year $154,256 $162,407
[1] For the 2024-2025 fiscal year the City did not provide any interfund transfers, loans or refunds from funds that utilize development fees. [2] City is seeking grant funds to complete the project.
Proposed Future Projects Total Cost Impact Fees Grant Funds [2] % From Fees Commencement Year
Pacifica State Beach Trail Rehabilitation
Project $350,000 $162,407 $200,000 46% 2027
STREET IMPROVEMENT FEE
6.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 15
4936-1109-8373 v3
Table 12 Street Improvement Fund - Utility Pavement Cut Fee - Fund 213 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2025
Description FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $159,158 $1,183,852
Interest $0 $97,402
Total Revenues $159,158 $1,281,253
EXPENDITURES [1] % From
Fees
Full
Amount From Fees % From
Fees
5 Year Pavement Resurfacing Plan [2] $175,795 100%
FY 2024-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project [3] $697,201 $205,267 29%
Total Expenditures $175,795 $205,267
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES ($16,637) $1,075,987
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
Beginning of the Year $159,845 $143,208
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year $143,208 $1,219,195
[1] For the 2024-2025 fiscal year the City did not provide any interfund transfers, loans or refunds from funds that utilize development fees.
[2] The 5 Year Pavement Resurfacing Plan was completed in FY 24-25. [3] FY 24-25 Pavement Resurfacing Project completed February 24, 2025.
Proposed Future Projects Total Cost Impact Fees Gas Tax & Measure W % From Fees
Commencement
Year
FY 2025-26 Pavement Resurfacing Project $2,027,000 $200,000 $1,827,000 10% 2025 FY 2026-27 Pavement Resurfacing Project $1,970,000 $200,000 $1,770,000 10% 2025 FY 2027-28 Pavement Resurfacing Project $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 50% 2025
6.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 16
4936-1109-8373 v3
Table 13 Street Improvement Fund - Construction Vehicle Impact Fee - Fund 213 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2025
Description FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $2,648 $27,931
Interest $381 $4,514
Total Revenues $3,029 $32,445
EXPENDITURES [1] % From Fees % From Fees
Capital Improvements $0 0% $0 0%
Total Expenditures $0 $0
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $3,029 $32,445
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
Beginning of the Year $21,024 $24,053
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year $24,053 $56,498
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year
[1] For the 2024-2025 fiscal year the City did not provide any interfund transfers, loans or refunds from funds that utilize development fees.
Proposed Future Projects Total Cost Impact Fees Gas Tax & Measure W % From Fees Commencement
Year
FY 2026-27 Pavement Resurfacing Project $1,970,000 $56,498 $1,913,502 3% 2025
6.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 17
4936-1109-8373 v3
MANOR DRIVE/PALMETTO AVENUE/OCEANA BOULEVARD INTERSECTIONS Table 14 Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard - Fund 314 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2025
Description FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $1,030 $0
Interest $0 $0
Total Revenues $1,030 $0
EXPENDITURES [1] % From Fees % From Fees
Manor Drive Over-Crossing Improvement Project [2] [4] $752,208 5% $541,388 5%
Total Expenditures $752,208 $541,388
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES ($751,178) ($541,388)
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
Beginning of the Year $252,053 ($499,125)
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year ($499,125) ($1,040,513)
[1] For the 2024-2025 fiscal year the City did not provide any interfund transfers, loans or refunds from funds that utilize development fees. [2] City Council adopted Resolution 82-2021 on 12/13/21 identifying the Manor Drive Over-Crossing Improvement Project to be funded by this fee. City will receive $2,700,000 in grant funds from San Mateo County Transportation Authority Measure W funds. Estimated construction year is 2030.
[3] City is seeking grant funds to complete the project. [4] In Fiscal Year 2024-2025, there were no delays in starting the current phase of the above mentioned projects.
Proposed Future Projects Total Cost [3] Impact Fees Grant Funds % From Fees Commencement Year
Manor Drive Over-Crossing Improvement
Project $21,200,000 $900,000 $20,300,000 4% On-going
6.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 18
4936-1109-8373 v3
PLANNED DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEES AND RESERVE FOR DRAINAGE FACILITY CONSTRUCTION FUNDS Table 15 Planned Drainage Facilities Fees/Reserve For Drainage Facility - Fund 319 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2025
Description FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $0 $248
Interest $17,280 $29,247
Total Revenues $17,280 $29,495
EXPENDITURES [1] % From Fees % From Fees
Storm Drainage Master Plan $0 0% $0 0%
Serra Outfall Project [3] $2,368 0% $2,442 100%
Total Expenditures $2,368 $2,442
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $14,912 $27,053
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
Beginning of the Year $294,873 $309,785
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year $309,785 $336,838
[1] For the 2024-2025 fiscal year the City did not provide any interfund transfers, loans or refunds from funds that utilize development fees. [2] City is seeking grant funds to complete the project. [3] The Serra Outfall Project began construction in July 2021 and was completed that same fiscal year. The ongoing project cost is for Environmental Inspections and Regional Water Board Permit Fees.
Proposed Future Projects Total Cost [2] Impact Fees Grant Funds % From Fees Commencement Year
Clarendon Road Drainage Improvements $1,240,000 $140,000 $1,100,000 11% 2027 Monterey Road Drainage Improvements $575,000 $196,838 $1,100,000 11% 2027
6.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 19
4936-1109-8373 v3
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Table 16 Capital Projects Fund - Fund 322
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2025
Description FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $12,105 $14,302
Interest
Total Revenues $12,105 $14,302
EXPENDITURES [1] % From
Fees
% From
Fees
Total Expenditures $0 $0
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $12,105 $14,302
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance, Beginning
of the Year ($153,778) ($141,673)
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year ($141,673) ($127,371)
[1] For the 2024-2025 fiscal year the City did not provide any interfund transfers or refunds from funds that utilize development fees.
Proposed Future Projects Total Cost Impact
Fees
Grant
Funds % From Fees
Commencem
ent Year
None
6.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 20
4936-1109-8373 v3
HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE
Table 17 Housing In-Lieu Fee - Fund 224
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2025
Description FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $0 $0
Interest $0 $0
Total Revenues $0 $0
EXPENDITURES [1] % From Fees % From Fees
Capital Improvements $0 0% $0 0%
Total Expenditures $0 $0
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $0 $0
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
Beginning of the Year $265,702 $265,702
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year $265,702 $265,702
[1] For the 2024-2025 fiscal year the City did not provide any interfund transfers, loans or refunds from funds that utilize development fees.
Proposed Future Projects Total Cost Impact Fees Gas Tax & Measure W % From Fees Commencement
Year
None
6.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 21
4936-1109-8373 v3
IN-LIEU PARKING FACILITIES FEE
Table 18 In-Lieu Parking Facilities Fee - Fund 225
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2025
Description FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $0 $0
Interest $7,055 $12,025
Total Revenues $7,055 $12,025
EXPENDITURES [1] % From Fees % From Fees
Capital Improvements $0 0% $0 0%
Total Expenditures $0 $0
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $7,055 $12,025
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
Beginning of the Year $119,410 $126,465
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year $126,465 $138,490
[1] For the 2024-2025 fiscal year the City did not provide any interfund transfers, loans or refunds from funds that utilize development fees.
Proposed Future Projects Total Cost Impact Fees TBD/Grant Funds % From Fees Commencement
Year
Rockaway Beach Parking Structure $10,215,000 $200,000 $0 2% 2030
6.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 22
4936-1109-8373 v3
PARK FACILITIES IMPACT FEE
Table 19 Park Facilities Impact Fee - Fund 326
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2025
Description FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $142,833 $302,150
Interest $13,636 $51,650
Total Revenues $156,469 $353,800
EXPENDITURES [1] % From Fees % From Fees
Park Project FY21-22 [3] $127,693 0% $3,393 100%
Total Expenditures $127,693 $3,393
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $28,776 $350,407
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
Beginning of the Year $215,682 $244,458
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year $244,458 $594,865
[1] For the 2024-2025 fiscal year the City did not provide any interfund transfers, loans or refunds from funds that utilize development fees. [2] City Council adopted a Resolution on 12/9/19 identifying the Playground Equipment Improvement Project for the unexpended fees. [3] The Park Project FY21-22 is on-going. The project includes improvements to outdated citywide parks playground equipment. FY21-22 work focused on Fairmont and playground at Oddstad Park.
Proposed Future Projects Total Cost Impact Fees Roy Davies Funds/Grants % From Fees Commencement
Year
Playground Equipment Imrpovement
Project (aka FY24-25 Priority Parks
Project) [2]
$1,940,000 $110,000 $1,830,000 6% On-going
400 Esplanade Multi-Purpose Trail $1,325,000 $484,865 $840,135 37% On-going
6.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 23
4936-1109-8373 v3
TREE IN-LIEU FEE
Table 20 Tree In-Lieu Fee - Fund 229
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2025
Description FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $0 $2,000
Donations $150
Interest $0 $0
Total Revenues $150 $2,000
EXPENDITURES [1] [2] % From Fees % From Fees
Total Expenditures $0 $0
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $150 $2,000
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
Beginning of the Year $1,748 $1,898
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year $1,898 $3,898
[1] For the 2024-2025 fiscal year the City did not provide any interfund transfers, loans or refunds from funds that utilize development fees. [2] Tree In-Lieu Fees did not fund wholly or in part any completed projects this past FY.
Proposed Future Projects Total Cost Impact Fees General Fund % From Fees Commencement Year
City of Pacifica Arbor Day Trees $2,000 $1,700 $300 85% 2025
6.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review) 2024/2025 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 24
4936-1109-8373 v3
SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES
Table 21 Sewer Connection Charges - Fund 518
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Ending June 30, 2025
Description FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25
REVENUES
Fees $56,965 $104,812
Interest $475 $0
Total Revenues $57,440 $104,812
EXPENDITURES [1] % From Fees % From Fees
Total Expenditures $0 $0
REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES $57,440 $104,812 [2]
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
Beginning of the Year ($506,037) ($448,597)
Impact Fee Related Fund Balance,
End of Year ($448,597) ($343,785)
[1] For the 2024-2025 fiscal year the City did not provide any interfund transfers or refunds from funds that utilize development fees. [2] Sewer Connection Fees did not fund wholly or in part any completed projects this past FY.
Proposed Future Projects Total Cost Impact Fees Grant Funds % From Fees Commencement Year
None
6.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: AB 1600 FY 2024-2025_12.22.25 (6120 : 2024-2025 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/12/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to approve (1) rezoning RZ194-16 to rezone the northern portion of the project site to be developed from M-1 to C-2 and those portions of the project site to remain undeveloped to Open Space, and (2) zoning text amendment TA-116-19, to amend section 9-4.1101(b) of the Pacifica Municipal Code to add residential uses in horizontal mixed use developments as conditionally permitted uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district; and Adoption of a an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to approve Development Agreement DA-4-21 to approve and authorize a development agreement between Crespi Breakwater, LLC and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with a development project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and the eastern 55 feet of the City owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022- 162-420). (File No.: 2016-004, RZ-194-16, TA-116-19, DA-4-21) RECOMMENDED ACTION:
(1) Waive second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving (1) Rezoning RZ-194-16 to Rezone the Northern Portion of the Project Site to be Developed from M-1 to C-2 and those Portions of the Project Site to Remain Undeveloped to Open Space, and (2) Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, to Amend Section 9-4.1101(B) of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Add Residential Uses in Horizontal Mixed Use Developments as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) Zoning District”; and
(2) Waive second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Development Agreement DA-4-21 to approve and authorize a development agreement between Crespi Breakwater LLC and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with a development project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and eastern 55 feet of the City owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).”
STAFF CONTACT:
Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:
The subject ordinances for rezoning, text amendment, and a development agreement are part of the application for the mixed-use housing development at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162- 310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420) that would construct a 43,696 square foot mixed-use residential and commercial development, with 3,165 square feet of ground-floor commercial uses abutting Crespi Drive, 19 residential units, including three Below Market Rate Units (BMR), and a total of 47 parking spaces (File No. 2016-004). 7 Packet Pg. 105
Pacifica City Council 2
January 12, 2026
The Planning Commission considered the proposed project at their meeting on November 3, 20251 and adopted the following with a 4-1 vote (Ayes: Devine, Ferguson, Godwin, and Redfield; Nos: Davis (Absent: Berman and Hauser):
• Adopted Resolution No. 2025-014 to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and • Adopted Resolution No. 2025-015 recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, and Development Agreement; approving the following development permits for the project: Site Development Permit, Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Sign Permit, Parking Exception, and Tree Removal Permit; and making Government Code section 65402 findings for the transfer of real property.
The City Council considered the project, including a call up of the Planning Commission’s approval of the development permits, at a special meeting held on December 2, 20252 and took the following actions:
• Adopted Resolution No. 102-2025 certifying the Final EIR and adopting the CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), and Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) for the Project; (5-0 vote – Ayes: Espinoza, Boles, Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright).
• Adopted Resolution No. 103-2025 approving the General Plan Amendment GP-96-19 to reclassify portions of the Project site to remain undeveloped as Conservation; (5-0 vote – Ayes: Espinoza, Boles, Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright)
• Introduced Ordinance No. xxx-C.S. approving Rezoning RZ-194-16 to rezone portions of the property to be developed as C-2 to allow residential uses and portions to remain undeveloped as Open Space, and Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19 to allow horizontal mixed use as a conditional use in C-2; (5-0 vote – Ayes: Espinoza, Boles, Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright)
• Introduced Ordinance No. xxx-C.S. approving Development Agreement DA-4-21 to approve and authorize execution of a Development Agreement between Crespi Breakwater, LLC and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with the Project (3-2 vote – Ayes: Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright; Nos: Espinosa, Boles)
• Adopted Resolution No. 104-2025 approving the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Parking Exception PE-183-19, Sign Permit S-129-19, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, and Tree Removal Permit TP-13-25 to allow construction Of a mixed-use commercial and residential project consisting of 3165 square feet of commercial area and 19 residential condominiums at 570 Crespi Drive APN (022-162-310) and the eastern 55 feet of 540 1 November 03, 2025, Planning Commission agenda and staff report link:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1726 2 December 02, 2025, City Council agenda and staff report link:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=1619&Inline=True 7 Packet Pg. 106
Pacifica City Council 3
January 12, 2026
Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-42O) (3-2 vote – Ayes: Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright; Nos:
Espinosa, Boles)
o Site Development Permit (PSD-811-16): Added approval of an exception to allow the skylights on Building B and Building C to project above the maximum light as shown in the approved plans;
o Condition of Approval (COA) No 13: Corrected typo to update minimum number of required replacement trees
▪ “Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant is to prepare Tree Protection and Preservation Plan, consistent with PMC Sec. 4-12.11.
