Agenda — Pacifica City Council, February 9, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

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 February 09, 2026
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
February 09, 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 February 09, 2026
4:00PM - CLOSED SESSION (CITY COUNCIL)
00a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS - Property: Pacifica Pier-2100 Beach Boulevard, Pacifica, California 94044. Agency negotiator: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager and Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney. Negotiating parties: Marlene Schroeder for State Lands Commission. Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment. 00b. 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. 5:00 PM - JOINT STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS &

SAFETY COMMISSION
A-1. Joint Study Session of City Council and the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission regarding potential EPSC charter revisions.

PROPOSED ACTION: Provide direction to the City Manager for the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission charter revisions.
6:00 PM OPEN SESSION – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
Closed Session Report

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Jeanne Salisbury for service on Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission
City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 09, 2026

CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.

Public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on consent agenda items must relate to that specific item.

If comments do not relate to a specific agenda item, then City will provide you with an initial warning to stay on topic. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.

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

1. Approval of Disbursements for 1/1/26 through 1/31/26 PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of January 2026.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the December 2, 2025 City Council Special Meeting and the December 8, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting.

3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

4. Continuation of Proclamation of a Local Emergency at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood.

5. 2025 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and acknowledge the 2025 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report of the North County Fire Authority’s mandated fire and life safety inspections performed within the City of Pacifica pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code.

6. Approval of Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and CSG Consultants for Design and Engineering Services related to the Sharp Park PDA Resurfacing Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Consultant Services Agreement with CSG Consultants for design and engineering services in the amount of $114,065.00 in connection to the Sharp Park PDA Resurfacing Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $125,471.50 which includes 10% contingency and authorize City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 09, 2026
the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.

7. One Shoreline Grant Application Support Letter for Concept Feasibility Study of Offshore Artificial Reef
PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support for the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District’s (OneShoreline) application to the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways’ FY 2027-28 Shoreline Erosion Control Program seeking funding to lead a concept-level feasibility study of an offshore artificial reef near Beach Boulevard.

8. Resolution Reaffirming the City’s Commitment to the Constitution, Democratic Values, and Human Rights
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Reaffirming the City's Commitment to Protecting the United States Constitution, Democratic Values, and Human Rights; Expressing Grave Concern over Recent Federal Immigration Enforcement Actions and Their Impact on Civil Liberties; and Calling for Accountability, Transparency, and Respect for Due Process".

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
This portion of the Agenda is available for the public to address the City Council on any issue that is not on the Agenda. Any person wishing to address the Council shall be recognized by the Mayor during this time, provided, however, that only items not on the Agenda for that meeting may be addressed. Comments on non-agendized items must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. If comments do not address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City, the City will provide you with an initial warning to stay within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.

Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Public Comments on Items Not on the Posted Agenda. A maximum of three minutes will be allowed for any speaker.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s CEQA determination and approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24 for construction of an approximately 3,180-square foot single-family residence with an approximately 668-square foot attached three-car garage and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf undeveloped lot located approximately 330 feet eastnortheast of the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue and Bay View Road (APN 022- 062-550).

PROPOSED ACTION: Deny the appeal, affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24, and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the attached resolution (Attachment A), including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution; and, incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 09, 2026

CONSIDERATION

10. Resolution Authorizing Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Woodard Curran for Consulting Services for the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution approving a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Woodard and Curran for consulting services in the amount of $699,142 for the Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Project; Approve budget authority in the amount of $769,057 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $69,915; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Council Communications is for Councilmembers to inform each other of items of potential interest to other Councilmembers, such as interagency meetings.

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

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

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

HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:

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

View on the Internet:

Follow the link to Council agenda, at www.cityofpacifica.org E-mail subscription:

Send a request to Sarah Coffey, at [email protected] City Clerk’s Office/City Manager’s Office
City Hall, 170 Santa Maria Ave.

Council meetings:

Agendas are available at the City Council meeting
City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 09, 2026

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
2/9/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Joint Study Session of City Council and the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission regarding potential EPSC charter revisions.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Provide direction to the City Manager for the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission charter revisions.

STAFF CONTACT:

Bill Glasgo, Police Captain
(650) 738-7314
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City Council’s Priority Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-2024 included a review of city Commission and Committee Charters. The following is a brief outline of efforts on this work plan for the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission (EPSC). - May 15, 2024: The City Council adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Plan and Priority Work Plan, including an updated and continued item related to review of commission / committee charters as a priority for City Council.
- January 27, 2025: Ad-Hoc City Council Subcommittee was appointed (Councilmembers Bier and Wright) to provide input on the Committee / Commission charter review process and timing.
- April 14, 2025: The City Council adopted an update to the 2023 - 2030 Strategic Plan and FY 2025-26 Priority Work Plan, including an updated and continued item related to review of commission / committee charters as a priority for City Council, with the goal of completing the Beautification Advisory Committee (BAC) and Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission (EPSC) charter reviews in 2025.
- May 6, 2025: The Ad-Hoc City Council Subcommittee (Councilmembers Bier and Wright) met with the City Manager and staff to review and develop questions for the Beautification Advisory Committee and Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission to facilitate the review and recommendations for charter updates. - August 2025: Based on Ad-Hoc committee direction, charter review questions for the Beautification Advisory Committee and Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission were finalized.

To date, Charter reviews and updates have been completed for the following Commissions/Committee’s:

Packet Pg. 7
Pacifica City Council 2
February 09, 2026
- Library Advisory Committee (LAC) - Resolution No. 67-2023 adopted June 26, 2023 - Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC) - Resolution No. 21-2024 adopted March 25, 2024
- Economic Development Committee (EDC) - Resolution No. 35-2024 adopted April 22, 2024
Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Review timeline:
- August 20, 2025: Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission discussed charter review questions posed to the Commission at a regular meeting of the ESPC. - August 21, 2025: Individual commission member survey questions were sent out to the Commissioners (see appendix B)
- November 19, 2025: Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission discussed and voted unanimously on several recommended changes to the EPSC charter.

Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission requested changes to the charter:
- Change the commission’s name from Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission to Emergency Preparedness Commission (EPC).
- Create a youth ex-officio member to the commission and designate the Youth Advisory Board to create a selection process for this position.
- Amend Pacifica Municipal Code Section 2-2.803 (Powers and duties) to remove this commission as an appellate body to the revised 72hr parking ordinance as outlined in Ordinance No. 903-CS (ID#5988), adopted September 8, 2025 (see appendix C).

Next Steps:

The membership, purpose, powers and duties (charter) of City Commissions are established through Ordinances and codified in the Pacifica Municipal Code. The Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission “charter” is encompassed within Pacifica Municipal Code Title 2 (Administration), Chapter 2 (Commissions and Committees), Article 8 (Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission). As such, any recommended amendments to the “charter” or name of this Commission must be transacted through an Ordinance to amend this section of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

Based on Council direction at this Joint Study Session, a proposed Ordinance to make the recommended amendments to the Commission name, membership and powers and duties will be brought back to Council at a future meeting for introduction of the Ordinance and, subsequently, for a second reading and adoption of the Ordinance.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Provide Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission direction and feedback on recommended changes to the charter.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Goal 5 - Broaden public communications and collaboration. City Council’s Priority Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 included Task 5.3.2- Review and update Council Advisory Packet Pg. 8
Pacifica City Council 3
February 09, 2026
Commission and Committee Charters.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact from this study session item.

ORIGINATED BY:

Police
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: PMC- Article 8- Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission (PDF) Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (PDF) Attachment C: PMC Ordinance No. 903-CS_Amending 72 Hr Parking Notice (PDF) Packet Pg. 9
TITLE 2. - ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 2. - COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES*
Article 8. Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission* Pacifica, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2025-05-01 13:09:04 [EST] (Supp. No. 58, Update 1)

Page 1 of 2 ends

Article 8. Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission* * Sections 2-2.801 through 2-2.803, as added by § 2, Ord. 353-C.S., effective December 8, 1982, as repealed and replaced by § 1, Ord. 645-C.S., effective September 11, 1996.

Sec. 2-2.801. Established: Membership.

Council hereby establishes in the City an Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission which shall consist of nine (9) regular members appointed by the council. In addition to the nine (9) regular members, there shall be three (3) non-voting ex-officio members who shall be representatives from the high school and elementary school districts and from the American Red Cross. The three (3) ex-officio members shall serve only on matters related to the Commission's duties related to emergency preparedness. The Council may select a Councilmember from among the seated Councilmembers to serve as a liaison to the Commission. (§ 1, Ord. 645-C.S., eff. September 11, 1996; as amended by § 2, Ord. 687-C.S., eff. June 28, 2001 and § 1, Ord. 700- C.S., eff. April 24, 2002, § 1, Ord. 775-C.S., eff. September 9, 2010; § 1, Ord. 829, eff. January 10, 2018) Sec. 2-2.802. Purpose.

The purpose of the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission shall be: to recommend and advise the Council on programs and activities related to emergency preparedness; to sit as the appellate body for appeals relating to abandoned or inoperable vehicle abatement (Title 5, Chapter 1); to sit as the appellate body for appeals relating to abatement of "Vehicles Parked for 72 Hours or More" (Title 5, Chapter 2); to sit as the "Board of Appeals" whenever reference to same is made in Title 8, Chapter 1 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (the Building Code); and to sit as the appellate body for appeals of staff decisions relating to traffic safety issues. (§ 1, Ord. 645-C.S., eff. September 11, 1996; as amended by § 2, Ord. 687-C.S., eff. June 28, 2001) Sec. 2-2.803. Powers and duties.

The powers and duties of the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission shall include the following:
(a) To sit as the appellate body for appeals from the Vehicle Hearing Officer pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 1 and Title 5, Chapter 2 of the Pacifica Municipal Code;
(b) To sit as the appellate body for appeals of staff decisions related to traffic safety issues; (c) To assist in preparation and review and make recommendations to the Council on City emergency plans;
(d) To increase the community awareness of the possibility of future disasters and the need for disaster preparedness;
(e) To develop and distribute disaster preparedness information; (f) To develop resources and volunteer and self-help groups to be utilized in the event of a local disaster; (g) To perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Council. a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Attachment A: PMC- Article 8- Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - Created: 2025-05-01 13:09:04 [EST]
(Supp. No. 58, Update 1)

Page 2 of 2 ends

(h) To sit as the appellate body referenced as the "Board of Appeals" in Title 8, Chapter 1 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (Building Code).
(§ 1, Ord. 645-C.S., eff. September 11, 1996, as amended by § 2, Ord. 687-C.S., eff. June 28, 2001) a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Attachment A: PMC- Article 8- Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - City of Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Survey 1 / 1
Q1 What do you think the scope / mission of the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission (EPSC) is?
Answered: 7 Skipped: 0
# RESPONSES DATE
1 From website: 'To assist in the preparation and review and make recommendations to Council on disaster preparedness plans; To increase community awareness of the possibility of future disasters and the need for disaster preparedness; To develop and distribute disaster preparedness information in the City; To develop, implement and promote, with Council approval, disaster preparedness programs and activities in the City; To promote and develop resources, volunteer and self-help groups to be utilized in the event of a local disaster; To assist in the coordinating of disaster preparedness with other governmental agencies.' I do not think 'Safety' should be in the title- too broad a bucket. These 2 statements tucked in are out of scope and should be moved to a more appropriate mechanism: 'appellate body for appeals relating to abandoned/ inoperable vehicle abatement, vehicles parked 72 hours or more and appeals of staff decisions relating to traffic safety issues.' and '....appellate body board of appeals...municipal building code.'
11/30/2025 7:27 PM
2 The scope is to observe, evaluate, strategize on all aspects of Emergency Preparedness and Public Safety, and to provide recommendations for improvement to the City Council 9/17/2025 8:57 PM
3 The EP&S Commission should advise council on potential threats to Pacifica residents safety as well as develop educational activities related to emergency preparedness. 9/9/2025 11:23 PM
4 I believe the scope of the Emergency Preparedness Committee is to raise community awareness about emergency preparedness and to bring community concerns forward to the City Council and our police liaisons. In accordance with the municipal code, we also occasionally serve as an appellate body for issues related to vehicle abatement, traffic safety, and building safety. Additionally, the committee assists in the preparation and review of the City’s emergency plans.
8/29/2025 12:04 PM
5 To educate the community about emergency preparedness. To advise the city council on emergency preparedness plans.
8/22/2025 7:43 AM
6 To recommend and advise the Council on programs and activities related to emergency preparedness and to act as an appellate body for for violations such as abandoned autos, staff decisions regarding traffic issues and building code violations.1 8/22/2025 2:00 AM
7 primarily educating the public. i would like to see the advisory to the council aspect expanded and better defined
8/21/2025 10:36 AM
b
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC Charter Review) City of Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Survey 1 / 1
Q2 What do you think Emergency Preparedness entails?
Answered: 7 Skipped: 0
# RESPONSES DATE
1 See Answer to Q.#1 and our annual report. Education on individual and community resilience and response such offering the active CERT program including certificate and quarterly trainings. See annual report.
11/30/2025 7:27 PM
2 E.P. entails identifying what can be damaged/destroyed, injured/killed/traumatized, and putting into place practices, procedures, and operational planning to prevent, respond and most effectively manage incidents.
9/17/2025 8:57 PM
3 Pacifica Emergency Preparedness entails providing the community with education & skills to be informed and prepared for threats to their safety: * high fire zones * Earthquake safety * Beach safety * Tsunami * SMC alert * Support CERT It also includes communication with EMERGENCY resources outside Pacifica
9/9/2025 11:23 PM
4 I think the core elements of emergency preparedness are risk assessment, planning & protocols, education & awareness, partnerships and training &drills. 8/29/2025 12:04 PM
5 Identifying risks and planning for mitigation of such risks. 8/22/2025 7:43 AM 6 1) having the public aware of the nature of public emergencies such as earthquakes, floods, tsunamis and fires. How to prepare the resources to respond to protect themselves and family in emergencies. Once those resources such as Go Bags are in place how to maintain and store them.
8/22/2025 2:00 AM
7 keeping informed of local plans and procedures and then evaluating,educating and advising the public and council advising
8/21/2025 10:36 AM
b
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC Charter Review) City of Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Survey 1 / 1
Q3 How do you feel about your work on the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission (EPSC)?
Answered: 7 Skipped: 0
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Very satisfied. I'm actively engaged and engage other Commissioners in volunteering for various community education trainings, booth at events, etc. 11/30/2025 7:27 PM
2 Highs and lows. I feel that we have made great progress over the decades. Sometimes, however, it seems that progress is slow.
9/17/2025 8:57 PM
3 I feel the EPSC is important to Pacifica but is only viewed as a Commision that educates the residents. The Commission needs to be to report concerns to Council or other Commissions. 9/9/2025 11:23 PM
4 As a commission, we have worked to bring community concerns forward to the City Council.

We participate in the Fog Fest to share emergency preparedness information, to engage directly with the community, and to raise awareness about our role and how residents can reach us. In addition, we have promoted programs such as CERT and Map Your neighborhood to strengthen local readiness and resilience.
8/29/2025 12:04 PM
5 I have served a long time on the council and have tried to be an active participating member. I have served as chair 3 times and currently in charge of planning Fog Fest booth. 8/22/2025 7:43 AM
6 I get great satisfaction from taking positive steps to help people stay safe. 8/22/2025 2:00 AM 7 i think we are kept well informed through staff reports and guest speakers but the advisory to the council is not well defined
8/21/2025 10:36 AM
b
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC Charter Review) City of Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Survey 1 / 1
Q4 How do you feel like you could make a greater contribution on the EPSC?
Answered: 7 Skipped: 0
# RESPONSES DATE
1 I understand in the past the advisory role to city has been unclear as to the path to do thishow are we heard?11/30/2025 7:27 PM 2 …a hard ? to answer. More effort = more time. A volunteer position and it is not always possible to make more time.
9/17/2025 8:57 PM
3 The EPSC needs to be able to report safety concerns to the Council and other city commissions as appropriate. Examples includes concerns about evacuation in certain locations that will have increased housing and population. 9/9/2025 11:23 PM
4 “I believe I could make a greater contribution by becoming more involved with the CERT program. I could also be more effective if I had a clearer understanding of what the city wants and expects from the commission.”
8/29/2025 12:04 PM
5 Do more community outreach 8/22/2025 7:43 AM
6 If we received training in the areas where we sit as an appellate board we would be in a better position to serve in that capacity.
8/22/2025 2:00 AM
7 i should keep myself more informed on city council activities 8/21/2025 10:36 AM b
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC Charter Review) City of Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Survey 1 / 2
Q5 Do you feel able to express your opinions and beliefs as a member of EPSC?
Answered: 7 Skipped: 0
# PLEASE EXPLAIN / ELABORATE: DATE
1 The members and city PD staff have developed an excellent and open communication style. 9/17/2025 8:57 PM 2 I feel that I can voice my opinions and concerns but don’t feel the Commission has any power to influence city council.
9/9/2025 11:23 PM
3 Our police department and city council liaisons are wonderful and always open to our thoughts and concerns. Between us, the EPSC commissioners bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table. I believe our input to the city is important and generally constructive. 8/29/2025 12:04 PM
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10…
Answer Choices Percentage Responses
Always 85.71% 6
Usually 14.29% 1
Sometimes 0% 0
Rarely 0% 0
Never 0% 0
Show comments
Total 7
b
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC Charter Review) City of Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Survey 2 / 2
However, we are often unsure how much of it is actually shared with the city manager and city council—or whether our contributions are valuable and bring about any real change. 4 Very open commission 8/22/2025 7:43 AM
5 The board and staff actually listen to each other respectfully even when we disagree. That is quite a supportive environment.
8/22/2025 2:00 AM
b
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC Charter Review) City of Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Survey 1 / 1
Q6 Are there any ways you believe EPSC’s meetings could be structured or operate more efficiently?
Answered: 7 Skipped: 0
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Already excellent meeting management. 11/30/2025 7:27 PM 2 Possibly, but I can’t think of how. We’ve been successful and effective with in-person and online meetings (Covid times)9/17/2025 8:57 PM 3 The EPSC is structured well. We do need representation from the school district. High school representation would be helpful. Having the various city departments (fire, water) report to us is very important.
9/9/2025 11:23 PM
4 One of the most important aspects of emergency preparedness is collaboration. According to our charter, the committee should include representatives from the Laguna Salada and Jefferson School Districts as well as the Red Cross. Their perspectives are essential for us to be a truly informed and effective commission. I also believe we would benefit from building stronger partnerships with the Office of Emergency Services and other coastal emergency organizations.
8/29/2025 12:04 PM
5 No 8/22/2025 7:43 AM
6 We need more consistent attendance by the ex-officious and an understanding on their part as to how their information re their organization’s protocols help fill out the commission’s understanding of the roles they play in public emergencies. 8/22/2025 2:00 AM
7 more structured reporting of activities by ex officio membership. eg. schools, red cross etc 8/21/2025 10:36 AM b
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC Charter Review) City of Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Survey 1 / 1
Q7 Do you feel like you received sufficient onboarding and initial training to function effectively as a commission/committee member?
Answered: 7 Skipped: 0
# PLEASE EXPLAIN / ELABORATE: DATE
1 Provide annual report and point to recent minutes. 11/30/2025 7:27 PM 2 Answering No in order to highlight this— All incoming and extant commission members should be given a handbook (what is expected of commission members, relevant laws and ethics, and the charted and duties of the commission. The Charter, and the Handbook are both undergoing revision and will be released soon. Ethics and Brown Act training is provided bi-annually. 9/17/2025 8:57 PM
3 I didn’t have an orientation. It would be helpful for new members to have one of the commissioners meet and review how the commission operates. 9/9/2025 11:23 PM
4 We regularly receive training on the Brown Act, which is helpful. Beyond that, I don’t recall any training specifically designed for new commissioners. As we review our charter, it may be valuable to create an orientation binder for incoming commissioners. This could include general information, expectations, and key resources to help them better understand their role and responsibilities.
8/29/2025 12:04 PM
5 Keeping in mind that we would like additional training in the appellate areas of our responsibilities.
8/22/2025 2:00 AM
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10…
Answer Choices Percentage Responses
Yes 57.14% 4
No 42.86% 3
Show comments
Total 7
b
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC Charter Review) City of Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Survey 1 / 1
Q8 What would help you to fully bring your voice to the table? Answered: 7 Skipped: 0
# RESPONSES DATE
1 I fully bring my voice to the table. 11/30/2025 7:27 PM 2 My voice? Not an issue. I’ve been accused of being too loud. 9/17/2025 8:57 PM 3 I feel I can express my opinion. 9/9/2025 11:23 PM
4 Having a clearer understanding of the commissioners' role and expectations would help me be a more effective member of the commission.
8/29/2025 12:04 PM
5 Can’t think of anything 8/22/2025 7:43 AM
6 If we could convey to staff and council they we have applicable / practical experience in the area of emergency response during a public crisis. Your commissioners have been involved as responders in earthquakes such as Loma Prieta, the Oakland Hills Fire Storm and similar events. We stay abreast of current emergency issues and resources. We can use that to put reports and suggestions into practical context.
8/22/2025 2:00 AM
7 n/a. i’m not shy. 8/21/2025 10:36 AM
b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC Charter Review) City of Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Survey 1 / 1
Q9 What role do you feel the City Council liaison should play to make EPSC most effective?
Answered: 7 Skipped: 0
# RESPONSES DATE
1 The Liaison has provided excellent communications as to key city council decisions, discussions, and bigger picture within the county especially regarding topics within our scope. 11/30/2025 7:27 PM
2 Council is our director. We respond to the Council. Their role is to provide the Goals of the Commission, and guard rails defining an area in which we can operate. 9/17/2025 8:57 PM
3 The City Council liaison is an important member of the Commission. Their reports are informative and I do believe they bring our concerns to city council but not sure what happens after that.
9/9/2025 11:23 PM
4 I understand that our city council members are stretched very thin, and I appreciate that they always take the time to listen to our concerns. It would be helpful, however, to establish a more formal process for responding to the issues we bring before the city council and city manager.
8/29/2025 12:04 PM
5 Tone the conduit from the council to the commission. 8/22/2025 7:43 AM 6 She is doing a fine job now. 8/22/2025 2:00 AM
7 the liaisons have always done well with informing the commission of EP related activities of the council. i’m. it sure the city council is aware of our continued frustrations with understanding our advisory role and capabilities
8/21/2025 10:36 AM
b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC Charter Review) City of Pacifica Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission Charter Survey 1 / 1
Q10 Do you have any other input / feedback that you would like to share? Answered: 7 Skipped: 0
# RESPONSES DATE
1 No 11/30/2025 7:27 PM
2 None. 9/17/2025 8:57 PM
3 I do appreciate the hard work the Captain Bill Glasco and the Police Department in supporting the Commision.
9/9/2025 11:23 PM
4 Thank you for the opportunity to serve on this committee and for taking the time to consider my input.
8/29/2025 12:04 PM
5 No 8/22/2025 7:43 AM
6 We can improve community safety by providing emergency preparation advice, not just on city wide disasters but on smaller more every day emergencies like what information to convey on a 911 call, where to get training in first aid, training in what to do in an accident, how to deploy the life saving rings.
8/22/2025 2:00 AM
7 already discussed at meeting but again we need a better structured reporting and attendance from ex officio roles
8/21/2025 10:36 AM
b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment B: Individual Survey Questions / Responses (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC Charter Review) ORDINANCE NO. 903-C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AMENDING SECTION 5-2.03, “VIOLATIONS: ABATEMENT”, SECTION 5-2.05, “NOTICES OF HEARING”, SECTION 5-2.06, “HEARINGS: DETERMINATIONS” AND REPEALING SECTION 5-2.07, “APPEALS” AND SECTION 5-2.08, “REMOVAL” OF CHAPTER 2, “VEHICLES PARKED FOR SEVENTY-TWO HOURS OR MORE” OF TITLE 5 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PARKING EXCEEDING 72 HOURS WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica has received an increasing number of complaints related to parking of vehicles for an extended amount of time on City streets, particularly in residential neighborhoods, where parking can be challenging; and WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code section 22507 authorizes the City to adopt ordinances or resolutions, to prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles; and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Section 22651(k) authorizes cities to remove a vehicle located within its jurisdiction if a vehicle is parked or left standing for 72 or more consecutive hours in violation of a local ordinance authorizing removal; and WHEREAS, staff is now recommending that the City Council consider proposed amendments to the Municipal Code to provide clarity on how far a vehicle needs to move to be considered in compliance with the law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meeting of the City Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Amendment. Section 5-2.03, “Violations: Abatement”, Section 5-2.05, “Notices of Hearings” and Section 5-2.06, “Hearings: Determinations” of Chapter 2, “Vehicles Parked for Seventy-Two Hours or More” within Title 5 of the Pacifica Municipal Code are hereby amended by repealing Section 5-2.03, Section 5-2.05 and Section 5-2.06 in their entirety and replacing those Sections to read as follows:

“Sec. 5-2.03. - Violations: Abatement.
(a) No person who owns or has the possession, custody, or control of any vehicle shall park such vehicle or leave the vehicle standing upon any highway for a period of more than seventytwo (72) consecutive hours. Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in the same location or parking spot for seventy-two (72) consecutive hours must be moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to within one thousand (1,000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) of the same location or parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure. A vehicle c
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment C: PMC Ordinance No. 903-CS_Amending 72 Hr Parking Notice (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC ORDINANCE NO. 903-C.S.
shall be deemed to have been parked or left standing in violation of the seventy-two (72) hour parking limit if:

1. The vehicle has not been moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from the location or parking spot where it was originally parked or left standing for seventy-two (72) consecutive hours; or

2. Less than twenty-four (24) hours after the vehicle is moved in accordance with this Section, the vehicle returns to within one thousand (1,000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) of the same location or parking spot where it was previously parked or left standing for seventy-two (72) consecutive hours.
(b) In the event a vehicle is in violation of subsection (a) of this section, any member of the Police Division of the Department of Public Safety authorized by the Director of Public Safety may remove such vehicle from the highway in the manner provided in, and subject to the requirements of, the Vehicle Code of the State and this chapter. (c) This section shall not apply to those vehicles displaying a valid regular permit or provisional permit issued in accordance with the temporary safe parking program pursuant to Section 4-

7.1207.
(d) Whenever a member of the Pacifica police department or other authorized city employee removes a vehicle from the street pursuant to this Section and causes it to be stored or impounded as permitted by this chapter and the California Vehicle Code the police chief or their designee shall comply with California Vehicle Code Section 22852, as may be amended or renumbered from time to time, governing post-storage notice and hearing requirements for registered and legal owners of record.
(e). The police chief or his or her designee may establish and promulgate written administrative guidelines governing enforcement of the seventy-two (72) hour parking limit and said guidelines shall be made accessible to members of the public.”
“Sec. 5-2.05. - Notices of Removal.

