Agenda — Pacifica City Council, January 26, 2026

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 26, 2026
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
January 26, 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 26, 2026
5:00 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: One Case. 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 Vice Mayor Wright
Closed Session Report

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation: San Mateo County Libraries (SMCL) Annual Report B. Proclamation in Honor / Memory of Mary Ann Nihart

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Staff Communications is for the City Manager to offer announcements as appropriate.

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 City Council Regular Meeting 3 January 26, 2026
initial warning to stay on topic. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.

Items on the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion unless a Councilmember requests, before the vote on the motion, to have an item discussed. Time limit on comments is three minutes or less.

1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the November 17, 2025 City Council Special Meeting and the November 24, 2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.

2. Notice of Completion for the Civic Center Campus Facilities Improvement Project PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Civic Center Campus Facilities Improvement Project.

3. Notice of Completion for the Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to:

A. Increase the Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project construction contingency budget by $35,597 (3%) to the total contingency of $172,597 (13%), bringing the total construction authority to $1,542,597; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the close-out change order for the project;
B. Increase the Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project engineering services during construction (ESDC) contingency budget by $23,000 (18%) to the total contingency of (28%), bringing the total ESDC authority to $164,460; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the close-out change order for the project; and C. Accept completion and direct the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.

4. Approve Naming of the Existing Switchback Section of the Rockaway Multipurpose Trail Segment which Connects Rockaway Beach to Pacifica State Beach Park as the “Lynn Adams Trail”.

PROPOSED ACTION: Approve naming of the existing switchback section of the Rockaway multipurpose trail which connects Rockaway Beach to Pacifica State Beach Park as the “Lynn Adams Trail,” per the recommendation of the City Manager, and in compliance with the City's “City Facilities/Property Naming Policy”.

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 City Council Regular Meeting 4 January 26, 2026
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

5. 2026 City Council Liaison Assignment(s) to Climate Action & Resilience Committee (CARC)
PROPOSED ACTION: Consideration of appointment of a Primary and/or Alternate City Council Liaison to the City's Climate Action & Resilience Committee (CARC).

6. Local Coastal Land Use Plan Implementation: Coastal Access and Resilience Program and the Shoreline Adaptation Program
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation on the Local Coastal Land Use Plan requirements to develop the Coastal Access and Resilience Program and the Shoreline Adaptation Program, provide input to help guide the Request for Proposals process for consultant selection, and discuss and potentially appoint a City Council Ad Hoc Committee.

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.

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

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

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

Agendas are posted no later than Friday prior to the City Council meeting date, at the entrance to the City Hall location at 170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica.

View on the Internet:

City Council Regular Meeting 5 January 26, 2026
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
1/26/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes for the November 17, 2025 City Council Special Meeting and the November 24, 2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes for the following meetings:
(1) November 17, 2025 City Council Special Meeting (Attachment A), and (2) November 24, 2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (Attachment B).

FISCAL IMPACT:

Within budgeted operational expenses.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of 11-17-2025 City Council Special Meeting (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 6

CITY OF PACIFICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer
Vice Mayor Christine Boles
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
Councilmember Greg Wright
City Council Regular Meeting 1 November 10, 2025

SPECIAL MEETING
November 17, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on November 17, 2025 at 5:33 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 5:33 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: Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney (Zoom); Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; 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 Mayor Beckmeyer

CONSIDERATION

1. Selection of Executive Recruitment Firm to Conduct City Manager Recruitment PROPOSED ACTION: Consider Recommendation from City Manager Recruitment Ad Hoc Committee Regarding Retention of Executive Search Firm for the Recruitment of the New City Manager; By Motion, Authorize City Manager to Enter into Agreement with Council-Selected Firm; Provide Direction on Process and Timeline for Recruitment and Development of Candidate Profile; and Authorize the Ad Hoc Committee to Take further Actions as Directed Related to the Recruitment Process.

Mayor Beckmeyer and Vice Mayor Boles presented the subcommittee report.

1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-17-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 November 10, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer asked the two firms (Bob Murray and Associates and Peckham & McKenney) to give an overview of their approach and what they would bring to the City of Pacifica as an executive recruiter.

Gary Phillips, Bob Murray and Associates, stated that Bob Murray and Associates has done executive level recruitment in the municipal space for about 25 years. Mr. Phillips and Ms. Valerie Gada Phillips acquired the company from Bob Murray and have owned the firm for the last 11 and a half years. They came into the public sector space with private sector experience and wanted to focus on three things: connecting with the next generation of leaders, increasing social media footprint, and focusing on diversity. They are a woman- and minority-owned firm. Mr.

Phillips handles the bulk of the executive recruitments that report to elected bodies, totaling over 80 positions at the City Manager level in the last 12 and a half years. He stated that every search is unique and although they put together a proposal that lays out a timeline with milestones, they always start out the search by customizing those milestones to meet the needs of their client and how to engage different stakeholders in the process.

Anton “Tony” Dahlerbruch, Peckham & McKenney, stated the steps in the process are the same for executive recruitment firms so what is important in selecting a firm and what makes them special is the relationship. They have strong relationships and positive communications and responsiveness with clients and only work for cities, counties, and special districts. The other part of that relationship is what they have with the applicants themselves. Mr. Dahlerbruch stated he is a retired City Manager and he owns the firm and the firm is made up of retired annuitants who held long-time positions in cities. He also stated that diversity is important to them as well as finding strong candidates to fulfill what the City is looking to accomplish. Peckham & McKenney has been around for about 25 years, and he acquired the firm after retiring from city management in 2019. He has actively done City Manager searches and placed the current City Manager in the City of Pacifica. Mr. Dahlerbruch stated he would be the one point of contact for the City Council.

Vice Mayor Boles asked if it is possible to start work and get the recruitment out before the holidays, assuming a contract is signed tomorrow.

Mr. Phillips and Mr. Dahlerbruch responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Bier asked how the firms can assure us that there will be diversity and equity within their outreach.

Mr. Dahlerbruch stated they cannot ensure it, but they will do everything they can through their network. They also have a good strong reputation of finding diversity in applicants, and they will bring the best candidates.

Mr. Phillips stated diversity and equity are core values of the firm and they make sure to stay connected with all the different diversity groups across professional organizations. They belong to many of these diversity groups and are active in those groups and make sure to target them as part of their marketing campaign. He stated a large percentage of the City Managers that they have placed are either people of color or women.

Councilmember Espinosa asked how the firms will make sure the City Manager candidates understand the problems unique to the City in addition to listening to the community and Council.

1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-17-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 November 10, 2025
Mr. Phillips stated it starts with them understanding what it is that will make for a successful City Manager in Pacifica. The first step in every recruiter’s process is to go on a listening tour including all the different stakeholder groups and identifying the current opportunities and challenges, the leadership style, the communication style, and what works in Pacifica. Once he has that information, as he talks to hundreds of potential City Manager candidates, he can highlight the right communication style, the right background experience, etc. The candidates should also do their do their own learning about Pacifica. That is why there are multiple rounds of interviews and discussions with references.

Mr. Dahlerbruch stated the firms have the same network and will perform the same listening tour.

He will also talk to each Councilmember individually in addition to staff and the community. He has also studied the City’s issues, including Measure Y, the structural and financial forecast, the Strategic Plan, etc. He will send a candidate profile that Council reviews and approves to make sure it responds to what we are looking for because that is the foundation for which they then go out and find people.

Councilmember Wright asked for each firm’s historical average length of placement of City Managers.

Mr. Dahlerbruch stated on average 5 years but following COVID-19 people have been moving around more. They have a good track record of long-term placements.

Mr. Phillips stated on average 5 years as well and added the State average for City Managers is down about four and a half years right now (other about two election cycles).

Councilmember Wright asked about their guarantee policy.

Mr. Phillips stated that they guarantee that if the person leaves within the first year whether they are let go or choose to leave they will re-do the search at no additional fees. They may ask for reimbursement of hard costs like ad placements, but no additional fees beyond that.

Mr. Dahlerbruch stated they charge a fee depending on the circumstances but emphasized that the pre-work makes all the difference for a successful outcome. They charge more than just reimbursement but it is a reduced fee. The fee serves as motivation and a guarantee that they are working hard to try to do this another time. The added fee is to give that reassurance that they are re-doing this for real. The fee is $17,000.

Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated the City Manager candidates need to be aware of our coastal issues, transportation issues, history, and culture. She also stated that the City Manager needs to be respectful of the public vote, especially for the quarry, and be willing to reach out to the community.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, stated that the Council will be turning over in about a year and the strategy and goals of the City may change based on the outcome of those elections. Because there may be a new City Council wanting new direction alongside a new City Manager, we should potentially look at an interim City Manager regardless of those outcomes.

Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.

Councilmember Espinosa asked how often the firms will update the City on the search.

1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-17-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 November 10, 2025
Mr. Dahlerbruch answered weekly.

Mr. Phillips answered as much as the Council needs, which is typically weekly. Any Councilmember throughout the process can reach out to him at any time.

Vice Mayor Boles asked them to address their experience working with coastal cities and placing City Managers in coastal cities.

Mr. Phillips stated the most recent City Manager recruitment was for Pacific Grove, right next to Monterey, which is similar in size and complexity. He has done many tourism-driven economy cities but oftentimes the challenge of meeting the needs of the tourism base while also meeting the needs of the residents in the community are competing interests and the Coastal Commission adds another complexity. He targets candidates who have experience in their background dealing with the Coastal Commission.

Mr. Dahlerbruch stated the cities he left, Rolling Hills and Pacific Palisades, were coastal cities, and he has personally dealt with the Coastal Commission. He also performed the City Manager search for Malibu, Hermosa Beach, Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Santa Maria.

Vice Mayor Boles asked how staff and community surveys may be important as part of the search.

Mr. Dahlerbruch stated this is a Council decision. The Council knows the most about what the City Manager does and what the responsibilities are. Ultimately, whatever input is collected is to inform the City Council to make the best decision. When they go out and get input from the public in the form of a survey, the questions are aimed to inform the City Council so they can make a good decision. There are three times where the public could be involved: survey for collecting input for writing the candidate profile, presentation of that survey at a public meeting for after the candidate profile is written, and engaging the public through an interview process. There are two opportunities for staff input: before writing the candidate profile holding a group meeting with the staff (primarily department heads) and holding a meet and greet with the department head group.

The City may want a survey including all staff but the key people would be the department heads who report to the City Manager.

Mr. Phillips stated they do a similar process. They develop the brochure and begin their marketing campaign. They communicate with the community through a SurveyMonkey survey as well as Zoom listening sessions where they invite the community to come to those sessions and speak in an open forum with them and answer those same questions on the survey. He also does oneon-one meetings with the Councilmembers and then the group meeting with the department heads. In some cases, cities want to have a community component to that as well and have a community panel and that is driven by the Council. The important thing is to make sure that the Council has all the information that they feel they need to make an informed decision.

Councilmember Espinosa asked how the firms find people who specifically want this City Manager position.

Mr. Phillips began with sometimes the best candidate is the one that is not looking. That is where targeted outreach comes into play. They will place ads in the professional publications with all the diversity groups and do mass marketing on um LinkedIn. The challenge will be how to get to the people not paying attention to that and the way to do that is through their network, by picking up the phone and making those phone calls. Oftentimes, it is the persistence.

1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-17-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 November 10, 2025
Mr. Dahlerbruch stated they do the same thing and share the recruitment on Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, ads, and their newsletter. They also make the phone calls to try to find people who align with what we are looking for. Every recruiter in his firm does not do more than five searches at one time. That allows each of them to concentrate on the clients. He also shared that he was on the Board of Directors for CalCities and served as City Manager Department President.

Councilmember Wright asked them to discuss the pros and cons of experience versus up-andcoming.

Mr. Dahlerbruch stated they will receive applications of people with experience but not people who are at the end of their career though with that much experience because they are retiring.

There are people with experience with similar size cities or smaller cities who will want this position. They will know the Coastal Commission and know how to deal with the City’s challenges.

Conversely, up-and-coming candidates are likely Assistant City Managers or department heads who have much of the same experience. There will be City Managers who are experienced and will take risks and be innovators and change agents.

Mr. Phillips agreed and stated we need to look at is who is Pacifica going to make sense for, including city size, people on their way up in their career, first-time City Managers, etc. He thought Pacifica is the right size city for first-time City Managers. Every City Manager was a first-time City Manager, and every successful City Manager had their first city. He has placed quite a few Assistant City Managers as first-time City Managers, and they have been very successful. For the experienced pool of candidates, what it comes down to is quality of life. He wants to hear from the candidates professionally while why they are interested in the position, but also personally why they are interested in the position at Pacifica specifically.

Councilmember Bier was concerned about the region and how big it is and how important it is f to get the information up and down our coastside and perhaps some language translation into Spanish. She was interested to see how they would reach far and wide in the region outside of social media.

Mr. Phillips stated they have done translation and brochures before. He emphasized that they want to make sure that the target audience are people who are technically qualified to do the job as well. He also highlighted targeted outreach to all the coastal cities.

Mr. Dahlerbruch stated they have also done brochures and surveys in Spanish. He stated it comes down to the targeted outreach, making it known that we are looking for somebody bilingual, somebody who values and embodies diversity, and making that clear in the communications when searching and in how to represent it. He noted that searches these days are not Californiaspecific. Once recruitment is in ICMA and Western City, it goes international and people apply from out-of-state as well.

Councilmember Espinosa asked about the success rate, including replacements, and how many of them are still at their job.

Mr. Dahlerbruch stated he has been recruiting since 2020 and he has not had a hire leave and needed to do a replacement.

Mr. Phillips stated approximately less than 5% have left within five years. Many factors can affect a City Manager leaving, such as election cycles, council changes, and their needs changing.

Since COVID-19, the turnover has increased, and during COVID-19, he had a couple placements

1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-17-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 November 10, 2025
that did not stick because the entire process was done virtually. A big part of what makes a City Manager successful is those relationships that they need to build with the Council and the staff.

Councilmember Wright asked them to discuss what are some of the pros and cons of someone with the characteristics of looking for a way to say yes versus looking for a reason to say no.

Mr. Phillips stated he hears this when doing City Attorney recruitments. Part of his questioning and learning with candidates is understanding their mentality to problem-solving and their approach to looking for ways to get to yes, being able to listen and understand where the Council is trying to go, and helping them get there.

Mr. Dahlerbruch agreed and stated City Managers are problem solvers and they are looking to go into a place to be successful there, make a difference, make lives better, and solve problems.

They will find candidates who want to find a consensus, find the positives to work things out, and bring the Council together to move forward
Councilmember Wright asked what the top characteristics that they believe are the important ones for Pacifica to consider.

Mr. Dahlerbruch stated one of the primary ones is having a finance or budget background and experience, especially in light of Pacifica’s structural deficit. He stated another strong quality will be the coastal experience because that is unique to the City. He added understanding our history and where we want to go in the future and have the problem-solving skills, vision, foresight, strategic planning, and perspective for moving the organization forward successfully. He heard that the City’s department heads and staff themselves are a strong group, and there is a skillset there for doing that organizational development and keeping the City moving forward administratively. He stated public safety is a unique attribute and having that experience or a broader labor relations experience would be a key attribute.

Mr. Phillips stated somebody with a strong finance background, in addition to community engagement and communications. The City Manager position has evolved over the last 15 or 20 years, and people skills are more important than they ever used to be. Therefore, he puts that at the top of the list. It is important to have someone comfortable engaging in the community and is willing to become part of that small community.

Councilmember Wright expressed his appreciation to the ad hoc committee because both choices are strong candidates.

Mayor Beckmeyer acknowledged that this was not easy. She placed importance on the idea of listening to the community, engaging with the community, and figuring out ways to do that. These individuals are the agents helping to bring us candidates, and we need somebody who understands the need for that in Pacifica. She stated she has a preference for Mr. Phillips from Bob Murray and Associates in light of the presentation in the proposal and the thoughtful approach to questions.

Councilmember Bier stated the relationship building, the community panel, the Zoom listening sessions, and the guarantee stood out to her, but both of them are so talented. She was also drawn to Mr. Phillips from Bob Murray and Associates.

Councilmember Espinosa stated it is important to her to have a City Manager who is financially savvy, who thinks outside the box and focuses on economic development, and who hears what

1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-17-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 November 10, 2025
the community wants. She stated she has a preference for Mr. Phillips from Bob Murray and Associates.

Vice Mayor Boles stated when we received the proposals Mr. Phillips’ stood out to her because it was a collaborative and unique process. She heard that Mr. Dahlerbruch had more in terms of experience finding coastal candidates and work with the Coastal Commission and his own experience as a City Manager.

Councilmember Wright was impressed with both candidates. His first choice would be Mr. Phillips from Bob Murray and Associates.

Councilmember Bier moved to accept Bob Murray and Associates to be the firm to recruit our new City Manager and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Bob Murray and Associates; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Vice Mayor Boles stated with the tight schedule that the process might be that Councilmembers give their input and then the ad hoc committee would try to incorporate all those comments and finalize the brochure and materials.