Each protected tree removed must be replaced at a ratio of 3:1, for a total of nine 15 minimum trees with at least 20 percent of those to be a minimum 24-inch box size.”
o COA No. 28: Added tree removal activities
▪ “The Project shall require review and approval of a grading permit and a building permit prior to commencement of any tree removal or construction activities.”
o COA No. 54: Added
▪ No grading, retaining walls, or other site improvements beyond those expressly allowed in the Development Agreement shall occur on City property. All improvements required for the project shall be located entirely on the owner’s private property unless separately authorized in writing by the City.
o COA No. 55: Added
▪ Every garage will have one 50-amp receptacle for EV charging. • Adopted Resolution No. 105-2025 approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Agreement for Purchase and Sale (Including Joint Escrow Instructions) and Terms of Development with Crespi Breakwater, LLC for a portion of the City’s property located at 540 Crespi Drive in the City of Pacifica, with a modification to require submittal of required documents to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) (3-2 vote – Ayes: Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright; Nos:
Espinosa, Boles)
DISCUSSION:
The two ordinances recommended for adoption were introduced and the first reading was waived on December 2, 2025. The ordinances provide as follows:
1. Ordinance for a Zoning Text Amendment and Rezoning. Per PMC section 9-4.3501, the zoning ordinance and zoning districts may be amended whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare require such amendments. The recommendation to approve the Zoning Text Amendment and Rezoning is based on the following considerations:
Zoning Text Amendment – TA-116-19. Residential uses located above the ground floor in the same building as commercial uses, or vertical mixed, are currently allowed by conditional use in the C-2. The proposed zoning text amendment would add a new subsection (12) to section 9-
4.1101(b) of the PMC to add a new conditional use that incorporates the allowance of 7 Packet Pg. 107
Pacifica City Council 4
January 12, 2026
residential-only buildings as part of an integrated mixed-use development to the C-2 zoning district, as follows:
PMC section 9-4.1101(B) (12) Residential dwelling units as part of a mixed-use development, including: (a) Residential units located above the ground floor in the same building as a permitted commercial use (“vertical mixed use”); and (b) Residential units located in a separate building or buildings on the same site as a permitted commercial use, where the residential and commercial uses are planned as a single, integrated development project (“horizontal mixed use”).
The zoning text amendment would apply to all property in the City zoned as C-2 and would by reference also apply to properties zoned as O (Professional Office), which refers to the standards in C-2. The zoning text amendment would not alter the allowable uses or density in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district where residential uses mixed with commercial uses on the same site would continue to be required within the same building as a commercial use, above the ground floor (vertical mixed-use), with a maximum density of one unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area. Residential uses would continue to be prohibited in the C3 (Service Commercial) zoning district.
The Zoning Amendment would also address an inconsistency between the zoning ordinance and the 2040 General Plan for sites that are zoned C-2 or O and designated as Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) or Mixed Use Center (MUC). These Mixed Use Land Use Land Use designations (1) both allow vertical and horizontal mixed use, and (2) establish the density allowance based on units per acre. The current zoning ordinance is inconsistent because it only allows vertical mixed use and establishes a density of one unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area, which is less than what is allowed under the General Plan. Further, sites that are zoned C-2 or O but are not designated in the General Plan to allow residential uses would not be impacted by this change since residential is not allowed.
Rezoning – RZ-194-16. The project would rezone the northern developable portions of the subject site from the M-1 (Controlled Manufacturing) to the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district. The M-1 zoning district is subject to the allowable uses in the C-3 (Service Commercial) zoning district codified in PMC section 9-4.1201 which expressly prohibit residential uses. The rezoning would allow the project and proposed uses to be subject to the allowable uses in the C-2 zoning district codified in PMC section 9-4.1101 which, upon approval of the zoning text amendment, would allow mixed-use commercial and residential development on the project site.
The ordinance would also rezone the southern portions to remain undeveloped to an Open Space Zoning District consistent with the recommended General Plan designation of Conservation. The purpose of the Open Space District is to provide for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of such environmental resources while providing for reasonable and compatible uses of land, and extends “protections to, but not limited to… land which is unsuitable for development due to steep slopes, geotechnical hazards, or other reasons, land areas vital to water resources relating to the supply, recharge, and/or watersheds, and areas of scenic value or unique natural features” (PMC section 9-4.2051). Open space as a reserve for seismic safety, water conservation erosion protection, view protection, or appropriate uses is a permitted use in the district.
The rezoning would also address an inconsistency between the site zoning designation and the 2040 General Plan MUC Land Use designation, which allows mixed use residential whereas the M-1 zoning prohibits residential. Both the rezoning to C-2 and zoning text amendment would create consistency between the current MUC designation, which allows horizontal mixed use, and the zoning by allowing residential uses on the site, eliminate the conflicting prohibition on 7 Packet Pg. 108
Pacifica City Council 5
January 12, 2026
residential uses on the site, density provisions (no minimum and lower maximum), and allowing horizontal mixed use at the site.
Attachment A, Exhibit A includes the existing and proposed zoning designations.
The findings to support the approval of the proposed rezoning and zoning text amendment are summarized below, and as set forth in detail in the proposed zoning ordinance (Attachment A):
The rezoning to C-2 and text amendment address the current inconsistencies between the Mixed Use Center Land Use designation and the M-1 Zoning District by allowing residential uses, and inconsistencies with the C-2 district by allowing both vertical and horizontal mixed use as conditional uses, and removing inconsistent provisions that do not establish a minimum density and set a lower maximum based on lot area.
In addition, the project would provide 19 residential units, including three Below Market Rate (BMR) homeownership units (one in each building) to meet current inclusionary housing requirements. The site’s location and characteristics and the in-fill nature of the development make it suitable for the density, intensity, and type of development proposed. The rezoning would be appropriately divided between the C-2 zoning on the northern developable portions of the parcel, and Open Space zoning on the southern portions that are proposed to remain in a natural state. The zoning text amendment would allow flexibility in site design to utilize the developable portions at a scale and intensity appropriate for the area by clustering development in the appropriate part of the site, providing space for critical housing and viable commercial spaces along the street frontage. The project aligns with current policies to promote infill development, encourage mixed-use development, especially in the lower Crespi Drive primary activity center, and preserve natural resources.
The project also supports and furthers Housing Element polices and increases ownership opportunities in a high resource area of the City. Further, the proposed rezoning and zoning text amendment would facilitate a project that can safely develop without causing adverse neighborhood impacts, and the appropriate General Plan consistency and zoning compliance findings can be made for the development upon approval.
2. Ordinance to Approve Development Agreement – DA-4-21. The City and the developer negotiated the terms of a development agreement to establish certain developer benefits and public benefits (Attachment B, Exhibit A). The developer would be granted vested rights to proceed with development under the City’s current land use regulations for the term of the development agreement, up to five years with an initial term of three years and a provision for a two-year extension. Public benefits include, but are not limited to:
• Affordable housing contribution in excess of the minimum requirements of the City’s below-market rate (BMR) inclusionary zoning requirements in the amount of $272,000; • Lease and associated payments to the City for use of the Community Center driveway at 540 Crespi Drive;
• Improvements to the Community Center property including construction of off-street parking spaces, a drop-off location at the front of the Community Center building, and landscaping improvements; and
• Wetlands interpretive signage at the rear of the project site.
All off-site improvements provided pursuant to the Development Agreement, including new parking spaces at the Community Center, would be required to obtain the applicable permits 7 Packet Pg. 109
Pacifica City Council 6
January 12, 2026
with the final layout and configuration approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (Condition of Approval #25), and be completed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy.
The findings to approve the Development Agreement, pursuant to PMC section 9-4.5007, can be made, as summarized below, and as set forth in detail in the proposed ordinance (Attachment B):
The project consists of an in-fill development with direct access to a public street and utilities within Crespi Drive. The proposed development would not result in any adverse impacts to public health, safety, or welfare as conditioned. In particular, the project would result in a project where building mass would be broken up into three buildings as opposed to a single building as would be required under current zoning standards.
Provisions in Article 5 of the development agreement would require the applicant to complete the Community Center and wetlands interpretive sign improvements prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, which would ensure their completion prior to the applicant receiving substantial benefits from development of the project. Article 5 of the development agreement would also require payment of an additional affordable housing contribution of $272,000 prior to issuance of a building permit.
New housing creates revenue for the City through sales and property taxes and supports local businesses. The commercial component of the project would have a positive impact on the City’s economy, and the residential component of the project would have a significant positive impact on meeting the City’s housing needs generally and affordable housing needs specifically, as well as generating additional revenue.
The project, on the whole, inclusive of the provisions of the proposed development agreement, would be positive for the City of Pacifica and would not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
At a duly noticed special meeting on the Project on December 2, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 102-2025 certifying the Final EIR and adopting the CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), and Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) for the Project.
The Notice of Determination (NOD) was filed with the San Mateo County Clerk on December 5, 2025, and a copy uploaded to the State Clearinghouse and Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation on December 8, 2025. See (State Clearinghouse #2021120126)3.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council could modify the ordinance(s), which would require re-introduction of the ordinance by the City Council after reconsideration by the Planning Commission, or deny adoption.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORKPLAN
The project, as a whole, relates to the following Strategic Plan4 goals:
3 Environmental documents available through State Clearinghouse: SCH# 2021120126 7 Packet Pg. 110
Pacifica City Council 7
January 12, 2026
• 01: Enhance organizational and fiscal stability
• 02: Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities • 03: Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing FISCAL IMPACT:
In addition to the fiscal benefits associated with new housing, the development agreement would have the following positive fiscal impacts for the City:
• Revenue from the sale of the property to the developer; • Property and sales taxes from the units;
• Affordable housing contribution of $272,000, beyond and in addition to the code required three on-site BMR units;
• Annual payment for a driveway lease, which is adjusted annually; and • Construction of off-site improvements at the City-owned and operated community center ORIGINATED BY:
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Draft Rezone and Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Zoning Diagram (PDF)
Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (PDF)
4 City of Pacifica Strategic Plan 2023 to 2030 (amended April 14, 2025):
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/government/city-council-strategic-plan 7 Packet Pg. 111
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. xxx-C.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING (1) REZONING RZ-194-16 TO REZONE THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE TO BE DEVELOPED FROM M-1 TO C-2 AND THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT SITE TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED TO OPEN SPACE, AND (2) ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TA-116-19, TO AMEND SECTION 9-4.1101(b) OF THE
PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD RESIDENTIAL USES IN HORIZONTAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS AS CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN THE C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
(FILE NO. 2016-004)
________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Brendan Murphy (“Applicant”)
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted for construction of a 43,696-square foot (sf) mixed-use development including one two-story mixed-use building with three residential units and 3,165 sf of commercial space, two three-story residential buildings behind the street-facing mixed-use building consisting of 16 townhouse residential units; construction of a freestanding sign; merger of two parcels located at 540 and 570 Crespi Drive (APNs 022-162-420 and 022-162-310); removal of five protected trees; a condominium subdivision; construction of off-site parking, circulation and landscaping improvements at 540 Crespi Drive; construction of a wetlands interpretive sign; a development agreement with certain public and developer benefits; a general plan amendment to designate portions of the site as C (Conservation); a zoning text amendment to revise the list of conditional uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district; and a rezoning to change the zoning classification to the C-2 zoning district the areas to be designated as Conservation to OS (Open Space) (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a General Plan Map Amendment, Rezoning and Zoning Text Amendment, Development Agreement, Site Development Permit, Use Permit, Parking Exception, Sign Permit, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and Tree Removal Permit; and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by
7.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Rezone and Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Zoning Diagram (6119 : 570 Crespi: Rezoning reference, and adopted Resolution No. 2022-006 by a vote of 6-0 with one abstention to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Authorization to approve the Project, and to initiate and recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GP-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21; and
WHEREAS, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2022-006 was filed on March 17, 2022 ("Appeal"); and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2022, the City Council remanded the matter back to the Planning Commission pending preparation of an Environmental Impact report (EIR) in accordance with the CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was released for public and agency review on April 11, 2025. The Draft EIR assesses the potential environmental effects of implementation of the Project, identifies means to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Partially Recirculated Draft EIR”) was released for public and agency review on August 1, 2025.
Based on the comments received regarding the Draft EIR, the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR recirculated Chapter 4.1, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, in order to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 3, 2025, and adopted Resolution No. 2025-014 certifying the Final EIR and adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 2025-015 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GP-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21; and approving Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-076-16, Subdivision Permit SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Protected Tree Removal TP-13-25 (“Development Permits”) subject to the conditions of approval; and making Government Code section 65402 findings; and
7.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Rezone and Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Zoning Diagram (6119 : 570 Crespi: Rezoning WHEREAS, a member of the City Council called-up the decisions made by Planning Commission on November 12, 2025, during the 10-day statutory period, pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 2-1.105; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed hearing on the Project at a special meeting of the City Council on December 2, 2025 and adopted Resolution No. 102-2025 certifying the Final EIR and adopting the CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), and Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) for the Project.
The Final EIR, Findings, SOC, and MMRP are herein incorporated into this Resolution by reference; and
WHEREAS, at that same hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 103- 2025 approving the General Plan Amendment GP-96-19 to reclassify portions of the Project site to remain undeveloped as Conservation; and WHEREAS, at that same hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 104- 2025 approving the Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Parking Exception PE-183-19, Sign Permit S-129-19, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB233-16, and Tree Removal Permit TP-13-25, to allow the construction of a mixed-sue residential project consisting of 3,165 square feet of commercial and 19 residential condominiums at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-0310) and the eastern 55 feet of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 02—162-420).
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance
Section 2. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Resolution No. xx-2025 to certify a final environmental impact report (“EIR”) and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”), CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations for the Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120126).
Section 3. Initiate Rezoning. Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-
4.3502(b), the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby intend to initiate rezoning to the zoning designations for 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and the eastern 55 feet of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420) to Community Commercial (C-2) for the
7.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Rezone and Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Zoning Diagram (6119 : 570 Crespi: Rezoning northern portion of the Project site, and for the portion designated as Conservation in City Council Resolution No. xx-2025, to Open Space (OS), as provided in Exhibit A (Proposed Zoning Map), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 4. Findings. The City Council acknowledges the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Zoning Text and Map Amendments and has considered the Planning Commission's findings and recommendations in adopting the amendments. The City Council hereby finds that Rezoning (RZ-194-16), and Zoning Text Amendment (TA-116-19) are consistent with General Plan goals and policies as follows:
The rezoning and text amendment will eliminate an inconsistency between the 2040 General Plan, Zoning Map, and Zoning Ordinance for the Project site. The 2040 Mixed Use Center (MUC) General Plan Land Use designation for the Project site allows for mixed use residential development, whereas all residential use is prohibited in the existing M-1 zoning designation. Rezoning the portion of the site to be developed as C-2 creates consistency between the Land Use designation and the zoning. Rezoning the portion to remain undeveloped to Open Space will be consistent with the approved General Plan Conservation designation. The MUC designation in the General Plan also allows both vertical and horizontal mixed use residential, whereas the C-2 zoning only allows vertical mixed use; the zoning text amendment will eliminate this inconsistency. Further, mixed use in C-2 is limited to one unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area, which is lower than the minimum density established by the MUC designation in the 2040 General Plan. The rezoning and the text amendment address these inconsistencies. Any mixed-use project would still require a Use Permit in the C-2, and would also need to be consistent with the applicable General Plan designation for the site.
Further, the Rezone and Text Amendment will establish zoning provisions to facilitate mixed-use redevelopment along lower Crespi Drive, a designated as a primary activity center in the General Plan, and preserve biological resources and open space. For these reasons, these actions are consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:
1980 General Plan
Housing Element
• Policy No. 4.D.i: Prioritize in-fill residential development. • Policy No. 8.A: Prioritize mixed-use residential development on in-fill sites.
7.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Rezone and Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Zoning Diagram (6119 : 570 Crespi: Rezoning Land Use Element
• Policy No. 8: Land use and development shall protect and enhance the individual character of each neighborhood.
2040 General Plan1
• ES-G-6: Ensure Environmental Protection. Ensure that economic development in Pacifica proceeds synergistically with environmental protection.
• ES-I-7: Mixed Land Uses. Promote development of a broader mix of revenue-generating land uses, including hotels, to increase the City’s fiscal benefits.