Prior to removing any vehicle from the street for violation of Section 5-2.03 of this chapter, a warning notice advising that the vehicle will be removed or towed for violation of Section 5-2.03 of this chapter shall be conspicuously affixed to the vehicle providing notice that if the vehicle is not moved at least 1,000 feet (approximately two-tenths of a mile) from its current location within the next 72 hours it will be removed. The notice shall also advise that the vehicle shall not be returned to within one thousand (1,000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) of its current location or parking spot for at least 24 hours after departure and, if it does return, it will be subject to immediate removal.”
“Sec. 5-2.06. Hearings: Determinations
In the event a hearing is requested, it shall be conducted as follows:
(a) Conduct of hearings. All hearings shall be held before a Vehicle Hearing Officer, appointed by the police chief, who shall hear all pertinent facts and testimony. The Vehicle Hearing Officer shall not be limited by the technical rules of evidence. The owner of the vehicle and any other c
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment C: PMC Ordinance No. 903-CS_Amending 72 Hr Parking Notice (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC ORDINANCE NO. 903-C.S.
interested person may appear in person at the hearing or present a sworn written statement in time for consideration at the hearing.
(b) Determinations. Should no one appear at the time and place set for the hearing before the Vehicle Hearing Officer, either in person or writing, it shall be conclusively presumed that such vehicle is in violation of the provisions of Section 5-2.03 of this chapter. (c) At the conclusion of the hearing, the Vehicle Hearing Officer may find that a vehicle is in violation of said Section 5-2.03 and issue an order the violation and determine the administrative costs and the costs of removal to be charged. The order shall include a description of the vehicle and the identification number and license number of the vehicle, if applicable. The Vehicle Hearing Officer may impose such conditions and take such other action as he deems appropriate under the circumstances to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

Should the Vehicle Hearing Officer find that the vehicle is not in violation of said Section 5-2.03, the proceedings shall cease. If any interested person makes a written presentation to the Vehicle Hearing Officer but does not appear, such person shall be notified in writing of the decision.

Section 3. Repeal. Sections 5-2.07, “Appeals” and 5-2.08, “Removal” within Chapter 2 of Title 5 are repealed in their entirety.

All other Sections within Chapter 2 of Title 5 not otherwise amended or repealed herein shall remain unchanged.

Section 4. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption.
c
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment C: PMC Ordinance No. 903-CS_Amending 72 Hr Parking Notice (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC c
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment C: PMC Ordinance No. 903-CS_Amending 72 Hr Parking Notice (6131 : Joint Study Session EPSC & Council - EPSC

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/9/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Disbursements for 1/1/26 through 1/31/26
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of January 2026.

STAFF CONTACT:

Lucy Xie, Deputy Finance Director
(650) 501-6014
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Staff has submitted the following Monthly Check Register Report per California Government Code, Title 4, Division 3, Part 3, Chapter 3, Section 41004:

Disbursements dated 1/1/26 through 1/31/26 are in the amount of $3,124,737.03 (Attachment 1).

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of Monthly Check Register Report is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Enhance organizational and fiscal stability: Preparation of the Monthly Check Register Report supports sound financial oversight, transparency, and adherence to adopted fiscal controls.
• Broaden public communications and collaboration: Filing of the Monthly Check Register Report promotes transparency and accountability in City financial operations.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with acceptance of the Monthly Check Register Report.

ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Monthly Check Register Report January 2026 (PDF)
1 Packet Pg. 27

1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report January 2026 (6138 : Disbursements - January 2026)

1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report January 2026 (6138 : Disbursements - January 2026)

1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report January 2026 (6138 : Disbursements - January 2026)

1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report January 2026 (6138 : Disbursements - January 2026)

1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report January 2026 (6138 : Disbursements - January 2026)

1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report January 2026 (6138 : Disbursements - January 2026)

1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report January 2026 (6138 : Disbursements - January 2026)

1.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report January 2026 (6138 : Disbursements - January 2026)

1.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report January 2026 (6138 : Disbursements - January 2026) City of Pacifica

AP CHECK RECONCILIATION REGISTER
Report generated: 02/04/2026 11:36
user: 5234adecano
Program ID: apchkrcn
441 CHECKS

FINAL TOTAL

UNCLEARED CLEARED
604,219.74
3,124,737.03
** END OF REPORT - Generated by Abby Decano **

Page 10 ends

TOTAL 2,520,517.29

1.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Monthly Check Register Report January 2026 (6138 : Disbursements - January 2026)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/9/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Move to approve the minutes for the December 2, 2025 City Council Special Meeting and the December 8, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting.

STAFF CONTACT:

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

Move to approve the minutes for the following meetings:
(1) December 2, 2025 City Council Special Meeting (Attachment A), and (2) December 8, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting (Attachment B).

FISCAL IMPACT:

Within budgeted operational expenses.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (PDF) Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 38

CITY OF PACIFICA

SPECIAL MEETING
December 02, 2025 (TUESDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on December 2, 2025 at 6:06 PM 6:00 PM - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor Present
Christine Boles Vice Mayor Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
Greg Wright Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director-Engineering; Chris Redfield, Planning Commissioner; 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 Councilmember Bier

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Consideration of the following with respect to a proposed mixed-use project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and the eastern 55 feet of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420) that includes construction of a 43,696 square-foot development consisting of three buildings with 19 residential units, including three Below Market Rate units and 3,165 square feet of commercial use (Project): 1) Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Adopting California Environmental Quality Act Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation and Monitoring and

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 2 December 02, 2025
Reporting Program; 2) Adoption of a Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment to designate portions of the Project site C (Conservation); 3) Introduction, and waiver of first reading of an Ordinance Rezoning the Project site from the M-1 (Controlled Manufacturing) to the C-2 (Community Commercial) and OS (Open Space) zoning districts and amending the Zoning Code to allow residential in locations other than the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor (horizontal mixed use); 4) Introduction, and waiver of first reading of an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement between the City and Breakwater Crespi, LLC; 5) Consideration of Councilmember Call-up and Adoption of a Resolution Approving Planning Commission’s decision, and approving Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE183-19, and Tree Removal Permit TP-13-25; and 6) Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Breakwater Crespi, LLC for the Sale of a Portion of the City’s Property at 540 Crespi Drive
PROPOSED ACTION:
(1) Adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report, and adopting CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
(2) Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19; and (3) Introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ-194-16 and Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19 to rezone portions of the property to be developed as C-2 to allow residential uses and portions to remain undeveloped as Open Space, and allow horizontal mixed use as a conditional use in C-2 ); and (4) Introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Development Agreement DA-4-21 to establish a development agreement between Crespi Breakwater LLC and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with a development project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of the City owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420); and (5) Adopt a Resolution approving the Planning Commission approval of, and approving Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-076-16, Subdivision Permit SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Protected Tree Removal TP-13-25, subject to the conditions of approval; and (6) Adopt a Resolution approving the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Breakwater Crespi, LLC for the Sale of a Portion of the City’s Property at 540 Crespi Drive.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked for any ex parte communications or conflict of interest that Councilmembers may have identified.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that she met with the Murphys in 2023.

Mayor Beckmeyer and Councilmember Bier also had a conversation with Eamon Murphy.

Councilmember Espinosa stated that someone from Murphys sent her an email to connect with her and she did not reply.

Community Development Director Updegrave, Asst. City Attorney Murphy, and Raney Consultant Rod Stinson presented the staff report.

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 3 December 02, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer suggested to have public comments first, followed by the applicant responding to any questions, and then Council can address questions and discussion.

Councilmember Wright thanked staff for being there after hours the night before Thanksgiving preparing this for Council and appreciated staff’s diligence.

Vice Mayor Boles thought it would be helpful to ask a couple of clarification questions about the wetland and the setback for Raney before public comment.

Mayor Beckmeyer assumed Vice Mayor Boles is proposing to hear from the applicant, then a statement clarifying wetland designation, and then reopen the public hearing.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that, if the desire is to ask some clarifying questions before the public hearing, she would recommend that the questions be asked first before the applicant speaks so then the entire public hearing can be opened.

Vice Mayor Boles asked Consultant Stinson to explain the different colors, designations, and where the wetland delineation is in relation to the drawing on packet page 117.

Consultant Stinson referred to a presentation slide that only highlighted the wetlands. There were multiple wetland delineation surveys (in 2020, 2022, and 2023) to take soil samples and make sure those sample locations identify where those three criteria are meant for wetlands. The yellow dots on the map are some of the soil sampling locations and the biologists went out on multiple days to identify where that line should be drawn. He stated everything that is colored up to the dashed line is considered wetland. He thought there was a better figure that now has the proposed project overlayed on top of this and that line is shown on a tentative map, showing where that delineation line is.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that she was struggling because it is not on the tentative map but on some other drawings. She wanted to look at that later to understand what the setbacks to the wetland were and she wanted to clarify that dashed line is where the setback should be measured.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that she has the information on the setback from the wetland. For Building B, the setback ranges from 41 ft, 6 in., to 51 ft, 7 in. For Building C, the range is 6 ft, 5 in., to 16 ft, 6 in.

Vice Mayor Boles thinks it is important to pull up a plan that has the wetland delineation line on it.

Community Development Director Updegrave believed we can see the delineation on slide 41.

Vice Mayor Boles stated it is her impression that Building C has close to zero setback to the wetland delineation.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the setbacks are measured to the face of the building so that is not a setback to the retaining wall.

Vice Mayor Boles stated she was clarifying the definition. She understood the finished unit is inside from that but for the work, people are asking about the definite setback from the construction to the wetland. We know what the buffer is from where there is construction because that is what is impacting the wetland. She stated we can let the applicant address that if they have a different interpretation.

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 4 December 02, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer opened the public hearing.

The Applicant representatives, Eamon Murphy and Stewart Welte, were invited to present a 10- minute testimony.

Eamon Murphy, applicant, stated his family has lived in Pacifica for over 50 years, and he and his brother grew up here. He stated that it has been four years since they stood before Council and they asked them to enter the CEQA process. They did the work and completed every required CEQA study, wetlands, habitat, species, hydrology, drainage, traffic, circulation, soil stability, etc. Everything was established by State regulations and the City’s environmental consultants. Because of the study, more than half their property will be left as conservation.

Where building allows, their project brings 19 new homes, including 3 below market rate, serving commercial space with hopes of a small medical office, a new driveway for drop off area for seniors at the Community Center, additional parking supporting Community Center programs, fully clean, restored and upgraded Crespi frontage. The lot will be transformed to strengthen the balance of the neighborhood. It is one of Pacifica’s most walkable active hubs, mentioning the Community Center, Post Office, hotel, Linda Mar Beach and Taco Bell. It will bring new residents, new customers for local businesses, better parking for the Community Center, and a walkable medical office for seniors, thus, an extension of a community that already works. It will create jobs, support long term employment, and new tax revenue for the City. They add growth in the area supported by existing infrastructure and this is what responsible infill development looks like.

They thanked City Manager Woodhouse and his staff for guiding them through an extremely complex process and they are grateful to the Planning Commission for their thoughtful review and approval. It has been a ten-year journey, with studies, redesigns, delays, and staying the course because this project reflects Pacifica’s spirit, scale and character. They now ask Council to affirm Planning Commission’s approval and allow this project to finally move forward.

Stuart Welte, architect for applicant, stated they have listened and gone through every step of the way as recommended by Pacifica and the State. He stated the site is currently unusable but they have photos going way back that show this land has been agricultural with cattle and farmland, no water elements. He shared all the information on developments on all sides of their parcel and that half the site at the back will be retained in its natural open space manner while providing housing at the front portion of the site and stimulus for the economy and community.

He felt it is a win-win situation, and he showed some of the visuals of the proposals on the site.

Mayor Beckmeyer opened Public Comments.

Adrian Jost, Pacifica, requested that the developer disable the backup alarms of CAT equipment and construction equipment during the phase of the project construction. He was in favor of the project’s vision but was generally against high density projects in Pacifica and did not want to change the character of the City.

Ron Maykel, Pacifica, spoke in favor of an interpretive sign like a kiosk and suggested that the Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee work on such a sign alongside the native people and the biology of the wetlands.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her thoughts, as a member of Pacifica Housing for All, on this project and what is the best deal they can make to benefit the community and offered a suggestion that the Murphys negotiate a plan to include a land donation to a nonprofit and amend the project to preserve the historic wetland.

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 5 December 02, 2025
Sue Vaterlaus, Pacifica, stated we have been working on this project for a long time and asked that Council approve this project which was approved by the Planning Commission.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the hearing date change, the 6-foot buffer, and the lack of appraisal.

Victor Carmichael, Pacifica, spoke on behalf of Margaret Goodale and asked for three things:
reject the infeasible reduced alternative chosen by staff that removes 4 units, avoid a precedent that contradicts the City’s General Plan that defines buffers for wetlands with concerns about a mere 6-feet of buffer zone from the delineated wetlands, and require an accurate and detailed map that honors the wetland delineation.

Connie Menefee, Pacifica, strongly encouraged City Council to approve the Planning Commission's decision regarding the long overdue and thoroughly vetted mixed-use project and adopt all of the recommended actions as outlined in Council's summary report.

Mario Pellegrini, Pacifica, stated he has been a friend of the Murphys for 30 years, and he shared his experience with helping them clean up the site and hoped that they will be able to move forward, as the project is a win-win and a nice enhancement to the area.

Kathy Moresco, Pacifica, asked that Council approve this project which was approved by the Planning Commission.

Cata Gomes, Pacifica, stated as a descendant of the original caretakers of this land, she had concerns about development in wetlands and shared her thoughts that more must be done to protect the wetland.

Haley Fiske, Pacifica, liked the project but emphasized that it was important to protect the scenic value of Linda Mar Valley.

Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated that she is speaking as a member of Tree City Pacifica. She shared a few of their concerns about the location and species of replacement trees in this project.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, shared his concern with the Lake Matilda area and asked that it be handled in a way to make sure it is safe.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she supports the concept of a mixed-use development at this site, and shared her concerns on this project, including the lack of timeline of the required surplus land act process, the lack of appraisal for the property, the outreach done to nonprofits, and the traffic impacts. She also stated it is a wetland originally and needs an appropriate setback.

Horace Hinshaw, Pacifica, shared the past history of this process and spoke in support of the project, including the benefits to the seniors and to the Community Center.

Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, stated her primary concern about the project was that it appeared that the City was giving the applicants a deal with the sale of the surplus land and shared her thoughts that the project is not beneficial to the community as a whole and the Council does not have an obligation to approve it.

2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 6 December 02, 2025
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on respecting the speakers on this issue, and then shared his thoughts on the consequences of the City denying this project when the developers did their due diligence to address community concerns. He hopes that 19 units of housing will be added to the City’s housing stock through this project.

Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, is a member of Pacifica Housing for All, and shared her concerns and thoughts on affordable housing and infrastructure to be considered, hoping this property would help address housing needs but questioning whether three below market rate units are really affordable, and was hoping for more low-income housing.

Peter Loeb, Pacifica, shared his concerns and interpretations of the designs for the historical wetlands and asked for greater setback from the wetland while supporting a mixed-use project with affordable housing. He asked Council not to approve the Development Plan without a standard buffer from the wetland boundary.

Summer Lee, Pacifica, shared her concerns about the wetland setback being set by CEQA and the need for private developers to clean up the wetland and thoughts on the best use for public land and asked that they make the project better. She thought that this could be 100% affordable housing and was concerned about no appraisal of fair market value for the property.

Ryan Murphy, Pacifica, stated he is the son of Eamon Murphy and shared his support of this project, especially the possibility of a medical center.

Lesley, Pacifica, shared her concern about the need for more affordable housing and hoped this project ultimately reflected more than three units of below market rate housing.

Margit Bodie, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on this project which she feels is a perfect solution for Pacifica, and additional housing, especially affordable housing, is needed and felt this project was a win-win for the community.

Lisa Franck, Pacifica, stated she lived by Cabrillo School and strongly supported the project.

Akane Purser, Bay Area, stated she is speaking on behalf of her son who was forced out of his home and shared her thoughts on this project being an ideal location for housing with the benefit of location, aesthetics, and proximity to schools, shops and Community Center. She thought it would be a shame if the project did not move forward.

Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments. She called a break, reconvened the meeting, and continued the public hearing and asked the applicant to start with their 3-minute rebuttal and answers to any questions or clarifications.

Applicant’s Architect Welte stated that it has been a long process with many iterations satisfying all components and requirements for the project with an extremely thorough CEQA process. He stated that the interface with the community and the lot will change dramatically as it is not a largescale mass produced housing idea. He stated that the homes allow people to transition through life in a healthy and community-oriented way such as for pedestrian activity. The community deserves an infill project that will bring life into this part of Linda Mar. This concluded the Applicant’s rebuttal statement.

2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 7 December 02, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer asked staff if there were any questions or comments that brought up issues they feel should be clarified or shed more light on and also invited Commissioner Redfield to make comments on what took place at Planning Commission.

Community Development Director Updegrave clarified that there are no buffer requirements from wetlands within Pacifica’s code. There were several references made to required buffers which are related to ESHA areas within the Local Coastal Land Use Plan but this property is not a classified ESHA and is outside of the coastal zone.

Councilmember Espinosa stated that it looks like the lot was approved for nine units previously and she wanted to know how they came up with adding City property to build more housing.

Architect Welte stated that it started out way back with a study session and it showed various options, one of which had nine units. It was a smaller project on one lot, not two. He stated that the land plan and concept of those homes were more of a suburban extension of the subdivision to the south of them. That community fabric is more of a traditional land use for single family homes on individual lots. They heard sensitivity about the southern portion of the lot and the idea that they should preserve it as open space; thus, the project started to become more condensed.

The idea of mixed use was expanded upon to provide the three different buildings. He stated that there were many iterations of the design process and the City, at one point, advertised that a portion of the Community Center land would be deemed as surplus land for the City and there would be an offer to affordable housing developers and others. There was some interest from other developers, but not serious interest, especially from affordable housing developers because, with most of the affordable housing he knows of, the developers wanted the land to be donated and the City did not want to donate it and that was a non-starter. He stated that the Murphys stepped up and worked out a way to make a project work while offering the City additional amenities, services, improvements at the Community Center for the senior drop off, additional parking and the EV charging stations, improved circulation of traffic flow, additional parking, and housing, which was so important. That preserved 50% of the lot as open space.

Councilmember Espinosa asked how they ended up approaching the City to enlarge their development. She is a real estate agent and they have to do due diligence when they sell a property and the appraisal is the only way they know what the price is. She is concerned that we are using an old appraisal. She is concerned that, later on, they will have the opportunity to sell this project to someone and, if it was used for a non-profit organization, she would not mind, but this is a private investor. She asked if they have any desire to sell this project later.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked Asst. City Attorney to clarify how real property negotiation works when it is City-owned land and how does it generally transpire.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that, generally, the sale of City-owned land, prior to the revisions to the Surplus Lands Act, could proceed in a number of different ways. There would be a variety of ways that the City could negotiate that sale which would be a confidential negotiation. After the Surplus Lands Act was amended, there are more provisions which require a declaration of surplus land, which was done for this site in 2023, offering the site to affordable housing developers and proceeding in a number of different ways, depending on what the responses are.

Mayor Beckmeyer mentioned Councilmember Espinosa had asked about appraisal and process by which the City property adjacent to the private property would be purchased by the developer.

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 8 December 02, 2025
Councilmember Espinosa understands that, in order to come up with a price, they need an appraisal. As more time passes, property values increase as do property taxes.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked the City Manager if the City pays property tax on City-owned property.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the City does not pay property tax. He stated he would clarify the appraisal process. When you are in real property negotiations, you do an appraisal in order to negotiate the deal. The appraisal is confidential and confidentially discussed with Council.

Council negotiates a deal and then the appraisal is not relevant anymore because they have arrived at the deal and that deal is what is before Council tonight.

Vice Mayor Boles stated, following up on that, there were public comment questions asking about the transparency and expecting to see the appraisal in the staff report. She stated we have a development agreement and we know $750,000 was agreed to by a previous Council as the sales price, but when or would the appraisal become available to the public for review.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that the typical process for appraisals being made available is when the transaction is concluded and then the appraisal would become a public record when the transaction closes and the property transfers.

Vice Mayor Boles asked when that would happen in the schedule of this project.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that the agreement for purchase and sale has a variety of conditions that need to be met before the property closes. There is a due diligence period and title review period and, in addition, the purchase and sale agreement has a requirement that, prior to the sale, a building permit be issued so that the City is assured that the project will move forward. Currently, there is an outside close date that is proposed in the agreement of December 31, 2026, which can be extended, but it can close any time before then.

Councilmember Espinosa wanted to hear from the Murphys if they are planning to sell this development later before they finish building those homes.

Vice Mayor Boles questioned if they can and what are the terms of our development and sales agreement, i.e. could they sell this tomorrow.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated both the development agreement and the purchase and sale agreement include assignment provisions which restrict the ability of the developer to assign to another party. They have to get the written consent of the City prior to any assignment which must be reasonable or they could create another entity. Other than that, they do need to get the written consent of the City.

Vice Mayor Boles assumed we do not have a lot of reasons to deny something like that.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that it is not spelled out in the agreement but there is provision that the identity of the developer and the terms that have been agreed upon were a material inducement to enter into the agreement.

Mayor Beckmeyer thought it could be a different entity and she asked if that would be the same corporate ownership or instead of the project name that was currently on the documents they could create a different LLC.

2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 9 December 02, 2025
Asst. City Attorney Murphy agreed, and the LLC may have already been created and that may be a non-issue but that is a regularly standard language in order to allow approvable assignments.

Vice Mayor Boles thought it was not required that it is the same entity and could be a completely different entity.

Mayor Beckmeyer thought that would imply sale and she thinks the question was answered that they cannot do that unless the City approved it. She asked if that is correct.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that they can create a new entity under common control so it would have the same basic ownership but be a new LLC. A sale or transfer to an entirely new third party or new entity would require the written consent of the City.

Vice Mayor Boles wanted to ask more about the type of appraisal that was done and wondered what is the highest and best use appraisal as part of the project approval.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, as noted by the City Manager, that appraisal process itself and negotiations took place in a confidential setting. With respect to the questions about the other agreed upon terms in the development agreement, those are not so much evaluation issues of the property but the terms of the project, in terms of the development agreement that was negotiated with the developer, such as the driveway or license evaluation was separate and apart from the purchase and sale agreement. That was an agreement that was agreed upon between the City and the developer subject to approval of the development agreement and that is separate from the purchase and sale agreement.

Vice Mayor Boles asked how long ago were all those terms, i.e, price for the driveway, $272,000 for the affordable housing. and when was all that negotiated.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that the development agreement that is before Council today is virtually in the same form as it was before the Council back in 2023. At that time, when the Planning Commission considered the project and it was appealed and considered by Council, Council directed that the project go back for an EIR and then the EIR was done. The project did not change. It was the same project that was analyzed in the environmental document with the heightened environmental review. It is the same basic agreed upon terms.

Vice Mayor Boles asked when were all the different numbers agreed upon by both Council and the developer.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that those negotiations took place over a span between 2017 and 2022 when the project went to the Planning Commission. She cannot speak to the exact date when certain terms were included.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated the concept we are addressing is did this Council make those negotiations. When a project like this has been ongoing with various iterations, changes in State law to be accommodated, overlayed with the reality of elections in Pacifica with term limits, it is very likely that there are going to be project approvals within the purview of Council to negotiate and approve that are going to have different people sitting in the chairs. It is very logical that it would happen and does not surprise her that this began before she was on Council. She asked the applicant, when looking at that wetland delineation on both of the parcels, she asked when that was determined and how does it relate to the timing of the appraisal.

2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 10 December 02, 2025
Brendan Murphy, applicant, stated that they had the appraiser in 2017-18 and, at that time, they appraised the whole lot and; it was not divided, and there was no delineation line at that time.

They appraised it for the full scope and now they are only using half of that. They are not going back to negotiate half of their development agreement which, for them, seemed reasonable as they are only getting half of the usable space with them donating the back half to open space and that is where they could go if they wanted to.

Vice Mayor Boles referred to the development agreement and how long ago it was due to the increase in land values. Building the project will be able to be sold for more money. A lot of the things negotiated a long time ago are not set in stone, but at some point, with the evaluation and cost of the $272,000 for affordable housing payment or cost of the driveway, we need to make sure we are doing full due diligence and responsibility for the City as this land belongs to the people of Pacifica, not Council or the Murphys yet. She wants to understand that we can negotiate if this Council chooses to some of those terms.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that was correct. Before Council at this meeting was consideration of approval of the development agreement and purchase and sale agreement. He would like to clarify in going back is, when in negotiations over real property, you do an appraisal and negotiations about all community benefits to arrive at an agreement which was arrived at with the Murphys. The concept was brought forth and approved by the Planning Commission and then was remanded back to Planning for further environmental review. Council at that time was in confidential negotiations directing that. An agreement was arrived at and that agreement is before Council at this time.

Mayor Beckmeyer recalls she was on the Council for that. She referred to Asst. City Attorney Murphy speaking earlier about Surplus Lands Act requirements and provisions. She asked if she was correct that there was a Surplus Lands Act prior to 2023.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated she was correct but it did not have all the same processes that are currently in place.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if the timing of when the processes for offering the property, making sure affordable housing developers were made aware, etc., was triggered in January 2023.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated it was 2023 but she does not recall the exact date.

Mayor Beckmeyer thought it was January 1. There have been questions about the highest and best use and, in regard to affordable housing, there have been questions about the appropriateness, the currency of the appraisal, and we had information about how it is not just the appraisal but also all the other arrangements in that deal and agreement with the private property and the City.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated she was correct.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there is anything new on that topic; if there is not, she invited some of the other questions.

Vice Mayor Boles thinks we need to deliberate on the development agreement and there is an issue with the parking spaces and the Community Center from some concerns of the public. She stated she has a few questions on the wetlands. She stated Mr. Stinson mentioned that there

2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 11 December 02, 2025
was no federal jurisdiction over the wetlands but there was State jurisdiction, and she asked if he can tell them a little more about that and what agencies would be involved.

Consultant Stinson stated that the federal jurisdiction would be the Army Corp of Engineers but, through the analysis, it was determined that the wetlands are not federally jurisdictional but they do qualify for water to the State. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Regional Water Quality Control Board would be the agencies that oversee the waters of the State, both of which were provided the opportunity to review the draft EIR and the analysis. CDFW provided comments back that had some discussion and request for clarification on some of the wetland language that was in the chapter and, as part of the recirculated chapter, there were some clarifying strikethroughs and underlines to make it clear. That was recirculated and provided back to CDFW for review as the State agency. They did not provide any subsequent comments and it is inferred that they essentially concurred with the revision made in response to their comments.

Vice Mayor Boles understood, but regarding the next step with the project review, she is assuming that the State waterboard would have some control and review as the project progresses.

Consultant Stinson stated that the project qualifies for C3 requirements, LID requirements, and flow requirements to ensure that the flow going into the wetlands does not exceed the existing flow so essentially the hydrology is maintained going into that same area. He thinks the next step for development process, where it comes to a head on wetlands, would be the grading permit.