Councilmember Wright respected and appreciated the work of the ad hoc subcommittee.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated these would be individual meetings with Councilmembers, not relaying any input from other Councilmembers.

Vice Mayor Boles asked about circulating a community survey and a staff survey.

Mayor Beckmeyer clarified that would amend the agreement if needed to accommodate the cost of a second survey.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed that a majority of the Council wanted both the community survey and the staff survey.

There was Council consensus.

ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 6:54 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor

1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 11-17-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
November 24, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on November 24, 2025 at 5:03 PM 5:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION, pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Pacifica v. Millard W. Tong et al., San Mateo County Superior Court No. 18CIV05455.
6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer reconvened the meeting at 6:06 p.m.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Melissa Tigbao, PW Director; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Craig Wittner, Acting Dep. Fire Chief; Zach Harris, Human Resources Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Vice Mayor Boles

1.b
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 November 24, 2025
Closed Session Report
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated there was no reportable action.

CONSENT CALENDAR
City Clerk Coffey requested to adjust the agenda to move Staff Communications right after public comments for Items Not on the Agenda and before the public hearing.

There was Council consensus.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that Item #2 will be removed from the agenda and brought back on the Consent Calendar at the December 8 meeting due to a 2024 side letter agreement that was not incorporated in the redline.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there were any items Councilmembers wanted to pull from the agenda.

Vice Mayor Boles wanted to pull Item #7.

Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments on the Consent Calendar minus Items #2 and 7.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that the Art Guild of Pacifica and Sanchez Art Center were grateful that Council chose to not rezone the Sanchez campus and chose to have the lease renewed to continue art in our community at the Sanchez Art Center.

Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.

Councilmember Bier moved to approve the Consent Calendar (excluding Items #2 and 7); seconded by Councilmember Wright.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright

1. 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.

2. Resolution approving the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the City of Pacifica and the Fire Battalion Chiefs, IAFF Local 2400 for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding 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 schedule 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 table of contents,

1.b
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 November 24, 2025
finalizing the documents for signature, and eventually posting online.

3. Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacifica and the Management Unit, Teamsters Local 350 for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacifica and the Management Unit, Teamsters Local 350; for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028, including the revised salary schedule 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.

4. First Amendment to Lease Agreement with Pacifica Performances for Use of a Portion of the Sanchez Art Center
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Pacifica Performances, extending the lease term through December 31, 2030, and updating rent, utility, and financial reporting provisions.

5. Agreement with Serra Yellow Cab for Senior Transportation Services (CaR Program) PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Serra Yellow Cab for the provision of senior transportation services under the City’s Connect-a-Ride (CaR) Program for the period of January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027, in the amount of $140,000, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the Agreement and any related documents.

6. Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with the Art Guild of Pacifica for Use of the Sanchez Art Center
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Amended and Restated Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and the Art Guild of Pacifica (AGP) for continued use of portions of the Sanchez Art Center, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement.

7. Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution to approve the Tenth Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company and to authorize the City Manager to execute the Tenth Amendment to increase the cost ceiling by $829,851 for additional specialized planning services and extend the agreement term through June 30, 2027.

AGENDA ITEM #7 DISCUSSION
Vice Mayor Boles had questions on the scope, clarification, and budget for the additional services.

She stated that we talked about the objective design standards and staff stated initial outreach and analysis will take place from November 2025 through June 2026 with a public engagement process. She wanted to hear more about what that was and when these would be brought to the Planning Commission and Council for adoption based on the timeline.

1.b
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 November 24, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave stated we have objective design standards for our Housing Element rezone sites that have been incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance and include step backs, transparency requirements, standards for ground floor commercial uses, access, etc., but we do not have citywide objective design standards and currently use the design guidelines that were adopted in 1992 or 1996 and apply outside our recently rezoned sites. As stated in the scope of work, part of what we will be looking to do is determine a timeline for the work. Thus, an exact timeline is part of what we would need to develop. The work includes auditing the Zoning Ordinance to check for consistency with the General Plan. Therea re many internal inconsistencies within the Zoning Ordinance that need to be addressed in addition to some challenging and not well-defined standards. She stated that work will also inform how we get to objective design standards.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that at a previous meeting she gave an example of Half Moon Bay having done emergency objective design standards over a couple of months and asked if that was given any consideration for our process.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that Council could direct City Manager to prepare emergency or urgent objective design standards which would be a different process that we have not evaluated yet but could evaluate it as part of this work if it is Council’s desire.

City Manager Woodhouse added that it would be a separate Council agenda item but we would have to analyze what the impact is to the department and the current workload priorities the department is working on.

Vice Mayor Boles referred to packet page 203 saying all Housing Element activities will be funded by the Housing Action Fund. She stated that was not her understanding as we had approved a certain amount of money for certain tasks when we did the budget this year.

Community Development Director Updegrave believes that statement is referring to the work authorized and allocated from the FY 2025-2026 budget which included Housing Element on-call and public sites work.

Vice Mayor Boles thought not all Housing Element.

Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, adding that our contract with HEART is paid from the Housing Action Fund through a separate action.

Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.

Mike Wahlman, Pacifica, advised against continuing increasing the ceiling by over $800,000, given the fiscal cliff we are facing, and does not think it is prudent to spend that kind of money.

Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.

City Manager Woodhouse stated a significant portion of these dollars are paid by the applicants so they are reimbursable amounts charged to the applicants. He stated not all costs, such as the Housing Element Implementation Act, but many other portions are developer reimbursements.

Councilmember Wright asked, if we were fully staffed, would we need this cost for Good City.

1.b
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 November 24, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it could potentially be less, but companies like Good City bring a level of specialized services to this kind of work, particularly around public engagement. Based on the size of our department and the types of projects, Planning staff works on long-range and current planning and works with consultants on these kinds of projects.

Vice Mayor Boles referred to packet page 221 which gives a breakdown of the fees. She questioned the use of our Housing Action Funds for work that was not related to affordable housing when we went through the budget earlier this year. She also went back to the FY 2023- 2024 budget book when she thinks we set up that fund to use the excess ERAF money and it specifically says that we put in $1.67 million to start accumulating fund balance in this fund to be used for developing affordable housing projects in the future. She stated that there was a specific intention around the money we put aside for that and the current budget book also says the goals and objectives are to develop affordable housing programs. She is looking to understand where some of the money here is being reflected from projects. She knows the public sites planning outreach is to look at affordable housing and where we are most likely to get affordable housing in the public sites, and she does not mind that. She stated the annual progress reports are basic planning administration time, the zoning modernization is not specific to affordable housing, and the ODS and affordable housing projects have all these exemptions. She is having a hard time as we keep taking money from this fund and she wants to be sure we are looking for other alternative sources, especially when we are being told that this fund is funding all planning activities around the Housing Element which she does not think was ever our intention. We are also approving money for two years and we have not even talked about the budget for next year; we are looking at revenue generations and other things we can bring forward and we are not ever going to build truly affordable projects unless the City gives land or has money to donate to these projects. She stated that this money is precious and building affordable housing is one of Council’s primary goals and she does not want this fund to keep getting whittled away.

City Manager Woodhouse knows that Council discussed this during budget adoption during our hearings in the spring and there was some policy discussion about how much of the housing work such as in the Housing Element is related to developing affordable housing. He stated that there is planning work necessary to do to lay the groundwork for getting to the point of an actual affordable housing project being built. It is interrelated and Council had that policy discussion and allocated an amount of $250,000 from the Housing Action Fund. He reminded Council that we have housing-in-lieu fees which are specific developer fees limited to housing development which is a small amount of money as not much has been built. A couple of years ago, Council created, with the use of the excess ERAF funds, a separate fund, the Housing Action Fund, which does not have a lot of legal strings attached to it but more by direction of the Council. He believes this item has a recommendation that there might be $71,000 or so of this item that is above and beyond the $250,000 that was budgeted from Council for Housing Action Fund usage. If Council wants to consider taking that out of the General Fund unallocated balance and not out of the Housing Action Fund, we can do that and have the City Attorney and Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez about the logistics for that and what recommendation Council might need to make on that. He believes Community Development Director Updegrave can talk about this chart and what is related to housing and affordable housing development and the work that Good City Company would do.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that task #1 is the on-call services, which is all cost recovery, such as specialized planning review of development projects.

Vice Mayor Boles concluded that is not coming out at this time.

1.b
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 November 24, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed. She confirmed it is about $71,000 or $73,000 in addition to the $250,000 that was already authorized. Even though the cost ceiling is being raised, the request before Council today is just for this budget year and the overall cost ceiling for the contract itself so we do not have to keep coming back for amendments as we are going through the work. She stated that budget allocations for FY 2026-2027 would still be coming back to Council through the regular process, same as the initial tasks came to Concil at the last cycle. In terms of how it relates to affordable housing, every program in our Housing Element has some connection into affordable housing. One thing that is challenging in Pacifica is that our codes are very outdated, difficult to use, and are inconsistent with our newly adopted 2040 General Plan; the permit pathways are not clear and are full of subjective standards or requirements that create uncertainty in the development process. Planning entitlements are confusing and can take a very long time to get through. All of these improvements that we make are supporting housing development, including development of affordable housing. Whether it is 100% affordable projects, market rate development with onsite inclusionary, etc., it benefits the whole and we cannot have one without the other. That is what the zoning modernization is focused on. One example is when we did the rezoning recently and we added 13 new articles to the Zoning Ordinance and 12 of those were new zoning districts. Something that simple makes our codes challenging to use; our code is not adaptable and it is challenging to use in the context of changing State laws. Things like the annual progress report is planning administrative work and it is incredibly complex. HCD changes their forms every year and we have to report on different things and different formats. They change the formulas and we do not have current permit tracking software. It is very labor-intensive every year. We need to provide those progress reports and track our progress in order to maintain certification of our Housing Element. These things all connect together and are related.

Vice Mayor Boles understands a small portion does but we are charging the whole amount to this fund which was intended for a different use. She would love to see that number reduced. She thinks we need toto have harder conversation when it comes to the budget next year and where that money is coming from. She would love to hear if some of them have other opinions. She stated that we have a nonprofit in town that wants to build affordable housing over a new center and that is where this money should go. She stated that another thing about the objective design standards is we have some for Housing Element sites but it does not give anything about what the architecture looks like. She stated that we have little say over these larger buildings now because we do not have these standards. She stated that Planning Commission Chair Hauser said that this was the most important planning work we can do to ensure that we are getting good buildings. We have a short window by which we can define these and make sure we get good architecture that is respectful of our community character. It bothers her that this is taking so long. She knows we have public outreach and engagement as part of this. She usually favors public engagement but she asks if it is necessary or is it more important to speed this up. She stated that public engagement can happen in a Planning Commission meeting or study session, and speeding up the process would be her preference. She stated that this is looking like at least another year out if we are talking about the initial outreach and analysis until June. She stated that this is something Good City is helping us with and they have more staff. She understands our PBF fellow has been working on this for a year in looking at the objective design standards.

She asked that we look at that and try to speed that up if it is Council consensus. She stated Half Moon Bay did this on an emergency basis as they saw how important it was and were able to do it quickly. She understands that might change other work and we are reticent to do that.

Councilmember Bier asked if she was suggesting taking some money out of this contract for that purpose and asked her to lay it out more.

1.b
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that it is already in there and she is suggesting for the contract to be simplified without a whole public engagement process. She stated it could save some money and speed it up if we can adjust the scope of work.

Councilmember Bier agreed.

Community Development Director Updegrave clarified that part of the scope of work is to develop the community engagement strategy as there currently is not a community engagement strategy proposed or fleshed out in the scope of work.

City Manager Woodhouse reminded Council that we are not talking about the specific project of the ODS development. The money for that for Good City to work on it is in here and Director Updegrave is saying that, as we launch that process, we can have a meeting with Council to talk about whether community engagement should be waived or just limit it to regular Council meetings or Planning Commission meetings. That is a future conversation that can happen. He thinks the concept of accelerating things would need to be researched more as that usually comes with extra cost to the consultants when they are working on an accelerated basis and we would need to look at the work plan is and what can drop off of the Community Development work plan, if anything, to accelerate that project. It is a separate conversation. What is before Council tonight is the services that Community Development desperately needs to augment our Planning staff work to deliver all of this pipeline of work that is necessary.

Councilmember Bier thanked Vice Mayor Boles for keeping her eye out.

Vice Mayor Boles asked if we can look at those things and come back to Council with an update, as it is written broadly in the contract. She stated we are looking at revenue generation but we also need to look at cost control every time we are approving a contract as mentioned by the public. She then referred to packet page 227 talking about the public sites and stated it does not mention SamTrans and her understanding is that the Linda Mar Park and Ride is a SamTrans lot.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that site list in the contract is pulled directly from the adopted Housing Element. If one of the sites’ ownership was not correctly identified in the Housing Element, staff and Good City are still able to engage with public property owners. It does not require changing the scope of work or the contract.

Vice Mayor Boles stated it is also one of the sites in the Economic Opportunities study as a key opportunity site so it is an important one not to forget.

Community Development Director Updegrave thinks that Linda Mar Boulevard Park and Ride is in the Housing Element as one of the sites. The list is directly quoted from the Housing Element program itself. She stated that any work on public sites is also going to be a very public process so these will also come back to Council and the point of the contract is still those broad strokes.

Councilmember Wright wanted to reinforce what Vice Mayor Boles was saying. He would be in favor of speeding up the process, but he is not sure this is the right thing. What he did hear was her concern about the source of funds that we are using. In order to try to move forward, he asked if there is some kind of compromise she would like to posit in the way of a motion like half of that $70,000 out of the General Fund and half out of the other fund to augment the portion of it that goes towards affordable housing.

1.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that she was willing to let it go for now but she wants to focus on it when we do the budget next year.

Councilmember Espinosa asked if this is an estimate for 2026 and 2027.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated this is for FY 2025-2026 and there is an estimate if the work were to continue into FY 2026-2027 and what that might look like. This is just raising the cost ceiling but is not authorizing additional funds into FY 2026-2027.

Mayor Beckmeyer concluded that would be part of the budget cycle.

Vice Mayor Boles concluded that we are not signing a contract for two years tonight.

Community Development Director Updegrave confirmed June 30, 2027 but the work being authorized is this work during this fiscal year.

Vice Mayor Boles stated there would be another authorization and this would come back to Council to authorize this work.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated it would be budget authorization and it is FY 2025-2026.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that often, when we have multi-year contracts, the budget authority is just for one year at a time and the contract is contingent on that budget authority being approved for the next fiscal year.

Vice Mayor Boles moved to approve Item #7; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright

8. Appointment to the San Mateo County Mosquito & Vector Control District PROPOSED ACTION: Re-appoint Peter DeJarnatt to the San Mateo County Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees as the City of Pacifica representative for a fouryear term to expire December 31, 2029.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Lois Marshall-Ward, Pacifica, stated she is a board member of the Pacifica Resource Center and thanked Pacifica and the community the support given to PRC this holiday season. She shared details of donations and programs and how to contribute to their programs.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared details Section 8 housing evictions and how affected citizens can get support for their problems and options available to them from Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County. She also voiced concern about the sale of City property at 540 Crespi and the possibilities for affordable housing to be built on it outside of the sale.

1.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 November 24, 2025
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked Council for updating the STR ordinance earlier this year and shared her thoughts on Pacifica’s need to support neighborhoods in the coastal zone and actions addressing the issue at 1987 Beach Blvd. She described some of the documented disturbances that have occurred at the property.

Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, agreed with Ms. Abbott’s public comment and shared her concerns and further details regarding documented disturbances that have occurred at 1987 Beach Blvd.

Lynn Adams, Pacifica, reported on work done by the Pacific Beach Coalition and shared details of all their accomplishments over the years.

Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, thanked Council for their support over the years and she was here to ask for help on the issue at 1987 Beach Blvd. She described the documented disturbances at the property and asked that the permit either be revoked or not renewed.

Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, shared his appreciation for the STR ordinance Council passed and shared his community’s concerns regarding the 1987 Beach Blvd. He shared further details regarding documented disturbances that have occurred at 1987 Beach Blvd. and asked the City not to renew their STR permit.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of an Ordinance to Adopt by reference the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code with Local Amendments.

PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Adopt by title only and waive the second 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 appendices and making certain amendments thereto; and
c. Finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
Community Development Director Updegrave presented the staff report.

Mayor Beckmeyer opened the public hearing and, seeing none, closed public hearing.

1.b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 November 24, 2025
Councilmember Wright appreciated our progress but wanted to restate his objection to the State not letting us address our community’s needs and challenges such as climate change in a proactive way. He is disappointed in our State leaders and wished we could do more.

Vice Mayor Boles appreciated the time we spent on this coming before Council several times.

She is ready to make a motion but also agreed with Councilmember Wright and hopes we can shift some things at the State level in the next year or so.

Vice Mayor Boles moved to take the following actions to adopt by title only and waive the second reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica: a, b and c as noted in the agenda on packet page 239; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa
NAYS: Wright
Councilmember Wright stated, for the record, that the no vote was to substantiate his desire to be able to do more.