• ES-I-35: Preserve the Experience of the Natural Environment. Ensure that new development projects do not disrupt view corridors from prominent points or otherwise interfere with residents’ and visitors’ experience of Pacifica’s natural areas and amenities.
• CD-G-4: Enhanced Mixed Use Areas. Create distinctive mixed-use areas by ensuring good building form and building-sidewalk interface, and providing pedestrian-oriented streets and public spaces • CD-I-1: Primary Activity Centers. Create primary activity centers at West Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, and Linda Mar, and neighborhood centers in Pacific Manor and Park Pacifica (at and around the Park Mall site). • CD-I-4: Support Infill and Redevelopment. Support compatible residential infill on designated vacant lots as shown in Figure 4-3, and redevelopment of underutilized commercial properties, and continue to use the City’s Design Guidelines in evaluation of proposals that don’t meet all development standards in residential districts
• CD-I-7: Commercial and Mixed Use Building Form. Seek to ensure that new commercial and mixed use development creates an attractive and human-scaled built environment. Update the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines to address mixed use access, building form, the building sidewalk relationship.
• LU-G-2: Concentrated Development. Focus new development in or directly adjacent to already-developed areas, where it can be served by existing public services and where it will not have significant impacts on coastal or other resources.
• LU-G-6: Compact Mixed Use Development. Facilitate compact mixeduse development on sites with good access to transit consistent with the Land Use Diagram. Mixed use development may include housing or office space with retail, restaurants, or personal service businesses. • LU-G-7: Open Space Conservation and Habitat Protection. Protect beaches, oceanfront bluffs, ridgelines, hillside areas adjacent to existing 1 Economic Sustainability Element (ES); Community Design (CD) Element; Land Use Element (LU); Circulation Element CI); Open Space and Community Uses Element (OC); Conservation Element (CO); 2023- 2031 Housing Element (HE)
7.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Rezone and Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Zoning Diagram (6119 : 570 Crespi: Rezoning open space, and areas that support critical wildlife habitat and special status species.
• LU-I-38: Lower Crespi Drive. Establish zoning provisions to facilitate compact, mixed-use redevelopment of older commercial and residential properties along lower Crespi Drive, consistent with the Mixed Use Center and Mixed Use Neighborhood designations
• OC-I-21: Development Strategies to Preserve Open Space. Continue to promote density-open space trade-offs, such as clustering development, transferring development rights from sensitive to less sensitive land, and dedication or protection of open space through covenants or consecutive easements.
• CO-I-4: Wetlands Preservation. Prohibit new development in existing wetlands except as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act and the California Coastal Act. Continue to require formal delineations wetlands subject to State or federal regulations prior to any proposed development project in an area where potential wetlands have been identified. If impacts on wetlands are unavoidable, compensation measure should be in line with the State’s no-net-loss goal regarding wetlands. • HE-G-1: Maintain, Improve, and Develop Housing: Encourage the development and retention of housing in a variety of types for all income levels with priority given to low-income households and projects that foster sustainable urban development.
• HE-P-7: Expand affordable rental and homeownership housing choices in areas of opportunity and higher homeownership among resources and promote communities that are opportunities for disproportionately underrepresented in homeownership to foster intergenerational wealth.
Section 5. Approve Rezoning. Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-
4.3507, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby rezone 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and the eastern 55 feet of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420) to Community Commercial (C-2), and Open Space (OS), as shown in Exhibit A (Proposed Zoning Map), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 6. Amendment. Section 9-4.1101(b) of Article 11 (Community Commercial”) of Chapter 4 “Zoning” within Title 9 “Planning and Zoning” of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:
“Sec. 9-4.1101. Permitted and conditional uses, is hereby amended as set forth below:
…
(b) Conditional uses. Conditional uses allowed in the C-2 District, subject to obtaining a use permit, shall be as follows:
(1) Social halls, clubs, theaters, and nightclubs;
7.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Rezone and Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Zoning Diagram (6119 : 570 Crespi: Rezoning (2) Pet care and sales establishments, including boarding and grooming; (3) Vehicle and boat sales and service in conjunction with sales; (4) Plumbing, heating, electrical, and appliance repair, service, and supply shops;
(5) Specialty auto service, such as oil changing facilities, not in conjunction with service stations;
(6) Car washes;
(7) Health/fitness clubs;
(8) All uses allowed as either a permitted or conditional use in the C-1 District and which are not listed as permitted uses in the C-2 District; (9) Firearms sales, subject to the provisions of Section 9-4.2316; (10) Marijuana testing operation, subject to the provisions of Article 48 of this chapter, including without limitation any restriction on the establishment of such use in certain locations; and
(11) Emergency shelters for more than twenty (20) persons or beds but not more than thirty (30), subject to the standards of Article 53. (12) Residential dwelling units as part of a mixed-use development, including:
(a) Residential units located above the ground floor in the same building as a permitted commercial use (“vertical mixed use”); and
(b) Residential units located in a separate building or buildings on the same site as a permitted commercial use, where the residential and commercial uses are planned as a single, integrated development project (“horizontal mixed use”).” Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 8. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published once in the San Mateo Daily Journal, a newspaper of general circulation and is adjudicated to publish legal and public notices throughout San Mateo County, including the City of Pacifica, California.
Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective 30 days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. For areas within the Coastal Zone, this ordinance shall not become effective until the California
7.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Rezone and Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Zoning Diagram (6119 : 570 Crespi: Rezoning Coastal Commission certifies an amendment to the city's local coastal program pursuant to Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code.
* * * * *
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on December 2, 2025, and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica held on January 12, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
______________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
7.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Rezone and Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Zoning Diagram (6119 : 570 Crespi: Rezoning Exhibit A
– Zoning Map
7.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft Rezone and Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Zoning Diagram (6119 : 570 Crespi: Rezoning
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. xxx-C.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA-4-24 TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CRESPI BREAKWATER, LLC, AND THE
CITY OF PACIFICA TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BENEFITS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT 570 CRESPI DRIVE (APN 022-162-310) AND THE EASTERN 55 FEET OF 540 CRESPI DRIVE (APN 022-162- 420).
(FILE NO. 2016-004)
________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65864 et seq. authorizes a city and a developer having a legal or equitable interest in real property to enter into a binding, long-term development agreement establishing certain development rights in the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance 837-C.S., establishing Article 50 of Chapter 4, Title 9, authorizing the execution of development agreements and setting forth the procedures for approving development agreements; and WHEREAS, Crespi Breakwater, LLC owns certain real property at 570 Crepsi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and the City of Pacifica (“City”) owns real property that includes the eastern 55 feet of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420” ("Property"); and WHEREAS, Brendan Murphy (“Developer”) submitted an application for a mixeduse development project on the Property for construction of a 43,696 square-foot mixeduse development consisting of a two-story mixed-use building with three residential units and 3,165 square feet of commercial space, two three-story townhouse residential buildings containing sixteen units, for a total of 19 residential units including three Below Market Rate units; vesting tentative subdivision map for condominiums; parking exception to reduce the number of on-site spaces; tree removal; and a free-standing sign associated with a master sign program for commercial tenants (“Project”); and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time it considered all oral and documentary
7.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
evidence presented, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference, and adopted Resolution No. 2022-006 by a vote of 6-0 with one abstention to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Authorization to approve the Project, and to initiate and recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GP-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21; and
WHEREAS, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2022-006 was filed on March 17, 2022 ("Appeal"); and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2022, the City Council remanded the matter back to the Planning Commission pending preparation of an Environmental Impact report (EIR) in accordance with the CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was released for public and agency review on April 11, 2025, which assessed the potential environmental effects of implementation of the Project, identified means to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project; and WHEREAS, a Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Partially Recirculated Draft EIR”) was released for public and agency review on August 1, 2025.
Based on the comments received regarding the Draft EIR, the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR recirculated Chapter 4.1, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, in order to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on November 3, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-014 certifying the Final EIR and adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program for the Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120126); and
WHEREAS, at that same hearing, the Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 2025-015 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GP-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21; and approving Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-076-16, Subdivision Permit SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Protected Tree Removal TP-13-25 (“Development Permits”) subject to the conditions of approval; and making Government Code section 65402 findings; and
WHEREAS, a member of the City Council called-up the decisions made by Planning Commission on November 12, 2025, during the 10-day statutory period, pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 2-1.105; and
7.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
WHEREAS, the City Council after giving all public notices required by Government Code sections 65090 and 65091 conducted a public hearing on December 2, 2025, and at that hearing considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments received during the public review process, including information received at the public hearing, the oral report from City staff, the written report from City staff, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, materials, exhibits presented, and all other information that constitutes the record of proceedings on which the City Council has based its decision; and
WHEREAS, at that same duly noticed hearing on the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 102-2025 certifying the Final EIR and adopting the CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), and Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) for the Project. The Final EIR, Findings, SOC, and MMRP are herein incorporated into this Resolution by reference (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120126); and
WHEREAS, at that same hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 103- 2025 approving the General Plan Amendment GP-96-19 to reclassify portions of the Project site to remain undeveloped as Conservation; and WHEREAS, at that same hearing, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. xxxC.S. approving Rezoning RZ-194-16 to rezone portions of the property to be developed as C-2 to allow residential uses and portions to remain undeveloped as Open Space, and Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19 to allow horizontal mixed use as a conditional use in C-2; and
WHEREAS, at that same hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 104- 2025 approving the Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Parking Exception PE-183-19, Sign Permit S-129-19, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB233-16, and Tree Removal Permit TP-13-25, to allow the construction of a mixed-sue residential project consisting of 3,165 square feet of commercial and 19 residential condominiums at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-0310) and the eastern 55 feet of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 02—162-420); and
WHEREAS, the proposed development agreement would incorporate certain public benefits and developer benefits including, but not be limited to, affordable housing contribution in excess of the minimum requirements of the City’s below-market rate (BMR) inclusionary zoning requirements, a driveway lease and annual payments for the use of the Community Center driveway at 540 Crespi Drive, improvements to the Community Center property including construction of off-street parking spaces, a drop-off location at the front of the Community Center building, and wetlands interpretive signage at the rear of the project site; and
7.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
WHEREAS, City and Developer have reached mutual agreement on the terms of the Development Agreement to facilitate development of the Project subject to the conditions and requirements set forth therein, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Development Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after the duly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2025, introduced this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above-referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council, adopted Resolution No. xx-2025 certifying the Final EIR and adopting the CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), and Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) for the Project. The Final EIR, Findings, SOC, and MMRP are herein incorporated into this Resolution by reference (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120126). .
Section 3. General Plan Consistency. The City Council hereby finds that the provisions of the Development Agreement and the Project are consistent with the following General Plan policies:
• ES-G-2: Maintain Fiscal Sustainability Foster a fiscally healthy City government and enlarge the City’s revenue base as necessary to sustain and support the community;
• ES-I-7: Mixed Land Uses. Promote development of a broader mix of revenuegenerating land uses, including hotels, to increase the City’s fiscal benefits. • ES-I-11: Development Pays its Fair Share. Continue to require new development to pay its fair share of needed community improvements. • ES-I-18 Public Realm Improvements. Invest in streetscape and public space improvements to attract visitor-oriented development and improve Pacifica’s image and the quality of life for residents.
• ES-I-32: Investment in Infrastructure. Continue to invest in public infrastructure improvements, including landscaping, signage, lighting, undergrounding overhead utility lines, and roadways.
7.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
• CD-G-2: Distinct Activity Centers. Create primary activity centers, each distinguished through land use, built form, public realm enhancements, and • CD-I-1 Primary Activity Centers: Create primary activity centers at West Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, and Linda Mar, and neighborhood centers in Pacific Manor and Park Pacifica (at and around the Park Mall site). • CD-I-4: Support Infill and Redevelopment. Support compatible residential infill on designated vacant lots as shown in Figure 4-3, and redevelopment of underutilized commercial properties, and continue to use the City’s Design Guidelines in evaluation of proposals that don’t meet all development standards in residential districts.
• HE-G-1. Maintain, Improve, and Develop Housing: Encourage the development and retention of housing in a variety of types for all income levels with priority given to low-income households and projects that foster sustainable urban development.
• HE-P-7 Expand affordable rental and homeownership housing choices in areas of opportunity and higher homeownership among resources and promote communities that are opportunities for disproportionately underrepresented in homeownership to foster intergenerational wealth.
Section 4. Development Agreement Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings based on the factors for consideration of a Development Agreement set forth in Pacifica Municipal Code 9-4.5007:
• Other pending applications and approved projects.
There are no relevant pending applications or approved projects that would have bearing on this Project.
• The traffic, parking, public service, visual, and other impacts of the proposed development project upon abutting properties and the community.
The Project consists of an infill mixed-use development with direct access to Crespi Drive and utilities within Crespi Drive. The proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts to public health, safety, or welfare as conditioned. In particular, the building mass will be broken up into three buildings as opposed to a single building as would be required under current zoning standards. A traffic impact analysis prepared for the project concluded that the project would not result in adverse impacts related to traffic or parking.
• Ability of the applicant to address public facility needs and financing obligations.
The proposed public benefits in the development agreement include improvements to the existing Community Center located immediately west of the
7.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
project site at 540 Crespi Drive such as construction of additional off-street parking facilities and a vehicle drop-off at the front of the Community Center. These public improvements will enhance operations at the existing City facility for the benefit of project occupants and City residents generally. In addition, the new driveway would be shared with the proposed development and community center. The development agreement will also require installation of wetlands interpretive signage at the rear of the project site and enhance project occupant appreciation of the natural resources that exist on the broader project site. The development agreement also requires a $272,000 payment for an affordable housing contribution, which will support the City’s affordable housing development activities.
• The relationship of the project to the City's growth management program.
Pursuant to Government Code section 66300(b)(1)(D), the City is currently unable to require issuance of a growth management allocation for housing projects as required by PMC section 9-5.03. Therefore, consideration of this factor is not applicable.
• The provisions included, if any, for reservation, dedication, or improvement of land for public purposes or accessibility to the public.
The proposed public benefits in the development agreement include improvements to the existing Community Center located immediately west of the project site at 540 Crespi Drive, such as construction of 14 additional off-street parking spaces and a vehicle drop-off at the front of the Community Center. These improvements will improve land for public purposes or accessibility to the public. • The type and magnitude of the project's economic effects to the City of Pacifica, and of its contribution, if any, toward meeting the City's housing needs, including affordable housing.
The project will create 3,165 square feet of commercial floor area and create opportunities for new or expanded businesses within the City. The 19-unit project, including three BMR homeownership units, is among the largest residential projects approved by the City of Pacifica in the last 11 years. According to the City’s Annual Progress Report (APR) on implementation of the Housing Element, during the years 2015 through 2024, the largest projects approved by the City was a 24-unit condominium townhome project at 801 Fassler Avenue and a 70-unit workforce housing project at 930 Oddstad Blvd. The Project will be the third largest project approved by the City since 2015. New housing creates revenue for the City through sales and property taxes, and supports local businesses.
7.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
The project will also make a $272,000 contribution to the City’s affordable housing fund, in addition to providing the required three on-site Below Market Rate units, to support future affordable housing development activities by the City.
Therefore, the commercial component of the project will have a positive impact on the City’s economy, and the residential component of the project will have a significant positive impact on meeting the City’s housing needs generally and affordable housing needs specifically, as well as generating additional revenue. • Any other comparable, relevant factor or factors.
The project will result in an appropriate development of the site given its in-fill nature and access to existing City infrastructure. The project is located in a relatively walkable portion of Pacifica given the flat topography of the surrounding area, proximity to Cabrillo Elementary school, convenience shopping in the vicinity, a Safeway grocery store at Highway 1 and Linda Mar Boulevard, as well as nearby Coastal Trail and Linda Mar Beach recreational opportunities. The project, on the whole, inclusive of the provisions of the proposed development agreement, will be positive for the City of Pacifica and would not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare.