There are mitigation requirements for silt fencing to go along that wetland delineation line, and the grading permit and grading plans should show no disturbance and no grading occurs within the delineated wetland area; otherwise, it would be inconsistent with the project as analyzed.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that corner of the building is not habitable space and is still construction happening right next to the wetland delineation corner. She wants to be clear that no construction disturbance should be happening within that wetland delineation line.

Consultant Stinson stated, in analyzing what the project is proposing in the project description and the understanding of the project description within the draft EIR, no disturbance or grading would occur within that delineated wetland.

Vice Mayor Boles stated there is a corner shown right next to the delineation and there will typically be concrete formwork and construction workers working beyond that line. That is one concern she has. The silt fences also prevent debris from going in and creatures from coming out. Especially at the delineation line, she does not see how those fences would not be within the wetland delineation, hence leading to trampling in the wetland.

Consultant Stinson stated they are to be on the upland side of that delineation line.

Vice Mayor Boles stated, if you are building up to that line, there is no room for them.

Architect Welte stated that they are not building to the line, as it is clearly delineated with dimensions.

Vice Mayor Boles asked if he could pull up the plan where they are showing that.

Architect Welte stated imagine an infill project anywhere when you have even more visible and more easily tangible constraints like other buildings; a building is taken down between three other buildings and a new building is constructed with never touching the other buildings. In these

2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 12 December 02, 2025
situations, the other buildings are only inches away and there is no touching at all. In this case, they have a lot of room with minimum of 6 feet plus at that one point. Everywhere else along the delineation line, we have much more than 6 plus feet.

Vice Mayor Boles asked how wide the cantilevered walkway is at the delineation line.

Architect Welte stated that the retaining wall is 6 feet and some inches away. There is another drawing with some distinct horizontal dimensions. He stated, to alleviate her concern with that description, he reassured Council that this kind of construction technique is not foreign to most contractors who do this type of work.

Vice Mayor Boles stated she is an architect and is used to seeing formwork on both sides of a concrete wall that they are building and wanted to be sure if the edge of the concrete wall is at that wetland.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if during issuance of a grading permit in a project would these kinds of specific details be addressed.

Architect Welte stated that there is another document, Sheet A1.14, which has those details in larger scale, and you can clearly and easily see the delineation line and the retaining wall and other construction components.

Vice Mayor Boles stated it is her understanding, from the Raney Consultant, the silt fences also need to be outside the wetland delineation line. She thought this will all be reviewed by the Building Official or by the State Water Board to make sure there are no impacts. She stated there was another wetland question about the drain. On packet page 1169, there was a question about the drain in the southwest corner of the lot that may have been an existing drain.

Commissioner Redfield referred to packet page 1170 showing an emergency overflow 18-inch riser with atrium basket grade.

Vice Mayor Boles stated, at the top left, the wetland delineation line was revised to curve in and that black dot says emergency overflow, 18-inch riser, rim 10 feet, connect to existing 24-inch square for storm drain for city requirement, etc. She asked if someone can clarify if this is a new drain or an existing drain.

Architect Welte stated this is an example of one of those drains that one of the community members had mentioned was a very old pipe. There is a drainage easement that the City has along the southern property line east of their properties and runs out to Route 1 and in between the neighborhood to the south of them and also between them and the skate park and Community Center property. There is a swale of sorts that runs along that back property line which is not up to current code standards. The pipe back there is worked out primarily between the civil engineer and the DPW and the City engineering regarding updating that pipe to current code. That pipe is intended to be an overflow safety valve so the neighborhood to the south does not flood because, when the storm water runs off into their property and builds up, it has to get out somehow and the levee that has been built west of them, the skate park and parking lot, dams up the water.

Vice Mayor Boles assumed this is a new overflow pipe.

2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 13 December 02, 2025
Architect Welte stated it will be an updated version of the old pipe to be Code compliant. All of these details will get further worked out and vetted with the plan check process for the grading and drainage permits.

Vice Mayor Boles was confused as to who was asking for this to be put in as it seems like they are draining the wetland.

Architect Welte stated that they are not draining the wetland. It is up at 10 feet and most of the wetland area is down at 8-9 feet.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that it says the rim elevation is at 10 feet.

Architect Welte stated because the neighbors to the south are at 10.25 and it was put as high as it possibly could without flooding them, as they currently flood.

Vice Mayor Boles stated this is not something they asked for their project, so this is something the City is asking for.

Architect Welte agreed.

Vice Mayor Boles stated Consultant Stinson mentioned this pipe in the EIR and she knows it was moved and was originally in the wetland and now it is out of the delineation in terms of where the work is happening but she asked if the EIR analyzed the impact to the wetland hydrology by putting in a drain with a rim elevation of 10 which below the water level that is identified.

Consultant Stinson stated that actual elevation was determined based off of the drainage plan that was prepared for the site and it is based off of the 100-year flood elevation and capacity of the basin and is set at that emergency flood level to provide that release valve. He stated it is to be used in an infrequent emergency situation but would not somehow create more wetlands.

During flood events, it would drain off up to that max 10-foot level and then recede.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that, between 9 and 10 feet, there was not much depth of the wetland that they are allowing with a rim of 10.

Consultant Stinson agreed, adding the area over the depth results in a storage capacity that was determined based off of 100-year flood capacity.

Vice Mayor Boles thought this was something that will be of interest to the State Water Board if we are affecting the wetland hydrology. In the response to the comment from Green Foothills, they mentioned that the wetland hydrology was not being affected by the project, but it seems like it is. She had a concern about that EIR evaluation.

Consultant Stinson stated that the wetlands hydrology that results in the soil and vegetation that have become wetland are maintained at the delineation line now. The site currently experiences 100-year floods just like it will in the future and this provides the safety release valve and the overall hydrology will not change and that upstream flow into the wetland is not changing.

Vice Mayor Boles referred to packet page 1170. She referred to the drainage swale where she thinks some of the water is being filtered off the roof and into the wetland and the new proposed property line is next to that. There is a rock pocket where the drain will empty into the wetland.

She stated that the retaining wall continues up onto the City property and she could not find the

2.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 14 December 02, 2025
grading information. She is trying to understand what is happening with the grading on the Community Center property, as they are filling their site to be level where the buildings are going, but there is a big dip now existing in that area so are they filling that up to the parking.

Architect Welte explained that the Community Center asphalt driveway is going to remain at its existing level, adding that years ago when it was built that site had been raised. She is correct that there is a swale between the driving surface of the parking lot by the Community Center and the property line and bio-retention area that is being enhanced along in the area between. He stated that one of the elements provided by the project through the development agreement to the City is an enhancement of this driveway, a repaving of the driveway and a reworking of some of the amenities, one of which is the trash recycling pickup area for the Community Center, which currently needs updating and this project would build this for the City. Their project would also build curbs and extra parking along the driveway. The grading that would occur is minimal because most of the grading is occurring on what would be their project lots, simply because the land is being elevated to the 15-foot level to be level across here. The retaining wall that connects the rock basin to the trash recycling pad is part of that construction is one of the things that they are providing to the City through the development agreement.

Community Development Director Updegrave added that this is not a final design of the area and where the parking is going to be located or where the various improvements will be. There is a condition of approval that all of these improvements are to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Vice Mayor Boles stated she is aware of that. She measured the parking area and what is not shown on the plans are the existing parking at the Community Center. Her feeling is that this parking is not going to work but that is not her question now. She wants to understand what grading is required for their project. She does not think all of that area needs to be filled.

Architect Welte stated that it is not being filled.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that it shows that way on their renderings and that is construction on City property, not on property being sold. She wants to make sure there is not project related work that is happening on City property or maybe we need to sell them more property.

Architect Welte thinks that it was mentioned that it is one of those details that is going to be worked out through the grading/drainage permit process with the City Engineer. Part of the development agreement is to provide the additional curb work, parking, new pavement and the trash recycling pick up, etc. and he is not sure what grading is required to achieve that work.

Vice Mayor Boles thought it is something we can address in the conditions of approval.

Architect Welte agreed.

Vice Mayor Boles referred to the new trash area and an area labeled TR. She was at the site and it was an electrical transformer. She stated that there is a lot that is not working about parking and her concern is that the retaining wall is related to their building and not to what we are doing.

She stated that there are other ways to do that by turning the retaining wall parallel to the building without impacting the City property.

Architect Welte agreed it was very possible, but those are the permits that are coming next and there is a lot of work to be done there.

2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 15 December 02, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated her concern is that the development agreement does not address them doing work on City property beyond the new property line.

Architect Welte stated that the development agreement has some very specific items about doing work on the City’s property in terms of all these improvements.

Vice Mayor Boles agreed with the terms of those improvements, but she is talking about work on their building. She stated that we can address them in the conditions of approval. She also wanted to talk about the trees.

Councilmember Bier stated that would be her question.

Vice Mayor Boles stated she was reading in City documents that the tentative map is partly what defines the trees that are coming out and she thinks there are discrepancies on the drawings from the arborist report. It shows Tree 2 and 3 coming out on the northeast side of the property. Her understanding is that Tree 3 is staying and she thinks that is something we need to note. She stated there are two Tree 5’s labeled on here that are coming out and she thinks one of those is Tree 1. Her main question is about Tree 4. She noted that it is drawn much smaller than in reality when it cantilevers halfway into the Community Center driveway, over the street and parking. She stated that, on looking at the drawing, the trunk is mostly on City property, not on what will be the Murphy’s property, and there are columns as part of the deck above that are right up next to the trunk. When this project first came to Council in 2022, she was looking at the trees as a private citizen and this is one of the trees coming out that was not documented in the arborist report and it seemed to her that the building was not designed to keep the tree. It is a beautiful tree that frames the entrance to the Community Center parking lot and she asked about the likelihood of the tree surviving. She noticed that Tree 3 had also had evaluation done because that tree originally was coming out and asked if there should be an evaluation to this one if it somehow does not survive.

Architect Welte stated he was very confident that it can survive. He stated that they have been doing this for decades and they have a strong track record for working very close to very large trees, even for basements. It takes care and some cautionary measures and ongoing concerted effort by the construction team. In terms of the actual depiction of the tree in proximity to the building, they can make adjustments to work with that, as it was hard to tell sometimes since the trunk at the ground is not always where the trunk is at the bottom.

Vice Mayor Boles added that there are bigger branches as well.

Architect Welte stated one wonderful thing they have been able to do with their work over time is that, if you can work closely with the tree, in the end you have a strong emotional connection from inside the building to that tree because they are so close to it. Their goal is to keep trees healthy if they can.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that the arborist report does say it is likely that it is not going to survive.

Architect Welte stated that arborists are always hedging to be conservative, but their goal is to make sure the tree survives.

Vice Mayor Boles asked, if it does not, should there be an evaluation and what are the mitigation measures.

2.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 16 December 02, 2025
Architect Welte stated that it was the City’s purview.

Vice Mayor Boles stated, on the Community Center driveway, north, the parking was revised because of the trees between 2022 and now, as originally the trees were not considered. There is still no survey of those trees that she found done in that area, north, and the survey does not extend up in front of the Community Center. Her concern is that in the driveway, there may not be a possible way without taking out those trees or we cannot get these 14 spaces in the driveway between all of these constraints.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, if the 14 spaces cannot be provided, she would look to see if we would be able to classify that as 13 spaces and perhaps that could be deemed a minor amendment that we could process administratively. If there is a concern, the development agreement could also say up to 14 spaces or a maximum that can be provided.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that there were originally 17 and she understands it was reduced to 14 because of the trees.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy agreed and stated it was because we thought 14 could be provided.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that initially it was for 17 spaces and was reduced down to 14 to protect trees that the community had identified during the Planning Commission and Council hearings in 2022 as important to save (the trees in front of the Community Center). The way the development agreement is written is that those 14 spaces are on the Community Center site, not just limited to the one area shown conceptually, so there is flexibility in the final location.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, if they cannot provide the 14 spaces in this location, we would find alternative locations for them to provide the 14 spaces.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that the way this is written out, that would not come back to Council or a public meeting for a direct evaluation of whether those are appropriate locations.

Community Development Director Updegrave noted that PB&R Director Scott Leslie, Public Works, and Community Development have met on this project and have discussed options; as the construction documents and civils are being developed, we are all working together and with the applicant on the location of the parking.

Vice Mayor Boles stated she does not know at what point it does not make sense for this to be a key part of the development agreement if the numbers go down and that concerns her about losing other valuable parking to the Community Center.

Councilmember Bier thankedthe applicants for their comments as well as the public for their comments. She thanked the Murphys for this project. She asked if Tree 4 dies, then can there be a condition of approval to have tree-for-tree replacement.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the Tree Ordinance requires 2-1 replacement for protected trees that are removed. The Planning Commission added a condition of approval to require 3-1 replacement so that is in place on the project.

Councilmember Bier thought 3-1 was great.

2.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 17 December 02, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that there was a nuance about species, as the landscape plan includes little trees that are constrained by how much they can grow because they are next to the building by the driveway. If we are replacing one of the important trees, especially the one on City property, which is an addition to what they have already called out, it should be similar species that can grow to a similar size.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there are provisions within the Tree Ordinance that set parameters for species and this is work we would do with the City arborist to determine comparable species and viable locations for those trees on the site, based on their growth and location of other improvements, whether buildings, driveways, etc.

Councilmember Bier stated that there were a lot of questions asked and a lot of answers received.

She knows Vice Mayor Boles and Councilmember Espinosa have different expertise than she does and she thinks it is good and why they are here to hear each other. She knows what we have been through for ten years, and she has been here for seven of the years, and when the community came out and wanted an EIR, they sent it to Planning to get an EIR, she stated that was hard as she knew it would be delayed again. She appreciated all the EIR information staff shared as well as the report, including greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, etc. and considered the CEQA process completed.

Vice Mayor Boles referenced the parking exception and the potential impact to the Community Center lot. She referred to packet page 1167, which had the site plan.

Councilmember Espinosa stated that we want to find out how this traffic is going to affect the Community Center already and how is this building going to impact the Community Center in terms of getting in and out of the Community Center.

City Manager Woodhouse stated one of the impacts will be improved drop off for seniors near the front door of the Community Center. That flow will be improved with additional parking.

Councilmember Espinosa asked how we will avoid people who live in that complex parking at the Community Center. She thought it would be good to have one way to go to the new building and not a way for the people who live on those subdivisions to go to the Community Center parking.

PW Dep. Director/Engineer Yip stated that is currently how the circulation is on the site. The development leads them straight to Crespi and does not go to the Community Center. In terms of the drop off, he mentioned during the Planning Commission meeting that the most significant drop off is going to be during commute hours and during school times. He has been there for walk audits and the 19 additional units do not seem to increase it significantly enough to impact the level of service there. There is a traffic study for the intersection of Highway One with Crespi and the level of service it will be. Outside of the commute hours, there will not be a significant impact.

Councilmember Espinosa thought it would be good to ask PB&R Director Leslie questions to see if he sees any impact.

Mayor Beckmeyer referenced Director Updegrave saying PB&R and Community Development had been meeting together addressing these questions.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that she has met with PW Director Tiqbao, Dep. Director Yip, and PB&R Director Leslie.

2.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 18 December 02, 2025
Councilmember Bier stated there were also other directors before Director Leslie.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, and he can speak for the directors as well. Everyone is involved and the improvement is a community benefit to the Community Center.

Vice Mayor Boles thinks the community concerns are about the intersection, not on the street but where their driveway comes out; that is a new flow of traffic plus the new Community Center driveway and new flow of traffic. She asked earlier if that information on the site had been studied in the traffic report.

Consultant Stinson stated, as a component of the EIR evaluation, they addressed bicycle, pedestrian transit, safety, as well as anything about the project that has a geographic design that becomes hazardous, as well as site distance and access. All of that was addressed with two traffic consultants and, in their reporting, they did not identify any potential affects that needed to be mitigated.

Vice Mayor Boles appreciated the information. She stated, when the project first came to the Planning Commission, there was also concern, especially since we were granting a parking exception with 6 spaces short of what is required.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated 6 spaces short, from 53 to 47.

Vice Mayor Boles stated the concern was that people would come in and not find parking and then turn left onto the Community Center and the Community Center would become overflow parking for this complex. She asked about a right turn only so they are not turning left and that would help have one less complication.

City Manager Woodhouse thought one component to that is that the Community Center parking lots are public parking so they can be used by anybody during the day and there is not parking allowed at night there. The normal parking restrictions apply, but it is public parking just like folks drive and park in the back parking lot at the Community Center and go to the beach or surfing. It is there to serve anybody in the public for whatever they are doing during the daytime.

Mayor Beckmeyer knows that Seniors in Action have an arrangement for members where they have ability to park in the back with a permit arrangement with Senior Services but that is generally during the daytime. When we go to a meeting at the Community Center after 6:00 p.m., a permit is not required. During the day, it is a permitted lot.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that the front lot that faces Highway One is a pay permit lot except for the other authorized uses.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked what Vice Mayor Boles’ suggestion was.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that, in terms of safety and encouraging them not to park in the Community Center, to have a right turn only out of their driveway. She stated the intersection is offset in terms of visibility and she worries about pedestrians.

PW Dep. Director/Engineer Yip stated that we can address that with the building permit comments and have them install the right turn only sign. We can put some striping down to guide them to the right turn as well.

2.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 19 December 02, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse added that this is why we have the City Engineer during specific design of the project to assess the safety requirements and we should not be requiring a no left turn if there is not a safety concern.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if that would be a condition of approval or an amendment.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there is a condition of approval about the final improvements being to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. She does not know if there is additional analysis needed or how detailed to get on the final requirement. There is a condition for the City Engineer to review all of those in detail.

Mayor Beckmeyer concluded that would address ingress/egress from the development and combined with the Community Center ingress and traffic flow.

Community Development Director Updegrave agreed.

Architect Welte stated, as a site design and land planning concept and livability of a community, there are no community in the world that has more signs than America. We have so many signs for everything that, if this kind of idea could be handled with striping, that would be preferable to yet another sign sticking up in the air, cluttering the landscaping.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated that was her actual question, i.e., do we need to specify that or is it within the scope of what is already in the conditions of approval.

Community Development Director Updegrave thought it is something we would keep in mind during that evaluation.

City Manager Woodhouse thinks there are a lot of scenarios of site flow that need to be kept in mind from our City Engineer. He stated there are a lot of details that would be complications to limiting the appropriate available flow of vehicles.

Vice Mayor Boles was happy allowing PW to review that and look at safety.

Councilmember Espinosa stated that we are looking at the minimum impact of the Community Center in terms of parking.

Mayor Beckmeyer referred to trees and asked if there are provisions in our Tree Ordinance or is this something worked out upon determination that it is occurring with the building permit.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there are provisions within the Tree Ordinance. A requirement of the discretionary and building permits is a condition of approval that they submit their tree preservation and protection plan as part of that, and a second layer of tree removal and tree encroachment permit that happens with the building permit as well. There is detailed attention on that as well during the building permit and is reviewed by the City arborist in conjunction with planning and zoning, as well as new conditions for the 3-1 replacement, etc.

Vice Mayor Boles stated, when the architect spoke at the Planning Commission meeting, they talked about the way they were doing green building but still allowing the buildings to both have gas and electric. In the utility plan, TM5, there are gas meters shown on all three buildings. That seems to conflict with the EIR, as packet page 407 says the proposed project would not include

2.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 20 December 02, 2025
new gas service connections within the proposed building and, as a result, appliances requiring natural gas would not be used. She asked if someone can clarify that discrepancy.

Consultant Stinson stated as part of the analysis for the greenhouse gas modeling, consistent with one of BMP thresholds from the Air District, they included all electric for the project. He does not know if that is a standard note or component of the plan but that was what was committed to.

Vice Mayor Boles concluded there should not be gas shown here.

Councilmember Wright asked the applicant what they plan to do about EV parking and how many charging stations they plan on putting in and how many spaces they plan to pre-wire for them.

He also wondered if they were considering any solar panels.

Architect Welte stated the infrastructure for the units and the buildings will be sized so the circuits will be available and the room will be available in the electrical capacity for the individual homeowners to decide whether they want solar or not. Every garage can have an EV charger and the panel will be set up for it. The EV charger might not be installed in every unit. There will be a number of them installed per CEC (California Energy Code) and in general for the guest parking on site, there will be four EV chargers on the Crespi project side and four on the Community Center side.

Councilmember Wright stated it is cheap to pre-wire and put the wire in before you put the sheetrock on, and he asked if that is something they are doing for each of the parking spots.

Architect Welte responded affirmatively, stated that is the capacity infrastructure. He stated that it is either going to be wire or a chase so that the wire can be pulled easily.

Councilmember Wright stated that it has been considered and is going to be part of the project.

Architect Welte responded affirmatively.

Councilmember Wright loves that kind of forward thinking.

Architect Welte stated that the owners have decided that every garage will have at least one charger installed.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that the EIR required the four EV chargers outside, four on this property and four at the Community Center, but it says EV capable.

Architect Welte stated that the owners decided that they are going to be functional.

Councilmember Wright stated that this is better than we had hoped for.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked how we address that in the document as that is different.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that we can add that as the developer has concurred to the conditions of approval.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked to discuss the mitigations suggested for vehicle miles traveled. She agreed with Councilmember Bier that we are on the coast and do not control public transportation

2.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 21 December 02, 2025
and what are the mitigation measures and ways in which that can possibly be addressed, recognizing it cannot fully be addressed.

Consultant Stinson stated Hexagon traffic engineers took a look at the VMT and did their analysis and identified it exceeds the applicable threshold. For measures that could apply to this project, they identified three and two of the three are ones that the project already began implementing.

One is integrate affordable or below market rate housing and the second is pedestrian network improvements. The other is subsidized transit program. There are only three identified as could be applied to this project and there are certain percentage reductions that can be applied to each one. Doing those calculations and adding them all up, they still would not get to the full reduction.

Even with subsidized transit program, it does not get the reductions needed to be less than significant and that is why it is significant and avoidable. It still remains as a mitigation measure to include all feasible mitigations that they can, even though it cannot be reduced to a less than significant number.

Mayor Beckmeyer knows it is speculative. With the applicant agreeing to put in chargers for every unit, she asked if using more EVs can be tied with this finding.

Consultant Stinson stated that the intent of the law that required the change from LOS to VMT was somewhat tied to reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources. While that is the case, the actual evaluation that is done to look at the metric is trips created multiplied by the average distance and comparing that to the regional average and if the project is 15% below the regional average to get at the amount of single vehicle travel that is happening, based off the project. The project would still result in vehicle trips on the road. From the transportation standpoint, it would be hard to try to capture those reductions. From a GHG standpoint, the emissions are not coming out of those tail pipes anymore. From a transportation standpoint, those cars still are on the road.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there was a change in the calculation and requirements from level of service to VMT. She asked if it was possible that, as originally submitted and approved by the Planning Commission before the EIR redo, before the Surplus Lands Act, and new requirements by State law, it might have met the requirements then.

Consultant Stinson stated she was 100% correct. The previous analysis, not being VMT-related, showed less than significant impacts related to LOS which was the metric at the time. The requirement to then prepare an EIR sets the new baseline for your environmental analysis. In doing so, then they are required to look at VMT instead of LOS which then triggered a significant unavoidable impact which then triggered an additional chapter that had to be included in the EIR.

He stated that it also ties to the greenhouse gas thresholds that had changed to the BMP-based which had the VMT metric as well and there was a new significant unavoidable impact related to GHG. That is why there is a GHG air quality chapter in the EIR versus only looking at bio originally.

Architect Welte added their track record as a company, Environmental Innovations and Design, is that they have always specialized in sustainability and energy efficiency. In all of their buildings, they won the Governor’s Award for Sustainability and Energy Efficiency. All of their projects are typically LEED Platinum, Net Zero energy, passive house certified, etc. They have assemblies in their buildings that make their units extremely energy efficient. They will be emitting very small amounts of greenhouse gases from these buildings.

Vice Mayor Boles asked about the other two options besides the transit passes that were possible mitigations.

2.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 22 December 02, 2025
Consultant Stinson stated that the ones they identified that would reduce VMT included affordable housing in the project and improving pedestrian connectivity.

Vice Mayor Boles knows because of the school across the street and with the seniors, there are some projects in the works to try to improve the walkability. She asked if that is something this project could contribute to.

Consultant Stinson stated he does not know how easy calculating what that VMT reduction would be, but providing additional connectivity and ways that people can opt not get into their car to go to their destinations would reduce VMT.

Vice Mayor Boles asked if there were alternate mitigation measures that would help those in this area that they could ask for.

PW Dep. Director/Engineer Yip stated that we have a project from our Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) and there are bike and pedestrian improvements all across Crespi as part of that proposed project. He deferred to the City Attorney on the fair share of contribution question for these 19 units that would be contributing to that project.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, at this point, the EIR analysis concluded that there were some mitigation measures that could be required. There were some feasible mitigation measures and what was feasible was already included in the EIR. Even with those feasible mitigation measures, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable. At this point, that is the CEQA analysis that was concluded. If there are additional conditions that Council might want to add, unrelated to CEQA, those could be added, but the CEQA analysis concluded that those were what was feasible.

Mayor Beckmeyer was very happy with the EV addition.

Councilmember Wright stated he has a question about bicycle storage and how they envision their occupants charging their electric bicycles.

Architect Welte stated that there is three times more storage room by volume provided in each garage than is required and there is plenty of room spatially and the owners have committed to installing recharging receptacles of the right kind for EV bikes.

Councilmember Wright thought there were going to be some changes to the C2 zoning, and he asked if that is only for this lot or is that C2 zoning in general.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that would apply in all C2 districts.

Councilmember Wright asked about any potential conflicts that may create outside of here.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated residential mixed-use is already an allowable conditional use within the C2 district. Now it is committed to vertical mixed-use only and this would just be adding horizontal mixed-use residential as a conditional use. What was discussed by Planning Commission was this increase in flexibility for site design allows for more responsive designs to a particular site. In the case of this project, it allows the breaking up of the massing and, instead of having one very large building, they get three buildings that fit within this scale of the area. She stated that the 2040 General Plan’s new mixed-use designations that were adopted and are in effect allow vertical and horizontal mixed-use and this is also addressing an

2.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 23 December 02, 2025
inconsistency that our old zoning has and, lastly, this does not introduce the allowance of residential uses in areas where it is not already allowed in vertical mixed-use. There are certain land use designations that do not allow residential use and are zoned C2. That project could not have a residential component unless it went through a General Plan amendment, etc. It is not introducing a new use that is not already permitted and it maintains the conditional use as well.

Councilmember Wright asked if she can foresee any potential unintended consequences.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated it will be consistent with our 2040 General Plan and still a conditional use that would have to go to the Planning Commission. We are not introducing residential use in other C2 districts and we are not introducing a residential use where it would not already be permitted in a different form. Then we also have this improved ability to respond to the site conditions and contacts.