CONSIDERATION

10. Recology of the Coast’s Application for Rate Increase for 2026 PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution confirming Recology of the Coast’s application for rate increase of 2.94% is accurate and consistent with the annual rate adjustment procedures specified in the agreement with Recology for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste Collection Services (“Agreement”); and finding the confirmation of the rate increase exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3).

PW Director Tigbao presented the staff report.

Councilmember Wright wondered how much Recology adjusted their employees’ pay during that period and if there were any benefit reductions, like increased co-pays on health care, etc.

Recology Operations Manager Ryan Gordon stated that Recology contracts with Teamsters Local 350 and negotiate contracts with them every five years. He has only been with Recology for about three years, but they have about an average increase of about $2.00/hour every year.

Employee benefit costs have increased a little bit over the years, but the benefits for the Recology drivers are handled by the Teamsters Union.

Councilmember Wright asked what percentage the $2.00 roughly represents.

Manager Gordon stated that he does not know what the percentage is.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that we have gotten several comments from members of the public wishing that we had more organic waste pickup opportunities beyond the green bin. She asked

1.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 November 24, 2025
if he can take a moment to explain what options are available if people have more than can fit in their bin.

Operations Manager Gordon stated that they offer weekly pickup to all Pacificans, and they can call for additional pickups for a fee if they have too much green waste. He also suggested cooperation with neighbors to use their green waste bin.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that, when she lived in San Francisco, they did not get charged extra but they could put out an extra brown bag or tie bundles of a certain size so they were not heavy.

She asked what their constraints on that.

Operations Manager Gordon stated that every garbage company is different. In our residential areas in Pacifica, there are different kinds of trucks (i.e. slide loaders or rear loaders). He stated that, in the past, most of the garbage routes are rear loader trucks, which means it is easy to pick something up and throw it in the back of the truck. Our residential routes are serviced more by side loader vehicles and, if you put an extra bag of green waste, it would require our drivers to pick it up and throw it overhead into their trucks which is a safety hazard. They are willing to speak to the City if there are some things they can do for extra bags, such as paper compostable bags. He stated that, unfortunately, some people will put green waste in black plastic bags which are not compostable.

Vice Mayor Boles concluded that people would need fill up their green bin and call for a second pick up and they would have to drive back.

Operations Manager Gordon agreed.

Vice Mayor Boles asked if if people could bring green waste to their facility on Palmetto.

Operations Manager Gordon stated taking green waste takes special permits that they do not currently have at their facility on Palmetto.

Councilmember Espinosa stated we do not have as many bulk item pickups as other jurisdictions.

She notices that a lot of people have many things they need to get rid of and it is very difficult.

She does not know if there is a consideration to increase bulk items pickups in some way.

Operations Manager Gordon stated that each resident is given a courtesy three bulky items per year. They can use that in three different months or all at once. They take bulky items free of charge at their recycle yard as long as they are able to show a Pacifica ID that has their address on it. Anyone with a Pacifica ID is able to use that Recology recycle yard for the three days of week they are open.

Councilmember Espinosa asked if they can pick up an extra bulky item for seniors who cannot pick up things or bring them to the yard.

Operations Manager Gordon stated that they could probably handle that on a case-by-case basis as they have some special exemptions for people who are handicapped or elderly and they go up their driveway to service their garbage cans because they have a tough time wheeling them out to the curbs and they have that noted on all their accounts if they have a special exemption. He stated that may be something they can revisit if they call during office hours and explain their situation as they are always there to help.

1.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 November 24, 2025
Councilmember Wright stated he is thrilled about the service provided by Recology workers.

Operations Manager Gordon appreciated that. He stated that about 50% of their workforce are Pacifica residents. He was born and raised in Pacifica and his parents still live here. They are a very dedicated work group and, as so many of their employees live here, they take pride in keeping the City clean. He has lived here his whole life and feels great working for a company that services our community.

Vice Mayor Boles asked if he can explain the lifeline rate in the contract and who is eligible.

Manager Gordon knows that it is something that they offer and the Customer Services Department gives all the information about that. As the Operations Manager, he mainly supervises our drivers and makes sure everything is picked up, abandoned waste, etc. He can work on getting more information to Council directly and they can communicate that to the community.

Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.

Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, referred to Recology’s contract extension in October 2022 when she questioned the inability for people to bring their excess green waste for disposal at Recology.

She asked Council not to approve this item until they provide permits for organic waste disposal.

Lynn Adams, Pacifica, thanked Recology for being a premier sponsor to Earth Day since 2006- 2007 and for their support for Coastal Clean-Up Day. She also thanked Recology for helping to end dumping in Pacifica. She would like to see more education about recycling process for our community to do better things.

Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.

Mayor Beckmeyer wondered if there should be follow-up from staff with Recology on the issue of additional green waste. She also would like to know more about the permitting limitations.

City Manager Woodhouse recalled that Recology followed up with information and explanation about why they cannot accept green waste drop off due to permitting issues and a discussion about all of the green waste getting hauled to a composting facility for processing. If we are talking about Council’s interest in increased service from Recology of the Coast, that is a franchise agreement reopening and he would recommend that it be brought forward during Goal Setting.

Vice Mayor Boles asked if Recology would be willing to consider coming back next year and do a presentation on recycling, where things are going, and what numbers get recycled.

Operations Manager Gordon stated that they employ a waste zero specialist and his job is to go out and educate the community. They are also working closely with the City on SB 1383 which requires all commercial businesses to compost. They are identifying commercial customers that currently do not have composting and explain the benefits of them having service. Their job is to educate the customer and explain the benefits of composting and what it does for the environment and community.

Councilmember Espinosa asked if there is anything we can do for green waste.

1.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 November 24, 2025
Operations Manager Gordon stated that he will have to talk with General Manager Glen Bongi.

He does not know the history of what was brought up and what they need to do but he knows there is extra permitting needed at the yard to make sure they can handle all the additional green waste. If people come in with truckloads of green waste, their trucks may not have the capacity to handle that. He thinks it is something the community is interested in and he is hoping it can be discussed further.

Vice Mayor Boles asked if the large bins at 2212 Beach Blvd. in the courtyard are part of their agreement with the City.

Operations Manager Gordon stated he is unaware of any contractual agreement or why those bins are there, but he can get back to them on that.

Councilmember Wright asked about the Christmas tree policy.

Operations Manager Gordon stated that they collect Christmas trees from all residential properties. They ask that the Christmas trees not be more than six feet in length or, if more, to cut those in half. They start picking those up immediately from December 26 through January

31. They need to be curbside with the garbage with all ornaments and accessories taken off.

Any stand on the tree needs to be removed as well. Those are on the regular pickup dates.

Councilmember Bier moved to adopt a Resolution confirming Recology of the Coast’s application for rate increase of 2.94% is accurate and consistent with the annual rate adjustment procedures specified in the agreement with Recology for Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials and Solid Waste Collection Services (“Agreement”); and finding the confirmation of the rate increase exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3); seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.

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

11. Guiding Framework of Parameters and Principles for the 2212 Beach Boulevard Site Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQ/P)
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation on guiding framework and key principles for potential development of the 2212 Beach Boulevard site, provide direction to the City Manager on the preferred parameters and expectations to be incorporated into the forthcoming RFQ/P, consider forming a Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee to engage at key milestones in the solicitation process and, if Council elects to do so, appoint its members; and authorize staff to prepare and issue an RFQ/P to solicit development proposals for the site.

Asst. City Manager Carter and Consultant Ken Hira presented the staff report.

Vice Mayor Boles referred to the schedule and steps and asked when would be the touch points for Council with or without the ad hoc and what is the different process if not an ad hoc.

1.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 November 24, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the next touch point for full Council would be the recommended firm with whom we want to enter exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) discussions with.

Vice Mayor Boles thought, at that point, we would be presented one option.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed that is typically what would happen. After all the due diligence and technical expertise of Kosmont and staff, and if an ad hoc committee were involved, it would come down to ideally one recommended developer and we would get full Council direction to begin those negotiations.

Vice Mayor Boles concluded that, with or without an ad hoc, there would be only one presentation to full Council and community.

City Manager Woodhouse stated typically and previously happened in 2016 before his time, that is how the final developer was selected.

Consultant Hira agreed with the City Manager that the process is relatively fluid and it is hard to predict the number of packages that will come back by way of RFQ or RFP. He thought there will be nuances with respect to getting to the finish line. He thinks there can be updates at a Council meeting. In his experience with some of the other RFQ/Ps that is how it has gone down and/or there has been an ad hoc committee. They were trying to be sensitive to the time commitment on the part of Council in this process. He also made a comment that the exclusive negotiating agreement is recognizing that it is a non-binding agreement; it boils down to a period of time during which the City would negotiate the party and how long do we create that timeframe for. If it is a six-month agreement and there is the ability to extend it for six months with the party we enter in with, but they are not locked in or vice versa, we could take the property off the market and we would be in an exclusive for six months but part of that exclusive negotiating agreement would be performance-driven, i.e., there has to be certain things that developer does and certain things the City does in order to create the pathway for the technical due diligence, environmental studies, etc., and a negotiation of a DDA. He thinks the monitoring of that is a very critical part of this process. To get there is something that is either ad hoc committee or they can bring the recommendation based on their professional experience.

Councilmember Bier tasked, if there was an ad hoc, then the ad hoc committee would participate in whittling down the choices.

Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.

Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, asked to hear from the consultant more about the Surplus Lands Act process, specifically outreach to non-profit housing developers. She supported having a hotel on this site but asked what type of property we are looking for in City, such as boutique hotels. She also raised concern about Coastal Commission approval of a hotel development if it did not contain affordable rooms, low-cost amenities, and access.

Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.

Vice Mayor Boles thought it was stated before that it was up to the developer to understand the Coastal Commission requirement and things can be worked out through them later on but some

1.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 November 24, 2025
basic constraints might be important to ensure that they understand, such as the existing parking.

She asked if that is something we should specify.

Consultant Hira thinks that it will be important to express in the package some of the potential Coastal Commission requirements.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that we have not identified at this point what part of the site we are selling. We discussed keeping the pump station which is attached to the building. At one point, there was talk that the Council Chambers building could be in the RFP or not. She asked how that gets worked out in the RFP and what are their suggestions, knowing the public space is being used and improved upon.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the previous Council direction and the presumption is that the only part of this property that will not be sold or changed is the pump station. The pump station and the critical infrastructure that it is would remain. That is what the RQP would describe.

He added that, regarding the previous comment, we will not know all the detailed Coastal Commission requirements for a project, but the RFQ/P will be speaking to the fact that it is an important step in the process. As was mentioned in the RFQ criteria, experience working in the coastal zone and with the Coastal Commission will be emphasized in the selection process so any potential developers may know about other projects and limitations and requirements the Coastal Commission had imposed. Those are all going to be very site-specific requirements and we have our LCLUP and particular policies and requirements that apply to Pacifica. There will be a general acknowledgement about understanding that there will be Coastal Commission requirements in the approval process.

Councilmember Bier asked if staff will be able to have conversations with the Coastal Commission beforehand as we have been trying to do with everything else.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that staff would do that, but at this phase in the process it is very premature to do that. He stated that there have been conversations, but in the Sharp Park Specific Plan process, generally Coastal Commission is very supportive of hotels in the coastal zone to increase visitor options and there have been supportive comments about this type of use previously. He does not think specific engagement at this point is part of the process.

Councilmember Bier was under the impression that Council Chambers would not be here.

Vice Mayor Boles stated the City has to spend money up front as part of the next steps, like doing an EIR, studies to find out where all this is going, and possible future building modifications. She stated, if we get someone right away, it would realistically be 5-7 years minimum before something will be built. She thinks it is important as we go into revenue generation that all those costs are paid for upfront. She asked if criteria like that needs to be in this RFQ.

City Manager Woodhouse stated those kind of negotiating parameters are part of the ENA process. At that point, it is all a negotiation with your development partner in making this happen and costs that they can endure versus the City, etc.

Vice Mayor Boles concluded that he would not recommend staff specifying some of that upfront, i.e. having the financial wherewithal to make the project go ahead.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that any experienced developer will know that all of those provisions are going to be discussed during the ENA. He thinks reference in this process

1.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 November 24, 2025
about including in there the expectation that there will be a significant deposit to cover legal expenses during the ENA process is important, but when we get into the ENA process, that is when all the other negotiations are and it will be too early and not enough detail to be able to specify things at this point in time. He stated that we are trying to package up and market this site for developers to provide enough information to them and be as transparent as possible for them to do their due diligence about whether they want to submit their qualifications and proposal.

Consultant Hira stated the site conditions very clearly with respect to what is on the site today, what is expected to not be on the site ultimately, and to provide the hotel developer with the best opportunity in terms of land area and the adjacency to the pump station will need to be spelled out. That will then be accounted for in their responses, both in the RFQ and RFP packages, and the exclusive negotiating agreement is when they will get into different types of details. He stated we do not know how long it will take before something gets built but, if we have a 2-3 year period of time where we have to figure out what we will do with Council Chambers, we will have some lead time there. Economics is something we can discuss with the development community and a Q&A for that matter if we need to bring that up.

Councilmember Wright stated this site represents renewable revenue in terms of TOT and sales tax revenue. It will bring more visitors which will bring more business and help feed the cornerstone of our Sharp Park Specific Plan which is to try to establish a downtown. He stated that it is going to add vitality here and teeth to our financial stability. He would be very interested in working on the ad hoc committee.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked about ground lease versus sale in regard to this site and use of this site.

Consultant Hira stated that, in any evaluation where a city or any party for that matter owns property, there can be a decision tree of selling or leasing long-term. He noted that the Economic Opportunity Study made a reference to the potential of a lease. He stated what is happening in the market place today is the ability to get financing to build expensive projects is challenged. For the development community, ground leases tend to be harder to get access to capital. The way to get access to capital when they are going to do a ground lease versus buying property and owning it in fee is to have something like a 99-year ground lease. It has been their experience as they work with cities that is not a very common term. There are some ordinances tha seem to restrict that length of time to more like 55 years where property could then be subject to market conditions. In this current environment, it is their recommendation that selling the property will allow for a developer to have it be equity position in the land, be able to get financing, and be able to build the project at a more attractive cost of capital because they will get more lenders interested and it will motivate the market place and development community from a marketing perspective if the property is for sale.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated that there was a reference in public comments to public amenities and the fact that it was public property at the present until such time as it would be sold, and she asked at what point in this process, laid out on their timeline, involving the ad hoc committee if we have one, is it appropriate to have discussion about public amenities that may be part of a project.

Consultant Hira indicated that, in the RFQ/P package, besides existing conditions, there should be statements made about the City’s vision. If the City’s vision is a public amenities type project and/or driven/required by some Coastal Commission requirements, it is a statement made as an overview for what the project’s expectations are or City’s vision is for the site. The market is going to dictate what type of hotel is going to make the most sense here as to where it sits on an upscale or upscale luxury boutique and that is what the market will tell them and the development

1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 November 24, 2025
community will tell us with respect to their own underwriting. We will hear from them on what style, what format, what level, and what amount of amenization they see as a vision as a function of us sharing our vision with them in the RFQ/P package.

Councilmember Espinosa asked about making sure that non-profit organizations will have the opportunity to bid on this, so how are we going to market this property so any potential builder or non-profit will have the opportunity to bid on this project.

Consultant Hira stated that it is their expectation, if there is going to be a private sector development that would be hospitality use, they would want to try to create the best and most prequalified list. He mentioned that in step 2 where that list was going to be who gets the RFQ/P. In addition to that, for purposes of transparency in marketing, he suggested to put it on the website.

That will allow for access to the information from those who want to review it. His understanding of the goal is to maximize the economic value of the land and the tax revenue generations as it is in fact an economic development driver for the community.

Councilmember Espinosa asked if he was talking about listing this property for sale on the City website or other sites.

Consultant Hira stated that the RFQ/P should be a link on the City’s website so people can get access to it, if they did not end up on the distribution list.

Mayor Beckmeyer referred to the Surplus Lands Act process as it unfolded. She asked to go over what that generally looks like.

Consultant Robert Valenti would cover the Surplus Lands Act process. The Surplus Lands Act (SLA) is a State law intended to ensure that public properties are made available for affordable housing purposes. Under the current SLA public agencies that want to sell or lease an agencyowned property must first go through a structured sale disposition process. That requires exposing the property first to a list of affordable housing developers as well as some other required public agencies. It does not require that the property be used for housing and does not require agencies to receive anything less than fair market value, but it is essentially giving this list of affordable housing developers a first chance of proposing to purchase the property for affordable housing purposes. This property has gone through that formal SLA process: Council declared the property as surplus, and a notice of availability (NOA) was then issued and was sent to HCD’s list of affordable housing developers, as well as some other required public agencies. Over 150 different entities received that NOA and ultimately that NOA period lasted for 60 days and the City did not receive any letters of interest from those affordable housing developers or other public entities. Information about that process was then submitted to HCD who then reviewed it and ultimately issued a clearance letter that found that the City followed those SLA procedures and now could proceed with seeking other opportunities for the site.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that Councilmembers have a fiduciary duty to make sure we are getting a fair price and a good project for our community. She asked to talk about the appraisal process and what are the requirements and best practices for updating appraisals.