Section 5. Planning Commission Recommendation. The City Council acknowledges the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Development Agreement and has considered the Planning Commission's findings and recommendations in adopting the Development Agreement.
Section 6. Approval of Development Agreement. The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement as set forth in Exhibit A to this Ordinance. The City Manager is authorized to execute and record the Development Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with minor technical revisions that may be approved by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney. The City Manager is further authorized to take all actions and execute documents necessary to implement the terms of the Development Agreement.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption.
7.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
Section 9. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published once in the San Mateo Daily Journal, a newspaper of general circulation and is adjudicated to publish legal and public notices throughout San Mateo County, including the City of Pacifica, California. * * * * *
7.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
The foregoing ordinance was introduced on December 2, 2025, and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica held on January 12, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
______________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
7.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
Exhibit A
– Draft Development Agreement
7.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Pacifica
City Clerk’s Office
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Attn: City Clerk
Record Without Fee
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 27383
Space Above Reserved for Recorder’s Use Only
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(DA-4-21, File No. 2016-004)
BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF PACIFICA
AND
CRESPI BREAKWATER, LLC
Effective Date:
7.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
-iARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Definitions.............................................................................................................. 2 ARTICLE 2 EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM............................................................................ 5
2.1 Effective Date ........................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Initial Term of Agreement ..................................................................................... 5
2.3 City Representations and Warranties..................................................................... 6
2.4 Developer Representations and Warranties........................................................... 6 ARTICLE 3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY................................................................. 7
3.1 Vested Rights......................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Applicable Law...................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Development Timing ............................................................................................. 8
3.4 Regulation by Other Public Agencies.................................................................... 8
3.5 Life of Project Approvals....................................................................................... 9
3.6 Developer’s Right to Rebuild ................................................................................ 9
3.7 State and Federal Law............................................................................................ 9 ARTICLE 4 FEES ......................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Impact Fees............................................................................................................ 9
4.2 Processing Fees.................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Other Agency Fees............................................................................................... 10
4.4 Connection Fees................................................................................................... 10 ARTICLE 5 PUBLIC BENEFITS............................................................................................... 10
5.1 Affordable Housing Obligations.......................................................................... 10
5.2 Driveway Lease ................................................................................................... 10
5.3 Community Center Improvements....................................................................... 11
5.4 Wetlands Interpretive Signage............................................................................. 11
5.5 City of Pacifica Business License........................................................................ 11
5.6 Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation.................................................................... 11 ARTICLE 6 ANNUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................... 11
6.1 Annual Review..................................................................................................... 11
7.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
-iiARTICLE 7 COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION...................................................... 12
7.1 Subsequent Approvals ......................................................................................... 12
7.2 Processing Applications for Subsequent Approvals............................................ 13 ARTICLE 8 AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT AND PROJECT APPROVALS................... 13
8.1 Amendment by Written Consent ......................................................................... 13
8.2 Major Amendments to Agreement....................................................................... 13
8.3 Minor Amendment............................................................................................... 14
8.4 Requirement for Writing...................................................................................... 14
8.5 Subsequent CEQA Review.................................................................................. 14 ARTICLE 9 INSURANCE, INDEMNITY AND COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE ....................................................................................... 14
9.1 Insurance Requirements....................................................................................... 14
9.2 Indemnity and Hold Harmless............................................................................. 15
9.3 Defense and Cooperation in the Event of a Litigation Challenge ....................... 15 ARTICLE 10 ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE..................................................... 15
10.1 Assignment .......................................................................................................... 15
10.2 Successive Assignment........................................................................................ 16 ARTICLE 11 MORTGAGEE PROTECTION............................................................................ 16
11.1 Mortgagee Protection........................................................................................... 16
11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated .................................................................................... 16
11.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee ........................................................................... 17
11.4 No Supersedure.................................................................................................... 17 ARTICLE 12 DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION ........................................................ 17
12.1 Breach and Default .............................................................................................. 17
12.2 Withholding of Permits........................................................................................ 17
12.3 Termination.......................................................................................................... 18
12.4 Specific Performance for Violation of a Condition ............................................. 18
12.5 Legal Actions....................................................................................................... 18
12.6 Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative................................................................. 18
7.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
-iii12.7 No Damages......................................................................................................... 18
12.8 Resolution of Disputes......................................................................................... 19
12.9 Surviving Provisions............................................................................................ 19 ARTICLE 13 GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................... 19
13.1 Covenants Binding on Successors and Assigns and Run with Land................... 19
13.2 Notice................................................................................................................... 19
13.3 Permitted Delays.................................................................................................. 20
13.4 Counterparts......................................................................................................... 20
13.5 Waivers................................................................................................................ 20
13.6 Construction of Agreement.................................................................................. 21
13.7 Headings .............................................................................................................. 21
13.8 Severability .......................................................................................................... 21
13.9 Time is of the Essence ......................................................................................... 21
13.10 Extension of Time Limits.................................................................................... 21
13.11 Signatures............................................................................................................. 21
13.12 Entire Agreement................................................................................................. 21
13.13 Estoppel Certificate.............................................................................................. 21
13.14 Recordation of Termination................................................................................. 22
13.15 City Approvals and Actions................................................................................. 22
13.16 Negation of Partnership ....................................................................................... 22
13.17 No Third Party Beneficiaries............................................................................... 22
13.18 Governing State Law ........................................................................................... 22
7.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA-4-21)
This Development Agreement (“Agreement”), dated as of the Effective Date, is entered into by and between the City of Pacifica, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and Crespi Breakwater, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”). Developer and City may be referred to individually in this Agreement as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
R E C I T A L S
A. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs and risks of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code (“Development Agreement Statute”) which authorizes a city and a developer having a legal or equitable interest in real property to enter into a binding, long-term development agreement establishing certain development rights in the property.
B. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, the City Council of the City of Pacifica enacted Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) section 9-4.5001 et seq. (“Development Agreement Regulations”), which authorize the execution of development agreements and set forth the required contents and form of those agreements. The provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and the City’s Development Agreement Regulations are collectively referred to herein as the “Development Agreement Law.” C. Developer is the owner of that certain real property located at 570 Crespi Drive in the City of Pacifica (“Developer Property”). Developer has concurrently entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale (Including Joint Escrow Instructions) (“Purchase Agreement”) to purchase a portion of 540 Crespi Drive from the City of Pacifica to develop the Project as described below (“Acquisition Property”). The Acquisition Property is a portion of a larger City property on which the City’s Community Center is located, the remainder of which will be retained by City for public purposes (“Community Center Parcel”). The Developer Property and the Acquisition Property are described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and may be collectively referred to as the “Property.” D. Developer, with City’s consent and consistent with the terms of the Purchase Agreement, has submitted applications to the City for a General Plan Amendment (GPA-096- 19), Rezoning (RZ-194-16), Zoning Text Amendment (TA-116-19), Development Agreement (DA-4-21), Site Development Permit (PSD-811-16), Use Permit (UP-076-16), Parking Exception (PE-183-19), Sign Permit (S-129-19), Tentative Subdivision Map (SUB-233-16), and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization to develop 19 residential units, including three and only three below market rate units, (“Residential Project”) and approximately 3,100 square feet of commercial space (“Commercial Space”) on the Property (“Project”). The Residential Project shall consist of both flats and townhome products, as shown in more detail in the Existing Approvals, as defined in Recital G below.
E. City and Developer have reached mutual agreement on the terms of this Agreement and Purchase Agreement and desire to voluntarily enter into this Agreement to
7.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
2 facilitate development of the Project subject to the conditions and requirements set forth herein.
F. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) has been prepared and adopted for the Project. As required by CEQA, the City has adopted written findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) on , pursuant to Resolution No. .
G. Prior to or concurrently with approval of this Agreement, the City will take numerous actions in connection with the development of the Project on the Property. The approvals and development actions described herein are collectively referred to as the “Existing Approvals”: (1) General Plan Amendment; (2) Rezoning; (3) Zoning Text Amendment; (4) Site Development Permit; (5) Use Permit; (6) Parking Exception; (7) Sign Permit; (8) Tentative Subdivision Map; and (9) Heritage Tree Removal Authorization.
H. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and PMC section 9-4.5006. The City has reviewed and evaluated this Agreement in accordance with the Development Agreement Law and found that the provisions of this Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the Development Agreement Law and the goals, policies, standards and land use designations specified in the General Plan.
I. On the City Council introduced Ordinance No.
(“Enacting Ordinance”) approving this Agreement and authorizing its execution, and adopted that Ordinance on .
A G R E E M E N T
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein and other valuable consideration, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
1.1 Definitions.
“Affiliated Party” is defined in Section 10.1.
“Agreement” shall mean this Development Agreement between City and Developer, including all Exhibits hereto.
“Applicable Law” is defined in Section 3.2.
“Assignee” is defined in Section 10.1.
“Assignment” is defined in Section 10.1.
“CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources
7.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
3 Code section 21000, et seq., as amended from time to time. “CEQA Guidelines” means the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq.), as amended from time to time. “Changes in the Law” is defined in Section 3.7.
“City” means the City of Pacifica, a municipal corporation. “City Council” means the City Council of the City of Pacifica. “City Manager” means City’s City Manager or his or her designee. “City Parties” means and includes City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, attorneys, contractors and representatives.
“Claims” means liabilities, obligations, orders, claims, damages, fines, penalties and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
“Commence Construction” shall be deemed to have occurred when the Developer has begun vertical construction as evidenced by an approved foundation City inspection. “Connection Fees” means those fees charged by City on a citywide basis or by a utility provider to utility users as a cost for connecting water, sanitary sewer, and other applicable utilities, except for any such fee or portion thereof that constitutes an Impact Fee, as defined below.
“Default” is defined in Section 12.1.
“Developer” means Crespi Breakwater, LLC, and its permitted successors and assigns. “Development Agreement Law” is defined in Recital B.
“Development Agreement Regulations” is defined in Recital B. “Development Agreement Statute” is defined in Recital A. “Effective Date” means the date that this Agreement becomes effective as determined under Section 2.1.
“MND” is defined in Recital F.
“Enacting Ordinance” refers to the Ordinance identified in Recital P. “Exactions” means exactions that may be imposed by the City as a condition of developing the Project, including requirements for acquisition, dedication or reservation of land; and obligations to construct on-site or off-site public and private infrastructure improvements such as roadways, utilities or other improvements necessary to support the Project, whether such exactions constitute subdivision improvements, mitigation measures in connection with
7.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
4 environmental review of the Project, or impositions made under Applicable City Regulations.
For purposes of this Agreement, Exactions do not include Impact Fees. “Existing Approvals” means and includes those permits and approvals for the Project granted by City to Developer as of the Effective Date as set forth in Recital G. “Extension Term” is defined in Section 2.2.1.
“General Plan” means the City of Pacifica’s General Plan, as amended from time to time.
“Impact Fees” means the monetary amount charged by City in connection with a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of mitigating the impacts of the development project or development of the public facilities related to the development project, including, any “fee” as that term is defined by Government Code section 66000(b). For purposes of this Agreement, a fee that meets both the definitions of an Impact Fee and an Exaction will be considered to be an Impact Fee. “Initial Term” is defined in Section 2.2.
“Litigation Challenge” is defined in Section 9.3.
“Major Amendment” is defined in Section 8.2.
“Minor Amendment” is defined in Section 8.2.
“MND” is defined in Recital J.
“Mortgage” means any mortgage, deed of trust, security agreement, and other like security instrument encumbering all or any portion of the Property or any of the Developer’s rights under this Agreement
“Mortgagee” means the holder of any Mortgage, and any successor, assignee or transferee of any such Mortgage holder.
“Municipal Code” means and refers to the City of Pacifica’s Municipal Code, as amended from time to time.
“New City Laws” means and includes any ordinances, resolutions, orders, rules, official policies, standards, specifications, guidelines or other regulations, which are promulgated or adopted by the City (including but not limited to any City agency, body, department, officer or employee) or its electorate (through their power of initiative or otherwise) after the Effective Date.
“Notice of Breach” is defined in Section 12.1.
“Other Agency Fees” is defined in Section 4.3.
“Other Agency Subsequent Approvals” means Subsequent Project Approvals to be
7.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
5 obtained from entities other than the City.
“Permitted Delay” is defined in Section 13.3.
“Planning Commission” means the City of Pacifica Planning Commission. “Processing Fees” means all fees for processing development project applications, including any required supplemental or other further environmental review, plan checking and inspection and monitoring for land use approvals, design review, grading and building permits, General Plan maintenance fees, and other permits and entitlements required to implement the Project, which are in effect at the time those permits, approvals or entitlements are applied for, and which are intended to cover the actual costs of processing the foregoing. “Project Approvals” means the Existing Approvals and all Subsequent Approvals. “Project” is defined in Recital I.
“Property” is defined in Recital C.
“Subdivision Map Act” means California Government Code sections 66410 through 66499.58, as it may be amended from time to time.
“Subsequent Approvals” is defined in Section 7.1.
“Term” means the Initial Term plus any Extension Term, if such Extension Term is granted under the terms of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 2
EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM
2.1 Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the later of (1) the date that is thirty (30) days after the date that the Enacting Ordinance is adopted, or (2) the date this Agreement is fully executed by the Parties. The Effective Date is inserted at the beginning of this Agreement.
2.2 Initial Term of Agreement. Unless earlier terminated, the “Initial Term” of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire on the earlier of (1) the three year (3) anniversary of the Effective Date, or (2) Developer’s satisfaction of all obligations contained herein.
2.2.1 Extension of Initial Term. At the request of Developer, the Initial Term of this Agreement shall be extended from the date of expiration of the Initial Term until the date which is two (2) years following the expiration of the Initial Term (“Extension Term”), provided that at the end of the Initial Term: (a) Developer is not, at the time, in Default of any of its obligations hereunder following notice and expiration of applicable cure periods, including the requirement to Commence Construction; (b) Developer is diligently making progress on the construction of the Project; (c) the applicable Developer warranties and representations in Section 2.4 below continue to be true and correct; and (d) no event has occurred which with the passage of time or
7.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
6 giving of notice or both would constitute a Default by Developer hereunder. Following the expiration of the Term, or the earlier completion of development of the Project and satisfaction of all of Developer’s obligations in connection therewith and under this Agreement, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect.
2.2.2 Memorandum of Extension. If the Extension Term is granted, City and Developer agree to execute, acknowledge and record in the Official Records of San Mateo County a memorandum evidencing approval of the Extension Term.
2.2.3 Termination of the Agreement. In the event the Purchase Agreement is terminated or Developer fails to purchase the Acquisition Property, this Agreement shall automatically be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect.
2.3 City Representations and Warranties. City represents and warrants to Developer that, as of the Effective Date:
2.3.1 City is a municipal corporation, and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of City under this Agreement.
2.3.2 The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations of the City hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary City Council action and all necessary approvals have been obtained.
2.3.3 This Agreement is a valid obligation of City and is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
During the Term of this Agreement, City shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause of any of the warranties and representations in this Section 2.3 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to Developer.
2.4 Developer Representations and Warranties. Developer represents and warrants to City that, as of the Effective Date:
2.4.1 Developer is duly organized and validly existing California limited liability company existing under the laws of the State of California, and is in good standing and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to own property interests and in all other respects enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of Developer under this Agreement.