Mayor Beckmeyer thought it would require a conditional use permit for that project at that site at that time.

Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, adding a site development permit.

Councilmember Wright asked City Manager if the rent for the driveway going into the General Fund or can it go into our Housing Fund.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, typically, that rent would go into the General Fund but it is Council’s discretion and he would suggest, during budget development in the context of all the City’s budget challenges, if they wanted to specify an amount that would go into a different fund, that would be the time to do that but they would not restrict it now. It is the Council’s discretion, but they need to make those large budget decisions in the context of the entire budget.

Vice Mayor Boles stated she has a follow up to the C2. She stated that we do not have a list of all the other properties that the zoning amendment would apply to and that is what she worries about unintended consequences, as we do not know. With vertical mixed-use, if they were following the C2 designation for this site, which we are changing it to C2, that does not allow residential unless it is above commercial.

Community Development Director Updegrave agreed.

Vice Mayor Boles stated if they were developing this project in full compliance with C2, all three buildings would have commercial underneath them.

Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, adding that she does not know that it would work with the current design.

Vice Mayor Boles knows the design might change, but with the current design, that is what would be appropriate. She stated that is her concern with this blanket change to that law that we might be restricting how much commercial we can have in our C2 zone. She is okay granting the waiver for this project, but it bothers her to grant that waiver without knowing where the other sites are.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the C2 zoning does not have any minimum commercial requirement and there is no minimum floor area for non-residential or commercial uses, but 100% residential is not allowed because it has to be mixed-use. The General Plan designations do set a maximum commercial FAR for the sites. Her understanding

2.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 24 December 02, 2025
is that this does not necessarily change that as there is no minimum required now. This would mean, in order to have residential, it still needs to be mixed-use. She thinks that the piece is that there is no minimum FARs and the General Plan establishes only a maximum.

Vice Mayor Boles thinks that could be problematic because, in this economic time, most developers do not want to build commercial and they will try to minimize that as much as they can versus what the zoning would require more if they were building this way. She stated it seems like we are limiting and we have so little commercial space as it is and that is her concern. She stated that solves this project but she wonders if there is a way that we can improve that here but not yet for everything else until we have more of that analysis of where it applies.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, at this point, the Zoning Ordinance allowing it to be zoned to C2 would require a change to the entire C2 area but, when projects move forward, an individual analysis would be done for those use permits which would allow the City to look at this issue. She appreciates the question but she cannot think of a way to allow the rezone of this to C2 but then to only allow the code amendment for this one parcel.

Commissioner Redfield stated it was his understanding that this adds discretionary flexibility to the sites to allow for horizontal and vertical and it can be site specific. He stated that it is not always approved automatically in those cases. It depends on the site specifically. He stated that applied here for the FAR ratios for the lot coverage. It is completely different.

Vice Mayor Boles appreciated that, adding that her concern is all the laws that take away our discretion about a lot of projects.

Councilmember Wright shares the concern with our 4% commercial percentage with 94% residential and the amount of leakage we have going over to Colma, Daly City, etc. He asked if this will potentially be one of the unintended consequences that we are going to continue to hemorrhage our sales tax dollars over the hill.

Councilmember Bier stated, if you look around the City, there are so many empty spaces.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that there are empty retail for sale but this also includes medical offices and other businesses that could be larger. If you have space underneath all these buildings, you could have a real office.

Councilmember Wright stated he is concerned about sites like Eureka Square and some developer comes in and wants to put a McDonald’s and everything else housing.

Mayor Beckmeyer thought this seems like a topic for the overall zoning update since the 2040 General Plan was approved. She thought that may be the right time, place and manner in which we can begin to enumerate and work on these particular issues more directly because it does not seem completely pertinent to this decision at this meeting.

Vice Mayor Boles stated, if there is a way that we can approve it for this project without having to be a citywide now, then we can study that as part of the zoning amendment we are doing citywide next year.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, as currently proposed and reviewed by the Planning Commission and agendized for tonight, it does involve the zoning amendment but, any residential uses on the ground floor would require a use permit as this does which is a discretionary permit.

2.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 25 December 02, 2025
She understands the concern about housing laws and, if the housing laws change, she is not sure how much this additional conditional use permit might affect those, but as currently drafted and put into the code, use permits would be required which are discretionary actions.

Councilmember Espinosa stated if this development has HOAs, do they know how much in fees it is going to be.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if an HOA is something within the scope.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that creation of an HOA for CCNRs can be a condition of approval. The specifics of the HOA are more of a private matter.

Councilmember Espinosa was concerned about someone in an affordable unit paying a high HOA fee, as it will be very difficult for someone in a low budget to afford the HOA.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy agreed, and she thinks that may affect the ultimate price of the unit.

In the affordable housing covenants, they get recorded against the sites and that is something we can address and consider and discuss with our affordable housing consultants in terms of making sure that they are still affordable in the covenants when they get recorded.

Councilmember Wright believes that HOA fees are not allowed to be calculated as part of the affordable index.

Councilmember Espinosa was excited about the three affordable units, but she does not know if people will be able to afford the HOA fees. When they purchase the property, they have to include paying for the HOA in the loan and that would reduce the amount of money they qualify for.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that will be something we address when we are entering into the affordable housing specific agreements that are recorded against the site.

Councilmember Espinosa suggested an initial three years where the person purchasing an affordable unit does not pay for HOA. She asked to see if Council can add something like that into the agreement.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked what influence the Council can have on this specific issue, i.e., exempting or reducing HOA fees for affordable units or below market units, adding that Councilmember Wright opined that it cannot be legally done.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy does not believe we can include a condition. We have conditions that require CCNRs but we cannot regulate the specific fees among various users. There will be calculations of the affordable housing costs and we will be working with their affordable housing consultants to make sure that the units remain affordable and it will be something we will consider moving forward. We cannot regulate the specifics of the fees, and all the CCNRs have to be approved through the Department of Real Estate.

Mayor Beckmeyer understood it is beyond Council’s jurisdiction.

Councilmember Wright asked for progress on questions prior to deliberations.

Vice Mayor Boles referred to her wetlands setback question and had questions about the resolution and legal.

2.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 26 December 02, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse stated Councilmember Espinosa shared with him a secured property tax bill for 540 Crespi which shows that there are no property taxes. The San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement Assessment charge does apply because the site is considered to be a medium or large potential for vector creation. That is a unique circumstance, not a property tax, as City public property does not pay property tax. The annual cost is about $702.29 for the mosquito abatement services we receive.

Vice Mayor Boles thought there was some plan that showed the setback dimensions to the wetland.

Councilmember Bier stated that Director Updegrave addressed that.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we had addressed the setbacks verbally.

Vice Mayor Boles concluded there is a minimum of 6-foot setback to the building, not to a construction line. She stated all these dimensions are to the face of the buildings, but not to the face of the construction. She thinks that is the difference, as all the building construction needs to be outside the wetland delineation and the construction is not that far, especially for Building C, from the wetland delineation.

Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, adding that Consultant Stinson shared that the conditions of approval require fencing to be placed on the upland side of that boundary and there will not be construction happening on the other side.

Vice Mayor Boles wanted to confirm the building setback from our Community Center property line.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the setback is measured to the base of the building, which is 10 feet, and the balcony is projected over.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that the legal planning setback is to the edge of construction because you need a fire rated construction separation usually.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated we measure setbacks to the face of the building.

Vice Mayor Boles stated no, we measure the setbacks to the face of any construction that is hitting the ground, which are the posts that are supporting the balcony above on the right side.

The C2 does not require setbacks, but the reason she is pointing it out because there is construction being right next to the property line that will limit in the future what we can do because we need to be setback from their construction. She thinks that was an inaccuracy. One of her questions was about the height because it seemed to go over 35 feet and the answer was that we could condition that.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that Buildings B and C show that they have a skylight over a stairwell that appears to project about 6-8 inches above the height limit and staff would recommend a condition of approval saying that, prior to issuance of a building permit, the skylights are lowered to comply with the maximum 35-foot height limit.

2.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 27 December 02, 2025
Councilmember Wright asked if the architect could explain to them if that is feasible without changing the entire height of the entire roofline.

Architect Welte stated that it is a complication and another expense for the project. It is a small skylight, not an overly large element. They are often exceptions for antennas and satellite dishes, etc., but if they want it to be that way, it can be done.

Vice Mayor Boles was happy granting an exception, just like we did the parking exception, but she thought it needed to be noted as it does contradict the EIR.

There was Council consensus on supporting the exception.

Vice Mayor Boles referred to the resolution on packet page 1083, Item 13, where it talks about a tree protection and preservation plan and it says for a total of 9 minimum trees. She does not think that is accurate and it is left over from when they were only analyzing removing three trees.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it should be 15.

Vice Mayor Boles wanted to ask for a minor change on page 1087, where No. 28 says “the project shall require review and approval of a grading permit and a building permit prior to commencement of any construction activities,” and she wanted to add “and tree removals”.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the tree removal permit process is somewhat complicated and requires different permits at different times. She believes it can be accommodated.

Councilmember Wright asked if it would impede the project.

Community Development Director Updegrave does not believe so.

Councilmember Wright stated, if it would not impede the project, he would be okay with adding it.

Vice Mayor Boles stated it is making sure they have their permits before they start removing trees.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated to add “the applicable tree removal permit”.

Mayor Beckmeyer added with the understanding that it is not impeding.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated it is required anyway as they have to put those measures in place before they start site work.

Councilmember Espinosa stated there is a question that says “to clarify what changes to the project or development agreement after our approval could trigger coming back to Council”. She asked about the final subdivision map.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated it is on page 15 of the Council questions, and there are a number of parts to that question. The final subdivision map will come back to Council for approval.

With respect to changes to the development agreement, Section 8.2 of the development agreement specifies differences between major amendments and minor amendments. Major amendments address the key terms of the agreement, i.e. the terms, the permitted uses, conditions or requirements for subsequent actions, density or intensity, maximum height or any

2.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 28 December 02, 2025
of the monetary contribution; any changes to those terms would come back before both the Planning Commission and the Council with a public hearing and a formal amendment. Other changes would probably be more along the line of just language changes and the development agreement could be approved by the City Manager. Amendments to the actual project approvals, such as a change to the zoning or the permits, would have to come back, either to the Planning Commission or Council, whatever body is approving authority for those permits.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated she needed further clarification. She has one condition that every garage will have one EV charger.

Mr. Murphy stated that they were providing one 50 amp outlet receptacle for them to plug in their charger for their car. He stated they are not providing the charger as every car is different.

Community Development Director Updegrave concluded that the condition is that every garage will have one 50-amp receptacle for EV charging.

Councilmember Bier stated there was an exception for the skylight.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated, for the skylight, there was a Council consensus on allowing it.

Councilmember Bier stated change the number of trees in the resolution.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated changing from 9 to 15 on Condition 13, Condition 28 adding the applicable tree removal permit and they have to be in place prior to construction activities and tree removal. The other two conditions we heard were related to more assurances, i.e. no grading, retaining walls or other site improvements beyond those expressly allowed in the development agreement shall occur on City property and all improvements required for the project shall be located entirely on the owners’ private property unless separately authorized in writing by the City.

Councilmember Wright stated he has a question about the gas meter for the building that has the commercial spaces and there is an exception for gas for restaurants. For the structure that has the commercial space in it, he thinks it is important to encourage the applicant to put in a gas meter on that structure in the event that he wants to rent one of those commercial spaces to a restaurant, which is one of the exceptions to all-electric.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the all-electric is not applicable under the Ninth Court Ruling.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that the all-electric is required in the EIR.

Consultant Stinson stated the draft EIR assumed it was based on conversations with the applicant that they were committing to it, and the minor increase in emissions associated, if a restaurant went in, would not change the conclusions of the draft EIR and would not change the mitigation that is already required.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that this could be a decision for the developer to make, but it is very expensive to bring in a gas line and they might choose not to.

Councilmember Wright stated that is okay with him as it is their building.

2.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 29 December 02, 2025
Architect Welte stated that they are appreciative of Councilmember Wright’s suggestion because, from their experience, commercial restaurant tenants always want the option for gas, so having at least one gas meter to accommodate a potential restaurant like that would be a good idea.

Overall, the project is committed to electric.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that EIR requires mitigations of four capable EV chargers on their property and on the Community Center property and what she heard was that they were offering to wire those in, not that they are capable, but be functional.

Mr. Murphy stated that they discussed doing four on their property, but he was not sure how they are going to be able to wire four on the City’s property and where that power is going to come from, who is paying for it, etc.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated she raised this question when she met with the City Attorney and there were issues about capacity.

Mr. Murphy agreed. He stated they will put four on their side and put one in every single garage.

Vice Mayor Boles stated that the EIR calls for EV capable on the Community Center.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy added, with respect to the exception for the height for the skylight, that can get incorporated in the resolution on packet page 1078 that approves the Planning Commission decision and approves site development permit, PFD 811-16, with height exception on Buildings B and C to allow the skylight as shown in the plan if that is the desire of Council.

There was Council consensus.

Councilmember Wright wants to tell the applicant how much he appreciates the fact that there has been an affordable component, an environmental component, commercial component, residential component, $272,000 going to our affordable housing plus more which he would personally like to see go to the Affordable Housing Fund.

Councilmember Espinosa feels that she wants to renegotiate because this happened so long ago and everything has changed and it is only reasonable.

Vice Mayor Boles wanted to suggest one other condition of approval and referenced the driveway in terms of the vehicles for the people who live there and are using the space. She is concerned that during construction large vehicles would use the Community Center driveway. She asked if we can consider a COA that does not allow construction vehicles of a certain size.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated, as part of the building permit, they will need to do a construction management plan.

Consultant Stinson stated, as one of the mitigation measures that came out of the EIR analysis, transportation and traffic during construction was identified as a potential impact and there is a construction traffic management plan required that goes into scheduling and access and truck routes. It ensures there is safe ingress and egress of construction vehicles.

Councilmember Wright asked if that includes consideration for the school down the street.

2.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 30 December 02, 2025
Consultant Stinson stated it would take that into consideration. It is a standard mitigation measure and a standard requirement of the City.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated it would be site- and project-specific.

Vice Mayor Boles asked if we could still ban construction vehicles if we wanted to from using the driveway just during the period of construction. She is worried about pedestrians.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated she does not have enough information to know what those thresholds would be.

Vice Mayor Boles stated it may be considered when looking at those plans.

Councilmember Wright stated understands the concern about parking on the public byway but, at the same time, we all live in houses that were built by people driving construction vehicles and that is how things get built.

Mayor Beckmeyer thought Dep. Director/City Engineer would be part of that oversight of the construction management plan.

Community Development Director Updegrave stated she is correct.

Mayor Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 PM; seconded by Vice Mayor Boles.

EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Asst. City Attorney Murphy referred to the EV chargers on the Community Center spaces and she thanked Vice Mayor Boles who correctly noted that one of the mitigation measures requires that.

Consultant Stinson stated functions of the thresholds of significance related to GHG is one of the BMPs from the Air District is to adhere to Tier 2 standards for EV charging at all associated parking and that calculates out to four onsite for the Community Center.

Mayor Beckmeyer concluded that they have to figure out how to do that.

Councilmember Wright concluded that they are required to do eight altogether.

Asst. City Attorney Murphy noted that there are six separate actions that will require separate motions, starting with the Environmental Impact Report.

Councilmember Wright moved to adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report, and adopting CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

2.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 31 December 02, 2025
AGENDA ITEM #1-1
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Wright moved to adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment GPA96-19; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

AGENDA ITEM #1-2
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Wright moved to waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ-194-16 and Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19 to rezone portions of the property to be developed as C2 to allow residential uses and portions to remain undeveloped as Open Space, and allow horizontal mixed use as a conditional use in C2; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

AGENDA ITEM #1-3
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Wright moved to Introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Development Agreement DA-4-21 to establish a development agreement between Crespi Breakwater LLC and City of Pacifica to provide certain public and private benefits in conjunction with a development project at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of the City owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420)”; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

Vice Mayor Boles stated she was not comfortable approving this project now because this Council has not talked about and looked at all the numbers. She has no idea where the $7,000 a year for the driveway came from and that would barely cover repaving, much less the use and benefits from the affordable housing payment which was negotiated some years ago. She thinks that number should be reevaluated. She is disappointed that the previous Council was not able to negotiate more affordable units. If we are going to be able to build our very low income and extremely low income units which are also required by RHNA, that takes either City money or City land and we are giving up City land that could accommodate even more units. She thinks it is a huge missed opportunity. She mentioned if Council was open to reopening the negotiations and either a bigger fee or another unit, as she is not comfortable approving the project now.

Councilmember Wright is afraid of fiduciary effects of making a deal with somebody and breaking their word. No one will want to build anything here under those kinds of conditions. He is not comfortable with that.

2.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 32 December 02, 2025
Councilmember Espinosa supports housing and it is unfortunate she does not feel comfortable voting for this project. She cannot vote for something like that due to concerns about transparency and value. She stated that Council negotiated a long time ago. She would love to move forward and vote for it, but she feels like their property value went up as did the City’s property. She does not think that is responsible because Council is responsible for making a decision for the public.

She would like to renegotiate and see more affordable units. We may have to give out the land to build more affordable units or maybe get more in fees for allowing them to use our parking or raising the benefit for the community that was done years ago. She felt everything has changed now and her vote will be no for the record.

Councilmember Bier added that, for as long as she has been involved with this, everything we have asked the Murphys to do, they have done; after all the delays, construction costs have gone up so much. She appreciates what Councilmember Espinosa is saying but she does not agree with it for this project.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated we need affordable housing desperately. This project and the development agreement was agreed to with our inclusionary housing ordinance in mind, and we are receiving a substantial deposit and payment to our Affordable Housing Fund and she agrees with Councilmember Wright’s assessment that, when we make an agreement, we need to stand by that agreement. It was thought through by Councils prior to this one and by this one. She knows the public was not thrilled with the idea that they did not have full access to all of it but that is the purview of Council to do real property negotiations. She is very comfortable with this project.

It is hitting every mark we asked for, what Pacifica wanted in more housing, more affordable housing, protection of the environment, etc. With regard to the assessment, she knows some think it has gone up and it is only going to go up, but when you have to remove 46% of the evaluation because you are 100% open space and conservation and cannot build on it, that has to affect the evaluation. She stated that appraisal is not the only part of the deal, but a whole constellation of things that went into this deal. That is why she is comfortable with this deal and looking forward to the opportunity to address 100% affordable project in the future on another parcel.

AGENDA ITEM #1-4
RESULT: ADOPTED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright
NOES: Boles, Espinosa
Asst. City Attorney Murphy recommended, based on the discussion, that Council move to adopt a Resolution approving the Planning Commission approval of, and approving Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-076-16, Subdivision Permit SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129- 19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Protected Tree Removal TP-13-25, subject to the conditions of approval with the following modifications: a change to page 1078 regarding the approval to add an exception that the approval of the site development permit with a height exception to allow the skylights on Buildings B and C per the plan, a revision to condition 13 to change the number of trees from 9 to 15, additional language at the end of condition 28 to require grading and building permits prior to any tree removal, an additional brand new condition to require no grading, retaining walls or other site improvements beyond those expressly allowed in the development agreement to occur on City property with all approvements required for the project to be located entirely on the owners’ private property unless separately authorized in

2.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Special Meeting 33 December 02, 2025
writing by the city, and another new condition that every garage will have one 50-amp receptacle for EV charges.

Councilmember Wright so moved; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

AGENDA ITEM #1-5
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright
NOES: Boles, Espinosa
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated on No. 6 the recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Breakwater Crespi, LLC for the Sale of a Portion of the City’s Property located at 540 Crespi Drive with a revision to the resolution to the end of Section B to add a language after submittal of required documents to California Housing and Community Development, HCD, and HCD’s review.

Councilmember Wright so moved; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

AGENDA ITEM #1-6
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Wright
NOES: Boles, Espinosa
Councilmember Wright thanked staff for their patience and all their hard work on getting this done.

Mayor Beckmeyer thanked everyone and looked forward to progress on this project.

ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 11:13 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 12-2-2025 City Council Special Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes)

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 December 08, 2025
December 08, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on December 8, 2025 at 6:08 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m.

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Melissa Tigbao, PW Director; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Stephanie Douglas, Acting PB&R Director; Roland Yip, PW Dep. DirectorEngineering; Zach Harris, Human Resources Manager; Vicente Romero, Police Captain; 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

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if any Councilmembers would like to pull anything from the consent calendar. She had one request of staff.

City Manager Woodhouse stated there was an amendment to Item #6, revisions to the form of salary schedule for the City Manager position. The amendment is to replace the attachments on packet pages 100 to 102 with the amended version distributed at the meeting with copies for the

2.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 December 08, 2025
public available in the agenda binder at the back of the room. He stated that the updated attachments are being supplemented to clarify that the City Manager position and the salary schedule will be placed on the Unrepresented Management Salary Schedule and the salary schedules in these updated attachments reflect the corrected compensation range accordingly.

Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comment.

Ed Ochi, Pacifica, spoke on Consent Calendar Item #11, the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District, regarding the contract not being a complete document. He was concerned about the public view of the final contract, the length of the contract, and the vagueness in the contract.

Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that we have been working with SF Peninsula and Pacifica Tourism Marketing District representatives on this contract. He stated that the effective date of the contract is contingent on revisions that will happen to the Visit Pacifica website per the SF Peninsula’s needs. He stated this contract is between Pacifica Tourism Marketing District and SF Peninsula. Right now, the City is just facilitating this arrangement.

Asst. City Manager Carter thought, given the holidays and the work that has been in place for several months, we do not want to delay the process any longer but, if Council wants to see the full agreement, we can do that. However, that would delay the process more because we cannot move forward with the website updates until we have direction to go this direction.

Mayor Beckmeyer concluded we cannot start the revamp of the website unless this item is approved as it is presently before Council at this meeting.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that these items are related because the revamp of the website is requested by SF Peninsula to increase capability of the website so they can do the scope of work before Council at this meeting.

Mayor Beckmeyer thought those updates have not been done yet.

Asst. City Manager Carter responded affirmatively.

Mayor Beckmeyer concluded that was a precursor to this contract being able to be executed.

Asst. City Manager Carter added that the annual report is a requirement under ‘94 law, so regardless of how long the contract is, the requirement is to produce the annual report. That report will be prepared closer to the end of this one-year term. There are so many uncertainties now with the assessment, revenues, and how things are going to go with PTMD. She stated that, either way, once the contract for non-profit is in place, the work plan will be developed and the annual report will be produced on the one year term.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked her to elaborate for the public on how this is a contract between the Business Improvement District and the entity providing service.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that earlier last year, Council formed a Business Improvement District with all lodging establishments. The revenues for this district has been assessed by the hotels and the contract assessment rate is 0.5% of the gross rent; the City is holding this assessment in a separate fund now but the spending authority over the funds is PTMD board

2.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 December 08, 2025
members from all seven hotels in Pacifica. Once the nonprofit is selected, which is a requirement from the new district law, the funds will be remitted to the nonprofit for the PTMD board to evaluate how the funds will be spent on the work plan.

Mayor Beckmeyer assumed that any expenditures that need to happen now are not from those funds but from any preexisting funds.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated currently the City is holding the assessment in a separate fund.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked, if there needed to be an expenditure now, could they be expended.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they could be expended with the authority of the PTMD and there were some expenditures related to marketing advertisements that were approved, like website preparation.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if Councilmember Bier, the Economic Development Committee representative, had any questions.

Councilmember Bier appreciated the work we did together with BID, as well as all the comments and questions. She knows it has been years in the making and she thinks it should go forward.

Vice Mayor Boles asked if the final executed contract could come on consent for public view.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we can do that if Council requests but all City contracts are public records so any member of the public could put in a request to see it.

Vice Mayor Boles thought it might be helpful to put it in a future agenda. She referred to the point of the one-year contract and reporting in one year, and asked if it was possible to ask at ten months or so as, if there are any other issues, those can be resolved before the end of the year without extending the contract another year.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated we can definitely work on the timing of the report.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated she understands that once the PTMD is fully established and the managing nonprofit is operating, Council may request an update on the District’s activities marketing efforts and annual report. She stated that is an update and not the annual report. In other words, we could have an interim update.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that Council could receive the update as requested and we can work with the District and the service provider.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated, to Councilmember Bier’s point, it has been years in the making. We had six month lapses between updates. For transparency’s sake, she thought it would be informative and helpful to have that interim update and more frequent information, especially as this is getting launched. She would love to see the care and feeding of this new relationship and have more opportunity for the community to know what is going on with that.

Councilmember Wright asked if she is suggesting quarterly or semi-annually.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated quarterly sounds good to her.

2.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 December 08, 2025
Asst. City Manager Carter suggested that, once we have the contract in place and launched the new work plan with the SF Peninsula, we may agendize this item to share some activities.

Mayor Beckmeyer agreed and asked if the timing of the request could be as soon as possible.

Asst. City Manager Carter stated that she will have to work with SF Pensinsula to see what the right time is.

City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the contract is for the PTMD and they are driving the decisions about the scope of work and what they need done for the hotels with SF Peninsula, not the City.

Mayor Beckmeyer understood and stated Council would like a report after things are settled.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, for clarification, if the final executed contract were to come back to Council, there would not be anything for Council to do with that contract and would just be an information item. She thought it might be better to put it online or have the public make a public records request.

Vice Mayor Boles agreed, as long as Council knows when and where so they can share it.

Mayor Beckmeyer referred to Item #8, awarding construction contract for Playground Equipment Improvement Project. She asked City Clerk Coffey to bring up the attachments sent to Council prior to the meeting. She would love to give the public a chance to look at it and understand what they are looking for when they want to find it themselves later. She also welcomed any other Councilmember or staff member to jump in to state the exact parks.

Councilmember Espinosa stated Skyridge Park and Imperial Park.

Vice Mayor Boles added Brighton Park and Marvilla Park.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated that the renderings are great. She wanted to share it and make sure everyone is aware that it is on consent. She stated she is ready for a motion.

Vice Mayor Boles moved to approve the consent calendar with the revisions and the new attachment 6A to item #6; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 – 11 with Item #6 AS AMENDED:

RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright

1. Approval of Disbursements for 11/01/25 through 11/30/25 PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of November 2025.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the October 27, 2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.

2.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 December 08, 2025

3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

5. Annual Part-Time Salary Schedule Update and Part-Time Classification Study Adoption PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the resolution approving the annual part-time salary schedule update and Part-Time Study Classification changes that will be going into effect January 1, 2026.

6. Revisions to Form of Salary Schedule for City Manager Position PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution approving the revised form of the Salary Schedule for the City Manager position for the period of October 9, 2022 through October 8, 2026.

7. Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 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, finalizing the documents for signature, and eventually posting online.