Consultant Hira stated there was a draft appraisal that the City was able to obtain and it was based on the highest and best use. He thought it was an effort to set some of our own internal expectations as those are sensitive values at the end of the day and confidential. As we embark upon the process to find qualified developers who are also going to make an offer ideally on the site, it allows us to have a benchmark clearly below which the City is not going to likely sell the

1.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 November 24, 2025
property for something below fair market value. There can be offers that come in through this process that could be above fair market value and that process is something we want to stay very sensitive to. At the end of the day, because there is clearly a real estate negotiation component to this, there will be occasion for closed session with Council as we start talking about the economics and the value of the site. Regarding how long it takes and the time frame for that appraisal and the appraised value, an appraisal will be updated as the market conditions change and they can change rapidly in a short period of time. If years from now we are still negotiating and still have some issues we need to work out, a fair market value is one of those key variables and we get an update. The good news about an update to an appraisal is that it should be relatively easier than a brand new one.

Councilmember Espinosa asked what length of time should an appraisal be updated.

Consultant Hira stated, if it is a year old, someone might question what is happening in the market and it also depends on market conditions. He thinks the short longevity of an appraisal during that period of time was well understood. The other issue with appraisals is they lack. The comp information available could be six months old. The updating of that depends on market conditions.

A 2-year old appraisal is typically considered old. At 18 months, it might still have some validity.

Councilmember Espinosa stated, in her industry, appraisals are only one day of the appraisal and the opinion of value, and it is up to the person who did the appraisal. The next day, someone might say they want to do an appraisal, and it is valid.

Vice Mayor Boles referred to community vision in the RFP. She asked if the Sharp Park Specific Plan for the site has enough information or where else information about community vision for the project would come from.

Consultant Hira thinks the Sharp Park Specific Plan is a critical set of guiding principles, as well as community input during that period of time. He thinks it is clearly a document that should be linked within the RFQ/P package or for reference that needs to be important to be studied and understood. The developers that come forward are going to have a team and those teams should include, in his estimation, top architects, top engineers and there needs to be a team who have that experience. If they do not understand Specific Plans, they may not be the right party for us to partner with.

Vice Mayor Boles asked about discretion on the designs from the Sharp Park Specific Plan.

Consultant Hira thinks Council should have a say at the end of the day on certain types of architectural preferences, certain type of consistencies with the environment, etc. We will get from the development community a set of suggestions and approach and there is some flexibility there that will end up being required by both parties from a design perspective.

Vice Mayor Boles thought that was decided during the ENA as part of negotiations.

Consultant Hira thought it also could be a discussion when those concepts come in the proposal phase. We will look at them and critique them and, if the architecture is something that makes sense, we could push forward. If there are tweaks to it, we could push that forward also. The ultimate design will be very much developed during the ENA period, i.e. environmental clearances, size of the project, type of project, scale, etc.

1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated in the Sharp Park Specific Plan the height could go up to 55 feet but that has not yet gone to the Coastal Commission. She asked if we need a caveat now to make sure they know that still needs that approval as there might be some things that come up.

Consultant Hira agreed.

Vice Mayor Boles stated, in terms of community amenities, it would be great to ask for a community meeting space.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked for a recommendation about what point in the process is it appropriate to bring these things forward.

Consultant Hira thinks some of the comments on the front end is part of the original package. If we indicate on the front end that we are expecting an amenities project to include certain benefits, whether coastal access, green space, different features of the hotel inside or outside, etc. he thinks we should indicate some of those things. The fine line there depends on how prescriptive we get. The more prescriptive we get, he thinks it will end up limiting. He stated that it is the prioritization that we should provide to the marketplace to tell them what we are interested in.

When the proposals come back and projects come back, we will see what is on their minds and be able to dictate and drive additional amenities at that point in phase 2 that we are going to see either lacking or some things we like but want to tweak. He thinks we will be able to give some direction during that period of time when we do interviews and review and critique their packages.

Councilmember Bier was curious about right-sized meeting rooms. She also commented that a conference center might not be the best use for this site as we need revenue.

Consultant Hira thinks we can indicate if we would like to see some meeting space because that may be lacking in the community and we would like them to try to emphasize that. If we say nothing about that, they likely will put nothing in their packages or not refer to it. If we say we want a reasonable amount of meeting space because we do not have a lot of that in our community, we at least telegraph to them something that is important. He thinks, if we start to get too far into this notion of having a conference facility, what happens with the hotel developers is they are underwriting average daily rate which trickles down into something called revenue per room and that is how they are defining their return in investment. The more hotel rooms they can generate revenue from against the cost, the more feasible the project is. The more of that space they cannot generate income from is the way it ends up diluting that return. He thinks we say to them that we think there is an opportunity here as there is not a lot in town and they will end up seeing what they come back with. The party that comes back with zero meeting space is something will receive feedback from us.

Councilmember Wright asked how we strike the balance in the RFP between maximizing the value we receive both in the long term in terms of renewable revenue and in the short term in terms of value of the property versus being too prescriptive.

Consultant Hira has seen RFPs that were so prescriptive that they named tenants, businesses, a flag, etc. and that ends up being too restrictive at the end of the day. The comment that can be made is here are some of our preferences, some of our goals and objectives, and we would love them to try to meet these. We have flexibility when it comes to these different types of formats and humanization of a project. Depending on who our audience is, if we capture the right group with our list and/or they understand the site opportunity and how strong it may be, they will be experts and have all kinds of experience on coastal opportunities, ideally based on some of their

1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 November 24, 2025
past projects, and they will use those as examples and bring those creative ideas to us. He thinks we want to keep a level of creativity in the minds of the developers, professionals, and experts who have built several projects in a perfect world. If the party does not have that type of experience, they should not be our partner.

Councilmember Wright asked if he has done analysis in terms of whether he thinks this project can pencil or not and if it fits within the range of what developers are expecting.

Consultant Hira stated that they have done some high level evaluation mainly geared toward market and looking at other coastal hotels and what occupancy looks like, what their average daily rates look like, try to make some comparisons to different hotels along the coast, and what that might reveal as that average daily rate will be critical to the feasibility of the project. It cannot be a hotel with an overly rich rate at the end of the day because it also has to appeal to a certain market base that can afford the hotel. On the flip side, if the cost of construction is high, they will want to do their best to drive the greatest revenue per room. He mentioned earlier that the ground up hotel development feasibility today is a challenge because costs are very high and that is what many developers are facing. That will be reflected in their proforma and what they provide to us but he is also working on a couple of hotel deals that are moving forward and going to try to have to value engineer some of the cost components of their projects. At the end of the day, it should be an open book deal.

Councilmember Espinosa asked if he can talk about labor.

Consultant Hira thinks that, as part of the construction costs, there are lots of projects that have union labor or prevailing wage that are utilized. At the end of the day, the developer who is going to come forward and we are going to negotiate and work with has to understand market conditions. If we are in a market where labor and prevailing wage is essential based on the trades, they are going to have to underwrite it that way. If they come back and say, here is the feasibility analysis that they have come up with and it results in this kind of residual land value, which effectively is going to tell them what our land is worth, it will all go into that proforma; their understanding of the utilization of labor is something that we are going to get from them and/or we are going to tell them that this should be a consideration of theirs when it comes to construction. He thinks it is an area where we have to be sensitive to and what we put into the RFQ/P package. At the end of the day, it will be about financial feasibility.

Councilmember Wright asked if he considers the hotel use the highest and best use from the City’s perspective.

Consultant Hira stated the short answer is yes. There are at least a couple of reasons, such as based on its location and its proximity to the coast and its coastal serving use. Furthermore, from a financial perspective, if we think about tax revenue generation that comes from TOT, and the ancillary retail and property tax, those are the things that are maximized from the General Fund benefit for the City that will come out of a hotel. Those revenues will come out of a greater and more sustainable rate than other asset classes.

Vice Mayor Boles appreciated his guidance on not being too prescriptive. She agreed that we do not need a conference center as that needs to be a much bigger site project. She still thinks it would be great to have some kind of community space, whether a meeting room or lounge, and maybe we leave it up to them.

1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 November 24, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer stated her challenge is figuring out how prescriptive we want to be on that.

She thinks there is probably a way that a company can put language into the RFQ/P that makes sure the developers that are responding to it understand this is an active bit of coastline. She suggested trigger words like pedestrian friendly or multi-mobile transportation that give that indicator of the need for public amenities and access for the public. She often stated about this space that this is the middle of people’s neighborhood.

Consultant Hira appreciates those comments in this direction. He is in the middle of a project where the developer and flag said to them that they want their lobby to be the city’s living room and he appreciated that. He thinks we want to impart Council’s comments within the RFQ/P messaging.

Vice Mayor Boles hopes it helps their proforma too with food and beverage, bringing the community in to help support the hotel beyond the guests from outside. She stated that there was discussion about a restaurant and she thought the Sharp Park Specific Plan gave an option that it could be on the ground floor or the second floor. She thinks it needs to be on the second or higher because of the views. She stated we do not have enough of those types of spaces here. Those tend to be higher-end restaurants that bring in more revenue.

Councilmember Espinosa asked if we see any disadvantage of having the pump here and will somebody be discouraged to purchase because of that.

Consultant Hira stated that, in a perfect world, it would not be there. He thinks the development business in general tends to be adaptive. For a site like this with its location along Beach Boulevard, ocean views, etc., there are ways to mitigate that side of the property where there is a pump. He thought we have to explain these types of things so the development world comes into this with their eyes wide open.

Councilmember Bier referred to the ad hoc subcommittee.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked Asst. City Attorney Murphy to explain for the record how this ad hoc will work in this context, vis a vis the whole Council.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that ad hoc subcommittees are formed for a specific compass and for a specific duration and they are not subject to the Brown Act. They are a committee of less than a quorum. In this case, if an ad hoc subcommittee is formed, that ad hoc subcommittee could meet with City staff and Kosmont as we are moving forward on this project.

Councilmember Wright asked if we could include the Chair of the Planning Commission.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated she did not think so but she will confirm that. She believes that, once we start including numbers from different committees, groups, or officials, that could create a Brown Act issue.

Vice Mayor Boles stated she would be willing to serve on the ad hoc subcommittee also. As an architect, she works designing hotels and remodels to hotels and she knows how to review plans as well and would be happy to help guide the City in the decision.

City Manager Woodhouse confirmed the scope for the ad hoc subcommittee is participating in perspective developer interviews, the RFQ, discussion of RFP results and term sheets, and preferred developer recommendation to full Council.

1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles asked, if it might be appropriate, since the RFQ talks about community vision, if the ad hoc subcommittee might have a peak at the RFQ before it sends out. She asked if there was value in having the ad hoc subcommittee review the RFQ for community vision.

Consultant Hira thought, if that portion of the RFQ is something the ad hoc subcommittee wants to look at, that would be fine.

City Manager Woodhouse suggested the language could be amended to add following consultant and staff drafting of the RFQ/P for the ad hoc subcommittee to weigh in on the vision and introduction component to the RFQ/P.

Consultant Hira thinks it is the city vision and community appetite for the project.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated, following consultant and staff drafting, the subcommittee will review and provide input to the City and community vision portion of the RFQ language.

City Clerk Coffey confirmed, following consultant and staff drafting of the RFQ/P, the ad hoc subcommittee will review and provide input on the City and community vision portion of the draft language in the RFQ.

Mayor Beckmeyer moved to form an ad hoc subcommittee of Council to work on this project comprised of Vice Mayor Boles and Councilmember Wright with an amendment as stated by staff; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.

RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright

12. Continuation of discussion following the November 10, 2025, Council Study Session on Revenue Generation Opportunities and Pacifica’s Financial Sustainability Challenges PROPOSED ACTION: Continue discussion from the adjourned Council Study Session on Pacifica’s financial sustainability challenges and revenue generation opportunities held on November 10, 2025. Provide further direction to the City Manager as needed 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 their staff report.

Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.

Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, suggested exploring the option of contracting with the Sheriff’s Office in light of the City’s immediate fiscal struggles and the highest City cost being public safety.

Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated there is a national organization called Strong Towns that specializes in analyzing the trend of housing costs, infrastructure replacement, and accounting systems with cities, and he will be hosting a Strong Towns event on January 24 to bring that expertise to the City.

1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 November 24, 2025
Mike Wahlman, Pacifica, questioned development progress on the quarry and its $1.3 million revenue opportunity. He supported an infrastructure bond for all public safety infrastructure. He also recommended the City look at Bay Area Urban Areas Security Initiative as a resource for public safety grants.

Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.

Vice Mayor Boles stated she has some questions about the Community Facility District. She stated that they would need public votes and asked clarification on who would be voting, citing the Rockaway/Vallemar area.

Consultant Moura stated that what typically happens on Community Facility Districts is they are usually used on residential developments but could be commercial. They are typically used before buildings are built. The reason for that is that there is a two-thirds vote requirement to form one and there are two different scenarios. If you form a Community Facility District where there is no development yet, in that instance, the two-thirds vote is the property owner, and you need one person to vote. Typically, the way it works is that often, the person who comes forward to create the district is the developer, not the city. It has only been within the last two years that we have seen that whole thing flip where suddenly the city is coming forward saying we want the money for the General Fund and for the infrastructure maintenance and the way they incentivize to developer to participate is to offer to have them cover some of their infrastructure costs or some their developer income. One of the challenges is because the cost of money is high and interest rates are high, in some cases cities are entitling projects and they do not get built. One of the things he has seen in the last year or two is that, in some cases, the way cities are getting developers to build housing is to offer them a Community Facility District. Under normal circumstances, they would be on the hook for the developer impact fees and the infrastructure costs. Since the city wants to get some of our General Fund costs covered and want to have money for maintaining the infrastructures put in, we will work with them and help offset either some or all of their costs in those two areas. That is the reason that this particular financing tool is being used a lot more. He chairs the California Statewide Community Development Authority (CSCDA) and they do a lot of work in CFDs and normally that group meets twice a month. In the last two months, they have met every week because cities all over the state are creating these CFDs with developers to unlock and help build more housing in the state. They have been scrambling to keep up with the demand. He stated that it is an interesting time, but the other thing happening that is also driving all of that is that cities and counties are asking for that third piece of the puzzle. Two years ago, most of the CFDs they saw were for the infrastructure and developer impact fees only, and there was not any money happening for the cities and counties.

That has changed in the last year or two. Now, almost all of the CFDs we see at the statewide agency all have that third piece in it. Then, if we were to create a Community Facility District or some other form of assessment district to improve storm drainage, streets, etc., then you would require a two-thirds vote of the voters because it is occupied land. That is the reason you do not tend to see CFDs in occupied property. Usually, what happens is that, early on, either the developer approaches the city or in some cases the city approaches the developer and suggests they set one of these up before you proceed with your development and the city will have money to pay for some if its General Fund costs and its infrastructure maintenance and the developer will have some money to pay for the initial infrastructure and for the impact fees. Also, by having a rather large district by putting in a lot of units into it, you can do more with that CFD funding, such as including parks, school sites, etc.

1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we need more playing fields and other things with these large developments. She asked how long does it take to set something like this up and is it possible to put something on the ballot for next year.

Consultant Moura stated, if you were working with undeveloped property, there is a ballot technically but the reality is that the ballot is with one person, the developer or the property owner.

Vice Mayor Boles concluded that it does not have to be on a voting schedule for November.

Consultant Moura agreed. He stated that the City has two choices in setting one of these up.

The City can set one up all by itself and there is a process you go through in terms of assembling a team of legal experts or financing experts. The other scenario is you can work with the CSCDA, who works with smaller cities and smaller developments like the 50-90 unit developments and pool them together so you are sharing the cost of setting one of these up across multiple cities.

What they do is, 2-3 times a year, they will set up one of these CFD pools and assessment district polls. There, you have to do a little planning because you have to look at the timeline in getting in on one of the pools, but it is the case that, if you are aware of potential developments in your community that are 50 units or more, you could sit down with the developer and put something together. It also could be the case that, if the developer is already planning to spend some of their money on infrastructure and development impact fees by creating one of these taxing districts, you could leverage their money and suddenly there is more money to put towards infrastructure or amenities or whatever because you are using both their money and the taxing district money. The downside is, because you are creating a new tax, in some cases some cities feel this is making some of the housing a little less affordable than if they were not adding this new tax onto the cost of housing. That is one of the reasons that, sometimes, you create the infrastructure district, where the tradeoff is you are reallocating General Fund money. If you are in a city such as Pacifica, where you have a General Fund problem, that may not be attractive for you. That is why these two tools are highlighted together and cities have to look at the pros and cons of each to decide which works and which does not. If you are a city where your General Fund is rather strong, and you have a surplus, the taxing of the EIFD looks attractive because you are not raising any taxes. On the other hand, if your General Fund is constrained and you are looking for ways to help pay for Police and Fire and infrastructure maintenance, the CFD, even though it is a new tax, is more attractive.