2.4.2 The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the necessary performance of the obligations of Developer hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary action and all necessary shareholder approvals have been obtained.
2.4.3 This Agreement is a valid obligation of Developer and is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
7.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
7 2.4.4 Developer has not (a) made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (b) filed any voluntary petition in bankruptcy or suffered the filing of any involuntary petition by Developer’s creditors; (c) suffered the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all, or substantially all, of Developer’s assets; (d) suffered the attachment or other judicial seizure of all, or substantially all, of Developer’s assets; or (e) admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they come due.
During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause any of the warranties and representations in this Section 2.4 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to City.
ARTICLE 3
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY
3.1 Vested Rights. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Property and the Project in accordance with and subject to the Existing Project Approvals, the Subsequent Project Approvals, Applicable Law and this Agreement, which shall control the permitted uses, density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height and size of buildings on the Property.
3.2 Applicable Law. City and Developer acknowledge and agree that City is restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the limitations, reservations and exceptions contained in this Agreement are intended to reserve to City all of its police power that cannot be so limited. Notwithstanding the foregoing reservation of City, it is the intent of City and Developer that this Agreement be construed to provide Developer with rights afforded by law, including but not limited to, the Development Agreement Statute. Therefore, the laws, rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications of City applicable to the development of the Property and/or the Project shall be (collectively, “Applicable Law”):
3.2.1 Those rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications of the City set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement, including without limitation Section 3.1 above;
3.2.2 With respect to matters not addressed by and not otherwise inconsistent with the Project Approvals and this Agreement, those laws, rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications (including City ordinances and resolutions) governing permitted uses, building locations, timing and manner of construction, densities, intensities of uses, heights and sizes, requirements for on- and off-site infrastructure and public improvements, in force and effect on the Effective Date, except as set forth in section 3.1 above;
3.2.3 New City Laws that relate to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure imposed at any time, provided such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties;
3.2.4 New City Laws that revise City’s uniform construction codes, including City’s building code, plumbing code, mechanical code, electrical code, fire code, grading code and other uniform construction codes, as of the date of permit issuance, provided, that such New City
7.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
8 Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties;
3.2.5 New City Laws that are necessary to protect physical health and safety of the public; provided, that such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties;
3.2.6 New City Laws that do not conflict with this Agreement or the Project Approvals, provided such new City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties; and
3.2.7 New City Laws that do not apply to the Property and/or the Project due to the limitations set forth above, but only to the extent that such New City Laws are accepted in writing by Developer in its sole discretion.
3.3 Development Timing. Developer shall phase and construct the Project within the timeframes set forth below:
3.3.1 Developer shall obtain a building permit to construct the Commercial Space prior to, or concurrently with, issuance of a building permit for the Residential Project. In no event shall City issue a building permit for any portion of the Project prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Commercial Space.
3.3.2 Developer shall Commence Construction of the Commercial Space prior to, or concurrently with, Commencement of Construction of any other portion of the Project, but no later than two years from the Effective Date, subject to a Permitted Delay.
3.3.3 Developer shall complete construction of and obtain a certificate of occupancy for the entire Project, including the Commercial Space, prior to the date that is twenty-four (24) months from the Commencement of Construction of the Commercial Space subject to extension due to a Permitted Delay; provided, however, such 24-month time period shall be extended by the City for up to 6 months upon the written request of Developer if, in City's reasonable determination, Developer has made substantial progress toward completion of construction of the Project prior to the expiration of such initial 24-month period.
3.3.4 Except as set forth above, since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. The City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to consider and expressly provide for the timing of development resulted in a lateradopted initiative restricting the timing of development prevailing over such parties’ agreement, it is the desire to avoid that result by acknowledging that, unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, Developer’s vested rights under this Agreement include the right to develop the Property and the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate in the exercise of its discretion, subject to the terms, requirements and conditions of the Project Approvals and this Agreement.
3.4 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. City and Developer acknowledge and agree that other governmental or quasi-governmental entities not within the control of City possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property and the Project and that this
7.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
9 Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. City shall reasonably cooperate with Developer in Developer’s effort to obtain such permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental entities in connection with the development of, or the provision of services to, the Property and/or the Project; provided, however, City shall have no obligation to incur any costs, without compensation or reimbursement, or to amend any City policy, regulation or ordinance in connection therewith.
3.5 Life of Project Approvals. The term of any and all Project Approvals shall automatically be extended for the longer of the Term or the term otherwise applicable to such Project Approval. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, any vesting or tentative maps heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development of the Project or the Property shall be extended for the Term (and may be subject to other extensions provided under the Subdivision Map Act).
3.6 Developer’s Right to Rebuild. City agrees that Developer may renovate or rebuild portions of the Project at any time within the Term should it become necessary due to any casualty, including natural disaster or changes in seismic requirements. Such renovations or reconstruction shall be processed as a Subsequent Project Approval consistent with all prior Project Approvals and Applicable City Law. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be subject to all design, density and other limitations and requirements imposed by this Agreement, and shall comply with the Project Approvals, Applicable City Law, and the requirements of CEQA.
3.7 State and Federal Law. As provided in Section 65869.5 of the Development Agreement Statute, this Agreement shall not preclude the applicability to the Project of changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and required by changes in State or Federal laws or by changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies of special districts or other governmental entities, other than City, created or operating pursuant to the laws of the State of California (“Changes in the Law”). In the event Changes in the Law prevent or preclude, or render substantially more expensive or time consuming, compliance with one (1) or more provisions of this Agreement, the City and Developer shall meet and confer in good faith in order to determine whether such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended, or performance thereof delayed, as may be necessary to comply with Changes in the Law. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude City or Developer from contesting by any available means (including administrative or judicial proceedings) the applicability to the Project any such Changes in the Law. If Changes in the Law preclude or substantially prevent or preclude, or render substantially more expensive or time consuming, performance of this Agreement in a manner that makes the Project economically infeasible, Developer, in its sole and absolute discretion, may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice thereof to City.
ARTICLE 4
FEES
4.1 Impact Fees. Developer shall pay any and all Impact Fees imposed by City that are in place as of the Effective Date, at the rate in effect of the time of building permit issuance. In addition, City may impose and Developer shall comply with those Exactions required by this Agreement and the Project Approvals.
7.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
10 4.2 Processing Fees. Subject to Developer’s right to protest and/or pursue a challenge in law or equity to any new or increased Processing Fee, City may charge and Developer agrees to pay any and all Processing Fees which are in effect on a City-wide basis at the time those permits, approvals or entitlements are applied for, and which are intended to cover the actual costs of processing the foregoing.
4.3 Other Agency Fees. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude City from collecting fees from Developer that are lawfully imposed on the Project by another agency having jurisdiction over the Project, which the City is required to collect pursuant to Applicable Law (“Other Agency Fees”).
4.4 Connection Fees. Subject to Developer’s right to protest and/or pursue a challenge in law or equity to any new or increased connection Fee, City may charge and Developer shall pay any Connection Fee that is lawfully adopted.
ARTICLE 5
PUBLIC BENEFITS
5.1 Affordable Housing Obligations.
5.1.1 Construction of Below Market Rate Units. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the Project, Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, in a form approved by the City, in its discretion, providing among other things for the provision of three units as ownership Below Market Rate Units in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance, PMC section 9-4.4700 et seq., as to construction and restriction of ownership units, as may be amended (the “Below Market Rate Units”). The Below Market Rate Units shall be provided as follows: (1) one flat restricted to low-income households; (2) one townhome restricted to low-income households; and (3) one townhome restricted to moderate-income households. In addition, one townhome Below Market Rate Unit shall be provided in each building.. Developer may not pay an in-lieu fee to meet the requirements in this Section 5.1.1.
5.1.2 Affordable Housing Contribution. Developer shall make a payment in the amount of $272,000.00, subject to annual adjustment based on the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index beginning one year after the Effective Date (“Affordable Housing Contribution”) toward the development of affordable housing in the City. The Affordable Housing Contribution shall be paid to City prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Project.
5.2 Driveway Lease. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the Project, Developer shall enter into a license agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City in its discretion, for the use of the City’s driveway located on the Community Center Property. Among other things, the license agreement shall set forth the financial terms, with Developer’s, or its successor-in-interest, payment to City in the amount of $7,700 per year, increased annually as of the Effective Date of this Agreement pursuant to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area.
7.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
11 5.3 Community Center Improvements. Developer shall make the following improvements to the Community Center: (1) add a total of 14 parking spaces to the Communitty Center parcel in locations to bed determined by the City; (2) construct a drop-off location in front of the Community Center; and (3) improve the landscaping along Crespi Drive; (“Community Center Improvements”). The Community Center Improvements shall be completed in a good and workmanlike manner according to plans and specifications to be approved by City. The Community Center Improvements must be completed to the satisfaction of City prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
5.4 Wetlands Interpretive Signage. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, Developer shall install educational/interpretative signage on the portion of the Developer Property on which wetlands are located. The location, content and materials of the signage must be approved by City prior to installation.
5.5 City of Pacifica Business License. Developer, at its expense, shall obtain and maintain a City of Pacifica business license at all times during the Term, and shall include a provision in all general contractor agreements for the Project requiring each such general contractor to obtain and maintain a City of Pacifica business license during performance of the work of construction.
5.6 Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation. Developer shall use good faith, diligent efforts to the extent allowed by law to require all persons and entities providing bulk lumber, concrete, structural steel and pre-fabricated building components, such as roof trusses, to be used in connection with the construction and development of, or incorporated into, the Project, to (a) obtain a use tax direct payment permit; (b) elect to obtain a subcontractor permit for the job site of a contract valued at Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) or more; or (c) otherwise designate the Property as the place of use of material used in the construction of the Project in order to have the local portion of the sales and use tax distributed directly to City instead of through the county-wide pool. Developer shall instruct its general contractor(s) for the Project to, and cause such general contractor(s) to instruct its/their subcontractors to, cooperate with City to ensure the local sales/use tax derived from construction of the Project is allocated to City to the fullest extent possible. To assist City in its efforts to ensure that such local sales/use tax is so allocated to City, Developer shall on an annual basis provide City with such information as shall be reasonably requested by City regarding subcontractors working on the Project with contracts in excess of the amount set forth above, including a description of all applicable work and the dollar value of such subcontracts. City may use such information to contact each subcontractor who may qualify for local allocation of use taxes to City.
ARTICLE 6
ANNUAL REVIEW
6.1 Annual Review.
6.1.1 Purpose. As required by California Government Code section 65865.1 and PMC section 9-4.5009, City and Developer shall review this Agreement and all actions taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement with respect to the development of the Project every twelve (12) months to determine good faith compliance with this Agreement. Specifically, City’s annual review shall be conducted for the purposes of determining compliance by Developer with its
7.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
12 obligations under this Agreement. Each annual review shall also document: (a) the status of the Project development, and (b) any extension of the Initial Term of this Agreement pursuant to Section 2.2.
6.1.2 Conduct of Annual Review. The annual review shall be conducted as provided in this Section 6.1.2. By December 1st of each year, Developer shall provide documentation of its good faith compliance with this Agreement during the calendar year, and such other information as may reasonably be requested by the Planning Director. If the Planning Director finds good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement, Developer shall be notified in writing and the review for that period shall be concluded. If the Planning Director is not satisfied that Developer is performing in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Planning Director shall prepare a written report specifying why the Developer may not be in good faith compliance with this Agreement, refer the matter to the City Council, and notify Developer in writing at least fifteen (15) business days in advance of the time at which the matter will be considered by the City Council. This notice shall include the time and place of the City Council’s public hearing to evaluate good faith compliance with this Agreement, a copy of the Planning Director’s report and recommendations, if any, and any other information reasonably necessary to inform Developer of the nature of the proceeding. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing at which Developer must submit evidence that it has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. The findings of the City Council on whether Developer has complied with this Agreement for the period under review shall be based upon substantial evidence in the record. If the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence, that Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review for that period shall be concluded. If the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, or there are significant questions as to whether Developer has complied with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City Council, at its option, may continue the hearing and may notify Developer of the City’s intent to meet and confer with Developer within thirty (30) days of such determination, prior to taking further action. Following such meeting, the City Council shall resume the hearing in order to further consider the matter and to make a determination regarding Developer’s good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
In the event City determines Developer is not in good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, City may give the Developer a written Notice of Breach, in which case the provisions of Section 12.1, below, shall apply.
6.1.3 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. Failure of City to conduct an annual review shall not constitute a waiver by the City of its rights to otherwise enforce the provisions of this Agreement nor shall Developer have or assert any defense to such enforcement by reason of any such failure to conduct an annual review.
ARTICLE 7
COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
7.1 Subsequent Approvals. Certain subsequent land use approvals, entitlements, and permits other than the Existing Approvals, will be necessary or desirable for implementation of the Project (“Subsequent Approvals”). The Subsequent Approvals may include, without limitation,
7.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
13 the following: amendments of the Existing Approvals, grading permits, building permits, design review permits, sewer and water connection permits, certificates of occupancy, lot line adjustments, site plans, development plans, land use plans, building plans and specifications, parcel maps and/or subdivision maps, and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the City shall not impose requirements or conditions upon the development and construction of the Project that are inconsistent with the Existing Approvals and the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
7.2 Processing Applications for Subsequent Approvals.
7.2.1 Timely Submittals by Developer. Developer acknowledges that City cannot begin processing applications for Subsequent Approvals until Developer submits complete applications on a timely basis. Developer shall use diligent good faith efforts to (a) provide to City in a timely manner any and all documents, applications, plans, and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder; and (b) cause Developer’s planners, engineers, and all other consultants to provide to City in a timely manner all such documents, applications, plans and other materials required under Applicable Law. It is the express intent of Developer and City to cooperate and diligently work to obtain any and all Subsequent Approvals.
7.2.2 Timely Processing by City. Upon submission by Developer of all appropriate applications and Processing Fees for any pending Subsequent Approval, City shall, to the full extent allowed by Applicable Law, promptly and diligently, subject to City ordinances, policies and procedures regarding hiring and contracting, commence and complete all steps necessary to act on Developer’s currently pending Subsequent Approval applications including: (a) providing at Developer’s expense and subject to Developer’s request and prior approval, reasonable overtime staff assistance, additional staff and/or staff consultants for concurrent, expedited planning and processing of each pending Subsequent Approval application (Developer shall pay such costs at cost plus 10% for administrative costs incurred); (b) if legally required, providing notice and holding public hearings; and (c) acting on any such pending Subsequent Approval application.
ARTICLE 8
AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT AND PROJECT APPROVALS
8.1 Amendment by Written Consent. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein (including Section 6.1 relating to City’s annual review and Section 12.1 relating to termination in the event of a breach), this Agreement may be terminated, modified or amended only by mutual written consent of the Parties hereto or their successors in interest or assignees and in accordance with the provisions of Government Code sections 65967, 65867.5 and 65868.
8.2 Major Amendments to Agreement. Any amendment to this Agreement which affects or relates to (a) the Term; (b) permitted uses of the Property; (c) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions, terms restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or intensity of the use of the Property or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (f) monetary contributions by Developer, shall be deemed a “Major Amendment” and shall require giving of notice and a public hearing before the Planning
7.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
14 Commission and City Council. Any amendment which is not a Major Amendment shall be deemed a “Minor Amendment” and shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by Applicable Law, require notice of public hearing before the Parties may execute an amendment hereto. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to determine if an amendment is a Major Amendment or a Minor Amendment.
8.3 Minor Amendment. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to review and approve amendments to this Agreement provided that such amendments are not Major Amendments.