8. Award Construction Contract for the Playground Equipment Improvement Project (aka FY24-25 Priority Parks Project)
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the Playground Equipment Improvement Project:

1. Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving the Construction Contract with Redwood Engineering Construction in the amount of $888,000.00; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $1,021,200.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amount;

2. Approve a Construction Contract between the City of Pacifica and Kompan California, Inc. for the purchase and installation of the play structures in the amount of $834,428.26; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $917,871.09, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the Construction Contract amount;

3. Authorize Staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amounts and the City Manager to sign Contract Documents related to the Playground Equipment Improvement Project

2.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 December 08, 2025

9. Fourth Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Eisenberg, Olivieri & Associates Inc. for Commercial and Industrial Stormwater Inspections and Related Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Fourth Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Eisenberg, Olivieri & Associates Inc. for Commercial and Industrial Stormwater Inspections and Related Services and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents.

10. Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) for Geotechnical Services for Landslide Repair and FEMA related projects
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) for Geotechnical Services for landslide repair and FEMA related projects in an amount of $71,680.00, increasing the budget authority with a 10% contingency to $313,438.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute all document related to the geotechnical services.”

11. Agreement with The San Francisco Peninsula for Management of Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD)
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement with The San Francisco Peninsula for Management of Pacifica Tourism Marketing District (PTMD).

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Ron Maykel, Pacifica, thanked the City for the improvements and shared that the last earthquake in Pacifica had its epicenter in Imperial Park. He also suggested changing the music played during breaks.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she is speaking on behalf of PRC, and they are grateful for their Thanksgiving community support for families, and mentioned their upcoming annual holiday joy gift event and shared details on the program as well as year-end gift to PRC which will be matched by a donor and referred to other programs.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, referred to July 14, 2025 approval of STR ordinance and shared her concerns on the timing of the process with the Coastal Commission approval. She also questioned the renewal of the permit for 1987 Beach Blvd.

Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, gave updates on PRC’s programs, surpassing some of their goals. She also shared resources, including their Unhoused on the Coast outreach team.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

12. Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor in Accordance with City Council Rules and Code of Ethics, Section 9
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to select a Councilmember as new Mayor through

2.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 December 08, 2025
December 2026 and a Councilmember as new Vice Mayor through December 2026 in accordance with Section 9 “Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor” of the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics.

Mayor Beckmeyer stated she would like to expedite comments for dignitaries prior to outgoing and incoming Mayor and Vice Mayor. She confirmed that Council was all right with that. She then mentioned a meeting about a year ago when we did not have enough clarity on the public comment piece of the evening and she wanted to make it very clear that there will be three opportunities for public comment, this opportunity for comments on outgoing mayor, then an opportunity to comment on appointing Mayor, then separately to comment on appointing Vice Mayor. She then opened public comments and recognized our Supervisor Ray Mueller.

Ray Mueller, Supervisor, expressed his appreciation to Mayor Beckmeyer who has served twice as mayor and acknowledged the challenges and how much work she puts in as well as the amount of work she does regionally on many committees and advocates for Pacifica. He wanted to express their gratitude to her on behalf of the county, and he has a certificate of appreciation signed by all the supervisors to say thank you. He then stated he very much is looking forward to working with Vice Mayor Boles next year as he has been a strong advocate on environmental issues and serving the underserved in this community. He stated that he now knows Lynn Adams will be honored later and he sends a heartfelt appreciation to her and they will be celebrating future awards for her later this year. He then thanked Anita Rees for bringing the love and mercy, the best parts of humanity, to those who especially need it this year. He wished everyone happy holidays and he looks forward to seeing them in the new year.

Nicholas Hargis, Field Representative for Congressman Sam Liccardo, presented a Certificate of Congressional Recognition to Mayor Sue Beckmeyer on the completion of her term leading the City of Pacifica. He stated her commitment to fostering unity, achieving consensus, and advancing strong policies to strengthen the City for decades to come. He also congratulated Vice Mayor Boles on her soon-to-be appointment and Congressman Liccardo looks forward to working with all of them to serve Pacifica.

Ruby Mayne, staff for Assemblymember Marc Berman, thanked Mayor Beckmeyer for her years of service and her tenure as mayor. She shared a brief personal story about the first day she met Mayor Beckmeyer at the Pacific Beach Coalition Earth Day Festival, recalling multiple students coming up to greet her and she thanked her for leadership, not only for Pacifica, but for her service to our next generation and serving and educating students on how to be leaders of their generation. They look forward to working with her.

Anthony Yoshida, staff for State Senator Josh Becker, stated that it has been a pleasure to work on projects this year with Mayor Beckmeyer and Vice Mayor Boles, and highlighting Pacifica and the issues it faces. Senator Becker enjoys every second when he comes to visit Pacifica and he thanked Mayor Beckmeyer for her service leading the City this year and wished best of luck in the coming year. He stated that he grew up near the new park on Marvilla Circle and he was excited for that park to get redone and he thanked her for all she does.

Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, shared a quote on leadership and stated that Mayor Beckmeyer’s time as mayor has been a master class in learning and shared his appreciative thoughts on her tenure as a Councilmember. He congratulated her and hoped she enjoys a short rest and ease off her shoulders.

2.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 December 08, 2025
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that it has been a busy year and we have asked Council and staff to do a lot of work. She is grateful for all and she is delighted that Christine Boles will be mayor and will continue to work hard on behalf of her district and the City along with the new Vice Mayor and her fellow Councilmembers who share her vision for Pacifica, welcoming diversity, addressing social and environmental issues, and promoting volunteerism.

Sue Vaterlaus, Pacifica, stated, as former mayor, Sue Beckmeyer is the best mayor we ever had and she appreciated and thanked her for everything she does.

Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.

Councilmember Bier thanked everyone for coming out and being joyous together. She recalled that when she first met Mayor Beckmeyer they were running together and did not know each other at all. Over the past seven years, it has been extraordinary to grow and learn with her, sometimes hard and uncomfortable and other times flowed so great. She is glad that Supervisor Mueller brought up all the work that she does regionally as it is important and has helped those relationships and all the work she done for our coastal issues across the board. She stated that learning from her has been one of the honors of her life and she is happy to get to do it for another year and then going on vacation. She loves her dearly.

Councilmember Wright stated he is thrilled to thank Mayor Beckmeyer for all that they have been able to do this year, such as leadership, mentorship, and opportunities she gave him to watch her in action as they serve on C/CAG and regional events. He has seen her in action and working with our regional leaders and having built those relationships, and it is bittersweet as they only have one more year of being able to access all those wonderful relationships and the bounty that comes from that. He aspires to be and do all the things she has done for the City and he thanked her from the bottom of his heart and appreciated it.

Vice Mayor Boles stated what a difference a year makes. While they went through some growing pains earlier this year, she appreciated that it led to the opportunity to reset their relationship and get to know each other in a way that had not been possible the two previous years. She stated that they are both passionate about the City and, while they might not agree about everything, that is okay and that is why they are all there, bringing their own voices and experiences to this deliberation to try to come to consensus together to lead the City forward in the best way possible.

She appreciates that. She stated that the work the two of them did together and with Council what came out of that was improving our mayor role transition process and she admires them for working on that and bringing it forward. She also mentioned the Council handbook, how they run the meeting, and agenda planning. She personally thanked Mayor Beckmeyer for working with her, as it was a pleasure as Mayor and Vice Mayor together, and she has learned a lot from her and her leadership. She is amazed at how she can speak and the way her mind works and translates her thoughts. The way that she communicates is a gift and they worked together on short-term rentals, improving our communication and relationship with the Pacifica Resource Center, City Manager recruitment process, and open discussions about our critical coastal adaptation work. This partnership they have built will continue to serve the City as they move forward together.

Councilmember Espinosa stated that the first time she met any Councilmember, other than Vice Mayor Boles, was Mayor Beckmeyer after she was nominated during the election. She met her and that was very important to her to find out who she was and when she has the opportunity to talk to somebody, she shows them her heart. She wants them to know who she is and she did in that conversation and could feel her soul too. They had the opportunity to do things together and

2.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 December 08, 2025
she appreciated her leadership as she was like a partner working with her. She noticed that everywhere they go, she always is looking for Councilmembers to name them and people know they were there and she felt that was important and she feels she is paying attention to that. She appreciates Mayor Beckmeyer and she looks forward to keep working with her.

Mayor Beckmeyer thinks the biggest accomplishment this Council has had this year is to rebound from what was an inauspicious start and look where they are now. She stated that they had to come through some hard stuff, and some of the decision making they have to make is difficult, especially if your relationships are uneven, unsteady or uncertain, because there is no opportunity for vulnerability there and so much of what they are working on is by and of our community. She stated that there is a lot left we need to do as a City and we are going to keep putting one foot in front of the other to do it. She stated, in conclusion, they could not do any of this without our staff who worked incredibly hard and do more with less than any staff she has ever seen. The notion of why government takes so long for things to happen is because it is done with care and she asked to acknowledge staff. She also acknowledged and thanked our PCT crew, our all-female team, Jennifer, Lori and Zoe, in the booth. She stated that they are amazing with the work they do and so patient. She then thanked the community for the opportunity for growth because of this and it will stay with her forever.

Vice Mayor Boles stated she is presenting the Mayor with some gifts including , a beautiful photo of Pacifica Coast by Falu Bakrania, an award-winning photographer who lives on Manor Drive and teaches at San Francisco State and as a gift from the City a mounted gavel with her name.

Mayor Beckmeyer thanked them all and then turned it over to City Clerk Coffey for the staff report.

City Clerk Coffey presented the brief staff report.

Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there were any statements or questions and, not seeing anyone, she stated that the eligibility for Mayor is Christine Boles and Mary Bier.

Councilmember Bier stated that she would like to make a statement and politely declined eligibility to be mayor.

Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments regarding the appointment of Mayor.

Dinah Verby, Pacifica, shared her wholehearted support for the nomination of Christine Boles for our next mayor. She thanked Councilmember Bier for declining. She thanked Sue Beckmeyer for all she has done as mayor and will continue to do while on Council.

Lynn Adams, Pacifica, mentioned what a difference this year is from last year and she wholeheartedly supported Christine Boles for Mayor.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on their work this year and growth for the community and are grateful for all they have done and looked forward to Christine Boles’ further work for the next year.

Summer Lee, Pacifica, acknowledged Christine Boles’ milestone and acknowledged all her work and shared her district being happy about her representing them. She thanked Councilmember Bier for her grace and heroic actions.

Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.

2.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 December 08, 2025
Councilmember Bier moved for Christine Boles to become our next Mayor; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.

APPOINT CHRISTINE BOLES AS MAYOR
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor Boles was excited to be able to represent the City as mayor in the next year. She thanked the public for putting their trust in her by electing her three years ago and speaking up early this year so she might have this opportunity to lead our City in this way. She thanked Council for their votes of confidence in her leadership tonight, and especially Councilmember Bier for graciously and selflessly putting her own desires aside so she could serve in this position. She also gave her heartfelt appreciation to our hardworking staff standing in the back and here by the dais. She stated that our dedicated staff are the ones doing the day-to-day hard work to ensure Pacifica not only functions but thrives. She appreciated City Manager Woodhouse overseeing and leading these efforts for the past seven years, as well as a smart and talented executive team and each employee that works in the city. She acknowledged that the transition to a new City Manager is scary for all of them, especially staff. She stated that City Attorney Kenyon told her that finding the next City Manager is they most critical work Council will do in their tenure. She assured them that Councilmember Beckmeyer and she as the ad hoc committee and all Councilmembers will do their very best to make sure they find the best person possible to serve this unique community.

She also sees the transition as an opportunity to reflect together on what has gone well and what they might want to tweak as they collectively look towards the next 5-10 years. To our potential City Manager, she wanted to say that they are so excited to meet them and promise to help them to ease into this role and to work hand in hand with them to achieve the City’s goals and priorities.

They look forward to learning about the gift and experience they will be bringing to us. While we have our challenges, there is so much potential in Pacifica with our united Council, dedicated and caring staff, and our amazing engaged community working in partnership. There is nothing we cannot do. She stated that new mayors often talk about their priorities as they assume office and what is wonderful is that her priorities are shared by the whole Council and our established mission, vision, and values. Our vision is the guiding light pointing up to where we want to move towards. Pacifica strives to be an inclusive and sustainable community, environmentally, economically, socially and holistically. In working with City Manager Woodhouse and staff, we have been laying the blocks towards our vision over the last few years. One example she is proud of is our new Climate Action and Resilience Plan and the formation of a new committee that will start work on the implementation. Climate change is here and is already affecting us, so we need to be an active global partner, reducing our emissions and caring for Mother Earth, starting here at home. She just found out she was appointed to a state level environmental policy committee and she is looking forward to representing Pacifica’s interests while advocating for state laws that empower us locally to do more. One of Council’s top priorities for next year is to work on our visioning and climate adaptation for coastline. We have a responsibility, not just for the here and now, but for future generations and for the creatures with whom we share this beautiful piece of our planet. As an architect and environmentalist, she is excited to help lead these efforts, finding creative ways to balance the competing interests as well as the growing threats to infrastructure that require difficult long-term planning. If we are going to be able to move forward and find funding, we need to be able to listen respectfully to each other and bring the community together towards consensus. She wanted to thank Councilmember Beckmeyer for working on these

2.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 December 08, 2025
issues with her this year, as well as at the state level for several years, and she looks forward to their continued collaboration. Financial sustainability is also a huge challenge. Council is committed to working with staff and all the community to find creative solutions to save money and bring in more revenue. She believes that we have beautiful settings nestled between the ocean and the mountains that can be our economic engine with focused marketing and strategic new development and bringing people here to visit from all over for health and wellness. She mentioned, also, aligning with our age-friendly initiative, helping each other live long, healthy and fulfilled life. We need to build truly affordable housing because many of our longtime residents, like Councilmember Espinosa’s neighbor who just lost his home, are struggling to afford to stay.

It breaks her heart to know that the fastest growing homeless population are seniors. Living on the street takes its toll and is not something she wants to see, but now we have very few options to offer. One thing she loves the most about Pacifica which she has never seen anywhere else that she has lived is our community and how we take care of each other. She knows, if they come together to work on these issues in partnership with Pacifica Resource Center, we can make a difference helping one person, one family at a time getting housed. She stated our Council’s final key goal is to broaden public communications and collaboration. She has been sending out a newsletter the past three years not just about what we are doing but why, so that they can come and participate in decisions as their voice does matter. She would also like to increase our youth engagement. It has been beautiful seeing some working on a Climate Action and Resilience Plan but their voices could be here for a lot of important issues facing the City. She knows the year ahead is not going to be an easy one but she is confident that, with this wonderful collaborative Council and incredible City staff and our passionate community, we will thrive as we continue to put together the building blocks for a more sustainable City that serves all our residents well. Last, she wanted to thank her family, especially her husband Bob, her children Elisa and David, and her mother, Nicole. She stated they will now be making the selection of the Vice Mayor. She asked City Clerk to help them through those steps.

City Clerk Coffey congratulated Mayor Boles and then continued the staff report.

Mayor Boles asked if there were any questions from Councilmembers.

Councilmember Espinosa stated that she knows she and Greg Wright are eligible and she knows he wants to be Vice Mayor. She feels that, if someone wants to do something, she wants to support that. She knows that she will have an opportunity to be a Vice Mayor later and she is happy to have Greg Wright to become Vice Mayor.

Mayor Boles asked if that is an official deferral or declination.

City Clerk Coffey thought Councilmember Espinosa may want to clarify if she means to defer the nomination or decline the nomination. Alternatively, if she is not deferring or declining, she may during deliberations put forth a motion to nominate and appoint Councilmember Wright as the Vice Mayor.

Mayor Boles explained that deferral means you would be eligible next year and declining means you would not be eligible for the next two years.

Councilmember Espinosa stated she is doing the deferral.

Mayor Boles opened public comments on the appointment of Vice Mayor.

There were no public comments.

2.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 December 08, 2025
Mayor Boles closed public comment.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it is a nice and orderly process. She is proud of Council and she thanked City Clerk Coffey for her hard work to help them get to this place. She stated, with no discussion, she would offer a motion.

Councilmember Wright wanted to express to Councilmember Espinosa how much he appreciated working with her this year and he looks forward to working with her in the years to come. He thanked her for being a wonderful coworker as it is not easy as all the Councilmembers know all the considerations that not everybody sees but she sees that. He appreciates everything she does for Council and the City.

Councilmember Espinosa thanked him and added that she feels that the public wants them to be able to work together. She stated there is going to be time for her to represent her community and she thinks he is going to do a great job.

Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to appoint Greg Wright as our Vice Mayor; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by roll call.

APPOINT GREG WRIGHT AS VICE MAYOR
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor Boles thanked everyone for the beautiful process and a testament to all of their hard work.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation: Lynn Adams – in gratitude for service to Pacific Beach Coalition and the Pacifica Community
Mayor Boles stated her second action as Mayor was presenting this proclamation to Lynn Adams.

She stated that we are going to show a video that Councilmember Beckmeyer and PCT put together. She then read the proclamation honoring Lynn Adams’ retirement. She stated that she, former Mayor Deirdre Martin, and former Mayor Beckmeyer have been working on something with staff and showed a slide of a potential Lynn Adams Trail. She added that we are still working with Caltrans to finalize the details and an official vote needs to come before Council, but we are renaming the switchback trails that she worked so hard on in her honor, the Lynn Adams Trail.

Lynn Adams stated it is amazing and she feels like she has been celebrating her retirement for a year and it has not even happened. She stated that it has been weighing on her for a long time, and it is a challenging thing for her to step aside, but she thinks it is time for a new generation to come in and open the door for others to step up. She stated that she is not going anywhere and will be walking that trail quite a bit. She stated it is an honor, and she is so proud of the work to

2.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 December 08, 2025
do that. It took them three years to get to the Rockaway switchback and every year they started over at Linda Mar. She stated that hundreds and hundreds of volunteers weeded just to get to the top of the switch on the Linda Mar side and eventually they got to go further and further and now they have to be very careful weeding because of all the native plants. She thinks the greatest thing is that they all have had a chance to do something to help other people and our City and planet. That is the greatest gift we can all do, and we should start here and now in the capacity that we can and what speaks to us. She thanked them for this honor.

Mayor Boles invited Councilmembers to make comments.

Councilmember Espinosa stated, when she has an opportunity, her first place to be is at Esplanade and she always thinks about what happens if Lynn Adams was not doing what she is doing and what the City would look like. She appreciated her for doing what she is doing, adding that we need more. She is planning to do some things on Hickey and she will hopefully get the equipment to do it. She appreciated what Lynn Adams does.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated Lynn Adams is so inspiring. She asked how she accomplished all she did and inspired everyone else to get on board. She stated that Lynn Adams changed Pacifica, adding that she has heard the story many times. Lynn Adams empowered everyone else to be inspired which brings more people and it grows. She stated that, when they were speaking recently, she mentioned that 90 people showed up at Foster City. She does incredible work and she is so proud of her and what she has accomplished. When she looks at our beautiful City, she knows where it came from and it is so inspiring and she thanked her.

Councilmember Wright thanked Lynn Adams for not only all the work she and her group did, but that legacy of service extends into the community now and part of what draws the community together and the goodness goes forth from there. He thanked her from the bottom of his heart for what a difference she has made in all our lives and will continue to lead in all of our lives with the legacy she is leaving behind. She thanked her for all her service.

Councilmember Bier thanked former Mayor Deirdre Martin for coordinating all this. She feels like, over the years, Lynn Adams has been the single most important person in our City that was the center of service and everyone is saying that. For her personally Lynn Adams has taught her what it means to be a fierce leader. She thinks that is important, and she shows up all the time. Lynn Adams has given her and her family an opportunity to honor her nephew by being able to clean up the back of the site for 20 years and it is priceless. She thanked Lynn Adams for meaning so much to her and her family and the community.

Mayor Boles stated she first heard of the Pacific Beach Coalition in 2008 when she and Bob had bought a vacant piece of land on Monterey Road and there happened to be a car taxi overhanging the cliff bank. It might have had an accident 20 or 30 years prior and they questioned what they were going to do with it. It happened to be Coastal Cleanup Day coming and she suggested they call the Pacific Beach Coalition and see if that is something they might be interested in. That was the first time they spoke and Lynn Adams immediately got on the phone, found someone with a pickup truck with a lynch, and came out and dragged it out of the bank. Now she instills something by picking up one piece of trash and she feels like they are making a difference. The world and climate change and all the trash in the ocean seems so overwhelming but Lynn Adams gives us hope that we can get out there and do a little good. She has made such a difference, not just to our beaches and ecosystems and all the plastics that could be in the bodies of whales and pelicans and all the wonderful creatures she celebrates. She knows globally people are looking at what she is doing. Her educational materials go out way beyond Pacifica and the Bay Area.

2.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 December 08, 2025
She is so impressed with what Lynn Adams has done this past year because she is focused on making sure the wonderful organization she has helped build up will not only survive but again thrive into the future. She stated that Lynn Adams has built all these leaders. She knows it will be hard for her to step aside and she knows she will be taking a good vacation with her beautiful wife, Ellen, and have some very well-deserved rest. She also knows she i will find other ways to volunteer
Lynn Adams stated that she would like to say that teamwork makes the dream work. She prayed and dreamed about our team continuing to grow, making a difference, and keep including new people in this dream. We make a better planet by starting here and being open to people. She thanked them for this amazing honor and the Rockaway switches are very special to her.

Mayor Boles opened public comments.

Ron Maykel, Pacifica, described how a long time ago when the baton for the leadership for the Beach Coalition was passed on from Jerry Flynn to Lynn Adams. Somewhere along the line, he managed to get brought into the fold and shared his experiences under Lynn Adams’ leadership.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated the community was fortunate to have someone selfless, dedicated, stubborn, hard-working, and helps the community be transformed, and that person is Lynn Adams. She thanked her and her family for all her work.

Deirdre Martin, Pacifica, stated that Lynn Adams talked about teamwork, and she shared her thoughts on all it took to get this done. She shared her experience interacting with her during her time on Council and how she changed her life, as a friend and mentor, and her contribution to Pacifica and her in all aspects.

Greg Finkelstein, Pacifica, stated that as a child, he always wanted to do good things for the planet and animals, and shared how Lynn Adams provided opportunities for him to be able to do what is most valuable to him and he will continue with what she has entrusted him.

Jim Fithian, Pacifica, shared how they started the Beach Coalition 28 years ago, and shared his thoughts on how Lynn Adams turned an idea to a movement and is a visionary who changed Pacifica, and other cities want us to help them learn how to do that. He thanked her for all she had done.

Susan Miller, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on Lynn Adams who has heart, energy, and love, and for the last 20 years has been thanking Lynn Adams and shared what they did work together on the switchbacks, etc. She shared her love and thanks for Lynn Adams.

Sue Digre, Pacifica, shared that they were teachers in Burlingame many years ago and was impressed with her dedication to the youth and shared thoughts on her move to Pacifica and mentioned all different Pacificans and their wonderful work as a team and she appreciated that all of them were working hard as well as the youth.

Ruby Mayne, Pacifica, thought the two things most people think of in Pacifica is the Taco Bell and Lynn Adams. She shared what she learned as a child from the Pacific Beach Coalition and stated the Pacifica Beach Coalition was an honor and will carry on for generations.

2.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 December 08, 2025
Anthony Yoshida agreed with what others have said and appreciated everything Lynn Adams does. He also shared what he learned as a child from the Pacific Beach Coalition and thanked Lynn Adams for all she does.

Mayor Boles closed public comments. She congratulated Lynn Adams and invited everyone to celebrate with Council.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Council communications.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
There were no staff communications.

ADJOURN
Councilmember Bier wanted to adjourn the meeting in honor of Phyllis Morrow who has been a longstanding community member and a member of her family. They are sad to learn she has passed away and she was a legacy and they are going to miss her very much.

Mayor Boles adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

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

2.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment B: Minutes of 12-8-2025 City Council Regular Meeting (6140 : Approval of Minutes)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/9/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

STAFF CONTACT:

Roland Yip, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer 650-738-3767
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On January 22, 2016, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency along the Pacifica coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard due to El Nino storm activity. Extreme wave heights for extended periods of time caused top-of-bluff retreat at several locations along the Pacifica coast and damage to City infrastructure. Since this date, the Director of Emergency Services has proclaimed the existence of other local emergencies along this same stretch of coastline. These emergencies are described below:
• The January 22, 2016 storm caused a failure of the Beach Blvd. seawall near Santa Maria Avenue, which has been repaired.
• The January 22, 2016 storm also caused the undermining of an eight-foot diameter storm drain outfall and concrete headwall for the discharge of Milagra Creek into the Pacific Ocean near 700 Palmetto Avenue from the. The project was completed on April 24, 2023.
• During the 2016-2018 storms, the 300 & 400 blocks of Esplanade Avenue experienced episodic bluff erosion. The bluff erosion has progressed to a point where the erosion is now threatening public infrastructure and utilities.
• On December 16, 2020, a failure of the Beach Blvd. seawall near Santa Rosa Avenue and the Pier created a large void (approx. 25’ w x 25’ l ). The repairs were completed by February 22, 2021.
• On December 29, 2020, another void ( approx. 10’ w x 15’ l) around 150-200 feet north of the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Santa Rosa Avenue. The repairs were completed by February 2021.
3 Packet Pg. 87
Pacifica City Council 2
February 09, 2026
• On January 14, 2021, a combination of high tides and large waves damaged a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west facing deck and concrete railing. The railing repair was beyond what had been funded for the project, the City pivoted to do further inspections on the pier before a sizable investment is made in fixing the rails, since it was prudent for the City to understand the full needs of the pier. The 2023 Pier Condition Assessment Report has been finalized and is able to be viewed at www.cityofpacifica.org/pier. A rough order of magnitude of up to $20 million for the repairs is and design and permitting. The structural engineers recommended limiting public access on the pier to approximately half of the main pier deck until repairs to the more severely damaged areas.
• In November of 2023, a failure behind the seawall was discovered at the intersection of Beach Blvd. and Salada Ave. A void (approx. 2’-7’ w x 40’ l) was found behind the seawall and was repaired with concrete and cement slurry. The repairs were completed by the end of December 2023.
• On December 29, 2023, another failure (approx. 300 sf) behind the seawall was discovered at Beach Blvd. and San Jose Ave. and was temporarily plugged. The repairs were completed by January 10, 2024. This also caused damage to the Milagra storm drain outfall and left substantial sand deposits on the Beach Boulevard Prominade and on the southern Beach Boulevard rock revetment.
• In March of 2024, City staff received an Emergency Coastal Development Permit (ECDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for removal of the substantial sand deposits left on Beach Boulevard Promenade and southern rock revetment as well as for the repair of the damage to the Milagra outfall. Repairing the outfall and removal of the sand on the Beach Boulevard Promenade and removal of the sand from the southern Beach Boulevard Rock Revetment was completed by mid-May of 2024. • In May 2024, a sink hole (approx. 5’ w x 25’ l) was discovered behind the seawall on Beach Blvd. to the north of Santa Maria. The hole was repaired through an emergency contractor.
• In November 2024, a new sink hole (approx. 8’ w x 30’ l) was discovered behind the seawall on Beach Blvd. between Carmel Ave and Santa Maria Ave. The hole was repaired through an emergency contractor by December 16, 2024. • On November 13th, 2025, two sink holes (approx. 3’ w x 16’ l and 8’ w x 10’ l) were discovered behind the seawall on Beach Blvd and between Santa Maria Avenue and San Jose Avenue. Another sink hole (approx. 12’ w x 16’ l) was discovered behind the seawall near Chit Chat Cafe while making repairs to the first 2 sink holes. All sinkholes were repaired through an emergency contractor by December 16, 2025. Revetment 300' south of the Chit Chat Cafe had moved and left the seawall exposed. The restacking of the revetment was performed by an emergency contractor by January 30th, 2026.