Vice Mayor Boles stated developers might like this and it might be a good negotiation and help us build projects that we want, and she asked if the tax continues after the buildings are built.

Consultant Moura agreed. He stated what happens is, when you form one of these districts, the developer is on the hook for the first year or two or until such time as they develop it. They have to start paying the tax. What is in it for them is that it provides money for them to offset some of their costs of infrastructure and developer impact fees and then this tax gets passed on to the person who buys the housing unit if it is a single family home and typically lasts 10 or 15 years.

They are paying an additional tax on that property on top of the property tax. That is one of the reasons that, if you are in the market for a home, you try to avoid units that have this tax versus ones that do not. It is all in the realm of the tradeoffs in terms of what benefits the different players.

In terms of encouraging a developer to vote to create the district before the homes are built, there is something in it for them, which would be some money for infrastructure, for impact fees, etc., they will typically be interested. He stated that it has been interesting to watch that, up until two years ago, all of these things were created by developers and now, suddenly it has flipped the other way where we have cities and counties saying they will create it, sit down with the developer, and ask if they can cut a deal with them. He gave an example with the State agency looking at

1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 November 24, 2025
pools where one county said that they are going to set up a CFD for all of their unincorporated areas and try to make the developer come in with them to get that money.

Vice Mayor Boles asked if the 10-15 years period is part of the negotiation.

Consultant Moura stated the finance team that works with Council and City staff and the developer will analyze that, i.e., what are you financing, how much money do you need, and how many years is it going to take to generate that. He stated 10-15 years is typical for one of these taxing districts.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked which options do not require a vote.

Consultant Moura stated that the EIFD does not require a vote but the CFD does (two-thirds) and the difference is who is the two-thirds (the voters if occupied land and the property owners if it is not developed).

Mayor Beckmeyer asked for FY 2025-26, the City’s total assessed evaluation is $9,522,138,879 applying to 3.75% debt limit which is the State limit. The legal debt limit is $319.6 million. She asked what is our debt limit presently.

Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez stated that is the current debt limit. The FU 2025-26 number for the assessed evaluation is what we have from HdL. They help us do our property tax assessment and we provided that in our budget as supplemental information in the budget book and it is the current debt limit. Our current debt falls under the exception rules of the State, i.e the pension obligation bond, our direct loan, and our leasing Certificate of Participation, so at least they do not fall under the debt structure limit. We have debt service that we have to budget for every year and we have to take that payment into account but the legal debt limit is $319 million.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that our legal debt limit is the $319 million and we are not close to that at all in our debt capacity and whatever the debt we do have is does not count towards that legal debt limit. Theoretically we could go into debt up to $319 million.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked, looking at General Fund lease obligations, if that is COPs.

Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez responded affirmatively.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if we presently have COP on the police station.

Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez stated that we have the 2016 COP on the police station.

Vice Mayor Boles stated in reference to the police that there might be a balloon payment at some point not accounted for in our projected years of finances and debt.

Mayor Beckmeyer wondered if that is the reason for the dip in FY 2032-33.

Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez stated that represents when Measure Y sunsets and that is why the revenue number goes down. She stated that we have a long-term debt payment scheduled in the budget book and the balloon amount is in that schedule.

Vice Mayor Boles asked what year that is.

1.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 November 24, 2025
Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez stated she does not have that as the last column says all other years.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that we can get more information on that later.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated the revenue bonds through the wastewater system are purpose-specific and if we are increasing sewer capacity or something and that would be something we would be looking at.

Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez agreed, adding that we want to provide information with the understanding that the sewer rate studies are going out and reassessing that financing is only for their upcoming projects and how that works with the sewer rate increase.

She stated that this is basic assumption on the wastewater side just to provide Council with some context on where we are now.

Asst. City Manager Carter added to the wastewater bond that this number does not include $20 million via application. If we accept it and if it materializes, the number will change.

Councilmember Wright asked what percentage of the CIP cost should we expect to be able to pay for with grants.

City Manager Woodhouse stated it is as much as you can get grants for. If the BRIC program was still alive, we could get $50 million towards BBIRP. That will vary a lot in a community, the level of projects, and the agencies involved.

Councilmember Wright stated we are trying to project into the future to try to budget and figure out how we can address some of these financial challenges without understanding having any idea of how much of that $371 million we can get in terms of grants.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the prudent answer is in our financing strategies we do not want to rely on getting any grant money but plan for being able to fund it all and then grant money is additional. He stated Pacifica brings in a significant amount of grant funding, more than $3.5 or $4 million this last fiscal year.

Councilmember Wright stated that we have a historical average about what we are getting to address some of our challenges. He stated that the operating deficit is $6 million, and when we were talking about some of the tax measures, it seemed like that was what we were targeting.

He has not heard how we are strategizing about addressing understaffed, underpaid fiscal challenges. He stated that building our RHNA is part of it and perhaps building more hotels or having another kind of tax measure. He stated that he does not feel like we have addressed all these numbers at all.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that we have not come to a consensus about that which is what staff is asking Council tonight.

Councilmember Wright asked for some guidance on what staff think are practical ideas or directions to head on for the $8.8 million on top of the $6 million.

City Manager Woodhouse stated staff received direction from Council regarding feasibility evaluation of voter-approved measures and we do not necessarily need any additional direction

1.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 November 24, 2025
from Council as part of the study session is to lay out transparently all of the challenges that exist.

Earlier in the presentation, Council saw a huge list of many different aspects of revenue generation that the City is working on, cost allocation study development impact fee review, etc.

Councilmember Wright stated that we are doing all that without enough staff to do it. He gets concerned about staff turnover and would love to see a plan put together to stop that.

Vice Mayor Boles stated all of these things are going to help bring more money to the City. Staff is looking for a direction on these particular things to start with and then we will see where they add up and some of that may be included. She does not disagree with him.

Councilmember Bier thought staff did not need any more direction.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, stating at the last meeting we got the direction on the various voter-approved revenue measures for further research.

Vice Mayor Boles asked for further details on the research.

City Manager Woodhouse stated assessing the feasibility of the parcel tax measure with a public safety focus and exploring infrastructure funding measure with a focus on roads.

Vice Mayor Boles asked about the utility user tax brought up by Councilmember Wright.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that UUT was mentioned as an interest with limitations on the feasibility and polling. We can ask a question about that but cannot poll in great depth on that as it is a very complicated measure and staff will work with the consultant about the feasibility of that and get some data to report back. He stated there were comments from Councilmembers that were concerned about that expanded base for the UUT in order t increase revenues and staff will return with some basic information regarding this.

Councilmember Bier moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Vice Mayor Boles.

EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Consultant Moura stated what was discussed in 2022 was two different scenarios. One is to lower the rate from 6.5% to 5% so you are similar to several other neighboring cities but to broaden the base which means you add taxing cellular phones, phones, video, and potentially water. That would raise about $2 million a year. The other option was to leave the rate at 6.5% but to add those other categories and that would bring you to $3.1 million a year in new revenue. The challenge in both of those, and for the business license tax scenario that would raise up to half a million dollars, is neither gets to $6 million. The thought was that, if you are going to approach the voters to solve your $6 million problem, that is at the current level of service and without fixing the salary at the staffing levels, the only one of the three options that we have that would reach $6 million is the parcel tax.

1.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we talked about the parcel tax being public safety focused, and she asked if we need to justify a certain amount of money, i.e. $6 million.

Consultant Moura thinks, when we worked with the strategist and the outreach people, the first question will be the voters’ interest in or willingness to consider a parcel tax at $6 million; part of that will also be what sorts of things would they feel are priorities. He thinks it is very likely, based on the comments we heard from the votes in 2022 and 2024 measures, that public safety in roads, etc., would likely be their priorities.

Councilmember Wright stated his other big concern is, if we do not come up with a way or a plan to address some of these challenges, we will be faced with some bad choices next year and that is not a choice he wants to make. He would rather stay later tonight and try to figure out at least some direction.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, as we talked about it and set things up last time, there were short-term approaches which are more or less limited to voter-approved revenue measures and there is the mid- to long-term dependent on new development and redevelopment and the money those bring in and a hotel when building things. That is the longer-term horizon that we need to plan for and, with voter-approved measures, that is an every two-year consideration on the ballot so we can have a layer of those into the future strategy related to those. Even with development impact fees, we do not get them unless something is developed, and that is a gradual mid- to long-term revenue source.

Councilmember Wright thought there is also a concern about putting a tax measure on as we know that SB 63 is going to be on there as a half-cent sales tax and the school district is likely to put something on there.

Councilmember Espinosa asked if that is our only strategy and what happens if this does not get approved. She stated we need to think of other things we can do. She stated that we need to figure out what we want Pacifica to be.

Vice Mayor thought, the more we can show that we are doing our job in being mindful of the money, looking for other revenue, etc., it will help to get people’s trust in them to be able to pass this. The whole reason she brought up public safety is it may be more likely to pass and give us more money.

Councilmember Espinosa stated that it is hard to say it but she feels that we need to go inside the City accounting and see where we can cut. She wants to see where the City is spending money instead of trying to get money from the community who is having the same challenge.

Vice Mayor Boles thinks we can do that when we are going through the budget in the spring.

Mayor Beckmeyer pointed out we have been cutting without laying off through attrition. We delay in filling positions, sometimes because it is hard to get candidates who want to work for our wages, sometimes intentionally, but over years and decades, our staffing level has reduced and, compared to other cities of our size, our staff levels are lower than theirs.

Councilmember Wright stated 25 to 35 less employees who are getting paid 15% less than anywhere else.

Councilmember Bier concluded staff are not making a lot of money.

1.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 November 24, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer added that we have been cutting but not through layoffs.

Councilmember Espinosa stated that we need to look at the budget and it does not mean we will cut anything. She suggested looking at consultation fees. She also looked at the application for police officers and noticed that Pacifica is offering so many things.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that, even with all we are offering, we cannot recruit anybody as we are so short-staffed in the police which is part of the challenge.

Councilmember Wright stated that contracting with the Sheriff’s Office is more expensive.

Vice Mayor Boles thought it would be worth having an analysis of that and we can talk to San Carlos and look at their budget numbers.

Councilmember Wright thought that maybe we should do that analysis.

Vice Mayor Boles stated it is worth looking at as part of budget.

Councilmember Espinosa asked what we will do after looking at everything. She stated that there is no way we can survive with this amount of money and maybe people will realize that.

Councilmember Wright stated that there are huge advantages to having a police department.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated that if we have staff take time to do an analysis of that and we want to have that information available as part of the information campaign.

Councilmember Bier asked if that is Council supporting our staff.

City Manager Woodhouse confidently said that, if the expectation was the same level of police services that we currently have and we contract with County Sheriff, it would be much more expensive than what we currently expend on police services. If we wanted to contract with County Sheriff and reduce police services dramatically, we might be able to figure out how to save some money, but we would be reducing public safety protections in the community significantly.

Councilmember Wright stated that we will lose a ton of institutional knowledge.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated that we are already short-staffed.

Vice Mayor Boles suggested that we put that aside for now and do research as part of the budget process but she did not think it was anything we want to direct at the moment. There was the tax measure to try to get up to $6 million, and we talked about some options of how it is not equal based on lot size, etc., and exceptions for people on fixed incomes. She asked if that is something staff needs specific directions now or something they will be researching.

City Manager Woodhouse stated not now, but after staff does initial research, based on the results of that research, Council at a future point would decide what the ballot measure would say and what the parameters would be for that.

1.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 November 24, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we had an infrastructure bond and she does not remember it saying it focused on roads but we have a lot of infrastructure needs. We went through polling on that two years ago and asked why it was not polling well enough.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if that was for the library.

Consultant Moura stated that, in 2022, we passed Measure Y, which is the half-cent sales tax and then, in 2024, we passed the 2% increase in hotel taxes.

Vice Mayor Boles stated, when we did Measure Y, we were also polling for infrastructure.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in 2024, we polled for infrastructure and it was a split sample for new library and infrastructure for roads and stormwater. Those were both in 2024 and not feasible at all.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that the roads and infrastructure were fairly low. She wondered if it is worth spending our time and money for that.

Councilmember Wright stated that, when we did that analysis, it was done citywide and he asked if we focused it on the point where roads are terrible.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated assessment district seems like the methodology for a localized area such as Pedro Point.

Consultant Moura stated the assessment district is for a specific purpose and a specific area and, in that particular tool, what you need to have what is called an engineer’s report, which calculates how much benefit each property gets from the proposed improvement; it could be used for roads, for storm drainage, or other things in a localized area.

Councilmember Bier asked what the infrastructure bond is focused more on, such as climate adaptation infrastructure.

Councilmember Espinosa asked if we can think of a few things that we can apply, such as economic development, outside of the parcel tax.

Councilmember Wright stated we need to build hotels, and we need to build the Sharp Park Specific Plan, but what can we do to reduce the energy bill for example.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that is one of the things on her list about saving money, such as putting in solar panels to reduce energy costs.

Councilmember Wright asked if PCE has zero interest loans.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that there are only $10,000 zero interest loans. They have a certain amount of money per city. That is one of the things we should explore.

Councilmember Bier asked about another discussion about revenue generation.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is continuation of the study session. He mentioned to Council early in the new year when the new Economic and Housing Development Manager is on board doing a study session about our economic development program strategy which includes

1.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 November 24, 2025
important programs and continuation related to this but that is a future discussion. Regarding the energy savings related to the wastewater treatment plant, that does not help the General Fund situation. It is critical to save money in the wastewater fund by reducing expenditures on energy.

Vice Mayor Boles stated there is no solar on the police station where there is more land around.

City Manager Woodhouse added solar at the Community Center and at City Hall will help reduce those energy costs.

Vice Mayor Boles stated she and Councilmember Wright met with someone who was offering to do a whole evaluation of all of our City buildings and bills for free. She stated it is important to get the information and we can think about it. She stated she has a long list of things, but one of the things she heard from South San Francisco is they are luring businesses from San Francisco because they offer some benefits to companies to encourage them to come. She thought we could offer discounted planning fees or a shorter time period for hotels and restaurants.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if she was talking about streamlined planning services.

Vice Mayor Boles agreed, adding even incentives to bring them in. She asked staff about business license fees for other contractors that work in Pacifica. She stated that, as an architect working in certain cities, before she can file a permit application, she has to show her business license. She stated to do that and make sure it all adds up to people doing work in Pacifica.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated we do that and, with the economic development fee, we look at the vacancies, attracting businesses, etc. in our economic development plan. Working on simplifying some of the processes and making Pacifica more business-friendly is a core initiative of the work plan.

Vice Mayor Boles stated what she sees in other cities that are doing so well is that they also have businesses and jobs and that is part of what we do not have here.

Councilmember Wright asked if figuring out a path forward to address all these challenges is something that typically staff does and some consultants do.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is all of them together which is what we have done. He stated that it is with Council setting the Strategic Plan, prioritizing the financial and organizational sustainability and the goals and strategies within that, looking at EIFDs/CFDs, doing the Cost Allocation Plan, etc. are what we can do currently to try to set Pacifica up for success ten years from now. In the meantime, we need to be balancing the budget each year.

Councilmember Espinosa stated, if we were into this deep debt, we should have addressed it earlier. She felt we should have been talking earlier on strategies to figure out what to do. She does not think we have enough time to figure this out. Even if we do the parcel taxes, it does not mean it is going to happen or solve the issue.

Councilmember Bier stated that staff have been talking to Council for years.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated that we have had this conversation and why we had Measure Y and the TOT vote. These measures were put on the ballot by this Council and working with our staff, led by the City Manager, and bringing these items forward. She stated we have undertaken initiatives

1.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 November 24, 2025
and we are still in a situation because it is a structural problem that we do not bring in enough revenue and our expenses continue to rise.

Councilmember Wright added it is because we are 94% residential and 4% commercial.

Vice Mayor Boles stated, if we are only building housing, we are going to continue that problem.

Councilmember Espinosa feels that, the way we are discussing things, we are not going anywhere. We need look at everything we have and then show the people that we cannot find any way to save and this is what we have. Then, we can move forward.

Councilmember Wright would love to hear Vice Mayor Boles’ list.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that one of them is to have more internships. She stated that there are ways we can help our staff and our community and that is one. She went to a senior event with Roy Ernest and one of the cities presented a whole volunteer organization through the City Manager’s office that manages volunteers through a website with opportunities listed. We can make those resources easily accessible so people can sign up and do something.

Mayor Beckmeyer appreciated that, adding that we have to factor in staff oversight and coordination, and it is a shift in resources.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that it has to be the right fit and the right person, hopefully someone who stays on for a while to minimize training costs. She thinks we need to focus on bringing more jobs into town in whatever way we can do that. She stated when our City staff started working remotely during COVID-19 the weekdays were when our businesses struggled the most as they do not have enough people spending money and San Francisco has asked for city workers to come in the office certain days. She does not know how that works and how many people are working remotely, but it shows to our businesses that we are also trying and bringing that revenue back. She thinks that is something they should consider. She stated the economic opportunity study talked about using the parking lot as well as the bowling alley. The community wants some indoor recreation that brings people and visitors here that have something to do at night. She thinks we are missing marketing opportunities and who are we as a City. She questioned what is something we want to be proud of, want to draw people here for, something the whole community things that is behind on, etc. She stated that there are many opportunities as we start to delve into our economic development that we are missing out on now.