8.4 Requirement for Writing. No modification, amendment or other change to this Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically set forth in a writing which refers expressly to this Agreement and is signed by duly authorized representatives of the Parties or their successors in interest.
8.5 Subsequent CEQA Review. In the event that any additional CEQA documentation is legally required for any discretionary Subsequent Approval, then the scope of such documentation shall be focused, to the extent possible consistent with CEQA, on the specific subject matter of the Subsequent Approval, and the City, at Developer’s expense, shall conduct such additional CEQA review as expeditiously as possible.
ARTICLE 9
INSURANCE, INDEMNITY AND COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF
LEGAL CHALLENGE
9.1 Insurance Requirements. Developer shall procure and maintain, or cause its contractor(s) to procure and maintain, until the earlier of (a) the expiration of this Agreement; or (b) the completion of the Project, a commercial general liability policy in an amount not less than two million ($2,000,000) combined single limit, including contractual liability together with a comprehensive automobile liability policy in the amount of one million ($1,000,000), combined single limit. Such policy or policies shall be written on an occurrence form, so long as such form of policy is then commonly available in the commercial insurance marketplace. Developer’s insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VII or a rating otherwise approved by the City in its sole discretion. Developer shall furnish at City’s request appropriate certificate(s) of insurance evidencing the insurance coverage required hereunder, and City Parties shall be named as additional insured parties in such policies. The certificate of insurance shall contain a statement of obligation on the part of the carrier to notify City of any material change, cancellation or termination of the coverage at least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date of any such material change, cancellation or termination (ten (10) days advance notice in the case of cancellation for nonpayment of premiums) where the insurance carrier provides such notice to the Developer. Coverage provided hereunder by Developer shall be primary insurance and shall not be contributing with any insurance, selfinsurance or joint self-insurance maintained by City, and the policy shall contain such an endorsement. The insurance policy or the endorsement shall contain a waiver of subrogation for the benefit of City.
7.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
15 9.2 Indemnity and Hold Harmless. Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) and hold harmless City Parties from and against any and all Claims, including Claims for any bodily injury, death, or property damage, resulting directly or indirectly from the development or construction of the Project by or on behalf of Developer, and/or from any other acts or omissions of Developer under this Agreement, whether such acts or omissions are by Developer or any of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, except to the extent such Claims arise from the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of City or City Parties.
9.3 Defense and Cooperation in the Event of a Litigation Challenge. City and Developer shall cooperate in the defense of any court action or proceeding instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, or the Project Approvals (“Litigation Challenge”), and the Parties shall keep each other informed of all developments relating to such defense, subject only to confidentiality requirements that may prevent the communication of such information. To the extent Developer desires to contest or defend such Litigation Challenge, (a) Developer shall take the lead role defending such Litigation Challenge and may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the legal counsel of its choice; (b) City may, in its sole discretion, elect to be separately represented by the legal counsel of its choice in any such action or proceeding with the reasonable costs of such representation to be paid by Developer; (c) Developer shall reimburse City, within ten (10) business days following City’s written demand therefor, which may be made from time to time during the course of such litigation, all reasonable costs incurred by City in connection with the Litigation Challenge, including City’s administrative, legal, and court costs and City Attorney oversight expenses; and (d) Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City Parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees or cost awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against City by way of judgment, settlement, or stipulation. Any proposed settlement of a Litigation Challenge shall be subject to City’s approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. If the terms of the proposed settlement would constitute an amendment or modification of this Agreement or any Project Approvals, the settlement shall not become effective unless such amendment or modification is approved by City in accordance with Applicable Law, and City reserves its full legislative discretion with respect thereto. If Developer opts not to contest or defend such Litigation Challenge, City shall have no obligation to do so.
ARTICLE 10
ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE
10.1 Assignment. Because of the necessity to coordinate development of the entirety of the Property pursuant to plans for the Project, particularly with respect to the provision of on- and off-site public improvements and public services and benefits, certain restrictions on the right of Developer to assign or transfer its interest under this Agreement with respect to the Property, or any portion thereof, are necessary in order to assure the achievement of the goals, objectives and public benefits of the Project and this Agreement. Developer agrees to and accepts the restrictions set forth in this Section 10.1 as reasonable and as a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement. Developer shall have the right to sell or transfer its fee interest, or ground lease its interests in the Property, in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act) to any person, partnership, joint
7.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
16 venture, firm, company, corporation or other entity (any of the foregoing, an “Assignee”) subject to the written consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, provided that Developer may assign its rights under this Agreement without the consent of City to any corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other entity which is controlling of, controlled by, or under common control with Developer, and “control,” for purposes of this definition, means effective management and control of the other entity, subject only to major events requiring the consent or approval of the other owners of such entity (“Affiliated Party”).
Developer shall provide the City with written notice of any proposed transfer or assignment of Developer’s rights or obligations hereunder (each, an “Assignment”) at least thirty (30) days prior to such Assignment. Each such notice of proposed Assignment shall be accompanied by evidence of Assignee’s agreement to assume Developer’s obligations hereunder. Developer shall pay the actual costs borne by City in connection with its review of the proposed Assignment, including the costs incurred by the City Attorney’s Office. If City consents to such Assignment, a written assignment and assumption agreement, in a form approved by City, shall be recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County. Assignee shall succeed to the rights, duties and obligations of Developer only with respect to the parcel or parcels, or portion of the Property so purchased, transferred, ground leased or assigned, and Developer shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement with respect to any remaining portions of the Property retained by Developer and not assigned.
10.2 Successive Assignment. In the event there is more than one Assignment under the provisions of this Article 10, the provisions of this Article 10 shall apply to each successive Assignment and Assignee. This Article 10 does not apply to sale and/or rental of the residential units or the Commercial Space.
ARTICLE 11
MORTGAGEE PROTECTION
11.1 Mortgagee Protection. Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or limit Developer, at its sole discretion, from granting one or more Mortgages encumbering all or a portion of Developer’s interest in the Property or portion thereof or improvement thereon as security for one or more loans or other financing, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against and shall run to the benefit of Mortgagee who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the deed of trust or mortgage within ten (10) days after its recording in the official records of San Mateo County; provided, however, that Developer’s failure to provide such document shall not affect any Mortgage, including without limitation, the validity, priority or enforceability of such Mortgage.
11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. No Mortgagee (including one who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise) shall have any obligation to construct or complete construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any use except in full compliance with this Agreement and the other Project Approvals nor to construct any improvements thereon or institute any uses other
7.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
17 than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement, or otherwise under the Project Approvals. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 11.2, all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and the other Project Approvals shall be binding upon and effective against and shall run to the benefit of any person or entity, including any Mortgagee, who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof.
11.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City agrees to use its diligent, good faith efforts to deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any Notice of Default given to Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of Default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City’s Notice of Default. If a Mortgagee is required to obtain possession in order to cure any Default, the time to cure shall be tolled so long as the Mortgagee is attempting to obtain possession, including by appointment of a receiver or foreclosure, but in no event may this period exceed 120 days from the date the City delivers the Notice of Default to Developer.
11.4 No Supersedure. Nothing in this Article 11 shall be deemed to supersede or release a Mortgagee or modify a Mortgagee’s obligations under any subdivision or public improvement agreement or other obligation incurred with respect to the Project outside this Agreement, nor shall any provision of this Article 11 constitute an obligation of City to such Mortgagee, except as to the notice requirements of Section 11.3.
ARTICLE 12
DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION
12.1 Breach and Default. Subject to Permitted Delays or by mutual consent in writing, and except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, breach of, failure, or delay by either Party to perform any term or condition of this Agreement shall constitute a “Default.” In the event of any alleged Default of any term, condition, or obligation of this Agreement, the Party alleging such Default shall give the defaulting Party notice in writing specifying the nature of the alleged Default and the manner in which the Default may be satisfactorily cured (“Notice of Breach”).
The defaulting Party shall cure the Default within thirty (30) days following receipt of the Notice of Breach, provided, however, if the nature of the alleged Default is non-monetary and such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time period, and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter, shall be deemed to be a cure, provided that if the cure is not diligently prosecuted to completion, then no additional cure period shall be provided. If the alleged failure is cured within the time provided above, then no Default shall exist and the noticing Party shall take no further action to exercise any remedies available hereunder. If the alleged failure is not cured, then a Default shall exist under this Agreement and the non-defaulting Party may exercise any of the remedies available under this Agreement.
12.2 Withholding of Permits. In the event of a Default by Developer, or following notice of breach to Developer pursuant to Section 12.1 above and during the cure period provided therein, upon a finding by the Planning Director that Developer is in breach, City shall have the right to refuse to issue any permit or other Subsequent Approvals to which Developer would otherwise
7.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
18 have been entitled pursuant to this Agreement until such Default or breach is cured. This provision is in addition to and shall not limit any actions that City may take to enforce the conditions of the Project Approvals.
12.3 Termination. In the event of a Default by a Party, the non-defaulting Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon giving notice of intent to terminate pursuant to Government Code section 65868 and regulations of City implementing such section. Following notice of intent to terminate, the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review in the manner set forth in Government Code section 65867 and City regulations implementing said section. Following consideration of the evidence presented in said review before the City Council, a Party alleging Default by the other Party may give written notice of termination of this Agreement to the other Party. Termination of this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12.9.
12.4 Specific Performance for Violation of a Condition. If City issues a Project Approval pursuant to this Agreement in reliance upon a specified condition being satisfied by Developer in the future, and if Developer then fails to satisfy such condition, City shall be entitled to specific performance for the purpose of causing Developer to satisfy such condition.
12.5 Legal Actions.
12.5.1 Institution of Legal Actions. In addition to any other rights or remedies and subject to the limitation of damages in Section 12.7, a Party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any Default, to enforce any covenants or agreements herein, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, or to obtain any other remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Any such legal action shall be brought in the Superior Court for San Mateo County, California, except for actions that include claims in which the Federal District Court for the Northern District of the State of California has original jurisdiction, in which case the Northern District of the State of California shall be the proper venue.
12.5.2 Acceptance of Service of Process. In the event that any legal action is commenced by Developer against City, service of process on City shall be made by personal service upon the City Clerk of City or in such other manner as may be provided by law. In the event that any legal action is commenced by City against Developer, service of process on Developer shall be made by personal service upon John R. Hansen, Developer’s registered agent for service of process, or in such other manner as may be provided by law.
12.6 Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative. The rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative, and the exercise by a Party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same Default or any other Default by the other Party, except as otherwise expressly provided herein.
12.7 No Damages. In no event shall a Party, or its boards, commissions, officers, agents or employees, be liable in damages, including without limitation, actual, consequential or punitive damages, for any Default under this Agreement. It is expressly understood and agreed that the sole legal remedy available to a Party for a breach or violation of this Agreement by the other
7.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
19 Party shall be an action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, or to terminate this Agreement. This limitation on damages shall not preclude actions by a Party to enforce payments of monies or the performance of obligations requiring an obligation of money from the other Party under the terms of this Agreement including, but not limited to, obligations to pay attorneys’ fees and obligations to advance monies or reimburse monies. In connection with the foregoing provisions, each Party acknowledges, warrants and represents that it has been fully informed with respect to, and represented by counsel of such Party’s choice in connection with, the rights and remedies of such Party hereunder and the waivers herein contained, and after such advice and consultation has presently and actually intended, with full knowledge of such Party’s rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights and remedies to the extent specified herein, and to rely to the extent herein specified solely on the remedies provided for herein with respect to any breach of this Agreement by the other Party.
12.8 Resolution of Disputes. With regard to any dispute involving the Project, the resolution of which is not provided for by this Agreement or Applicable Law, a Party shall, at the request of another Party, meet with designated representatives of the requesting Party promptly following its request. The parties to any such meetings shall attempt in good faith to resolve any such disputes. Nothing in this Section 12.8 shall in any way be interpreted as requiring that Developer, City and/or City’s designee reach agreement with regard to those matters being addressed, nor shall the outcome of these meetings be binding in any way on City or Developer unless expressly agreed to in writing by the parties to such meetings.
12.9 Surviving Provisions. In the event this Agreement is terminated, neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder, except for those obligations of Developer set forth in Article 9.
ARTICLE 13
GENERAL PROVISIONS
13.1 Covenants Binding on Successors and Assigns and Run with Land. Except as otherwise more specifically provided in this Agreement and subject to the limitations on assignment set forth herein, this Agreement and all of its provisions, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations, shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, or any interest therein, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, as provided in Government Code section 65868.5.
13.2 Notice. Any notice, demand or request which may be permitted, required or desired to be given in connection herewith shall be given in writing and directed to the City and Developer as follows:
If to the City: City Clerk
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Telephone: 650-738-7300
7.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
20 with a copy to: City Attorney
City of Pacifica
1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: 510-273-8780
If to Developer: Crespi Breakwater, LLC
Attn: Eamon Murphy and Brendan Murphy
Telephone:
with a copy to: Michael K. Brown
200 Pringle Ave, Suite 400
Walnut Creek, Ca 94596
Telephone: 925-943-5000
Notices are deemed effective if delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, or commercial courier, with delivery to be effective upon verification of receipt. Any Party may change its respective address for notices by providing written notice of such change to the other Parties.
13.3 Permitted Delays. Performance by either of the Parties of an obligation hereunder shall be excused during any period of “Permitted Delay.” Permitted Delay shall mean delay beyond the reasonable control of a Party caused by (a) calamities, including without limitation earthquakes, floods, and fire; (b) civil commotion; (c) riots or terrorist acts; (d) strikes or other forms of material labor disputes; (e) shortages of materials or supplies; or (f) vandalism. A Party’s financial inability to perform or obtain financing or adverse economic conditions generally shall not be grounds for claiming a Permitted Delay. The Party claiming a Permitted Delay shall notify the other Party of its intent to claim a Permitted Delay, the specific grounds of the same and the anticipated period of the Permitted Delay within thirty (30) business days after the occurrence of the conditions which establish the grounds for the claim. If notice by the Party claiming such extension is sent to the other Party more than thirty (30) days after the commencement of the cause, the period shall commence to run only thirty (30) days prior to the giving of such notice. The period of Permitted Delay shall last no longer than the conditions preventing performance. In no event shall any Permitted Delay extend the Term of this Agreement.
13.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
13.5 Waivers. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, any failures or delays by any Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any such rights or remedies, or deprive any such Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce
7.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
21 any such rights or remedies. A Party may specifically and expressly waive in writing any condition or breach of this Agreement by the other Party, but no such waiver shall constitute a further or continuing waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other provision. Consent by one Party to any act by the other Party shall not be deemed to imply consent or waiver of the necessity of obtaining such consent for the same or similar acts in the future.
13.6 Construction of Agreement. All Parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed according to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, (a) the plural and singular numbers shall each be deemed to include the other; (b) the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; (c) “shall,” “will,” or “agrees” are mandatory, and “may” is permissive; (d) “or” is not exclusive; (e) “includes” and “including” are not limiting; and (f) “days” means calendar days unless specifically provided otherwise.
13.7 Headings. Section headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement.
13.8 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a specific situation, is found to be invalid, or unenforceable, in whole or in part for any reason, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unless an essential purpose of this Agreement would be defeated by loss of the invalid or unenforceable provisions, in which case any Party may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice thereof to the other Party.
13.9 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. All references to time in this Agreement shall refer to the time in effect in the State of California.
13.10 Extension of Time Limits. The time limits set forth in this Agreement may be extended by mutual consent in writing of the Parties in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
13.11 Signatures. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective legal entities of Developer and the City. Each Developer Party shall be jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the other Developer Party.