The City Council first ratified this proclamation (Attachment A) at its regular meeting of January 25, 2016. Since that date, additional damage has occurred along Beach Boulevard and Esplanade Avenue as noted above.

Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency still exist since the City Council first acted to declare 3 Packet Pg. 88
Pacifica City Council 3
February 09, 2026
a local emergency on January 25, 2016, and since that time staff have brought the continuance of Proclamation confirming the existence of local emergency exists within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard every 30 days with January 12, 2026 being the most recent.

The City is using a combination of city staff, contractors, and consultants to manage the discussed emergency work. Staff will bring recommendations to the Council to end the emergency designation for projects on the list once conditions stabilize and the projects are no longer in need of the emergency designation.

The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (PDF)
3 Packet Pg. 89
"ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (6135 : Continuation of "ATTACHMENT 1"

3.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Proclamation of Local Emergency Regarding Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to End of Beach Blvd. (6135 : Continuation of

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/9/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Continuation of Proclamation of a Local Emergency at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the Sewer Mains Crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood.

STAFF CONTACT:

Melissa Tigbao, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 501-6016
[email protected]
Dan Patten, P.E., Engineering Manager
(650) 738-4660
[email protected]
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On August 6, 2025, Public Works Wastewater Division staff received a call from a resident observing a crack on the 6-inch sewer main crossing Calera Creek near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue. Public Works Wastewater Division staff responded to the notification and inspected the sewer main and discovered evidence of corrosion on the sewer main. Staff also conducted a temporary repair. The temporary repair is inadequate for the long term, and the cracked sewer main requires immediate repair to prevent potential sanitary Sewer Spills and threaten the safety of persons and property, including polluting the Calera Creek watershed.

On August 20, 2025, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency at the sewer mains crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue due to corroded conditions and potential collapse of the 6-inch sewer main crossing Calera Creek (Attachment 1). Since this date, the Director of Emergency Services has proclaimed the existence of these emergencies as described below:
• There is a potential for leakage during wet weather flows. The potential for sewer main failures and resulting sanitary sewer spills threatens the creek. • Sewer mains cross Calera Creek in three locations in the Vallemar neighborhood. These sewer mains have been identified as health and safety of persons and property, including critical public infrastructure for replacement as part of the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard 4 Packet Pg. 92
Pacifica City Council 2
February 09, 2026
Areas Sewer and Rehabilitation and Repair Project. The design of this project (approved by Council August 26, 2024) is in progress. The City is fast-tracking the creek crossings portion of the project, and construction documents are underway.
• The creek crossing near Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenues has deteriorated further since inspection earlier this year, and there is a risk that the other creek crossings in the neighborhood are deteriorating further and may result in sanitary sewer spills.

The City Council first ratified this proclamation (Attachment 2) at its regular meeting of August 25, 2025. Since that date, staff is expeditiously working towards a permanent repair solution. • Design documents were completed in September, staff issued 100% plans for informal bidding in October and received two bids, and selected the apparent low bidder, Ranger Pipelines.
• Staff have finalized contract documents and scheduled a pre-construction meeting on November 13, 2025.
• Staff issued a Notice to Proceed on December 1, 2025. • Contractor is completing stormwater Best Management Practices and tree protection work in the Vallemar neighborhood.
• Contractor is procuring materials required for the Oneonta and Berendos crossings.

Pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), the City Council must review the need for continuing the local emergency at least every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. Conditions of local emergency at the sewer mains crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue still exist since the City Council first acted to declare a local emergency on August 25, 2025. Staff will bring up the continuance of Proclamation every 30 days, with February 9, 2026, being the most recent.

The City Manager recommends that the City Council make a determination that the conditions of local emergency continue to exist at the sewer mains crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar Neighborhood near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to adopt the Proclamation Confirming Existence of Local Emergency at the sewer mains crossing Calera Creek in the Vallemar neighborhood, however this is not recommended. Delaying the work increases the risk of Sanitary Sewer Spills into Calera Creek and may cause health and safety issues to persons and property, including critical public infrastructure.

FISCAL IMPACT:
4 Packet Pg. 93
Pacifica City Council 3
February 09, 2026
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the emergency declared.

ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY at Calera Creek Oneonta - Minerva (PDF)
Attachment 2 - ResolutionNo74-2025_RatifyingProclamationLocalEmergency_SewerMainVallemar_EXECUTED (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 94

CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue • Pacifica, California 94044-2506 www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Sue Beckmeyer

MAYOR PRO
TEM
Christine Boles

COUNCIL
Mary Bier
Mayra Espinosa
Greg Wright
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957

PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council at the earliest possible time; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, Public Works Wastewater Division received a notification from the public regarding observation of a crack on the 6-inch sewer main crossing the Calera Creek near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue in Vallemar neighborhood; and WHEREAS, Public Works Wastewater Division staff responded to the notification and inspected the sewer main and discovered evidence of corrosion, which caused a crack that was dripping; and WHEREAS, Staff made a temporary repair that would help to prevent complete failure of the sewer main by wrapping pipe repair tape; and
WHEREAS, the temporary repair is inadequate for the long term, and the cracked sewer main requires a more extensive immediate repair to prevent potential sanitary Sewer Spills and threatens the safety of persons and property, including polluting the Calera Creek watershed; and WHEREAS, such conditions are or are likely to be beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair; and
WHEREAS, the City provides this written notification to the San Mateo County and State CalEMA’s Regional and Headquarter offices of a proclamation of local emergency; and WHEREAS, such proclamation shall be subject to confirmation by the Pacifica City Council at the earliest possible time.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that, in accordance with State Law and the City of Pacifica Municipal Code, the Director of Emergency Services proclaims the existence of a local emergency at the sewer main crossing the Calera Creek near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva Avenue in the Vallemar neighborhood.

DATED: August 20, 2025
By:
_____________________________
Kevin Woodhouse
Director of Emergency Services

4.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment 1 - PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY at Calera Creek Oneonta - Minerva (6114 : Continuation of Proclamation RESOLUTION NO. 74-2025

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION CONFIRMING EXISTENCE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY AT

THE SEWER MAINS CROSSING CALERA CREEK IN THE VALLEMAR NEIGHBORHOOD WHEREAS, Section 4-2.05 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) designates the City Manager as the Director of Emergency Services; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 8630 and PMC section 4-2.05(a) empower the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said city is affected or likely to be affected by an emergency, subject to ratification by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.02 of the PMC defines “emergency” as the “actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within this City caused by such conditions as earthquake, hazardous materials, plane crash, landslide, tsunami, epidemic, flood, riot, fire, or other conditions, including conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the capability of control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of this City, requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat”; and
WHEREAS, Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City Council is not in session, subject to confirmation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Pacifica; and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2025, the Department of Public Works Wastewater Division staff, observed a crack in the six-inch sewer main crossing Calera Creek between Oneonta Avenue and Reina del Mar Avenue; and
WHEREAS, failures of corroded sewer mains would create a hazardous condition including potential Sanitary Sewer Spills and threaten the safety of persons and property, including critical public infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the damaged sewer main threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, and requires immediate attention and repair and as such constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code section 1102; and WHEREAS, such conditions are or are likely to be beyond the handling capability of the City’s services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, requiring the use of outside contractors to conduct emergency repair pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-15.09 without giving notice for bids to let contract, pursuant to Public Contract Code 22050; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2025, the City Manager, in his capacity as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed the existence of local emergency in the City of Pacifica, after determining that the 6-inch sewer main crossing Calera Creek near the intersection of Oneonta Avenue and Minerva

4.b
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment 2 - ResolutionNo74-2025_RatifyingProclamationLocalEmergency_SewerMain-Vallemar_EXECUTED (6114 :

4.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment 2 - ResolutionNo74-2025_RatifyingProclamationLocalEmergency_SewerMain-Vallemar_EXECUTED (6114 :

RESOLUTION NO. 74-2025

ATTACHMENT A

4.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment 2 - ResolutionNo74-2025_RatifyingProclamationLocalEmergency_SewerMain-Vallemar_EXECUTED (6114 :

CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue • Pacifica, California 94044-2506 www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Sue Beckmeyer

MAYOR PRO
TEM
Christine Boles

COUNCIL
Mary Bier
Mayra Espinosa
Greg Wright
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957

DATED: August 20, 2025
By:
_____________________________
Kevin Woodhouse
Director of Emergency Services

4.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment 2 - ResolutionNo74-2025_RatifyingProclamationLocalEmergency_SewerMain-Vallemar_EXECUTED (6114 :

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/9/2026
1 SUBJECT:
2025 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and acknowledge the 2025 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report of the North County Fire Authority’s mandated fire and life safety inspections performed within the City of Pacifica pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code.

STAFF CONTACT:

Craig Wittner, Acting Deputy Fire Chief
(650) 463-9766
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4 requires all fire departments, including the North County Fire Authority, that provide fire protection services to report annually to its administering authority (the City of Pacifica) on its compliance with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.

The North County Fire Authority performs annual inspections in every building used as a public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging house, apartment house, and certain residential care facilities. The City Manager requests the City Council of the City of Pacifica acknowledge fulfillment of the requirements of compliance with Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.

North County Fire Authority reports the following relating to those inspections:

A. EDUCATIONAL GROUP E OCCUPANCIES: Total 30
Educational Group E occupancies are generally those public and private schools, used by more than six people at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade.

During calendar year 2025, the North County Fire Authority inspected all 30 Group E occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities. This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period; and
B. RESIDENTIAL GROUP R OCCUPANCIES: Total 151
Residential Group R occupancies are generally those occupancies containing sleeping units, and include hotels, motels, apartments (three units or more), etc. as well as other residential occupancies, including those designated as residential care facilities. These residential care facilities have several different sub-classifications, and they may contain 5 Packet Pg. 100
Pacifica City Council 2
February 09, 2026
residents or clients that have a range of needs, including those related to custodial care, mobility impairments, cognitive disabilities, etc. The residents may also be non-ambulatory or bedridden.

During calendar year 2025, the North County Fire Authority inspected all 151 Group R occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities. This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

None.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“Maintaining a Safe Community” includes supporting our first responders (police, fire, public works), responding to storm emergencies, protecting people, property, businesses, and our infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, storm, and wastewater), and engaging in emergency preparedness activities.

It should be noted that in addition to the 181 mandated occupancy inspections, North County Fire Authority conducts inspections of the remaining 628 business, industrial, institutional, mercantile, factory and storage occupancies in the City of Pacifica for a total of 809 inspections conducted annually.

To ensure the health and safety of the public through a mandated fire and life safety inspection program is a top priority. By ensuring that these buildings meet the standards set forth by state law, we greatly reduce the risks for the loss of life and property.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None
ORIGINATED BY:

North County Fire Authority
ATTACHMENT LIST:
5 Packet Pg. 101

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/9/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Approval of Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and CSG Consultants for Design and Engineering Services related to the Sharp Park PDA Resurfacing Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Consultant Services Agreement with CSG Consultants for design and engineering services in the amount of $114,065.00 in connection to the Sharp Park PDA Resurfacing Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $125,471.50 which includes 10% contingency and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.

STAFF CONTACT:

David Harvey, Assistant Civil Engineer
(650) 452-9664
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Roland Yip, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer (650) 738-3771
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Melissa Tigbao, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 501-6016
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The Sharp Park Priority Development Area (PDA) Resurfacing Project will resurface Sharp Park Road from the City limits to State Route 1 and Francisco Boulevard from Sharp Park Road to Paloma Avenue. The project scope includes a combination of pavement treatment options, such as rubber cape seal, double slurry seal, slurry seal, asphalt concrete grinding and paving, microsurfacing spot repairs, pavement striping and markings. In addition, the project will include upgrades to non-ADA-compliant curb ramps at the top of Sharp Park Road and along Francisco Boulevard, and in other areas as needed.

Community Project Funding (CPF) and Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) are federal programs that provide targeted funding for local projects through congressional appropriations.

These allocations, often referred to as modern “earmarks,” allow members of Congress to request funds for specific community needs such as infrastructure, healthcare, or education.

Each year, CPF/CDS projects are solicited and selected by members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Once approved, the scope and funding amount for each project are codified in law through the Annual Appropriations Act. Under CPF/CDS Cycle 2, a total of $800,000 was programmed for the Sharp Park PDA Resurfacing Project, covering both design and construction phases.
6 Packet Pg. 102
Pacifica City Council 2
February 09, 2026
The Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional services was advertised on December 17 and December 24, 2025, in accordance with the City’s formal procurement process. A total of thirtyfour (34) consultant firms downloaded the project documents, and three (3) firms submitted proposals by the January 9, 2026 deadline. Proposals were independently evaluated and scored by four City staff engineers. Final scores were compiled on January 15, 2026, with CSG Consultants receiving the highest overall score among the three proposers.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Council may choose not to authorize design of the Sharp Park PDA Resurfacing Project.

However, this will result in continued deterioration of the City’s pavement network. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Approval of these actions is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: Approval of these actions will improve the City Street network.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Grant - CPF/CDS $800,000.00
Total Source of Funds $800,000.00
Sharp Park PDA Resurfacing Project $114,065.00
Project Contingency, 10% $11,406.50
Total Use of Funds $125,471.50
ORIGINATED BY:

Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (PDF)
6 Packet Pg. 103
Pacifica City Council 3
February 09, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING THE

CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND CSG

CONSULTANTS FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $114,065.00 IN CONNECTION TO THE SHARP PARK PDA RESURFACING PROJECT; APPROVE BUDGET AUTHORITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,471.50, WHICH INCLUDES CONTINGENCIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED TEN PERCENT (10%) OF DESIGN CONTRACT AMOUNTS; AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL

DOCUMENTS RELATED WITH THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City desires to move forward with the design of the Sharp Park PDA Resurfacing Project using Community Project Funding (CPF) and Congressional Directed Spending (CDS) grant funds; and
WHEREAS, the City evaluated CSG’s proposal, and is satisfied they can successfully complete the work and has been satisfied with their services on past City projects; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica authorizes the City Manager to execute the funding Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and CSG Consultants for design and engineering services in the amount of $114,065.00 in connection to the Sharp Park PDA Resurfacing Project. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 9
th day of February, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 6 Packet Pg. 104

CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT

ARTICLE I INTRODUCTION
A. This AGREEMENT is between the following named, hereinafter referred to as, CONSULTANT and the following named, hereinafter referred to as, LOCAL AGENCY:

The name of the “CONSULTANT” is as follows: ________________ Incorporated in the State of California
The Project Manager for the “CONSULTANT” will be ______________.

The name of the “LOCAL AGENCY” is as follows: City of Pacifica The Contract Administrator for LOCAL AGENCY will be Roland Yip PE, Deputy PW Director/City Engineer.

B. The work to be performed under this AGREEMENT is described in Article III Statement of Work and the approved CONSULTANT’s Cost Proposal dated (DATE). The approved CONSULTANT’s Cost Proposal is attached hereto (Attachment #) and incorporated by reference. If there is any conflict between the approved Cost Proposal and this AGREEMENT, this AGREEMENT shall take precedence.

C. CONSULTANT agrees to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless LOCAL AGENCY, its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, damages, demands, liability, costs, losses and expenses, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ and expert witness fees, arising out of any failure to comply with applicable law, any injury to or death of any person(s), damage to property, loss of use of property, economic loss or otherwise arising out of the performance of the work described herein, to the extent caused by a negligent act or negligent failure to act, errors, omissions, recklessness or willful misconduct incident to the performance of this AGREEMENT on the part of CONSULTANT, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence, or willful misconduct of LOCAL AGENCY, as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The provisions of this section shall survive termination or suspension of this AGREEMENT.

D. CONSULTANT in the performance of this AGREEMENT, shall act in an independent capacity. It is understood and agreed that CONSULTANT (including CONSULTANT's employees) is an independent contractor and that no relationship of employer-employee exists between the Parties hereto. CONSULTANT's assigned personnel shall not be entitled to any benefits payable to employees of City.

E. LOCAL AGENCY is not required to make any deductions or withholdings from the compensation payable to CONSULTANT under the provisions of the AGREEMENT, and is not required to issue W-2 Forms for income and employment tax purposes for any of CONSULTANT's assigned personnel. CONSULTANT, in the performance of its obligation hereunder, is only subject to the control or direction of the LOCAL AGENCY as to the designation of tasks to be performed and the results to be accomplished.

F. Any third party person(s) employed by CONSULTANT shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction, supervision, and control of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT hereby indemnifies and holds LOCAL AGENCY harmless from any and all claims that may be made against City based upon any contention by any third party that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this AGREEMENT.

G. Except as expressly authorized herein, CONSULTANT's obligations under this AGREEMENT are not assignable or transferable, and CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any work, without the prior written approval of the LOCAL AGENCY. However, claims for money due or which become due to CONSULTANT from City under this AGREEMENT may be assigned to a financial institution or to a trustee in bankruptcy, without such approval. Notice of any assignment or transfer whether voluntary or involuntary shall be furnished promptly to the LOCAL AGENCY.

H. CONSULTANT shall be as fully responsible to the LOCAL AGENCY for the negligent acts and omissions of its contractors and subcontractors or subconsultants, and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by them, in the same manner as persons directly employed by CONSULTANT.

CSG Consultants, Inc. Michael Fisher

6.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of I. No alteration or variation of the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be valid, unless made in writing and signed by the parties authorized to bind the parties; and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein, shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.

J. The consideration to be paid to CONSULTANT as provided herein, shall be in compensation for all of CONSULTANT’s expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including travel and per diem, unless otherwise expressly so provided.

ARTICLE II CONSULTANT’S REPORTS OR MEETINGS
A. CONSULTANT shall submit progress reports at least once a month. The report should be sufficiently detailed for the LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator to determine, if CONSULTANT is performing to expectations, or is on schedule; to provide communication of interim findings, and to sufficiently address any difficulties or special problems encountered, so remedies can be developed.

B. CONSULTANT’s Project Manager shall meet with LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator, as needed, to discuss progress on the AGREEMENT.

ARTICLE III STATEMENT OF WORK
A. CONSULTANT Services
[Detail based on the services to be furnished should be provided by CONSULTANT. Nature and extent should be verified in the negotiations to make precise statements to eliminate subsequent uncertainties and misunderstandings. Reference to the appropriate standards for design or other standards for work performance stipulated in CONSULTANT AGREEMENT should be included. Describe acceptance criteria, and if the responsible CONSULTANT/engineer shall sign all Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) and engineering data furnished under the AGREEMENT including registration number.

Environmental documents are not considered complete until a Caltrans District Senior Environmental Planner signs the Categorical Exclusion, a Caltrans Deputy District Director signs the Finding of No Significant Impact, or the Caltrans District Director signs the Record of Decision (see LAPM Chapter 6: Environmental Procedures, and the Standard Environmental Reference).] B. Right of Way
[State whether Right of Way requirements are to be determined and shown by CONSULTANT, whether land surveys and computations with metes and bounds descriptions are to be made, and whether Right of Way parcel maps are to be furnished.]
C. Surveys
[State whether or not the CONSULTANT has the responsibility for performing preliminary or construction surveys.]
D. Subsurface Investigations
[State specifically whether or not CONSULTANT has responsibility for making subsurface investigations. If borings or other specialized services are to be made by others under the supervision of CONSULTANT, appropriate provisions are to be incorporated. Archaeological testing and data recovery guidance can be found in the Standard Environmental Reference.]
E. Local Agency Obligations

6.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of All data applicable to the project and in possession of LOCAL AGENCY, another agency, or government agency that are to be made available to CONSULTANT are referred to in the AGREEMENT. Any other assistance or services to be furnished to CONSULTANT are to be stated clearly.

F. Conferences, Site Visits, Inspection of Work
This AGREEMENT provides for conferences as needed, visits to the site, and inspection of the work by representatives of the LOCAL AGENCY, State, and/or FHWA. Costs incurred by CONSULTANT for meetings, subsequent to the initial meeting shall be included in the fee.

G. Checking Shop Drawings
[For AGREEMENTs requiring the preparation of construction drawings, make provision for checking shop drawings. Payment for checking shop drawings by CONSULTANT may be included in the AGREEMENT fee, or provision may be made for separate payment.]
H. CONSULTANT Services During Construction
The extent, if any of CONSULTANT’s services during the course of construction as material testing, construction surveys. etc., are specified in the AGREEMENT together with the method of payment for such services.

I. Documentation and Schedules
AGREEMENTs where appropriate, shall provide that CONSULTANT document the results of the work to the satisfaction of LOCAL AGENCY, and if applicable, the State and FHWA. This may include preparation of progress and final reports, plans, specifications and estimates, or similar evidence of attainment of the AGREEMENT objectives.

J. Deliverables and Number of Copies
The number of copies or documents to be furnished, such as reports, brochures, sets of plans, specifications, or Right of Way parcel maps shall be specified. Provision may be made for payment for additional copies.

ARTICLE IV PERFORMANCE PERIOD
[A time must be set for beginning and ending the work under the AGREEMENT. The time allowed for performing the work is specified; it should be reasonable for the kind and amount of services contemplated; and it is written into the AGREEMENT. If it is desirable that Critical Path Method (CPM) networks, or other types of schedules be prepared by CONSULTANT, they should be identified and incorporated into the AGREEMENT.]
A. This AGREEMENT shall go into effect on (DATE), contingent upon approval by LOCAL AGENCY, and CONSULTANT shall commence work after notification to proceed by LOCAL AGENCY’S Contract Administrator. The AGREEMENT shall end on (DATE), unless extended by AGREEMENT amendment.

B. CONSULTANT is advised that any recommendation for AGREEMENT award is not binding on LOCAL AGENCY until the AGREEMENT is fully executed and approved by LOCAL AGENCY.

C. The period of performance for each specific project shall be in accordance with the Task Order for that project. If work on a Task Order is in progress on the expiration date of this AGREEMENT, the terms of the AGREEMENT shall be extended by AGREEMENT amendment prior to the expiration of the contract to cover the time needed to complete the task order in progress only. The maximum term shall not exceed five (5) years.

ARTICLE V ALLOWABLE COSTS AND PAYMENTS

6.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of A. The method of payment for this AGREEMENT will be based on actual cost plus a fixed fee. LOCAL AGENCY will reimburse CONSULTANT for actual costs (including labor costs, employee benefits, travel, equipment rental costs, overhead and other direct costs) incurred by CONSULTANT in performance of the work. CONSULTANT will not be reimbursed for actual costs that exceed the estimated wage rates, employee benefits, travel, equipment rental, overhead, and other estimated costs set forth in the approved CONSULTANT’S Cost Proposal, unless additional reimbursement is provided for by AGREEMENT amendment. In no event, will CONSULTANT be reimbursed for overhead costs at a rate that exceeds LOCAL AGENCY’s approved overhead rate set forth in the Cost Proposal. In the event, that LOCAL AGENCY determines that a change to the work from that specified in the Cost Proposal and AGREEMENT is required, the AGREEMENT time or actual costs reimbursable by LOCAL AGENCY shall be adjusted by AGREEMENT amendment to accommodate the changed work. The maximum total cost as specified in Paragraph “I” of this Article shall not be exceeded, unless authorized by AGREEMENT amendment.

B. The indirect cost rate established for this AGREEMENT is extended through the duration of this specific AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT’s agreement to the extension of the 1-year applicable period shall not be a condition or qualification to be considered for the work or AGREEMENT award.

C. In addition to the allowable incurred costs, LOCAL AGENCY will pay CONSULTANT a fixed fee of $(AMOUNT). The fixed fee is nonadjustable for the term of the AGREEMENT, except in the event of a significant change in the scope of work and such adjustment is made by AGREEMENT amendment.

D. Reimbursement for transportation and subsistence costs shall not exceed the rates specified in the approved Cost Proposal.

E. When milestone cost estimates are included in the approved Cost Proposal, CONSULTANT shall obtain prior written approval for a revised milestone cost estimate from the Contract Administrator before exceeding such cost estimate.

F. Progress payments will be made monthly in arrears based on services provided and allowable incurred costs. A pro rata portion of CONSULTANT’s fixed fee will be included in the monthly progress payments. If CONSULTANT fails to submit the required deliverable items according to the schedule set forth in Article III Statement of Work, LOCAL AGENCY shall have the right to delay payment or terminate this AGREEMENT.

G. No payment will be made prior to approval of any work, nor for any work performed prior to approval of this AGREEMENT.

H. CONSULTANT will be reimbursed promptly according to California Regulations upon receipt by LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator of itemized invoices in duplicate. Invoices shall be submitted no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the performance of work for which CONSULTANT is billing. Invoices shall detail the work performed on each milestone and each project as applicable. Invoices shall follow the format stipulated for the approved Cost Proposal and shall reference this AGREEMENT number and project title. Final invoice must contain the final cost and all credits due LOCAL AGENCY including any equipment purchased under the provisions of Article XI Equipment Purchase. The final invoice should be submitted within sixty (60) calendar days after completion of CONSULTANT’s work. Invoices shall be mailed to LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator at the following address:

NAME: Roland Yip PE, Deputy PW Director/City Engineer
ADDRESS: 170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica, CA 94044
I. The total amount payable by LOCAL AGENCY including the fixed fee shall not exceed $(Amount).

J. For personnel subject to prevailing wage rates as described in the California Labor Code, all salary increases, which are the direct result of changes in the prevailing wage rates are reimbursable.

ARTICLE VI TERMINATION

6.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of A. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by LOCAL AGENCY, provided that LOCAL AGENCY gives not less than thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate. Upon termination, LOCAL AGENCY shall be entitled to all work, including but not limited to, reports, investigations, appraisals, inventories, studies, analyses, drawings and data estimates performed to that date, whether completed or not.

B. LOCAL AGENCY may temporarily suspend this AGREEMENT, at no additional cost to LOCAL AGENCY, provided that CONSULTANT is given written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of temporary suspension. If LOCAL AGENCY gives such notice of temporary suspension, CONSULTANT shall immediately suspend its activities under this AGREEMENT. A temporary suspension may be issued concurrent with the notice of termination.