Councilmember Wright is thankful that at least we are addressing the problem and, if we work together, particularly with staff, we can get it done.

Councilmember Espinosa asked, if Council has questions, who are they going to talk to. The key is to use them and move forward and implement them. We need to figure out who we are and what are we going to be.

Mayor Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m.; seconded by Vice Mayor Boles.

1.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 November 24, 2025
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:45 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-1]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa
NOES: Wright
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that there may be an opportunity for some of the ideas just being discussed that we can talk about with the economic development presentation in January.

City Manager Woodhouse stated on the report from November 10, there is information in there and a high level summary of the economic development program strategy. When the new City Manager is on board and has some time to develop that out more robustly, he was thinking a study session early in the year would be appropriate to have with a good opportunity to talk about the economic development programs that are geared towards the visions and goals that Council is identifying and have that conversation specifically about economic development program.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that we also talked about having a review of the Economic Development Committee work plan early in the year.

City Manager Woodhouse stated one component of the Economic Development program is the Economic Development Committee’s work which the program supports and they have their work plan and we can include a discussion of the EDC’s work plan as part of that as well.

Vice Mayor Boles asked, with what we have given direction on in terms of the ballot measures, what are the next steps and when would staff be coming back to Council.

City Manager Woodhouse stated, also early in the year, staff will report back results to Council for follow-up conversation about what looks feasible and what is not and what the next steps would be.

Vice Mayor Boles appreciated that he is continuing the work and putting energy in it. She knows he knows this is Pacifica’s biggest issue and, even though he is leaving us, he is still committed to trying to help us out.

Councilmember Wright reiterated what Vice Mayor Boles said in terms of all of staff and their dedication and the culture we have developed in Pacifica in all of our little pockets of employees who are going above and beyond for us.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Council Communications.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated several months ago we were selected as one of 20 cities in the country for an opportunity to develop a promotional video about the City that highlights where Pacifica is, what it is, and what it stands for, and markets Pacifica for many different things. It is

1.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 November 24, 2025
a video that Council, Planning, and staff participated in, and it will be used for economic development marketing purposes for recruitment of employees, etc. It will also be on the City’s website and promoted by other means.

ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 11:33 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor

1.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 11-24-2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (6130 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/26/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Notice of Completion for the Civic Center Campus Facilities Improvement Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Civic Center Campus Facilities Improvement Project.

STAFF CONTACT:

Matt Kelly, Project Manager
(650) 730-0212
[email protected]
Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director/City Engineer
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Melissa Tigbao, DPW Director
(650) 501-6016
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On April 25, 2022, City Council authorized the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Agreement with W.E. Lyons for the Civic Center Campus Facilities Improvement Project. The project includes interior and exterior renovation of City Hall (170 Santa Maria Avenue) and Planning and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Building (1800 Francisco Boulevard), as well as site improvements to create a new Civic Center Campus for city staff and the public. The project was funded from numerous sources as shown in the Fiscal Impact section below.

There were 130 construction change orders issued to the contractor W.E. Lyons during the course of construction in the amount of $1,386,843.71 or 12.8% of the contract value. The change orders were design changes due to the condition of the existing building, weather delays, and bid item quantity adjustments. With the change orders and settlement agreement the final contractor construction cost for the project was $10,792,240.71.

As the project is now complete and staff is satisfied with the contractor’s work on the project, it is appropriate to record the formal Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office. This recorded document is the legal notice that the City considers the project complete and that we intend to pay the contractor for the full and complete contract price. This also puts all subcontractors and suppliers on notice that if they have any claims for payment from the 2 Packet Pg. 48
Pacifica City Council 2
January 26, 2026
contractor, they have 30 days to file claims for payment against the City. This provision of contract law protects subcontractors from contractors who may not pay them properly. It also protects the City from claims against the City for any nonpayment on the part of the contractor.

After many meetings and a lengthy negotiation, the City came to a settlement agreement with the contractor that was executed on 7/22/2025. As part of the settlement agreement the City has paid the 5% retention amount of $309,000.15.

The City Manager is recommending the adoption of the attached resolution accepting completion of the project and the filing of the Notice of Completion (Attachment 1) with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the filing of the Notice of Completion. The total project Source and Use of Funds is shown in the table below:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Capital Improvement Fund 22 $10,000,000.00
Additional Returned ERAF - Disaster Recovery Fund (Fund 38) $1,097,019.00 General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance (Fund 1) $751,397.00 FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget Increase $500,000.00
FY 2023-24- Mid Year Budget Adjustment $150,000.00
Total Source of Funds $12,498,416.00
Construction Cost $10,792,240.71
Construction Design & Engineering $1,467,060.75
Total Use of Funds $12,259,301.46
Project End Balance $239,114.54
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to adopt the resolution accepting completion of the project, but as the work has been satisfactorily completed, the contractor may file a claim against the City for nonpayment of retention, if there are no claims.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the Notice of Completion for the Civic Center Campus Project is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
•Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities: The project improved and created a new Civic Center Campus for city staff and the public. 2 Packet Pg. 49
Pacifica City Council 3
January 26, 2026
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Civic Center Campus Project- NOTICE OF COMPLETION (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 50
Pacifica City Council 4
January 26, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

ACCEPTING COMPLETION AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE

NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE

CIVIC CENTER CAMPUS PROJECT
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that WHEREAS, the City Engineer of the said City has filed with the City Clerk of said City, his Certificate as to the completion of all the work provided to be done under and pursuant to the contract between said City and W.E Lyons Construction, on January 26, 2026, and WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this Council that said work under said contract has been fully completed as provided in said contract and the plans and specifications therein referred to,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered as follows:

1. That acceptance of completion of said work be, and it is hereby, made and ordered.

2. That the City Manager is directed to file for record with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo, Notice of Completion thereof, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 26th day of January 2026, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

CITY OF PACIFICA
By:

Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 2 Packet Pg. 51

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

CITY OF PACIFICA

FOR THE CIVIC CENTER CAMPUS PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California, by Roland Yip, City Engineer of the City of Pacifica, California, that the contract awarded to W.E. Lyons Construction on April 25, 2022, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications for said work filed with the City Clerk, and approved by the City Council of said City.

That said work and improvements were actually completed on the 26th day of June 2024 and that acceptance of completion of said work was ordered by the City Council of said City, adopted on the 26th day of January, 2026, and that the name of the surety on the contractor's bond for labor and materials on said project is Western Surety Company.

That said work consists generally, of rehabilitation of the city hall and planning buildings, new sitework, landscaping, utilities, electrical, and asphalt parking lot.

Name and address of Owner: City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Ave
Pacifica, California 94044
Roland Yip, P.E.

City Engineer

VERIFICATION
The undersigned states that he is the City Engineer of the City of Pacifica and that he makes this verification on behalf of said entity; that he has read the foregoing, and knows the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true.

Roland Yip, P.E.

City Engineer
Executed in Pacifica, California, on January 26, 2026.

2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Civic Center Campus Project- NOTICE OF COMPLETION (6124 : Resolution- Civic Center Project- Notice of Completion Staff

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/26/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Notice of Completion for the Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to:

STAFF CONTACT:

Dan Patten, P.E., Engineering Manager – Wastewater Division (650) 922-7248
[email protected]
Melissa Tigbao, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 501-6016
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Linda Mar Pump Station is a sanitary and stormwater sewage pump station located just off Linda Mar Beach, west of Cabrillo Highway near Linda Mar Boulevard.

On July 24, 2017, the City Council approved the Agreement for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and Pump Stations Condition Assessment with Woodard & Curran. The Pump Stations Capital Improvement Plan Technical Memorandum outlined the recommended Capital Improvement projects for each of the City’s pump and lift stations including Linda Mar Pump Station. The Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project is based on recommendations from the Technical Memorandum. Funding for the project was approved in Fund 34 (Now Fund 518) of the Wastewater Enterprise Fund for FY2020-2021 and FY2021-2022. The Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project primarily focused on the existing motor control center (MCC), the programmable logic control (PLC) and automating the existing engine-driven pump. The existing equipment had reached the end of its useful life. Providing more modern electrical equipment and controls improves the reliability of pumping operations and reduce staffing needs for the pump station, especially during wet weather events.
3 Packet Pg. 53
Pacifica City Council 2
January 26, 2026
The construction contract was awarded to Liffey Electric, Inc. (Liffey) on October 29, 2021. The initial contract value was $1,370,000, and eleven change orders were issued. With change orders the total cost of the contract with Liffey was $1,542,597.47. The Project is substantially complete as of the January 26, 2026, Council Meeting.

As the project is now complete and staff is satisfied with the contractor’s work on the project, it is appropriate to record the formal Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office. This recorded document is the legal notice that the City considers the project complete and that we intend to pay the contractor for the full and complete contract price. This also puts all subcontractors and suppliers on notice that if they have any claims for payment from the contractor, they have 30 days to file claims for payment against the City. This provision of contract law protects subcontractors from contractors who may not pay them properly. It also protects the city from claims against the city for any nonpayment on the part of the contractor.

The City withheld 5% of the contract amount, $77,129.87, as retention to make sure that all subcontractors and suppliers have been paid. The City will release the retention if no claims are received.

At the time of bidding, a 10% contingency was estimated as needed for completion. Due to various issues during construction, including supply chain delays at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic and unforeseen complexity in the engine pump automation phase, a 13% contingency was needed to complete the project. The Table below summarizes the changes discussed in this report:

Item Cost
Original Agreement Value $1,370,000
Original Contingency $137,000
Revised Contingency $172,597
Total $1,542,597
Engineering services were required during construction. The City issued Task Order 2 for Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC) to Freyer and Laureta on September 13, 2021, for an amount not to exceed $128,600. As construction progressed, the project required a greater than anticipated level of effort associated with equipment and material resubmittals; responding to contractor requests for information; additional support for the automation of the engine drive pump automation. Challenges on the project continued, and $23,000 was required to complete the engineering portion of the project or a 28% contingency of the originally awarded fee.

Total Engineering Services During Construction
Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project Engineering Services During Construction
$ 128,600
Contingency $ 12,860
Additional Services Required $ 23,000
Revised Contingency $ 35,860
Total $ 164,460
3 Packet Pg. 54
Pacifica City Council 3
January 26, 2026
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to approve the Notice of Completion; however, this will result in unnecessary delay to the release of the retention funds for the contractor. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of the construction contract and supporting agreements is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure and Maintaining a Safe Community: This construction project will improve the reliability of Linda Mar Pump Station capacity and to mitigate potential impacts of flooding including threatening the safety of residents and damaging private property or critical public infrastructure.

FISCAL IMPACT:

While contingencies for Construction and ESDC were increased, the project is still within the funds originally allotted. Fiscal Impacts for the project are provided in the table below:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Wastewater Fund 518 $ 2,015,000
Total Source of Funds $ 2,015,000
Design $ 185,318
Construction Actual Cost $ 1,542,597
Engineering Services During Construction Actual Cost $ 164,460 Construction Electrical Inspection Actual Cost $ 18,800 On-Call Pump Station Consulting Actual Cost $ 49,707
Total Use of Funds $ 1,960,882
Estimated Project End Balance $ 54,118
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Task Order No 3 MSA Freyer Laureta C004B 1-26-2026 FL Signed (PDF) Attachment B: Change Order - CCO_11 (PDF)
Attachment C: Linda Mar Pump Station Project NOTICE OF COMPLETION (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 55
Pacifica City Council 4
January 26, 2026
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA ACCEPTING

COMPLETION AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE

NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE LINDA MAR PUMP STATION UPGRADE PROJECT (C004)
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that WHEREAS, the City Engineer of the said City has filed with the City Clerk of said City, this Certificate as to the completion of all the work provided to be done under and pursuant to the contract between said City and the Liffey Electric, Inc., on January 26, 2026, and
WHEREAS, the level of effort required to complete the construction for the Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project exceeded the estimates used to establish the original agreement amount plus contingency for the work; and
WHEREAS, additional level of effort required to complete engineering services during construction were exceeded the original estimates used to establish the original agreement amount plus contingency for the work; and
WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this Council that said work under said contract has been fully completed as provided in said contract and the plans and specifications therein referred to;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered as follows:

1. Increase the Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project construction contingency budget by $35,597 (3%) to the total contingency of $172,597 (13%), bringing the total construction authority to $1,542,597; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the close-out change order for the project.

2. Increase the Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project engineering services during construction (ESDC) contingency budget by $23,000 (18%) to the total contingency of (28%), bringing the total ESDC authority to $164,460; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the close-out change order for the project.

3. That acceptance of completion of said work be, and it is hereby, made and ordered.

4. That the City Manager is directed to file for record with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo, Notice of Completion thereof, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 26th day of January, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:
3 Packet Pg. 56
Pacifica City Council 5
January 26, 2026
NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney 3 Packet Pg. 57
OAK #4846-8099-6918 v2
05620-0129
TASK ORDER NO. 3

CITY OF PACIFICA
AND
FREYER & LAURETA, INC.

SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct FREYER & LAURETA, INC. to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and FREYER & LAURETA, INC. (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated 8 June 2020 (“MASTER AGREEMENT”)
SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred dollars ($23,000) (“Cost Ceiling”).

SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by December 31, 2026 or as extended in writing by the City Manager.

SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS
All terms and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT are incorporated by reference and remain in full force and effect.

Approved this 26th day of January, 2026.
[Signatures on Next Page]

3.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment A: Task Order No 3 MSA Freyer Laureta C004B 1-26-2026 FL Signed (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice of

CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Attest
By: Date
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
FREYER & LAURETA, INC.

By: Date

3.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment A: Task Order No 3 MSA Freyer Laureta C004B 1-26-2026 FL Signed (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice of ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment A: Task Order No 3 MSA Freyer Laureta C004B 1-26-2026 FL Signed (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice of Headquarters North Bay Office East Bay Office South Bay Office 150 Executive Park Blvd, Ste 4200 505 San Marin Dr, Ste A220 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Ste 104 20863 Stevens Creek Blvd, Ste 275 San Francisco, CA 94134 Novato, CA 94945 Alameda, CA 94501 Cupertino, CA 95014 (415) 534-7070 (415) 534-7070 (510) 937-2310 (408) 516-1090 December 6, 2025
Mr. Dan Patten, P.E.

Engineering Manager - Wastewater
City of Pacifica
700 Pacific Coast Highway
Pacifica, California 94044
RE: Proposal for Additional Engineering Services
Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project (C004B)
Dear Mr. Patten,
Freyer & Laureta, Inc. (F&L) is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Pacifica (City) for additional engineering services for the Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project (Project). Our proposal includes services provided by our electrical engineering subconsultant, Beecher Engineering, Inc. (BEI).

The City contracted with Liffey Electric, Inc. (Liffey) to complete the Project improvements. During construction, the Project experienced several challenges including:
• Electric material procurement delays extended the overall construction schedule requiring additional support services and project administration;
• Liffey notified the City and the design team that Liffey’s supplier, Murcal, did not include several design integration tasks required to develop final wiring diagrams for the new Murcal control panel to be integrated with the City existing natural gas powered engine driven pump; and • Final startup activities were coordinated to occur during months where precipitation events were less likely to occur to allow the City with the most flexibility for operating the Linda Mar Pump Station before final integration of the Murcal control panel.

The unanticipated challenges resulted in additional effort by F&L and BEI to support both the City and Liffey for successful Project completion.

Scope of Work
F&L and BEI provided the following additional tasks:
• Continued to attend weekly construction meetings with Liffey and the City for an additional 12 months. • Develop interconnection diagrams for the Murcal panel at the request of Liffey and Murcal including:
o Prepare initial schematic diagram for review by Liffey and Murcal; o Advance interconnection diagram based on Liffey and Murcal review comments; o Perform site visit with Liffey to verify final conduit and wiring requirements; and o Prepare final interconnection diagram for Liffey’s use to complete installation of conduit, wires, and Murcal Panel.
• Participate in design coordination conference calls with Murcal. • Perform final construction observation of installed conditions to verify all field work conforms with interconnection diagram.

3.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment A: Task Order No 3 MSA Freyer Laureta C004B 1-26-2026 FL Signed (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice of FREYER & LAURETA, INC. Civil Engineers · Surveyors · Construction Managers 2 F&L and BEI provided as requested support to Liffey and Murcal throughout the final integration and startup activities. The construction and design teams collaboration allowed for final startup and commissioning of the critical natural gas driven pump that the City relies on to convey wet weather flows from the Linda Mar Pump Station to the Calera Creek Water Recycling Facility.

Compensation
The total additional budget authorization requested by F&L and BEI is $23,000.