13.12 Entire Agreement. This Agreement (including all exhibits attached hereto, each of which is fully incorporated herein by reference), integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and constitutes the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and all prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, understandings, representations and statements, and all prior written agreements, understandings, representations, and statements are terminated and superseded by this Agreement.
13.13 Estoppel Certificate. Developer or its lender may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the City requesting the City to certify in writing that: (a) this Agreement
7.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
22 is in full force and effect; (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified or, if so amended or modified, identifying the amendments or modifications; and (c) Developer is not in Default of the performance of its obligations, or if in Default, to describe therein the nature and extent of any such Defaults. Developer shall pay, within thirty (30) days following receipt of City’s invoice, the actual costs borne by City in connection with its review of the proposed estoppel certificate, including the costs expended by the City Attorney’s Office in connection therewith. The Planning Director shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer hereunder. The form of estoppel certificate shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney. The Planning Director shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following Developer’s request therefor. Developer and City acknowledge that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by tenants, transferees, investors, partners, bond counsel, underwriters, bond holders and Mortgagees. The request shall clearly indicate that failure of the City to respond within the thirty-day period will lead to a second and final request.
Failure to respond to the second and final request within fifteen (15) days of receipt thereof shall be deemed approval of the estoppel certificate.
13.14 Recordation of Termination. Upon completion of performance of the Parties or termination of this Agreement, a written statement acknowledging such completion or termination shall be recorded by City in the Official Records of San Mateo County.
13.15 City Approvals and Actions. Whenever a reference is made herein to an action or approval to be undertaken by City, the City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to act on behalf of City, unless specifically provided otherwise or the context requires otherwise.
13.16 Negation of Partnership. The Parties specifically acknowledge that the Project is a private development, that no Party to this Agreement is acting as the agent of any other in any respect hereunder, and that each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Parties in the businesses of Developer, the affairs of the City, or otherwise, or cause them to be considered joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise.
13.17 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the signatory Parties and their successors and assigns, including Mortgagees. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision in this Agreement.
13.18 Governing State Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to its choice of law provisions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
CITY:
CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation
7.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
23 By: ________________________________
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
[Signature must be notarized]
ATTEST:
By: ________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: __________________________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
DEVELOPER:
Crespi Breakwater, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Its: _________________________________ [Signature must be notarized] By: ________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Its: _________________________________
[Signature must be notarized]
7.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment B: Draft Development Agreement Ordinance, incl. Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement (6119 : 570 Crespi:
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/12/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Accept Update Report on Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept Update Report on Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project.
STAFF CONTACT:
Roland Yip, Deputy Director of Public Works, City Engineer (650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Melissa Tigbao, Director of Public Works
(650) 501-6016
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:
The Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP) is a multi-phase City-led project that aims to create a multi-benefit solution for the Beach Boulevard corridor in historic West Sharp Park. The Beach Boulevard Seawall and Promenade span from just north of Paloma Drive to the southern terminus near Clarendon Drive and the Sharp Park levee. Since the construction of the seawalls, there have been numerous failures of the north wall. During high tides and big swells, wave action overtops the seawall sending water and sand clear across Beach Boulevard, affecting public safety by causing road closures, localized flooding, and property damage.
On May 26, 2020, the City Council approved a Consultant Services agreement with GHD, Inc. for BBIRP Phase 1. Phase 1 was the planning and feasibility effort with three main tasks; reviewing the existing conditions; performing a multi-hazard risk assessment; and developing an alternative design analysis. The Phase 1 completed with the selection of a preferred alternative which consists of a hybrid seawall incorporating a rock scour apron and beach nourishment.
On November 28, 2021, the City Council approved a Consultant Services agreement with GHD, Inc. for BBIRP Phase 2A. Phase 2A consisted of four major work components:
• Project Management and Coordination: Ongoing consultant-city communication, scheduling updates, and financial tracking
• Preliminary Design Development: Preliminary Basis of Design (BOD) report, seawall concept refinement, site-specific hazard, wave and water-level data collection, rock scour and beach nourishment design, promenade layout, preliminary plans and cost estimates, constructability review, and support for independent design review and early funding strategy.
• Environmental Services: Initiating first steps of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which includes the development of a 8 Packet Pg. 158
Pacifica City Council 2
January 12, 2026
project description, issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and facilitating a public scoping meeting.
• Community and Stakeholder Engagement: Providing initial outreach and coordination with residents and key stakeholders.
DISCUSSION:
Phase 2A of the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP) has been successfully completed with the delivery of the Preliminary BOD Report, 35% Design Drawings, and 35% Cost Estimate. The Phase 2A Major Deliverables can be viewed on the City's website at: <https://www.cityofpacifica.org/departments/public-works/engineering/capital-improvementprojects/beach-boulevard-infrastructure-resiliency-project> During Phase 2A the following engagement activities were conducted:
• 3 Community Meetings
• 1 Public Survey
• 3 pop-up style workshops (Fog Fest, Pacifica Municipal Pier, Coastside Farmer’s Market)
• 3 Coastal Commission Meetings
• 1 CEQA scoping meeting
• Social Media Outreach (Nextdoor, Facebook, Twitter, Connect with Pacifica Emails) • 4 ad-hoc committee meetings
The BOD Report documents the preliminary engineering analyses and design of the hybrid coastal protection system which was identified as the preferred alternative for the BBIRP in Phase 1. The report includes a description of the existing conditions, codes and standards applied, materials, and project design criteria for each project element. The hybrid coastal protection system consists of a deep foundation seawall, rock scour apron, and beach nourishment.
• Deep Foundation Seawall - A deep foundation seawall is the primary structural solution designed to mitigate coastal erosion and flooding hazards, while also resisting seismic loading during a large earthquake. A key consideration of wall type selection was the need for a deep foundation to prevent scour and undermining, which is a persistent problem with the existing reinforced earth retaining wall. • Rock Scour Apron - This design element consists of multiple layers of large (8-10 ton) armor stone, placed over an underlayer and geotextile fabric. The purpose of the rock scur apron is to mitigate the potential for scour in front of the seawall due to long-term erosion in combination with extreme storm events. • Beach Nourishment - This design element consists of natural materials (sand & cobble) placed over the rock scour apron to provide a nature-based solution that dissipates wave energy by mimicking the natural beach profile adjustments that occur seasonally and during extreme events. This element leverages innovation from the successful implementation of other living shoreline (nature-based) projects on California’s open coast.
Key Design Highlights from Phase 2A:
Seawall Design:
The proposed seawall will be constructed using 30-inch diameter steel pipe piles filled with 8 Packet Pg. 159
Pacifica City Council 3
January 12, 2026
reinforced concrete. The crest elevation is set at 30 feet NAVD88 along most of the North Wall, with localized increases to 32 feet to match existing grade at Carmel Avenue. This elevation was selected to limit wave overtopping to 0.5-1.0 cfs/ft during the design event, a tolerable rate based on observed impacts during the January 2016 and January 2023 storm events.
Rock Scour Apron:
Designed with 8-10 ton armor stone, the apron will be approximately 50 feet wide and front the seawall to prevent undermining due to long-term scour and storm-induced erosion.
Beach Nourishment:
An initial placement of 500,000 cubic yards of coarse sand is proposed to create a 200-footwide beach berm. Modeling indicates that this nourishment could reduce wave overtopping and extend the life of the seawall. However, the beach is not assumed to persist indefinitely and will erode within every 5-10 years of placement. Subsequent nourishments would be required to maintain a sandy beach along the project reach but are not necessary to achieve the erosion and flood protection objectives of the project.
Cobble Berm and Perched Dunes (South Wall):
A realigned promenade and cobble berm system is proposed for the southern segment. The berm will be constructed with 12-18 inch cobble and topped with sand dunes, providing both flood protection and ecological benefits. Approximately 26,000 cubic yards of cobble will be required for this feature.
Wave and Sea Level Rise Analysis:
The design accounts for 2 feet of sea level rise, consistent with the 2024 California Ocean Protection Council guidance and projections for likely sea level rise over the project design life.
The system is designed to withstand a 60-year return period storm event, such as the January 5, 2023 storm, which produced 30-foot offshore waves, 7.8 feet NAVD water levels, and 1.5-2 feet of storm surge.
Geotechnical Considerations:
Subsurface investigations confirmed the need for deep foundations due to variable soil conditions and potential scour depths of up to 5.5 feet NAVD88 along the North Wall.
Amenities and features:
The project includes a variety of amenities aimed at enhancing public access, recreational opportunities, mobility, and shoreline connectivity. Key features include a multi-tiered plaza north of Paloma Ave that offers seating, scenic views, and a new beach access stairway. Features and amenities at the southern end will be focused around three nodes that will consist of a play area (public art & play structure), primary beach access (central to parking area) and improved connection to golf course levee trail. Pedestrian safety and circulation will be improved with an expanded promenade and separate bike lane along the southern reach. The design also incorporates a landscape buffer and drainage improvements along Beach Blvd to reduce the extent and duration of flooding.
Cost Estimate:
A 35% preliminary cost estimate for the construction was prepared by BK Cooper based on the 8 Packet Pg. 160
Pacifica City Council 4
January 12, 2026
35% Design Drawings. The estimate totaled approximately $83 million, which is similar to the construction estimate for the Hybrid A Alternative developed during the Feasibility Analysis of Project Alternatives in May 2021.
With Phase 2A now complete, the project is ready to advance into Phase 2B - Environmental Documentation. The City has invested extensive effort over multiple years on the project, beginning in 2020 with preliminary planning and feasibility work. During Phase 1, the City developed three technical reports including the Existing Conditions Report, Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment, and Alternatives Analysis Report, and conducted four public workshops to engage the community and gather input.
City staff have been actively pursuing funding opportunities for Phase 2B. The City previously applied for the Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW) Shoreline Erosion Control Grant for FY 2025-26, but the project was not selected for funding. While awaiting DBW’s decision on Phase 2B, the City concurrently submitted an application for Phase 2C funding under the following year’s DBW Shoreline Erosion Control Grant program and is still awaiting on grant approval. The City was previously shortlisted for a $50 million Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant; however, the BRIC Program was canceled nationwide mid-last year. In early December 2025, the City submitted an application for Phase 2B under the Climate Bond Proposition 4 grant program, which operates on a rolling basis, with funding decisions made by the California State Coastal Conservancy Board every couple of months. If the current Climate Bond Proposition 4 application is unsuccessful, staff will need to return to Council with a recommendation on funding possibilities to ensure this critical project continues to move forward.
On February 10, 2025, the City Council approved a Model Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to begin feasibility studies under the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) 103 and 204. As part of the CAP 204, the USACE is conducting a feasibility study to assess the beneficial use of dredged material for sand nourishment and other shoreline improvements along Beach Boulevard between Paloma Avenue and Clarendon Road. The feasibility study is expected to take approximately 1 to 2.5 years to complete. If deemed feasible, CAP 204 could provide up to $15 million in federal funding for construction activities related to the sand nourishment or other shoreline improvements. This funding could potentially reduce the amount of improvements needed to implement the BBIRP.
There is an urgent need to advance the project to the next phase due to the emergency repairs at the existing seawall. Since 2016, the City has experienced twelve seawall breaches requiring emergency repairs, at a total cost exceeding $7 million. The frequency of these failures has increased in recent years, with six of the twelve breaches occurring since 2022. The City is starting to deal with these emergency repairs annually, and most concerning is that three breaches have occurred this past winter. A comprehensive, long-term solution is urgently needed to ensure shoreline resilience and reduce escalating repair costs.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets, and facilities: The completion of Phase 2A is advancing the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project towards construction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related to this update.
8 Packet Pg. 161
Pacifica City Council 5
January 12, 2026
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
8 Packet Pg. 162
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/12/2026
1 SUBJECT:
2026 City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review the list of City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments, make any modifications for the calendar year 2026, and approve the final list.
STAFF CONTACT:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Each year the City Council determines which of its members will represent the City in relation to a variety of regional agencies, Joint Powers Authorities, boards, committees, commissions and community organizations. In some cases, the assigned Council member is a voting member of the body; in others, they serve as a liaison between the designated group and the City. In all cases, the Council member acts on behalf of the full Council and represents a majority viewpoint on matters that directly affect the City of Pacifica. Council members serving as representatives to these groups report back on activities during regularly scheduled Council meetings.
The assignments are typically reviewed and updated in January of each year to reflect changes associated with Council reorganization conducted in the previous December. Attachment A shows the 2025 City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments with updated information for some appointments that were made during the course of the year 2025 for Council to review, discuss and modify for the calendar year 2026. The list includes a column to indicate the Council liaison’s role on the specified body / committee, indicating whether the role is as a voting member, a liaison to observe and/or provide information in an advisory capacity from the City, or as a Council liaison to a City Committee or Commission. Attachment B includes additional meeting information, descriptions of each committee and weblinks for additional information on each body where applicable for outside agencies.
Please note that some committees have alternates while others do not. The ultimate decision on all assignments (except those made by C/CAG or other legislative bodies / agencies as noted) is at the Council's discretion. Council representatives should be determined in compliance with California’s Ralph M. Brown Act. For City Committees / Commissions, in the past the Council has chosen to appoint one primary representative as the liaison and one alternate to most City committees / commissions as listed in Attachment A; however, the Council may wish to discuss and consider a different approach due to the prevalence of competing schedules among the various commitments to local and regional bodies. For example, the Council may wish to consider only appointing a primary liaison to City Committees / Commissions with no alternate or the Council may wish to discuss adjusting the expectation of attendance of the Council liaison to City Committees / Commission to attend the regular 9 Packet Pg. 163
Pacifica City Council 2
January 12, 2026
meetings on a quarterly basis instead of the expectation of attending every meeting. For the Economic Development Committee, there are presently two primary Council liaisons appointed and no alternate; the Council may wish to consider appointing only a single primary liaison to that Committee to be consistent with other Committees / Commissions. Additionally, the newly established Climate Action & Resilience Committee is scheduled to hold its initial meeting on January 14, and at that meeting will determine its regular monthly meeting date / time. A Council liaison has not yet been appointed for that Committee, and the Council is requested to determine a liaison, if desired, at this time. The Council liaison assignment to attend and observe the North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) Board meetings was created voluntarily by Council in January 2023 and is not a member or voting / acting role; attendance to the NCCWD meetings has been limited by several meeting bodies holding regular meetings in the evening on the 3rd Wednesday of each month. This assignment is within Council’s discretion whether to consider continuing. As noted in Attachment A, the Housing Our People Effectively (HOPE) Inter-Agency Council has been disbanded by the County, and therefore will not require Council liaison appointments going forward.
Attachment A also includes, for informational purposes, Ad Hoc City Council Subcommittee assignments for those that are currently active or had been in 2025. At times, the Council may form and appoint two members (less than a quorum of members) to Ad Hoc City Council Subcommittees to meet, as needed, charged with accomplishing a specific task in a limited and definite period of time on an informal and temporary basis without a regularly scheduled meeting date/time. Such Ad Hoc Subcommittees are exempt from the provisions of California’s Ralph M. Brown Act.
For example, the Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee on Committee / Commission Charter Review Questions was formed at the January 27, 2025 regular City Council meeting, at which Councilmembers Bier and Wright were appointed to meet and work with City staff to provide input on focused Committee-specific questions to pose to Committee / Commission members to facilitate the review and recommendations for updates to the charters for the Beautification Advisory Committee and the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission. That Ad Hoc Subcommittee work has concluded and the Beautification Advisory Committee and Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Review is currently underway at the staff and committee / commission level based on the direction provided by the Ad Hoc Subcommittee.
The Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee on the Mayor / Mayor pro Tem Selection Process was formed at the January 27, 2025 regular City Council meeting, at which Councilmembers Bier and Espinosa were appointed to review and make recommendations to amend the policy and process for the selection of Mayor / Mayor pro Tem. This Ad Hoc Subcommittee completed their review, the full Council provided direction at the regular meeting on October 13, 2025, and amendments to the Mayor / Vice Mayor Selection Process per Council’s direction were incorporated into the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics as revised and adopted at the regular City Council meeting on October 27, 2025.
The Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee for the City Manager Recruitment was formed at the November 17, 2025 regular City Council meeting, at which Councilmembers Boles and Beckmeyer were appointed to work with the City Attorney, executive recruitment firm and Human Resources staff on the recruitment process. This Ad Hoc Subcommittee is currently active.
Council is asked to discuss and determine the liaison assignments for 2026. At this time, the City Council may also discuss and consider or reflect any amendments to the list of liaison assignments for 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT:
9 Packet Pg. 164
Pacifica City Council 3
January 12, 2026
None.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: 2025 Council Liaison Assignments (PDF)
Attachment B: Committee Descriptions (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 165
AGENCY Council Representative(s) Council Alternate Role Meeting information ** Weblink ABAG General Assembly Delegate WRIGHT BECKMEYER Voting Delegate late May / early June annual meetings; 9am- 3pm https://abag.ca.gov/meetings Airport Community Roundtable BOLES BECKMEYER Voting Member 1st Wednesday 7:00pm, Millbrae Chetcuti Center https://sforoundtable.org/ C/CAG Representative BECKMEYER WRIGHT Voting Member
2nd Thursday, 6:30 pm SMC Transit District,1250 San Carlos Ave., 2nd Floor Auditorium, San Carlos www.ccag.ca.gov
Colma Creek Flood Control Citizens Advisory Committee BOLES WRIGHT Voting Member 2nd Tuesday of the Month (Quarterly) 3pm - 5pm; Colma Town Hall, 1198 El Camino Real, Colma2026 Meeting Dates: March 10, 2026; May 12, 2026; additional mtgs TBD https://oneshoreline.org/public-meetings/Filter on Colma Creek Citizens Advisory Committee meetings Emergency Services Council SMC BOLES WRIGHT Voting Member 3 times yearly; Jan., May, Sept.3rd Thursday 5:30pm2026 Dates: Onboarding Tues 1/20/26 @ 3pm-4pm; Special Mtg Thurs 1/29/26 @5:30pm-7pm https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/emergency-managementgovernanceNote: Boles also serves on the Emergency Services Council Finance Committee.
Fog Fest Committee Liaison BIER
City Liaison (observe
only or check-in with
Chair)
3rd Wednesday each month https://pacificcoastfogfest.com/about-us/ Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) - Member Agency Committee (MAC) BIER BOLES Voting Member 1-2 Times a year for budget review https://www.heartofsmc.org/Housing Our People Effectively (HOPE) - Inter Agency Council (IAC)NOTE: REMOVE - HOPE has been disbanded by the County in 2025.
BIER BOLES Voting Member Qtrly 10a.m. - 400 Harbor Blvd. Bldg. B, Belmont https://www.smcgov.org/hsa/san-mateo-county-hope- interagency-council North County Fire Authority JPA ESPINOSA & WRIGHT Voting Member As announced (annually typically in May) https://northcountyfire.org/North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) WRIGHT City Liaison (observe
only or check-in with
Chair)
3rd Wednesday 7:00pmNCCWD Headquarters, 2400 Francisco Blvd, Pacifica https://www.nccwd.com
Pacifica Community Television ESPINOSA BIER Voting Member 3rd Thurs 7:30pm at 580 Crespi Dr, Unit E, Pacifica (or Virtual) http://pacificcoast.tv/Pacific Beach Coalition BOLES ESPINOSA City Liaison (Non- Voting) 2nd Tuesday 6:00 p.m. Pacifica Library https://www.pacificbeachcoalition.org/Pacifica Resource Center WRIGHT BOLES City Liaison (Non- Voting) 2nd Wednesday 7:00pm, Pacifica Resource Center, 1809 Palmetto Ave. (or Zoom) Jan, March, May, July, Sept, Nov https://www.pacresourcecenter.org/ Pacifica School Volunteers BIER BECKMEYER Voting Member Meets Quarterly - Linda Mar Education Center https://pacificaschoolvolunteers.org/ Peninsula Clean Energy JPA BOLES WRIGHT Voting Member
4th Thurs 6:30 pm SMC Office of Education, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/NOTE: Boles also serves on the Peninsula Clean Energy's Programs Subcommittee. 2025 Pacifica City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments
9.a
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Attachment A: 2025 Council Liaison Assignments (6113 : 2026 City Council Liaison and AGENCY Council Representative(s) Council Alternate Role Meeting information ** Weblink Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org) BIER BECKMEYER Voting Member Qtrly - 3rd Thursdays - 8am Belmont City Hall - EOC - 1 Twin Pines Lane, Belmont(2026 Meetings: Wed. Jan. 21, 2026; Wed. May 20, 2026; Wed. Sept. 16, 2026) https://commute.org/
SMC JPA Advanced Life Support / Pre-Hospital Emergency WRIGHT BOLES Voting Member Meets Quarterly - 3rd Wed. @ 6:30 PMAmerican Medical Response, 1510 Rollins Rd, Burlingame(2026 Meetings: Wed. Jan. 21, 2026; Wed. May 20, 2026; Wed. Sept. 16, 2026) https://sanmateocountyprehospital.org/
SMC Library JPA - Gov. Board BIER BECKMEYER Voting Member 1st Mon. in Feb., April, June, Sept., Nov.; 8:15amLibrary Administration, 125 Lessingia Court, San Mateo(2026 Mtgs: Feb. 2, May 11, June 8, Sept 14, Nov 9) https://smcl.org/jpa-governing-board/
APPOINTED BY OTHER AGENCIES:* Cal Cities Environmental Quality Policy Committee BOLES n/a Voting Member meets 4x per year https://www.calcities.org/advocacy/policy-areas-andcommittees/environmental-quality *Cal Cities Coastal Cities Group (CCG) Leadership Committee, North Central Representative (through Dec. 2026) BECKMEYER n/a Voting Member As announced
https://www.calcities.org/get-involved/coastal-cities-groupThe Coastal Cities Group Leadership Committee consists of one elected official and their respective city manager, or their staff designee, from each of the six regions within the coastal zone. Sue Beckmeyer is the ws re-appointed 12/18/25 to represent North Central Coast region. Terms run annually and expire Dec. 31. Applications / selections occur annually. * C/CAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
BIER &
WRIGHT n/a Voting Member
4th Thurs. Alternate Months (Jan,Mar,May,Jul,Sept,Oct) 6:00pm-8:00pmBurlingame Community Center2026 Dates: Jan. 22, 2026; Mar. 26, 2026; May 28, 2026; July 23, 2026; Sept. 24, 2026; Oct. 22, 2026; Jan. 28, 2027 https://ccag.ca.gov/committees/bicycle-and-pedestrianadvisory-committee/ * C/CAG Legislative Committee WRIGHT n/a Voting Member (appointed 2/13/25) 2nd Thursday of the month 5:30pm, prior to C/CAG Regular Meetings; SamTrans building, 2nd Floor, 1250 San Carlos Ave, San Carlos www.ccag.ca.gov* C/CAG Resource Management & Climate Protection Committee (RMCP) BECKMEYER n/a Voting Member 3rd Wednesday of the month (as needed) at 3:00 p.m., San Mateo at 155 Bovet Rd. or Redwood City at County Center www.ccag.ca.gov
* Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) - Regular Member Board of Directors BIER n/a Voting Member
(term expiring Feb.
29, 2028)
https://www.heartofsmc.org/Regular members of HEART are selected by the City Selection Committee. Councilmember Bier was appointed 1/13/2025 to the term expiring 2/29/2028.
9.a
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Attachment A: 2025 Council Liaison Assignments (6113 : 2026 City Council Liaison and AGENCY Council Representative(s) Council Alternate Role Meeting information ** Weblink * Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) WRIGHT n/a
Voting Member
(Alternate)
(appointed 1/10/25;
term expiring May
2027)
3rd Wednesday odd # months, 2:30pm -Redwood City - Board of Supervisors Chambers, 500 County Center, Redwood City https://www.smcgov.org/lafcoSelected by the City Selection Committee. Greg Wright was appointed 1/13/2025 to the term expiring May 2027 - Cities (Alternate). * Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Budget Committee WRIGHT n/a Voting Member https://www.smcgov.org/lafcoCITY OF PACIFICA COMMITTEES / COMMISSIONS:Beautification Advisory Committee ESPINOSA BECKMEYER Council Liaison to City Committee 1st Wednesday 6:30pm Community Development Engineering Building, 1800 Francisco Blvd, Pacifica https://www.cityofpacifica.org/government/commissions- committeesClimate Action & Reslience Committee Council Liaison to City Committee meeting date/time TBD; [Note: First meeting is on 1/14/2026 & will determine regular meeting dates] https://www.cityofpacifica.org/government/commissions- committeesEconomic Development Committee ESPINOSA & BIER n/a Council Liaison to City Committee 2nd Tues., 6pm at Community Development Engineering Building, 1800 Francisco Blvd, Pacifica https://www.cityofpacifica.org/government/commissions- committees Emergency Preparedness & Safety Comm. BOLES none appointed Council Liaison to City Committee 3rd Wednesday 6:30pm Pacifica Police Station https://www.cityofpacifica.org/government/commissions- committees Library Advisory Committee BECKMEYER BOLES Council Liaison to City Committee 2nd Wednesday 6:30 p.m. Pacifica Sharp Park Library, 104 Hilton Way, Pacifica https://www.cityofpacifica.org/government/commissions- committeesOpen Space Parkland Advisory Committee WRIGHT none appointed Council Liaison to City Committee 3rd Wednesday 6 p.m. Community Development Engineering Building, 1800 Francisco Blvd, Pacifica https://www.cityofpacifica.org/government/commissions- committeesAbbreviations:
SMC: San Mateo County
Rev. mm-dd-yyyy
* Representative selected by listed Agency not City CouncilABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments LCC: League of California CitiesC/CAG: City and County Association of Governments JPA: Joint Powers Authority** Meeting information for meetings of each body should be confirmed based on the published meeting agendas / agency website
9.a
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Attachment A: 2025 Council Liaison Assignments (6113 : 2026 City Council Liaison and AGENCY Council Representative(s) Council Alternate Role Meeting information ** Status City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees:Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Mayor / Mayor pro Tem Selection Process BIER & ESPINOSA established / appointed at 1/27/2025 City Council Meeting concluded Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Committee / Commission Charter Review Questions BIER & WRIGHT established / appointed at 1/27/2025 City Council Meeting concludedAd-Hoc Subcommittee for City Manager Recruitment
BOLES &
BECKMEYER
established / appointed at 11/17/2025 City Council Meeting Rev. 11-17-2025
2025 Pacifica City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees
9.a
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Attachment A: 2025 Council Liaison Assignments (6113 : 2026 City Council Liaison and Objectives / Weblink 2026 Meeting Dates
https://abag.ca.gov/meetingsABAG is a voluntary membership and advisory organization with limited statutory authority. An elected official from each of the nine counties and 101 member cities and towns serves as a delegate to its General Assembly, which determines policy annually, adopts the annual budget and work program, and reviews the policy actions of ABAG's Executive Board. ABAG convenes its General Assembly once every year in April. Conference attendees include Bay Area elected officials, civic and business leaders, and researchers from leading academic institutions to identify and address land use planning, sustainability, and other policy issues that impact the entire region.which encourages local businesses to adopt sustainable methods to conserve resources.
Thurs. 6/18/2026 @ 9am-3pm (General Assembly Conference / Business Mtg)Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street, SF (Yerba Buena/Ohlone) https://sforoundtable.org/A committee of elected officials that addresses community noise impacts from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport (SFO.)City of Pacifica CommitteeEngages public and civic groups to assist with city-owned sites in need of 'beautification', solicits sponsors for "Adopt a Median Strip" projects and implements annual 'Mayor's Beautification Awards Program' www.ccag.ca.govCity/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County works on issues that affect the quality of life in general; transportation, air quality, stormwater runoff, airport/land use compatibility planning, hazardous waste, climate planning, energy and water resource strategies, and solid waste and recycling.https://oneshoreline.org/public-meetings/The Colma Creek Citizens Advisory Committee is an advisory body to the Board of Directors of the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (also known as OneShoreline for short). Pacifica, being in the Colma Creek watershed, appoints one member to the committee.The Colma Creek Flood Control Zone was created in 1964 to construct flood control facilities in Colma Creek to alleviate flooding in the City of South San Francisco. The nine members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, after nomination by the city councils of the Flood Control Zone, are required to be property owners within the zone (one each must be from the cities of South San Francisco, Daly City, San Bruno, Colma and Pacifica). 2026 Meeting Dates:
March 10, 2026; May 12, 2026;
additional mtgs TBD
City of Pacifica CommitteeThe EDC seeks to support the development of current local businesses and their interface with the City of Pacifica, improve aging business districts, and bring new businesses to Pacifica. City of Pacifica CommissionThe Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission recommends and advises the city council on programs and activities related to emergency preparedness as well as sits as the appellate body for appeals relating to abandoned/ inoperable vehicles, vehicles parked 72 hours or more and appeals of staff decisions relating to traffic safety issues. https://www.smcgov.org/dem/emergency-management-governancehttp://hsd.smcsheriff.com/emergency-services-councilThe Emergency Services Councils collective goal is to provide coordinated plans for the protection of persons and property based on the five phases of emergency management, prevention, protection, response, recovery and mitigation; and support existing regional Public Information and Notification systems to include SMC Alert and TENS, as well as other Situational Awareness Tools; and, to continue to support the regional hazardous materials emergency response program. 2026 Dates: Onboarding Tues 1/20/26 @ 3pm4pm; Special Mtg Thurs 1/29/26 @5:30pm7pm https://pacificcoastfogfest.com/about-us/Assists with the coordination of the Fog Fest Organizing Group (FFOG) in the months preceding the late September street fair on Palmetto.
Emergency Services Council San Mateo County
3 times yearly; Jan., May, Sept.
5:30 pm
3rd Thursday
AGENCY Meeting information
ABAG General Assembly Delegate
Annual Mtgs (or as needed); 9am -
3pm; SF
Thurs. 6/18/2026 @ 9am-3pm (General
Assembly Conference / Business Mtg)
Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale
Street, SF (Yerba Buena/Ohlone)
Beautification Advisory Committee
1st Wednesday 6:30pm
1800 Francisco Blvd., Pacifica Civic
Center / CDE Bldg
Colma Creek Flood Control Citizens Advisory Committee
2nd Tuesday of the Month (Quarterly)
3:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Colma Town Hall, 1198 El Camino
Real, Colma, CA
C/CAG Representative 2nd Thursday, 6:30 pm SMC Transit District Fog Fest Committee Liaison 3rd Wednesday each month
2025 City Council Liaison and Committee Descriptions and Meeting Information Economic Development Committee
2nd Tuesday, 6pm
1800 Francisco Blvd., Pacifica Civic
Center / CDE Bldg
Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission
3rd Wednesday 6:30 pm
Pacifica Police Station
Airport Community Roundtable 1st Wednesday 7:00 pm Millbrae Chetcuti Center