C. Notwithstanding any provisions of this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT shall not be relieved of liability to LOCAL AGENCY for damages sustained by City by virtue of any breach of this AGREEMENT by CONSULTANT, and City may withhold any payments due to CONSULTANT until such time as the exact amount of damages, if any, due City from CONSULTANT is determined.

D. In the event of termination, CONSULTANT shall be compensated as provided for in this AGREEMENT.

Upon termination, LOCAL AGENCY shall be entitled to all work, including but not limited to, reports, investigations, appraisals, inventories, studies, analyses, drawings and data estimates performed to that date, whether completed or not.

ARTICLE VII COST PRINCIPLES AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS A. The CONSULTANT agrees that 48 CFR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, shall be used to determine the allowability of individual terms of cost.

B. The CONSULTANT also agrees to comply with Federal procedures in accordance with 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

C. Any costs for which payment has been made to the CONSULTANT that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 48 CFR 31 or 2 CFR 200 are subject to repayment by the CONSULTANT to LOCAL AGENCY.

D. When a CONSULTANT or Subconsultant is a Non-Profit Organization or an Institution of Higher Education, the Cost Principles for Title 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards shall apply.

ARTICLE VIII RETENTION OF RECORD/AUDITS
For the purpose of determining compliance with Gov. Code § 8546.7, the CONSULTANT, Subconsultants, and LOCAL AGENCY shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records, Independent CPA Audited Indirect Cost Rate workpapers, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the AGREEMENT including, but not limited to, the costs of administering the AGREEMENT. All parties, including the CONSULTANT’s Independent CPA, shall make such workpapers and materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the AGREEMENT period and for three (3) years from the date of final payment under the AGREEMENT and records for real property and equipment acquired with federal funds must be retained for three (3) years after final disposition. LOCAL AGENCY, Caltrans Auditor, FHWA, or any duly authorized representative of the Federal government having jurisdiction under Federal laws or regulations (including the basis of Federal funding in whole or in part) shall have access to any books, records, and documents of the CONSULTANT, Subconsultants, and the CONSULTANT’s Independent CPA, that are pertinent to the AGREEMENT for audits, examinations, workpaper review, excerpts, and transactions, and copies thereof shall be furnished if requested without limitation.

ARTICLE IX AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES

6.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of A. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by AGREEMENT, shall be reviewed by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer.

B. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing.

C. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by LOCAL AGENCY will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT.

D. CONSULTANT and subconsultant AGREEMENTs, including cost proposals and Indirect Cost Rates (ICR), may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT audit, an incurred cost audit, an ICR Audit, or a CPA ICR audit work paper review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related work papers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR audit work paper review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, LOCAL AGENCY, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s work papers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the AGREEMENT by this reference if directed by LOCAL AGENCY at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, LOCAL AGENCY or local governments have access to CPA work papers, will be considered a breach of AGREEMENT terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.

E. CONSULTANT’s Cost Proposal may be subject to a CPA ICR Audit Work Paper Review and/or audit by the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations (IOAI). IOAI, at its sole discretion, may review and/or audit and approve the CPA ICR documentation. The Cost Proposal shall be adjusted by the CONSULTANT and approved by the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator to conform to the Work Paper Review recommendations included in the management letter or audit recommendations included in the audit report.

Refusal by the CONSULTANT to incorporate the Work Paper Review recommendations included in the management letter or audit recommendations included in the audit report will be considered a breach of the AGREEMENT terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.

1. During IOAI’s review of the ICR audit work papers created by the CONSULTANT’s independent CPA, IOAI will work with the CPA and/or CONSULTANT toward a resolution of issues that arise during the review. Each party agrees to use its best efforts to resolve any audit disputes in a timely manner. If IOAI identifies significant issues during the review and is unable to issue a cognizant approval letter, LOCAL AGENCY will reimburse the CONSULTANT at an accepted ICR until a FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) compliant ICR (e.g. 48 CFR Part 31; GAGAS (Generally Accepted Auditing Standards); CAS (Cost Accounting Standards), if applicable; in accordance with procedures and guidelines of the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Audit Guide; and other applicable procedures and guidelines) is received and approved by IOAI.

Accepted rates will be as follows:
a. If the proposed rate is less than one hundred fifty percent (150%) - the accepted rate reimbursed will be ninety percent (90%) of the proposed rate. b. If the proposed rate is between one hundred fifty percent (150%) and two hundred percent (200%) - the accepted rate will be eighty-five percent (85%) of the proposed rate. c. If the proposed rate is greater than two hundred percent (200%) - the accepted rate will be seventy-five percent (75%) of the proposed rate.

2. If IOAI is unable to issue a cognizant letter per paragraph E.1. above, IOAI may require CONSULTANT to submit a revised independent CPA-audited ICR and audit report within three

6.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of (3) months of the effective date of the management letter. IOAI will then have up to six (6) months to review the CONSULTANT’s and/or the independent CPA’s revisions.

3. If the CONSULTANT fails to comply with the provisions of this paragraph E, or if IOAI is still unable to issue a cognizant approval letter after the revised independent CPA audited ICR is submitted, overhead cost reimbursement will be limited to the accepted ICR that was established upon initial rejection of the ICR and set forth in paragraph E.1. above for all rendered services. In this event, this accepted ICR will become the actual and final ICR for reimbursement purposes under this AGREEMENT.

4. CONSULTANT may submit to LOCAL AGENCY final invoice only when all of the following items have occurred: (1) IOAI accepts or adjusts the original or revised independent CPA audited ICR; (2) all work under this AGREEMENT has been completed to the satisfaction of LOCAL AGENCY; and, (3) IOAI has issued its final ICR review letter. The CONSULTANT MUST SUBMIT ITS FINAL INVOICE TO LOCAL AGENCY no later than sixty (60) calendar days after occurrence of the last of these items. The accepted ICR will apply to this AGREEMENT and all other agreements executed between LOCAL AGENCY and the CONSULTANT, either as a prime or subconsultant, with the same fiscal period ICR.

ARTICLE X SUBCONTRACTING
A. Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT or otherwise, shall create any contractual relation between the LOCAL AGENCY and any Subconsultants, and no subagreement shall relieve the CONSULTANT of its responsibilities and obligations hereunder. The CONSULTANT agrees to be as fully responsible to the LOCAL AGENCY for the acts and omissions of its Subconsultants and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by any of them as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT's obligation to pay its Subconsultants is an independent obligation from the LOCAL AGENCY's obligation to make payments to the CONSULTANT.

B. The CONSULTANT shall perform the work contemplated with resources available within its own organization and no portion of the work shall be subcontracted without written authorization by the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator, except that which is expressly identified in the CONSULTANT’s approved Cost Proposal.

C. Any subagreement entered into as a result of this AGREEMENT, shall contain all the provisions stipulated in this entire AGREEMENT to be applicable to Subconsultants unless otherwise noted.

D. CONSULTANT shall pay its Subconsultants within Fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of each payment made to the CONSULTANT by the LOCAL AGENCY.

E. Any substitution of Subconsultants must be approved in writing by the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator in advance of assigning work to a substitute Subconsultant.

F. Prompt Progress Payment
CONSULTANT or subconsultant shall pay to any subconsultant, not later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of each progress payment, unless otherwise agreed to in writing, the respective amounts allowed CONSULTANT on account of the work performed by the subconsultants, to the extent of each subconsultant’s interest therein.

In the event that there is a good faith dispute over all or any portion of the amount due on a progress payment from CONSULTANT or subconsultant to a subconsultant, CONSULTANT or subconsultant may withhold no more than 150 percent of the disputed amount. Any violation of this requirement shall constitute a cause for disciplinary action and shall subject the licensee to a penalty, payable to the subconsultant, of 2 percent of the amount due per month for every month that payment is not made.

In any action for the collection of funds wrongfully withheld, the prevailing party shall be entitled to his or her attorney’s fees and costs. The sanctions authorized under this requirement shall be separate from, and in addition to, all other remedies, either civil, administrative, or criminal. This clause applies to both DBE and nonDBE subconsultants.

6.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of G. Prompt Payment of Withheld Funds to Subconsultants
The LOCAL AGENCY may hold retainage from CONSULTANT and shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the LOCAL AGENCY, of the contract work, and pay retainage to CONSULTANT based on these acceptances. The LOCAL AGENCY shall designate one of the methods below in the contract to ensure prompt and full payment of any retainage kept by CONSULTANT or subconsultant to a subconsultant.

No retainage will be held by the LOCAL AGENCY from progress payments due to CONSULTANT.

CONSULTANTS and subconsultants are prohibited from holding retainage from subconsultants. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the LOCAL AGENCY’s prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating CONSULTANT or subconsultant to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 3321 of the California Civil Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative or judicial remedies, otherwise available to CONSULTANT or subconsultant in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by CONSULTANT, deficient subconsultant performance and/or noncompliance by a subconsultant. This clause applies to both DBE and non-DBE subconsultants.

ARTICLE XI EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND OTHER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES A. Prior authorization in writing by LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator shall be required before CONSULTANT enters into any unbudgeted purchase order, or subcontract exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) for supplies, equipment, or CONSULTANT services. CONSULTANT shall provide an evaluation of the necessity or desirability of incurring such costs.

B. For purchase of any item, service, or consulting work not covered in CONSULTANT’s approved Cost Proposal and exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), with prior authorization by LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator, three competitive quotations must be submitted with the request, or the absence of proposal must be adequately justified.

C. Any equipment purchased with funds provided under the terms of this AGREEMENT is subject to the following:

1. CONSULTANT shall maintain an inventory of all nonexpendable property. Nonexpendable property is defined as having a useful life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of five thousand dollars ($5,000) or more. If the purchased equipment needs replacement and is sold or traded in, LOCAL AGENCY shall receive a proper refund or credit at the conclusion of the AGREEMENT, or if the AGREEMENT is terminated, CONSULTANT may either keep the equipment and credit LOCAL AGENCY in an amount equal to its fair market value, or sell such equipment at the best price obtainable at a public or private sale, in accordance with established LOCAL AGENCY procedures; and credit LOCAL AGENCY in an amount equal to the sales price. If CONSULTANT elects to keep the equipment, fair market value shall be determined at CONSULTANT’s expense, on the basis of a competent independent appraisal of such equipment. Appraisals shall be obtained from an appraiser mutually agreeable to by LOCAL AGENCY and CONSULTANT, if it is determined to sell the equipment, the terms and conditions of such sale must be approved in advance by LOCAL AGENCY.

2. Regulation 2 CFR 200 requires a credit to Federal funds when participating equipment with a fair market value greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000) is credited to the project.

ARTICLE XII STATE PREVAILING WAGE RATES
A. No CONSULTANT or Subconsultant may be awarded an AGREEMENT containing public work elements unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to Labor Code §1725.5.

Registration with DIR must be maintained throughout the entire term of this AGREEMENT, including any subsequent amendments.

6.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of B. The CONSULTANT shall comply with all of the applicable provisions of the California Labor Code requiring the payment of prevailing wages. The General Prevailing Wage Rate Determinations applicable to work under this AGREEMENT are available and on file with the Department of Transportation's Regional/District Labor Compliance Officer (https://dot.ca.gov/programs/construction/labor-compliance). These wage rates are made a specific part of this AGREEMENT by reference pursuant to Labor Code §1773.2 and will be applicable to work performed at a construction project site. Prevailing wages will be applicable to all inspection work performed at LOCAL AGENCY construction sites, at LOCAL AGENCY facilities and at off-site locations that are set up by the construction contractor or one of its subcontractors solely and specifically to serve LOCAL AGENCY projects. Prevailing wage requirements do not apply to inspection work performed at the facilities of vendors and commercial materials suppliers that provide goods and services to the general public.

C. General Prevailing Wage Rate Determinations applicable to this project may also be obtained from the Department of Industrial Relations website at http://www.dir.ca.gov.

D. Payroll Records

1. Each CONSULTANT and Subconsultant shall keep accurate certified payroll records and supporting documents as mandated by Labor Code §1776 and as defined in 8 CCR §16000 showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant in connection with the public work.

Each payroll record shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under penalty of perjury, stating both of the following:
a. The information contained in the payroll record is true and correct. b. The employer has complied with the requirements of Labor Code §1771, §1811, and §1815 for any work performed by his or her employees on the public works project.

2. The payroll records enumerated under paragraph (1) above shall be certified as correct by the CONSULTANT under penalty of perjury. The payroll records and all supporting documents shall be made available for inspection and copying by LOCAL AGENCY representatives at all reasonable hours at the principal office of the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall provide copies of certified payrolls or permit inspection of its records as follows:
a. A certified copy of an employee's payroll record shall be made available for inspection or furnished to the employee or the employee's authorized representative on request. b. A certified copy of all payroll records enumerated in paragraph (1) above, shall be made available for inspection or furnished upon request to a representative of LOCAL AGENCY, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of Industrial Relations. Certified payrolls submitted to LOCAL AGENCY, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards shall not be altered or obliterated by the CONSULTANT.
c. The public shall not be given access to certified payroll records by the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT is required to forward any requests for certified payrolls to the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator by both email and regular mail on the business day following receipt of the request.

3. Each CONSULTANT shall submit a certified copy of the records enumerated in paragraph (1) above, to the entity that requested the records within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of a written request.

4. Any copy of records made available for inspection as copies and furnished upon request to the public or any public agency by LOCAL AGENCY shall be marked or obliterated in such a manner as to prevent disclosure of each individual's name, address, and social security number. The name and address of the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant performing the work shall not be marked or obliterated.

6.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of

5. The CONSULTANT shall inform LOCAL AGENCY of the location of the records enumerated under paragraph (1) above, including the street address, city and county, and shall, within five (5) working days, provide a notice of a change of location and address.

6. The CONSULTANT or Subconsultant shall have ten (10) calendar days in which to comply subsequent to receipt of written notice requesting the records enumerated in paragraph (1) above. In the event the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant fails to comply within the ten (10) day period, he or she shall, as a penalty to LOCAL AGENCY, forfeit one hundred dollars ($100) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, until strict compliance is effectuated. Such penalties shall be withheld by LOCAL AGENCY from payments then due. CONSULTANT is not subject to a penalty assessment pursuant to this section due to the failure of a Subconsultant to comply with this section.

E. When prevailing wage rates apply, the CONSULTANT is responsible for verifying compliance with certified payroll requirements. Invoice payment will not be made until the invoice is approved by the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator.

F. Penalty

1. The CONSULTANT and any of its Subconsultants shall comply with Labor Code §1774 and §1775. Pursuant to Labor Code §1775, the CONSULTANT and any Subconsultant shall forfeit to the LOCAL AGENCY a penalty of not more than two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the Director of DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done under the AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT or by its Subconsultant in violation of the requirements of the Labor Code and in particular, Labor Code §§1770 to 1780, inclusive.

2. The amount of this forfeiture shall be determined by the Labor Commissioner and shall be based on consideration of mistake, inadvertence, or neglect of the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant in failing to pay the correct rate of prevailing wages, or the previous record of the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant in meeting their respective prevailing wage obligations, or the willful failure by the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant to pay the correct rates of prevailing wages. A mistake, inadvertence, or neglect in failing to pay the correct rates of prevailing wages is not excusable if the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant had knowledge of the obligations under the Labor Code. The CONSULTANT is responsible for paying the appropriate rate, including any escalations that take place during the term of the AGREEMENT.

3. In addition to the penalty and pursuant to Labor Code §1775, the difference between the prevailing wage rates and the amount paid to each worker for each calendar day or portion thereof for which each worker was paid less than the prevailing wage rate shall be paid to each worker by the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant.

4. If a worker employed by a Subconsultant on a public works project is not paid the general prevailing per diem wages by the Subconsultant, the CONSULTANT of the project is not liable for the penalties described above unless the CONSULTANT had knowledge of that failure of the Subconsultant to pay the specified prevailing rate of wages to those workers or unless the CONSULTANT fails to comply with all of the following requirements:
a. The AGREEMENT executed between the CONSULTANT and the Subconsultant for the performance of work on public works projects shall include a copy of the requirements in Labor Code §§ 1771, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1813, and 1815.
b. The CONSULTANT shall monitor the payment of the specified general prevailing rate of per diem wages by the Subconsultant to the employees by periodic review of the certified payroll records of the Subconsultant.
c. Upon becoming aware of the Subconsultant’s failure to pay the specified prevailing rate of wages to the Subconsultant’s workers, the CONSULTANT shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify the failure, including but not limited to, retaining sufficient funds due the Subconsultant for work performed on the public works project.

6.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of d. Prior to making final payment to the Subconsultant for work performed on the public works project, the CONSULTANT shall obtain an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury from the Subconsultant that the Subconsultant had paid the specified general prevailing rate of per diem wages to the Subconsultant’s employees on the public works project and any amounts due pursuant to Labor Code §1813.

5. Pursuant to Labor Code §1775, LOCAL AGENCY shall notify the CONSULTANT on a public works project within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of a complaint that a Subconsultant has failed to pay workers the general prevailing rate of per diem wages.

6. If LOCAL AGENCY determines that employees of a Subconsultant were not paid the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and if LOCAL AGENCY did not retain sufficient money under the AGREEMENT to pay those employees the balance of wages owed under the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, the CONSULTANT shall withhold an amount of moneys due the Subconsultant sufficient to pay those employees the general prevailing rate of per diem wages if requested by LOCAL AGENCY.

G. Hours of Labor
Eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. The CONSULTANT shall forfeit, as a penalty to the LOCAL AGENCY, twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the execution of the AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT or any of its Subconsultants for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of the Labor Code, and in particular §§1810 to 1815 thereof, inclusive, except that work performed by employees in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week, shall be permitted upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day and forty (40) hours in any week, at not less than one and one-half (1.5) times the basic rate of pay, as provided in §1815.

H. Employment of Apprentices

1. Where either the prime AGREEMENT or the subagreement exceeds thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), the CONSULTANT and any subconsultants under him or her shall comply with all applicable requirements of Labor Code §§ 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 in the employment of apprentices.

2. CONSULTANTs and subconsultants are required to comply with all Labor Code requirements regarding the employment of apprentices, including mandatory ratios of journey level to apprentice workers. Prior to commencement of work, CONSULTANT and subconsultants are advised to contact the DIR Division of Apprenticeship Standards website at https://www.dir.ca.gov/das/, for additional information regarding the employment of apprentices and for the specific journey-to- apprentice ratios for the AGREEMENT work. The CONSULTANT is responsible for all subconsultants’ compliance with these requirements. Penalties are specified in Labor Code §1777.7.

ARTICLE XIII CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. During the term of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with LOCAL AGENCY that may have an impact upon the outcome of this AGREEMENT or any ensuing LOCAL AGENCY construction project. The CONSULTANT shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this AGREEMENT or any ensuing LOCAL AGENCY construction project which will follow.

B. CONSULTANT certifies that it has disclosed to LOCAL AGENCY any actual, apparent, or potential conflicts of interest that may exist relative to the services to be provided pursuant to this AGREEMENT.

CONSULTANT agrees to advise LOCAL AGENCY of any actual, apparent or potential conflicts of interest that may develop subsequent to the date of execution of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT further agrees to complete any statements of economic interest if required by either LOCAL AGENCY ordinance or State law.

6.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of C. The CONSULTANT hereby certifies that it does not now have, nor shall it acquire any financial or business interest that would conflict with the performance of services under this AGREEMENT.

D. The CONSULTANT hereby certifies that the CONSULTANT or subconsultant and any firm affiliated with the CONSULTANT or subconsultant that bids on any construction contract or on any Agreement to provide construction inspection for any construction project resulting from this AGREEMENT, has established necessary controls to ensure a conflict of interest does not exist. An affiliated firm is one, which is subject to the control of the same persons, through joint ownership or otherwise.

ARTICLE XIV REBATES, KICKBACKS OR OTHER UNLAWFUL CONSIDERATION The CONSULTANT warrants that this AGREEMENT was not obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration either promised or paid to any LOCAL AGENCY employee. For breach or violation of this warranty, LOCAL AGENCY shall have the right, in its discretion, to terminate this AGREEMENT without liability, to pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or to deduct from this AGREEMENT price or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.

ARTICLE XV NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE AND STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE A. The CONSULTANT’s signature affixed herein and dated shall constitute a certification under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the CONSULTANT has, unless exempt, complied with the nondiscrimination program requirements of Gov. Code §12990 and 2 CCR § 8103.

B. During the performance of this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT and its subconsultants shall not deny the AGREEMENT’s benefits to any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, nor shall they unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. CONSULTANT and subconsultants shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment.

C. CONSULTANT and subconsultants shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §12990 et seq.), the applicable regulations promulgated there under (2 CCR §11000 et seq.), the provisions of Gov. Code §§11135-11139.5, and the regulations or standards adopted by LOCAL AGENCY to implement such article. The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Gov. Code §12990 (a-f), set forth 2 CCR §§8100-8504, are incorporated into this AGREEMENT by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full.

D. CONSULTANT shall permit access by representatives of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the LOCAL AGENCY upon reasonable notice at any time during the normal business hours, but in no case less than twenty-four (24) hours’ notice, to such of its books, records, accounts, and all other sources of information and its facilities as said Department or LOCAL AGENCY shall require to ascertain compliance with this clause.

E. CONSULTANT and its subconsultants shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other Agreement.

F. CONSULTANT shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under this AGREEMENT.

G. The CONSULTANT, with regard to the work performed under this AGREEMENT, shall act in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000d et seq.). Title VI provides that the recipients of federal assistance will implement and maintain a policy of nondiscrimination in which no person in

6.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of the United States shall, on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of or subject to discrimination under any program or activity by the recipients of federal assistance or their assignees and successors in interest.

H. The CONSULTANT shall comply with regulations relative to non-discrimination in federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation (49 CFR 21 - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Specifically, the CONSULTANT shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by 49 CFR §21.5, including employment practices and the selection and retention of Subconsultants.

I. CONSULTANT, subrecipient or subconsultant will never exclude any person from participation in, deny any person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection with the award and performance of any contract covered by 49 CFR 26 on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. In administering the LOCAL AGENCY components of the DBE Program Plan, CONSULTANT, subrecipient or subconsultant will not, directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the DBE Program Plan with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin.

ARTICLE XVI DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION
A. The CONSULTANT’s signature affixed herein shall constitute a certification under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the CONSULTANT or any person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer or manager:

1. Is not currently under suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion, or determination of ineligibility by any federal agency;

2. Has not been suspended, debarred, voluntarily excluded, or determined ineligible by any federal agency within the past three (3) years;

3. Does not have a proposed debarment pending; and

4. Has not been indicted, convicted, or had a civil judgment rendered against it by a court of competent jurisdiction in any matter involving fraud or official misconduct within the past three (3) years.

B. Any exceptions to this certification must be disclosed to LOCAL AGENCY. Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of recommendation for award, but will be considered in determining responsibility.

Disclosures must indicate the party to whom the exceptions apply, the initiating agency, and the dates of agency action.

C. Exceptions to the Federal Government excluded parties (https://sam.gov/content/home) maintained by the U.S. General Services Administration are to be determined by FHWA.

ARTICLE XVII DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (DBE) PARTICIPATION A. CONSULTANT, subrecipient (LOCAL AGENCY), or subconsultant shall take necessary and reasonable steps to ensure that DBEs have opportunities to participate in the contract (49 CFR 26). To ensure equal participation of DBEs provided in 49 CFR 26.5, the LOCAL AGENCY shows a contract goal for DBEs.

CONSULTANT shall make work available to DBEs and select work parts consistent with available DBE subconsultants and suppliers.

CONSULTANT shall meet the DBE goal shown elsewhere in these special provisions or demonstrate that they made adequate Good Faith Efforts (GFE) to meet this goal. It is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to verify at date of proposal opening that the DBE firm is certified as a DBE by using the California Unified Certification Program (CUCP) database and possesses the most specific available North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and work code applicable to the type of work the firm will perform on the contract.

Additionally, the CONSULTANT is responsible to document the verification record by printing out the CUCP data for each DBE firm. A list of DBEs certified by the CUCP can be found at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/civilrights/dbe-search.

6.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of All DBE participation will count toward the California Department of Transportation’s federally mandated statewide overall DBE goal. Credit for materials or supplies CONSULTANT purchases from DBEs counts towards the goal in the following manner:
• 100 percent counts if the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE manufacturer. • 60 percent counts if the materials or supplies are purchased from a DBE regular dealer. • Only fees, commissions, and charges for assistance in the procurement and delivery of materials or supplies count if obtained from a DBE that is neither a manufacturer nor regular dealer. 49 CFR

26.55 defines "manufacturer" and "regular dealer."
This AGREEMENT is subject to 49 CFR 26 entitled “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs”. CONSULTANTs who enter into a federallyfunded agreement will assist the LOCAL AGENCY in a good faith effort to achieve California's statewide overall DBE goal.

B. The goal for DBE participation for this AGREEMENT is 0%. Participation by DBE CONSULTANT or subconsultants shall be in accordance with information contained in Exhibit 10- O2: Consultant Contract DBE Commitment attached hereto and incorporated as part of the AGREEMENT. If a DBE subconsultant is unable to perform, CONSULTANT must make a good faith effort to replace him/her with another DBE subconsultant, if the goal is not otherwise met.

C. CONSULTANT can meet the DBE participation goal by either documenting commitments to DBEs to meet the AGREEMENT goal, or by documenting adequate good faith efforts to meet the AGREEMENT goal.

An adequate good faith effort means that the CONSULTANT must show that it took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal that, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, could reasonably be expected to meet the DBE goal. If CONSULTANT has not met the DBE goal, complete and submit Exhibit 15-H: Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts to document efforts to meet the goal. Refer to 49 CFR 26 for guidance regarding evaluation of good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal.

D. Contract Assurance Under 49 CFR 26.13(b):

CONSULTANT, subrecipient or subconsultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. CONSULTANT shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR 26 in the award and administration of federal-aid contracts.

Failure by the CONSULTANT to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to:
(1) Withholding monthly progress payments;
(2) Assessing sanctions;
(3) Liquidated damages; and/or
(4) Disqualifying CONSULTANT from future proposing as non-responsible E. Termination and Replacement of DBE Subconsultants
CONSULTANT shall utilize the specific DBEs listed to perform the work and supply the materials for which each is listed unless CONSULTANT or DBE subconsultant obtains the LOCAL AGENCY’s written consent.

CONSULTANT shall not terminate or replace a listed DBE for convenience and perform the work with their own forces or obtain materials from other sources without authorization from the LOCAL AGENCY. Unless the LOCAL AGENCY’s consent is provided, the CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to any payment for work or material unless it is performed or supplied by the listed DBE on the Exhibit 10-02: Consultant Contract DBE Commitment form.

Termination of DBE Subconsultants
After execution of the AGREEMENT, termination of a DBE may be allowed for the following, but not limited to, justifiable reasons with prior written authorization from the LOCAL AGENCY:

1. Listed DBE fails or refuses to execute a written contract based on plans and specifications for the project.

6.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of

2. The LOCAL AGENCY stipulated that a bond is a condition of executing the subcontract and the listed DBE fails to meet the LOCAL AGENCY’s bond requirements.