Thank you for the opportunity to support the City on the successful Project completion that results in improving the overall reliability and automation of the Linda Mar Pump Station. Please contact me at [email protected] or (650) 619-3226 with any questions.

Very truly yours,
Jeffrey J. Tarantino, P.E., Executive Vice President
FREYER & LAURETA, INC.

3.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment A: Task Order No 3 MSA Freyer Laureta C004B 1-26-2026 FL Signed (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice of ATTACHMENT “B”
(INCLUDED IN ATTACHMENT “A”)

COMPENSATION

3.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment A: Task Order No 3 MSA Freyer Laureta C004B 1-26-2026 FL Signed (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice of

CITY OF PACIFICA
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 11
PROJECT: Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade Project
(C004)
ISSUANCE DATE: November 17, 2025
CONTRACTOR: Liffey Electric, Inc.

AMOUNT: $46,200
The Contract is changed as follows:

This Change Order amends the Contract dated October 28, 2021, between the City of Pacifica and the above-named contractor (Contractor) only as explicitly stated herein.

This contract change order includes the costs of material delays and cost increases related to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as a credit for shop drawing production as supplied by the design engineer. This change shall extend the contract duration by 399 days.

The City reserves the right to invoke Liquidated Damages if work occurs beyond the revised contract date below. Contractor agrees to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, and services to perform all work in accordance with the Contract Documents except as may be revised in this Change Order.
a) The Original Contract Price wasÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ.Ö.ÖÖ$1,370,000.00 b) Net Change in the Contract Price by previously authorized change ordersÖÖÖÖ.Ö.Ö.Ö.$126,397.24 c) Contract Price before this Change OrderÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ.Ö $1,496,397.47 d) Amount of this Change OrderÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ$46,200.00 e) The Revised Contract Price including this Change Order isÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ..ÖÖÖÖ.$1,542,597.47 f) The Original Contract Time was .................................................................................... 360 Days g) Net change in Contract Time by previously authorized Change Orders ....................... 647 Days h) Contract Time before this Change Order ....................................................................... 1007 Days i) This Change Order increases the Contract Time ............................................................ 399 Days j) The Revised Contract Time is ........................................................................................ 1406 Days k) The new date for Completion as a result of this Change Order #11 is ÖÖÖ.....October 15, 2024 The adjustments to the Contract Price and Contract Time in this Change Order include all costs, including direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, and overhead (field and home office) costs, related to the change described above. By signing this Change Order, Contractor agrees to accept the Revised Contract Price as total compensation for the work performed under the Agreement, including the original Scope of Work as revised above and in any prior change orders, and further agrees to complete the work within the Revised Contract Time. All other terms of the Contract remain in effect and apply to the revised Scope of Work except as described in this and any prior change orders.

This Change Order is only valid when signed on behalf of the City of Pacifica. Acceptance is to be acknowledged by the signature of the Contractor.

The City of Pacifica:

By:

Contractor:

By:

Construction Manager:

By: _______________________________________________

3.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B: Change Order - CCO_11 (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice of Completion for the Linda Mar Pump Station 1 CC: P.White
LIFFEY ELECTRIC, INC Phone: (415)-400-5182
3450 3rd St, Unit 4E, License No: 1023656 C10; A
San Francisco, CA 94124 DIR# 1000046677

October 27, 2025 Serial Letter No. 002.1 (Rev5)
Project: Linda Mar Pump Station Upgrade (C004B)
Attention: Daniel Patten – City of Pacifica- Department of Public Works Wastewater Division Subject: COR-003 - Time Impact Analysis – Contract Delays Mr. Patten,
In Liffey Change Order 003- Time Related Overheads for Contract Delays, we are requesting additional compensation for our contract being extended past our contractual 365 days as previously notified. Attached we provide the Time Impact Analysis Schedule per section 01 13 10 and 01 10 35, we provide the cost breakdown for each category and below we will summarize the schedule and explain the additional costs.

The Original Project had a scheduled substantial completion date of December 13th, 2022, and the anticipated completion date is scheduled to be 11/1/24; this is a contract increase of 689 days.

Due to reasons beyond Liffey’s control, we were unable to complete the work within the contractual durations. This is because of issues related fabrication delays from the sole sourced electrical equipment manufacturer, extended rain event periods, and additional change orders to name a few. We have provided the attached schedule documenting the progression of issues on this project.

In Liffey Electric Letter 001 dated March 2nd, 2022 “Notice of Potential Delay” we provide notification to the City that the electrical equipment has been delayed due to COVID related supply chain issues and logistics disruptions. The ultimate delivery of the temporary MCC was October 24th, 2022, and the Permanent MCC was delivered February 27th, 2023. This was delivered during the rainy season which we could not contractually work through and was extended to May 16th, 2023, due to significant rain events that season.

Other issues we encountered were related to the steel platform. We were unable to commence fabrication of the new steel platform until after the cutover of the Temporary MCC after the rainy season ended in early May 2023. Once the Temporary MCC was cutover it allowed for the removal of the existing MCC and platform and for Liffey to confirm the new platform dimensions

3.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment B: Change Order - CCO_11 (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice of Completion for the Linda Mar Pump Station 2 CC: P.White
and release it for fabrication. The subsequent delivery of the platform came in multiple phases.

The first part enabled Liffey to place the permanent MCC on the platform on June 29th, 2023, and the platform was completed later with the handrail welding occurring on August 3rd, 2023.

Following the permanent MCC being installed on the new platform, it was discovered that there was additional programming that was required for the new MCC which was city supplied. RFI #20 was issued on September 25th, 2023, from there a response was provided, a COR was negotiated and issued, and the city programming was not completed until April 11th, 2024. Other issues discovered during that time was CO#4 The Engine Governor Component, which was discovered on November 27th, 2023, and is expected to be completed at the estimated Substantial Completion Date of November 1st, 2024. CO #8 is a similar timeframe. On April 11th, 2024, the Ignition Controller issue was discovered, a COR was negotiated and executed, and work began on that COR. This is also expected to be completed at our expected Substantial Completion on November 1st, 2024.

Liffey is therefore asking for a 696 contract day extension to the new substantial completion date of November 1st, 2024.

Additionally, this work has also had significant cost increases for us in the following ways:
1) Craft Labor Escalation
2) Overheads and Field Office Staff
3) Insurance
4) Material Escalation
These costs and their reasoning are described below.

This project was bid on October 20th, 2021, at bid time, Liffey assumed 2022 rates for the crews, understanding that the contract is 365 days from NTP as stated in section 00 08 00 “Time Allowed for Completion”. However, their union rates increase yearly. The yearly rate increases from 2022 to 2024 could not have been known at bid time, and therefore Liffey is requesting a rate increase for the craft hours worked from 2022 to 2024. Please note that most of the hours in this timeframe are from 2023, so to fairly request additional compensation Liffey is only asking for the different in rate from 2022 to 2023, and not the additional cost increase from 2023-2024. Liffey has pulled actual hours incurred from our accounting program, and we have estimated the hours remaining to complete the work and are requesting $7,723.91 (Section A1) from the attached calculations.

From there, we used those hours and an anticipated crew size to determine how many full 8 hour contract days were spent working on the project. This came up with about 89 full contract days our overhead would have been utilized (section A2).

We then took the average daily cost of the project management staff, and summarized their daily overhead costs and multiplied their rates by their individual utilization for the project. We summed those costs up and came up with $207.55 per day (Section B). We took this daily rate and multiplied it by 89 work days (Section A2), to come up with an adjusted staff cost of

3.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B: Change Order - CCO_11 (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice of Completion for the Linda Mar Pump Station 3 CC: P.White
$18,471.99 (Section B).

We also had to extend our insurance several times. Those costs are provided at $3,853.00 (Section C)
Finally, we had a significant material cost increase for the steel platform. Our original bid price was $63,500 but the actual cost of the platform was $88,451.10 which is an increase of $ 24,951.10 (Section D). The cost increase is due to several factors such as COVID, the increase of steel pricing from 2021 to 2023, and the increase in labor rates from 2021 to 2023. Liffey is only asking for this material escalation cost. Other costs, such as cable cost increases, conduit cost increases, and lighting cost increases have been absorbed by Liffey in an effort to partner with the city to bring this to an amicable conclusion.

Therefore, we are asking for (Section A+B+C+D) of $55,000.00 less the credit for Beecher Engineering ($8,800) for a revised amount of $46,200 and 689 contract days to be added to our schedule.

Thank you for your consideration on this issue and we look forward to speaking with you on this in the future. Please feel free to contact me at (415) 871-1463, should you have any questions or comments.

Regards,
Paddy White
President, Liffey Electric, Inc.

3.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B: Change Order - CCO_11 (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice of Completion for the Linda Mar Pump Station COR-003 Time Related Overheads for Contract Delays
163 -Pacifica -Linda Mar Pump Stations
Did Date 10/20/2021
Original Completion Date 12/5/2022
Actual Completion Date 7/31/2024
Contract Days Over 604
Section A- Craft Labor Escalation
Position No Hrs Incurred No Hrs Expected 2022 Rates 2023 Rates Difference #People #Days( Full Days Assumed) Electrical FM 631.425 29 154.46 160.79 6.33 $ 4,180.491 79 Electrical JM 704.025 58 134.64 139.29 4.65 $ 3,543.422 89 A- Subtotal Labor Escalation $ 7,723.91 A1 89 A2
XX YY
Section B Part 2- Overheads - Field Office Staff- Adjusted for Usage Added 11/16 Added 11/16 Name
Daily Overhead
Rate Daily Equipment Daily Phone Subtotal Daily
Utilized On
Project
Applied
Daily Rate A2*YY=ZZ ZZ/XX=DAYS
Project Manager $ 638.25 $ 149.02 1.64 788.91 5% $ 39.45 $ 3,510.65 4.45 Project Engineer $ 638.25 $ 149.02 1.64 788.91 10% $ 78.89 $ 7,021.30 8.90 Field Scheduling and Management $ 695.23 $ 149.02 1.64 845.90 5% $ 42.29 $ 3,764.24 4.45 Superintendent $ 718.03 $ 218.71 1.64 938.38 5% $ 46.92 $ 4,175.81 4.45 $ 207.55 B- Staff Cost$ 18,471.99 22.25
Subtotal B Overheads - Field Office Staff- Adjusted for Usage B- Staff Cost per Day $ 207.55
# 8 Hour Work Days based on actual and projected hours 89 Work Days (A2) Subtotal B1* A2 Overheads - Field Office Staff- Adjusted for Usage $ 18,471.99 B- Subtotal Overhead Field and Office Extension $ 18,471.99 Section C
Section C - One Time Costs
Additional One Time Costs #Units UOM Cost/ Ea Subtotal
Insurance (Installation Floater)1 YR $ 2,569.00 $ 2,569.00 COR-003 Files Insurance Extension 6 Months1 EA $ 1,284.00 $ 1,284.00 COR-003 Files A-Average Daily OH Cost $ 3,853.00 C- One Time Costs
Section D
Material Escalation
Description QTY UOM Original Cost Actual Cost Cost Increase Steel Platform1 LS $ 63,500.00 $ 88,451.10 $ 24,951.10
D- Subtotal $ 24,951.10
Section A- Labor Escalation Subtotal $ 7,723.91
Section B- Overhead Field and Office Extension $ 18,471.99 Section C- Insurance $ 3,853.00
Section D- Material Cost Increases $ 24,951.10
Credit - Beecher Engineering, Inc (Interconnect Drawings) $ (8,800.00) Time Related Overheads Extension Cost $ 46,200.00

3.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment B: Change Order - CCO_11 (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice of Completion for the Linda Mar Pump Station

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

CITY OF PACIFICA

FOR THE LINDA MAR PUMP STATION UPGRADE PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California, by Daniel Patten, Engineering Manager of the City of Pacifica, California, that the contract awarded to Liffey Electric, Inc. on October 29, 2021, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications for said work filed with the City Clerk, and approved by the City Council of said City.

That said work and improvements were actually completed on the 15th day of October 2024 and that acceptance of completion of said work was ordered by the City Council of said City, adopted on the January 26, 2026, and that the name of the surety on the contractor's bond for labor and materials on said project is The Ohio Insurance Company.

That said work consists, generally of providing upgrades to the existing motor control center (MCC) and the programmable logic control (PLC) systems, including replacing several control components utilizing older technology, like the control panel for the existing natural gas engine-driven pumping equipment.

Name and address of Owner:

VERIFICATION
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Ave
Pacifica, California 94044
Daniel Patten
Acting Deputy Director of Public Works
Wastewater Division
The undersigned states that he is the City Engineer of the City of Pacifica and that he makes this verification on behalf of said entity; that he has read the foregoing, and knows the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true.

Daniel Patten
Acting Deputy Director of Public Works
Wastewater Division
Executed in Pacifica, California, on January 26, 2026.

3.c
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment C: Linda Mar Pump Station Project NOTICE OF COMPLETION [Revision 1] (6101 : Adopt Resolution to Approve Notice

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/26/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Approve Naming of the Existing Switchback Section of the Rockaway Multipurpose Trail Segment which Connects Rockaway Beach to Pacifica State Beach Park as the “Lynn Adams Trail”.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve naming of the existing switchback section of the Rockaway multipurpose trail which connects Rockaway Beach to Pacifica State Beach Park as the “Lynn Adams Trail,” in compliance with the City's “City Facilities/Property Naming Policy”.

STAFF CONTACT:

Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director/City Engineer
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The trail recommended to be named Lynn Adams Trail is a switchback section that is part of an approximately 0.8-mile segment of an existing multipurpose coastal trail. The existing trail provides continuous pedestrian and bicycle access along the shoreline between Rockaway Beach and Pacifica State Beach Park (Attachment A). The unnamed trail segment is located within Caltrans right-of-way and is operated by the City of Pacifica under a lease agreement currently in effect through January 2028 (Tenancy Number 04-048309-0001-02).

On December 8, 2025, the city presented a proclamation to Lynn Adams in recognition of her 24 years of dedicated service to the Pacifica community as a volunteer and President of the Pacific Beach Coalition. Lynn began volunteering with the Pacific Beach Coalition in 2002 and served as its President from 2007 until her recent retirement. She provided extraordinary leadership, vision, and commitment to protecting the ocean, coastal habitat, wildlife, and our community.

Under her leadership, the Pacific Beach Coalition grew into a thriving regional nonprofit organization with an annual volunteer base of more than 10,000 participants, supporting over 13 stewardship sites, and year-round programs including Earth Day of Action, Coastal Cleanup Day, July 5th Cleanup, habitat restoration events, and community and educational service activities across the Bay Area. The volunteers organized under her leadership have collected and removed 415,580 pounds of trash, 62,215 pounds of recyclables, 407,150 pounds of green waste, and more than 2.4 million cigarette butts from coastal and watershed areas. Lynn has led and expanded major habitat restoration initiatives with restoration efforts at Pacifica State Beach and extending more than 1.5 miles along the California Coastal Trail to Rockaway Beach.

In addition to environmental restoration, Lynn played a key role in environmental education programs, increasing the field education programs from one to ten per month. She has inspired nearly 5,000 students to understand climate impacts, marine ecosystems, and the importance of 4 Packet Pg. 70
Pacifica City Council 2
January 26, 2026
stewardship through the Earth Hero Honoree Pelican Assemblies. Lynn Adams’ decades of devotion have strengthened our coastal resilience and environmental health, and built a lasting culture of stewardship, community partnership, and shared responsibility that will benefit Pacifica’s coastline for generations.

At the request of Pacifica Beach Coalition members and 2025 Mayor Sue Beckmeyer and 2025 Vice Mayor Christine Boles, the City Manager recommends naming the switchbacks section of the multipurpose trail in recognition of Lynn Adams in compliance with City's “City Facilities/Property Naming Policy (Attachment B). Following Council approval, staff will continue working with Caltrans to finalize details related to signage placement, design, and installation to ensure consistency with applicable Caltrans requirements.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council may choose not to approve the proposed trail renaming or may direct staff to return with an alternative trail name in accordance with the City’s City Facilities/Property Naming Policy and applicable Caltrans requirements.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The recommended action supports the following City Council adopted goals:
• Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities: The formal naming will improve identification and familiarity and improve access to the trail for residents and visitors.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Fiscal impacts associated with the proposed trail renaming are expected to be minimal and limited to the cost of installation of the sign and can be accommodated within existing budgets.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Trail Location (PDF)
Attachment B - Administrative Policy No. 79 - City FacilitiesProperty Naming Policy (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 71
ATTACHMENT "A" 4.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment A - Trail Location (6125 : Lynn Adams Trail Naming) r
C
,., P1r1
. ,<' //,,-
'--.
-�
---=-�� CITY OF PACIFICA

ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
No.
79 DATE ISSUED:

CITY FACILITIES/ PROPERTY NAMING POLICY
February 13, 2017
I. Purpose
To establish guidelines relating to the naming or renaming of City of Pacifica facilities and property.

II. Policy
It is the Policy of the City of Pacifica to encourage naming of City facilities and property which identifies:
o The neighborhood and community in which the facility or property is located; or • The function and usage of the facility or property; or • A significant historical feature or events; or
• An individual or group {living or deceased) who has made exceptional contributions to the City of Pacifica, such as:
o Donating or contributing a significant amount for the acquisition and/or development of the property or facility
■ The donation/contribution must exceed 51% of the project/renovation budget, appraised value of the facility, or annual maintenance budget o Providing a direct and significant contribution benefitting the public as a local or community leader
Ill. Procedure
■ Any costs associated with the recognition method such as purchasing or installing a plaque will be paid by the requestor.

The City Manager may also consider naming rights based on a nomination or referral from a representative from another public organization.

The City Manager may assemble a nomination review committee to evaluate the submitted L naming recommendations.

The naming of City of Pacifica facilities or properties shall require the recommendation of the City Manager and approval of the City Council.

ATTACHMENT "B" 4.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment B - Administrative Policy No. 79 - City FacilitiesProperty Naming Policy (6125 : Lynn Adams Trail Naming)

4.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment B - Administrative Policy No. 79 - City FacilitiesProperty Naming Policy (6125 : Lynn Adams Trail Naming)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/26/2026
1 SUBJECT:
2026 City Council Liaison Assignment(s) to Climate Action & Resilience Committee (CARC) RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Consideration of appointment of a Primary and/or Alternate City Council Liaison to the City's Climate Action & Resilience Committee (CARC).

STAFF CONTACT:

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

At the Special and Regular Meeting of the City Council held on January 12, 2026, the City Council reviewed and updated assignments of City Council representatives and/or liasions to a variety of regional agencies, Joint Powers Authorities, boards, committees, commissions and community organizations. Included in those assignments were designations of Primary and/or Alternate City Council Liaisons to City advisory Committees and Commissions. Attachment A reflects the 2026 City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments made at the January 12, 2026 meeting.

Because the newly established Climate Action & Resilience Committee (CARC) was scheduled to hold its initial meeting on January 14, and at that meeting would determine its regular monthly meeting date / time, the Council deferred to designate a liaison to that committee until the regular meeting date was established. At its initial meeting on January 14, 2026, the Climate Action & Resilience Committee decided to hold their regular meetings once a month on the second Wednesdays of each month at 6:30 PM. Meetings will be held at the Community Development / Engineering Building at the Civic Center located at 1800 Francisco Blvd in the large conference room.

Council is asked to discuss and determine if they would like to assign a Primary and Alternate Council Liaison to the Climate Action & Resilience Committee.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
5 Packet Pg. 75
Pacifica City Council 2
January 26, 2026
Attachment A: 2026 Council Liaison Assignments (PDF)
5 Packet Pg. 76
AGENCY Council Representative(s) Council Alternate Role Meeting information ** ABAG General Assembly Delegate WRIGHT BECKMEYER Voting Delegate late May / early June annual meetings; 9am3pm
2026 Meeting: Thurs. 6/18/2026 from 9:00am - 3:00pm
Airport Community Roundtable BOLES BECKMEYER Voting Member 1st Wednesday 7:00pm, Millbrae Chetcuti Center C/CAG Representative BECKMEYER WRIGHT Voting Member
2nd Thursday, 6:30 pm SMC Transit District,1250 San Carlos Ave., 2nd Floor Auditorium, San Carlos Colma Creek Flood Control Citizens Advisory Committee WRIGHT BOLES 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 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 Fog Fest Committee Liaison BIER
City Liaison (observe
only or check-in with
Chair)
1st Wednesday each month at 6:00pm - Pacifica Community Center, Portola Room, 540 Crespi Dr, Pacifica Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) - Member Agency Committee (MAC) BIER BOLES Voting Member 1-2 Times a year for budget reviewNorth County Fire Authority JPA ESPINOSA & WRIGHT Voting Member As announced (annually typically in May)North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) BECKMEYER WRIGHT City Liaison (observe
only or check-in with
Chair)
3rd Wednesday 7:00pmNCCWD Headquarters, 2400 Francisco Blvd, Pacifica Pacifica Community Television ESPINOSA BIER Voting Member 3rd Thurs 7:30pm at 580 Crespi Dr, Unit E, Pacifica (or Virtual)Pacific Beach Coalition BOLES ESPINOSA City Liaison (Non- Voting) 2nd Tuesday 6:00 p.m. Pacifica Library 2026 Pacifica City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments

5.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment A: 2026 Council Liaison Assignments (6128 : 2026 City Council Liaison AGENCY Council Representative(s) Council Alternate Role Meeting information ** 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 Pacifica School Volunteers BIER BECKMEYER Voting Member 1st Monday 5:15 pm ZOOM Peninsula Clean Energy JPA BOLES ESPINOSA Voting Member 4th Thurs 6:30 pm SMC Office of Education, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org) BIER BECKMEYER Voting Member Qtrly - 3rd Thursdays - 8am Belmont City Hall - EOC - 1 Twin Pines Lane, Belmont 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) 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) APPOINTED BY OTHER AGENCIES:* Cal Cities Environmental Quality Policy Committee BOLES n/a Voting Member meets 4x per year

5.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment A: 2026 Council Liaison Assignments (6128 : 2026 City Council Liaison AGENCY Council Representative(s) Council Alternate Role Meeting information ** *Cal Cities Coastal Cities Group (CCG) Leadership Committee, North Central Representative (through Dec. 2026) BECKMEYER n/a Voting Member As announced
* 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 * 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* C/CAG Resource Management & Climate Protection Committee (RMCP) BECKMEYER n/a Voting Member 3rd Wednesday of the month at 3:00 p.m., San Mateo at 155 Bovet Rd. or Redwood City at County Center * Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) - Regular Member Board of Directors BIER n/a Voting Member
(term expiring Feb.
29, 2028)
4th Wednesday of the month at 3:00 pm at Hillsdale Mall Conference Room, 1270 W Sailer Dr, San Mateo * 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 * Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Budget Committee WRIGHT n/a Voting MemberCITY 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

5.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment A: 2026 Council Liaison Assignments (6128 : 2026 City Council Liaison AGENCY Council Representative(s) Council Alternate Role Meeting information ** Climate Action & Reslience Committee Council Liaison to City Committee 2nd Wednesday 6:30pm Community Development Engineering Building, 1800 Francisco Blvd, PacificaEconomic Development Committee ESPINOSA BIER Council Liaison to City Committee 2nd Tues., 6pm at Community Development Engineering Building, 1800 Francisco Blvd, Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Comm. BOLES none appointed Council Liaison to City Committee 3rd Wednesday 6:30pm Pacifica Police Station Library Advisory Committee BECKMEYER BOLES Council Liaison to City Committee 2nd Wednesday 6:00 p.m. Pacifica Sharp Park Library, 104 Hilton Way, PacificaOpen Space Parkland Advisory Committee BIER none appointed Council Liaison to City Committee 3rd Wednesday 6 p.m. Community Development Engineering Building, 1800 Francisco Blvd, PacificaYouth Advisory Board (YAB) BIER (2nd Wed.) & WRIGHT (4th Wed.) Council Liaison to City Committee 2nd & 4th Wednesday 6:00 p.m. Pacifica Community CenterAbbreviations:

SM: San Mateo County
Rev. 01-21-2026
* 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

5.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment A: 2026 Council Liaison Assignments (6128 : 2026 City Council Liaison AGENCY Council Representative(s) Council Alternate Role Meeting information ** City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees:Ad-Hoc Subcommittee for City Manager Recruitment

BOLES &

BECKMEYER
established / appointed at 11/17/2025 City Council Meeting Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on 2212 Beach Blvd RFQ/RFP Input BIER & WRIGHT established / appointed at 11/242025 City Council Meeting Rev. 1-13-2026
2026 Pacifica City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees

5.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment A: 2026 Council Liaison Assignments (6128 : 2026 City Council Liaison

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/26/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Local Coastal Land Use Plan Implementation: Coastal Access and Resilience Program and the Shoreline Adaptation Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive a presentation on the Local Coastal Land Use Plan requirements to develop the Coastal Access and Resilience Program and the Shoreline Adaptation Program, provide input to help guide the Request for Proposals process for consultant selection, and discuss and potentially appoint a City Council Ad Hoc Committee.

STAFF CONTACT:

Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director
[email protected]
Samuel Koosed, CivicSpark Fellow
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this study session is to:
• Receive Council input, especially regarding community engagement, to inform a Request For Proposal for a Shoreline Adaptation Program consultant; and • Consider the appointment of an Ad-Hoc Committee to help guide the RFP and consultant selection process, and commencement of the public engagement process.

The City of Pacifica recently completed a successful comprehensive update to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP)1that was certified by the California Coastal Commission in May 2025. Originally certified in 1980, the City’s LUP has now been modernized to incorporate contemporary best available science to address pressing coastal issues such as climate change, coastal hazards and resiliency and adaptation, conservation and protection of ecosystems and resources, and establishing a phased adaptation approach. As mandated by the California Coastal Act of 1976, the LCP balances the wide array of stakeholder resources, needs, interests, and protections which exist throughout the city’s coastal zone. The certified LUP is a comprehensive approach to addressing changes to the shoreline from sea level rise and coastal processes, including access, recreation, habitat, and other benefits, and contains the adopted goals and policies for Pacifica’s coastal areas.

Senate Bill (SB) 272 Sea Level Rise Planning and Adaptation requires all local governments within the coastal zone to develop a sea level rise plan within their local coastal program (LCP) by 2034. Local governments in compliance will be prioritized for funding to implement 1 Certified Local Coastal Land Use Plan, dated May 8, 2025 6 Packet Pg. 82
Pacifica City Council 2
January 26, 2026
adaptation strategies and projects. To meet the requirements of state law, the LUP established specific requirements and timelines to allow for long-term adaptation planning to be conducted with meaningful public involvement.

The LUP was certified by the Coastal Commission less than a year ago, but the process took more than a decade to complete. In 2024 alone, there were eleven public meetings and events.

The City Council and members of the public have expressed a need to improve community engagement related to climate change and coastal hazards adaptation and resilience planning.

Implementation of the goals and policies of the certified LUP requires working with the community and many stakeholders on establishing a vision for Pacifica’s coastal areas to effectively plan for the future. Community engagement is a critical part of the implementation and long-range adaptation planning. As the City embarks on this next stage, the Council has the opportunity to determine the best approaches to community engagement. As such, the City Manager is seeking direction to inform the shoreline adaptation planning Request For Proposals (RFP) for a consultant with coastal expertise.

The LUP requires the initiation of two adaptation focused programs: the Coastal Access and Resilience Program (Coastal CARP) and the Shoreline Adaptation Program (SAP)2.

The Coastal CARP and SAP are intended to work together to actively improve the resilience of the entire coastal zone, establish adaptation strategies to protect against coastal hazards, and mitigate impacts of development. The Coastal CARP and the SAP contain both near- and longterm goals and actions. While developing the Coastal CARP is a near-term project, it ties into the early development stages of the SAP. The City will be hiring a consultant to assist with establishing the adaptation planning and processes, including the Coastal CARP.

Special Shoreline Resilience Areas, Shoreline Adaptation Program, and Coastal Access and Resiliency Program
The LUP establishes a “phased approach” to adaption planning that employs a mix of strategies which are most protective of coastal resources and critical infrastructure. The City adopted, and the Coastal Commission certified, Special Shoreline Resiliency Area (SSRA)3 policies as part of the phased approach to address the unique coastal hazards and vulnerabilities of the Rockaway and West Sharp Park sub-areas.

The SSRA policies are only effective, or “sunrise,” once the City achieves specific milestones related to the SAP and the Coastal CARP. The SSRA provisions are purposefully limited in area, scope, duration, and applicability, and dependent upon enhanced city wide public recreational access amenities as well as more refined adaptation planning, intended to result in better long-term coastal resource outcomes. Completing the actions to sunrise the SSRAs is a regulatory requirement that is established by the certified LUP and critical to the City’s compliance with SB 272 and access to funding for City projects.

The SAP is the detailed longer-term adaptation planning to address coastal vulnerabilities and protect coastal resources when implemented. This program will include, but is not limited to, baseline conditions of coastal resources, goals and required actions of adaptation development, and funding opportunities. To initiate the SAP, the City must establish the program’s public engagement plan, workplan, timeline, and identify potential funding sources for completion of its required technical studies and planning. Although a final program must be submitted as an LCP Amendment by 2035, the urgency of coastal issues in Pacifica warrants commencing these efforts immediately and striving to complete the final program for submittal as soon as possible. 2 LCLUP Policy CR-I-5 (Shoreline Adaptation Program) and CR-I-44 (Coastal Access and Resilience Program) 3 SSRA Policies CR-I-38 through CR-I-44
6 Packet Pg. 83
Pacifica City Council 3
January 26, 2026
The Coastal CARP is a program for coordinated public access enhancement designed as an iterative city-wide menu of mitigation projects. The City must develop the Coastal CARP’s projects and identify their location, and draft the program to include, at a minimum, the organized projects, implementation timelines, efficacy monitors, and potential funding mechanisms. May 2028 is the deadline to submit the initial program for Coastal Commission approval; however, staff anticipates submittal within 12 months of engaging a consultant. Once established, the City is required to submit Coastal Development Permits for projects that are being pursued and update the Coastal CARP through an LCP Amendment every ten years.

Once in effect, the SSRA policies will allow oceanfront public infrastructure and development inland of it to rely upon continued armoring (including replacement or augmented armoring) for an interim 20-year period while the City conducts additional detailed adaptation planning for the longer term. This means that existing and new development in Rockaway Beach and West Sharp Park may depend upon hard armoring structures for its safety, stability, and set-back requirements, including a future project at the City-owned 2212 beach Boulevard site.

Request for Council Direction
As the City begins its long-term shoreline adaptation planning, establishing positive, productive, and inclusive community engagement is essential to define community goals and priorities, consistent with General Plan and LUP policies4. To meet regulatory obligations and commitments, the City must actively work toward sunrising the SSRAs, including the initial stages of the SAP and development of the Coastal CARP. The ongoing adaptation and resilience planning for our coastline will ensure the City is positioned to protect coastal resources and infrastructure, pursue state and federal funding opportunities, and ensure the sustainability of our community’s public safety, economy, and environment.

As part of the approved FY25-26 budget, City Council committed $150,000 to initiate shoreline adaptation planning and community engagement, including both the Coastal CARP and SAP.

Additionally, staff anticipates applying for the Ocean Protection’s Council’s Senate Bill 1 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning Grant Funding for the planning stage, as well as funding available through California’s Climate Bond, Proposition 4. The Community Development Department is preparing to release a Request for Proposal5(RFP) for a consultant/team with coastal and community engagement expertise to develop community engagement strategies for shoreline adaptation planning, develop the necessary framework and requirements of the Coastal CARP and SAP programs, and activate the SSRAs over the next two to three years.

The scope will include, at a minimum, the following: development of a community engagement plan and initiation of community engagement, development of the Coastal CARP and framework for the SAP, identification of the required SAP technical studies and potential funding sources, and continuous collaboration with Coastal Commission staff.

In preparation for the RFP, the City Manager requests input from the City Council on ideas for how to make community engagement as effective as possible. In preparation for discussion and input, Councilmembers may wish to consider what has or hasn’t worked well in the past for coastal planning efforts or other significant projects, what Councilmembers have heard worked well in other agencies, how success in public engagement should be measured, and expectations about resources (staff/consultant time and costs) related to public engagement. It is anticipated that the first task for the consultant will be to develop a community engagement plan; the Council’s early input to help guide engagement plan development will make the RFP and consultant selection process smoother.
4 General Plan Policies: CO-G-19, CO-I-71, CO-I-72; LUP Policies: PR-I-81, PR-I-82 5 Anticipated RFP release in FY25-26 Q3
6 Packet Pg. 84
Pacifica City Council 4
January 26, 2026
Ad Hoc Committee:

The City Manager is also seeking input as to whether the Council wishes to appoint an ad hoc committee of two councilmembers to help guide the RFP and consultant selection process, and commencement of the public engagement process. Ad hoc committees must have a specifically designated scope/focus and are limited in duration. If the Council is interested in appointing an ad hoc council committee, a limited scope/focus and duration could consist of the following:

1. Provide input, ensuring alignment with Council priorities, on the community engagement guiding parameters to be included in the RFP;

2. Participate with staff in the interview process with the top proposal consultant teams;

3. Provide input into the selected consultant’s first task of developing the community engagement plan.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

This is a study session for Council to provide direction. No alternative action has been identified.

RELATION TO COUNCIL’S STRATEGIC GOALS:

Initiation of the SSRAs, including progress on adaptation planning, would help to fulfill the following Council strategic goals:
• Goal #2. Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets, and facilities • Goal #4. Pursue climate change adaptation and mitigation • Goal #5. Broaden public communications and collaboration FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact since upcoming work is already budgeted. Identifying further funding sources will be included in these future efforts.

ORIGINATED BY:

Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
6 Packet Pg. 85

Pacifica City CouncilJanuary 26, 2026

Pacifica City Council
January 26, 2026