3. Work requires a consultant's license and listed DBE does not have a valid license under Contractors License Law.

4. Listed DBE fails or refuses to perform the work or furnish the listed materials (failing or refusing to perform is not an allowable reason to remove a DBE if the failure or refusal is a result of bad faith or discrimination).

5. Listed DBE's work is unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the contract.

6. Listed DBE is ineligible to work on the project because of suspension or debarment.

7. Listed DBE becomes bankrupt or insolvent or exhibits credit unworthiness.

8. Listed DBE voluntarily withdraws with written notice from the Contract.

9. Listed DBE is ineligible to receive credit for the type of work required.

10. Listed DBE owner dies or becomes disabled resulting in the inability to perform the work on the Contract.

11. The LOCAL AGENCY determines other documented good cause.

CONSULTANT must use the following procedures to request the termination of a DBE or portion of a DBE’s work:

1. Send a written notice to the DBE of the CONSULTANT’s intent to use other forces or material sources and include one or more justifiable reasons listed above. Simultaneously send a copy of this written notice to the LOCAL AGENCY. The written notice to the DBE must request they provide any response within five (5) business days to both the CONSULTANT and the LOCAL AGENCY by either acknowledging their agreement or documenting their reasoning as to why the use of other forces or sources of materials should not occur.

2. If the DBE does not respond within five (5) business days, CONSULTANT may move forward with the request as if the DBE had agreed to CONSULTANT’s written notice.

3. Submit CONSULTANT’s DBE termination request by written letter to the LOCAL AGENCY and include:
• One or more above listed justifiable reasons along with supporting documentation. • CONSULTANT’s written notice to the DBE regarding the request, including proof of transmission and tracking documentation of CONSULTANT’s written notice • The DBE's response to CONSULTANT’s written notice, if received. If a written response was not provided, provide a statement to that effect.
• The LOCAL AGENCY shall respond in writing to CONSULTANT’s DBE termination request within five (5) business days.

Replacement of DBE Subconsultants
After receiving the LOCAL AGENCY’s written authorization of DBE termination request, CONSULTANT must obtain the LOCAL AGENCY’s written agreement for DBE replacement. CONSULTANT must find or demonstrate GFEs to find qualified DBE replacement firms to perform the work to the extent needed to meet the DBE commitment.

The following procedures shall be followed to request authorization to replace a DBE firm:

1. Submit a request to replace a DBE with other forces or material sources in writing to the LOCAL AGENCY which must include:
a. Description of remaining uncommitted work item made available for replacement DBE solicitation and participation.
b. The proposed DBE replacement firm's business information, the work they have agreed to perform, and the following:
• Description of scope of work and cost proposal
• Proposed subcontract agreement and written confirmation of agreement to perform on the Contract

6.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of • Revised Exhibit 10-O2: Consultant Contract DBE Commitment

2. If CONSULTANT has not identified a DBE replacement firm, submits documentation of CONSULTANT’s GFEs to use DBE replacement firms within seven (7) days of LOCAL AGENCY's authorization to terminate the DBE. CONSULTANT may request the LOCAL AGENCY's approval to extend this submittal period to a total of 14 days. Submit documentation of actions taken to find a DBE replacement firm, such as:
• Search results of certified DBEs available to perform the original DBE work identified and or other work CONSULTANT had intended to self-perform, to the extent needed to meet DBE commitment
• Solicitations of DBEs for performance of work identified • Correspondence with interested DBEs that may have included contract details and requirements
• Negotiation efforts with DBEs that reflect why an agreement was not reached • If a DBE's quote was rejected, provide reasoning for the rejection, such as why the DBE was unqualified for the work, or why the price quote was unreasonable or excessive • Copies of each DBE's and non-DBE's price quotes for work identified, as the LOCAL AGENCY may contact the firms to verify solicitation efforts and determine if the DBE quotes are substantially higher
• Additional documentation that supports CONSULTANT’s GFE The LOCAL AGENCY shall respond in writing to CONSULTANT’s DBE replacement request within five (5) business days.

F. Commitment and Utilization
The LOCAL AGENCY’s DBE program must include a monitoring and enforcement mechanism to ensure that DBE commitments reconcile to DBE utilization.

The LOCAL AGENCY shall request CONSULTANT to:

1. Notify the LOCAL AGENCY’s contract administrator or designated representative of any changes to its anticipated DBE participation

2. Provide this notification before starting the affected work

3. Maintain records including:
• Name and business address of each 1 -tier subconsultant • Name and business address of each DBE subconsultant, DBE vendor, and DBE trucking company, regardless of tier
• Date of payment and total amount paid to each business (see Exhibit 9-F: Monthly Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Payment)
If CONSULTANT is a DBE CONSULTANT, they shall include the date of work performed by their own forces and the corresponding value of the work.

If a DBE is decertified before completing its work, the DBE must notify CONSULTANT in writing of the decertification date. If a business becomes a certified DBE before completing its work, the business must notify CONSULTANT in writing of the certification date. CONSULTANT shall submit the notifications to the LOCAL AGENCY. On work completion, CONSULTANT shall complete Exhibit 17-O: Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Certification Status Change and submit the form to the LOCAL AGENCY within 30 days of contract acceptance.

Upon work completion, CONSULTANT shall complete Exhibit 17-F: Final Report – Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), First-Tier Subcontractors and submit it to the LOCAL AGENCY within 90 days of contract acceptance. The LOCAL AGENCY will withhold $10,000 until the form is submitted. The LOCAL AGENCY will release the withhold upon submission of the completed form.

In the LOCAL AGENCY’s reports of DBE participation to Caltrans, the LOCAL AGENCY must display both commitments and attainments.

6.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of G. Commercially Useful Function
DBEs must perform a commercially useful function (CUF) under 49 CFR 26.55 when performing work or supplying materials listed on the DBE Commitment form. The DBE value of work will only count toward the DBE commitment if the DBE performs a CUF. A DBE performs a CUF when it is responsible for execution of the work of the AGREEMENT and is carrying out its responsibilities by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. To perform a CUF, the DBE must also be responsible, with respect to materials and supplies used on the AGREEMENT, for negotiating price, determining quality and quantity, ordering the material and installing (where applicable), and paying for the material itself.

CONSULTANT must perform CUF evaluation for each DBE working on a federal-aid contract, with or without a DBE goal. Perform a CUF evaluation at the beginning of the DBE’s work and continue to monitor the performance of CUF for the duration of the project.

CONSULTANT must provide written notification to the LOCAL AGENCY at least 15 days in advance of each DBE's initial performance of work or supplying materials for the Contract. The notification must include the DBE's name, work the DBE will perform on the contract, and the location, date, and time of where their work will take place.

Within 10 days of a DBE initially performing work or supplying materials on the Contract, CONSULTANT shall submit to the LPA the initial evaluation and validation of DBE performance of a CUF using the LAPM 9-J:

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Commercially Useful Function Evaluation. Include the following information with the submittal:
• Subcontract agreement with the DBE
• Purchase orders
• Bills of lading
• Invoices
• Proof of payment
CONSULTANT must monitor all DBE’s performance of CUF by conducting quarterly evaluations and validations throughout their duration of work on the Contract using the LAPM 9-J: DBE Commercially Useful Function Evaluation. CONSULTANT must submit to the LOCAL AGENCY these quarterly evaluations and validations by the 5th of the month for the previous three months of work.

CONSULTANT must notify the LOCAL AGENCY immediately if they believe the DBE may not be performing a CUF.

The LOCAL AGENCY will verify DBEs performance of CUF by reviewing the initial and quarterly submissions of LAPM 9-J: DBE Commercially Useful Function Evaluation, submitted supporting information, field observations, and through any additional LOCAL AGENCY evaluations. The LOCAL AGENCY must evaluate DBEs and their CUF performance throughout the duration of a Contract. The LOCAL AGENCY will provide written notice to the CONSULTANT and the DBE at least two (2) business days prior to any evaluation. The CONSULTANT and the DBE must participate in the evaluation. Upon completing the evaluation, the LOCAL AGENCY must share the evaluation results with the CONSULTANT and the DBE. An evaluation could include items that must be remedied upon receipt. If the LOCAL AGENCY determines the DBE is not performing a CUF, the CONSULTANT must suspend performance of the noncompliant work.

CONSULTANT and DBEs must submit any additional CUF related records and documents within five (5) business days of LOCAL AGENCY’s request such as:
• Proof of ownership or lease and rental agreements for equipment • Tax records
• Employee rosters
• Certified payroll records
• Inventory rosters
Failure to submit required DBE Commercially Useful Function Evaluation forms or requested records and documents can result in withholding of payment for the value of work completed by the DBE.

6.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of If CONSULTANT and/or the LOCAL AGENCY determine that a listed DBE is not performing a CUF in performance of their DBE committed work, CONSULTANT must immediately suspend performance of the noncompliant portion of the work. LOCAL AGENCY may deny payment for the noncompliant portion of the work. LOCAL AGENCY will ask the CONSULTANT to submit a corrective action plan (CAP) to the LOCAL AGENGY within five (5) days of the noncompliant CUF determination. The CAP must identify how the CONSULTANT will correct the noncompliance findings for the remaining portion of the DBE's work. LOCAL AGENCY has five (5) days to review the CAP in conjunction with the CONSULTANT’s review. The CONSULTANT must implement the CAP within five (5) days of the LOCAL AGENCY's approval. The LOCAL AGENCY will then authorize the prior noncompliant portion of work for the DBE's committed work.

If corrective actions cannot be accomplished to ensure the DBE performs a commercially useful function on the Contract, CONSULTANT may have good cause to request termination of the DBE.

H. A DBE does not perform a CUF if its role is limited to that of an extra participant in a transaction, AGREEMENT, or project through which funds are passed in order to obtain the appearance of DBE participation. In determining whether a DBE is such an extra participant, examine similar transactions, particularly those in which DBEs do not participate.

I. If a DBE does not perform or exercise responsibility for at least thirty percent (30%) of the total cost of its AGREEMENT with its own work force, or the DBE subcontracts a greater portion of the work of the AGREEMENT than would be expected on the basis of normal industry practice for the type of work involved, it will be presumed that it is not performing a CUF.

J. CONSULTANT shall maintain records of materials purchased or supplied from all subcontracts entered into with certified DBEs. The records shall show the name and business address of each DBE or vendor and the total dollar amount actually paid each DBE or vendor, regardless of tier. The records shall show the date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to all firms. DBE CONSULTANT’s shall also show the date of work performed by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work.

K. If a DBE subconsultant is decertified during the life of the AGREEMENT, the decertified subconsultant shall notify CONSULTANT in writing with the date of decertification. If a subconsultant becomes a certified DBE during the life of the AGREEMENT, the subconsultant shall notify CONSULTANT in writing with the date of certification. Any changes should be reported to LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator within thirty (30) calendar days.

L. For projects awarded on or after March 1, 2020, but before September 1, 2023: after submitting an invoice for reimbursement that includes a payment to a DBE, but no later than the 10th of the following month, the prime contractor/consultant must complete and email Exhibit 9-F: Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Running Tally of Payments to [email protected] with a copy to local administering agencies.

For projects awarded on or after September 1, 2023: Exhibit 9-F is no longer required. Instead, by the 15th of the month following the month of any payment(s), the CONSULTANT must now submit Exhibit 9-P to the LOCAL AGENCY administering the contract. If the CONSULTANT does not make any payments to subconsultants, supplier(s), and/or manufacturers they must report “no payments were made to subs this month” and write this visibly and legibly on Exhibit 9-P.

M. Any subcontract entered into as a result of this AGREEMENT shall contain all of the provisions of this section.

ARTICLE XVIII INSURANCE
A. Prior to commencement of the work described herein, CONSULTANT shall furnish LOCAL AGENCY a Certificate of Insurance stating that there is general comprehensive liability insurance presently in effect for CONSULTANT with a combined single limit (CSL) of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence.

B. The Certificate of Insurance will provide:

6.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of

1. That the insurer will not cancel the insured’s coverage without thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice to LOCAL AGENCY.

2. That LOCAL AGENCY, its officers, agents, employees, and servants are included as additional insureds, but only insofar as the operations under this AGREEMENT are concerned.

3. That LOCAL AGENCY will not be responsible for any premiums or assessments on the policy.

C. CONSULTANT agrees that the bodily injury liability insurance herein provided for, shall be in effect at all times during the term of this AGREEMENT. In the event said insurance coverage expires at any time or times during the term of this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT agrees to provide at least thirty (30) calendar days prior notice to said expiration date; and a new Certificate of Insurance evidencing insurance coverage as provided for herein, for not less than either the remainder of the term of the AGREEMENT, or for a period of not less than one (1) year. New Certificates of Insurance are subject to the approval of LOCAL AGENCY. In the event CONSULTANT fails to keep in effect at all times insurance coverage as herein provided, LOCAL AGENCY may, in addition to any other remedies it may have, terminate this AGREEMENT upon occurrence of such event.

D. CONSULTANT certifies that they are aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and CONSULTANT certifies that they will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this AGREEMENT.

ARTICLE XIX FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
A. It is mutually understood between the parties that this AGREEMENT may have been written before ascertaining the availability of funds or appropriation of funds, for the mutual benefit of both parties, in order to avoid program and fiscal delays that would occur if the AGREEMENT were executed after that determination was made.

B. This AGREEMENT is valid and enforceable only if sufficient funds are made available to LOCAL AGENCY for the purpose of this AGREEMENT. In addition, this AGREEMENT is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations, conditions, or any statute enacted by the Congress, State Legislature, or LOCAL AGENCY governing board that may affect the provisions, terms, or funding of this AGREEMENT in any manner.

C. It is mutually agreed that if sufficient funds are not appropriated, this AGREEMENT may be amended to reflect any reduction in funds.

D. LOCAL AGENCY has the option to terminate the AGREEMENT pursuant to Article VI Termination, or by mutual agreement to amend the AGREEMENT to reflect any reduction of funds.

ARTICLE XX CHANGE IN TERMS
A. This AGREEMENT may be amended or modified only by mutual written agreement of the parties.

B. CONSULTANT shall only commence work covered by an amendment after the amendment is executed and notification to proceed has been provided by LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator.

C. There shall be no change in CONSULTANT’s Project Manager or members of the project team, as listed in the approved Cost Proposal, which is a part of this AGREEMENT without prior written approval by LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator.

ARTICLE XXI CONTINGENT FEE
CONSULTANT warrants, by execution of this AGREEMENT that no person or selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this AGREEMENT upon an agreement or understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees, or bona fide

6.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of established commercial or selling agencies maintained by CONSULTANT for the purpose of securing business.

For breach or violation of this warranty, LOCAL AGENCY has the right to annul this AGREEMENT without liability; pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion to deduct from the AGREEMENT price or consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee.

ARTICLE XXII GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTES
This AGREEMENT shall be deemed to have been executed in the County of San Mateo, California. The formation, interpretation and performance of this AGREEMENT shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflict of laws rules. Any suit or action initiated by either party shall be brought in the County of San Mateo, California unless the parties agree otherwise in a written amendment to this AGREEMENT.

Prior to either party commencing any legal action under this AGREEMENT, the parties agree to try in good faith, to settle any dispute amicably between them. If a dispute has not been settled after forty-five (45) days of good-faith negotiations and as may be otherwise provided herein, then either party may commence legal action against the other.

A. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator and (Insert Department Head or Official), who may consider written or verbal information submitted by CONSULTANT.

B. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans, specifications and estimate, CONSULTANT may request review by LOCAL AGENCY Governing Board of unresolved claims or disputes, other than audit. The request for review will be submitted in writing.

C. Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the committee will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT.

ARTICLE XXIII INSPECTION OF WORK
CONSULTANT and any subconsultant shall permit LOCAL AGENCY, the State, and the FHWA if federal participating funds are used in this AGREEMENT; to review and inspect the project activities and files at all reasonable times during the performance period of this AGREEMENT.

ARTICLE XXIV SAFETY
A. CONSULTANT shall comply with OSHA regulations applicable to CONSULTANT regarding necessary safety equipment or procedures. CONSULTANT shall comply with safety instructions issued by LOCAL AGENCY Safety Officer and other LOCAL AGENCY representatives. CONSULTANT personnel shall wear hard hats and safety vests at all times while working on the construction project site.

B. Pursuant to the authority contained in Vehicle Code §591, LOCAL AGENCY has determined that such areas are within the limits of the project and are open to public traffic. CONSULTANT shall comply with all of the requirements set forth in Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Vehicle Code. CONSULTANT shall take all reasonably necessary precautions for safe operation of its vehicles and the protection of the traveling public from injury and damage from such vehicles.

C. Any subcontract entered into as a result of this contract, shall contain all of the provisions of this Article.

ARTICLE XXV OWNERSHIP OF DATA

6.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of A. It is mutually agreed that all materials prepared by CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT shall become the property of City, and CONSULTANT shall have no property right therein whatsoever. Immediately upon termination, City shall be entitled to, and CONSULTANT shall deliver to City, reports, investigations, appraisals, inventories, studies, analyses, drawings and data estimates performed to that date, whether completed or not, and other such materials as may have been prepared or accumulated to date by CONSULTANT in performing this AGREEMENT which is not CONSULTANT’s privileged information, as defined by law, or CONSULTANT’s personnel information, along with all other property belonging exclusively to City which is in CONSULTANT’s possession. Publication of the information derived from work performed or data obtained in connection with services rendered under this AGREEMENT must be approved in writing by City.

B. Additionally, it is agreed that the Parties intend this to be an AGREEMENT for services and each considers the products and results of the services to be rendered by CONSULTANT hereunder to be work made for hire. CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that the work (and all rights therein, including, without limitation, copyright) belongs to and shall be the sole and exclusive property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City.

C. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed to be any representation by CONSULTANT that the work product is suitable in any way for any other project except the one detailed in this Contract. Any reuse by City for another project or project location shall be at City’s sole risk.

D. Applicable patent rights provisions regarding rights to inventions shall be included in the contracts as appropriate (48 CFR 27 Subpart 27.3 - Patent Rights under Government Contracts for federal- aid contracts).

E. LOCAL AGENCY may permit copyrighting reports or other agreement products. If copyrights are permitted; the AGREEMENT shall provide that the FHWA shall have the royalty-free nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use; and to authorize others to use, the work for government purposes.

ARTICLE XXVI CLAIMS FILED BY LOCAL AGENCY’s CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR A. If claims are filed by LOCAL AGENCY’s construction contractor relating to work performed by CONSULTANT’s personnel, and additional information or assistance from CONSULTANT’s personnel is required in order to evaluate or defend against such claims; CONSULTANT agrees to make its personnel available for consultation with LOCAL AGENCY’S construction contract administration and legal staff and for testimony, if necessary, at depositions and at trial or arbitration proceedings.

B. CONSULTANT’s personnel that LOCAL AGENCY considers essential to assist in defending against construction contractor claims will be made available on reasonable notice from LOCAL AGENCY.

Consultation or testimony will be reimbursed at the same rates, including travel costs that are being paid for CONSULTANT’s personnel services under this AGREEMENT.

C. Services of CONSULTANT’s personnel in connection with LOCAL AGENCY’s construction contractor claims will be performed pursuant to a written contract amendment, if necessary, extending the termination date of this AGREEMENT in order to resolve the construction claims.

ARTICLE XXVII CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA
A. All financial, statistical, personal, technical, or other data and information relative to LOCAL AGENCY’s operations, which are designated confidential by LOCAL AGENCY and made available to CONSULTANT in order to carry out this AGREEMENT, shall be protected by CONSULTANT from unauthorized use and disclosure.

6.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of B. Permission to disclose information on one occasion, or public hearing held by LOCAL AGENCY relating to the AGREEMENT, shall not authorize CONSULTANT to further disclose such information, or disseminate the same on any other occasion.

C. CONSULTANT shall not comment publicly to the press or any other media regarding the AGREEMENT or LOCAL AGENCY’s actions on the same, except to LOCAL AGENCY’s staff, CONSULTANT’s own personnel involved in the performance of this AGREEMENT, at public hearings, or in response to questions from a Legislative committee.

D. CONSULTANT shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding work performed or to be performed under this AGREEMENT without prior review of the contents thereof by LOCAL AGENCY, and receipt of LOCAL AGENCY’S written permission.

E. Any subcontract entered into as a result of this contract shall contain all of the provisions of this Article.

F. All information related to the construction estimate is confidential, and shall not be disclosed by CONSULTANT to any entity, other than LOCAL AGENCY, Caltrans, and/or FHWA. All of the materials prepared or assembled by CONSULTANT pursuant to performance of this Contract are confidential and CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of City or except by court order. If CONSULTANT or any of its officers, employees, or subcontractors does voluntarily provide information in violation of this Contract, City has the right to reimbursement and indemnity from CONSULTANT for any damages caused by CONSULTANT releasing the information, including, but not limited to, City’s attorney’s fees and disbursements, including without limitation experts’ fees and disbursements.

ARTICLE XXVIII NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION In accordance with Public Contract Code §10296, CONSULTANT hereby states under penalty of perjury that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against CONSULTANT within the immediately preceding two-year period, because of CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with an order of a federal court that orders CONSULTANT to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board.

ARTICLE XXIX EVALUATION OF CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT’s performance will be evaluated by LOCAL AGENCY. A copy of the evaluation will be sent to CONSULTANT for comments. The evaluation together with the comments shall be retained as part of the AGREEMENT record.

ARTICLE XXX PROMPT PAYMENT
A. PROMPT PAYMENT FROM LOCAL AGENCY TO CONSULTANT
The LOCAL AGENCY shall make all project progress payment within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from CONSULTANT on a professional service contract. If the LOCAL AGENCY fails to pay promptly, the LOCAL AGENCY shall pay interest to the CONSULTANT, which accrues at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the principal amount of a money judgment remaining unsatisfied and prorated as necessary. Upon receipt of the payment request, the LOCAL AGENCY shall act in accordance with both of the following:
(1) The LOCAL AGENCY shall review each payment request as soon as feasible after receipt to verify it is a proper payment request.
(2) The LOCAL AGENCY must return any payment request deemed improper by the LOCAL AGENCY to the CONSULTANT as soon as feasible, but not later than seven (7) days, after receipt. A request returned pursuant to this paragraph shall include documentation setting forth in writing the reasons why it is an improper payment request.

6.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of B. PROMPT PAYMENT CERTIFICATION
For projects awarded on or after September 1, 2023: the CONSULTANT must now submit Exhibit 9-P to the LOCAL AGENCY administering the contract by the 15th of the month following the month of any payment(s). If the CONSULTANT does not make any payments to subconsultants, supplier(s), and/or manufacturers they must report “no payments were made to subs this month” and write this visibly and legibly on Exhibit 9-P.

The LOCAL AGENCY must verify all Exhibit 9-P information, monitor compliance with prompt payment requirements for DBE and non-DBE firms, and address any shortfalls to the DBE commitment and prompt payment issues until the end of the project. The LOCAL AGENCY must email a copy of Exhibit 9-P to [email protected] before the end of the month after receiving the Exhibit 9-P from the CONSULTANT.

ARTICLE XXXI TITLE VI ASSURANCES
APPENDICES A - E of the TITLE VI ASSURANCES
[The U.S. Department of Transportation Order No.1050.2A requires all federal-aid Department of Transportation contracts between an agency and a consultant to contain Appendices A and E of the Title VI Assurances. Include Appendices B, C, and D if appliable as shown below. In addition, the consultant must include the Title VI Assurances Appendices A and E, and if applicable Appendices B, C, and D in all subcontracts to perform work under the contract.

The clauses of Appendix B of this Assurance shall be included as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from the United States effecting or recording a transfer of real property, structures, use, or improvements thereon or interest therein to a LOCAL AGENCY.

The clauses set forth in Appendix C and Appendix D of this Assurance shall be included as a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, licenses, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the LOCAL AGENCY with other parties:
a. for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program; and
b. for the construction or use of, or access to, space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program.]

6.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of

APPENDIX A
During the performance of this Agreement, the contractor, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as CONSULTANT) agrees as follows:
a. Compliance with Regulations: CONSULTANT shall comply with the regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the REGULATIONS), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement. b. Nondiscrimination: CONSULTANT, with regard to the work performed by it during the AGREEMENT, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability in the selection and retention of sub-applicants, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. CONSULTANT shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the agreement covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the Regulations. c. Solicitations for Sub-agreements, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by CONSULTANT for work to be performed under a Sub- agreement, including procurements of materials or leases of equipment, each potential sub-applicant or supplier shall be notified by CONSULTANT of the CONSULTANT’S obligations under this Agreement and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin.
d. Information and Reports: CONSULTANT shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the recipient or FHWA to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations or directives. Where any information required of CONSULTANT is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, CONSULTANT shall so certify to the recipient or FHWA as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts CONSULTANT has made to obtain the information. e. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of CONSULTANT’s noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this agreement, the recipient shall impose such agreement sanctions as it or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
i. withholding of payments to CONSULTANT under the Agreement within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 90 days; and/or
ii. cancellation, termination or suspension of the Agreement, in whole or in part. f. Incorporation of Provisions: CONSULTANT shall include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (6) in every sub-agreement, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto.

CONSULTANT shall take such action with respect to any sub-agreement or procurement as the recipient or FHWA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance, provided, however, that, in the event CONSULTANT becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a sub-applicant or supplier as a result of such direction, CONSULTANT may request the recipient enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State, and, in addition, CONSULTANT may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.

6.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of

APPENDIX B

CLAUSES FOR DEEDS TRANSFERRING UNITED STATES PROPERTY
The following clauses will be included in deeds effecting or recording the transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or granting interest therein from the United States pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 4:

NOW THEREFORE, the U.S. Department of Transportation as authorized by law and upon the condition that the recipient will accept title to the lands and maintain the project constructed thereon in accordance with Title 23 U.S.C., the regulations for the administration of the preceding statute, and the policies and procedures prescribed by the FHWA of the U.S. Department of Transportation in accordance and in compliance with all requirements imposed by Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Non-discrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation pertaining to and effectuating the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-4), does hereby remise, release, quitclaim and convey unto the recipient all the right, title and interest of the U.S. Department of Transportation in and to said lands described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
(HABENDUM CLAUSE)
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said lands and interests therein unto the recipient and its successors forever, subject, however, to the covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations herein contained as follows, which will remain in effect for the period during which the real property or structures are used for a purpose for which Federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits and will be binding on the recipient, its successors and assigns. The recipient, in consideration of the conveyance of said lands and interest in lands, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land for itself, its successors and assigns, that (1) no person will on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination with regard to any facility located wholly or in part on, over, or under such lands hereby conveyed [,] [and]* (2) that the recipient will use the lands and interests in lands and interest in lands so conveyed, in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Non-discrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations and Acts may be amended [, and (3) that in the event of breach of any of the above- mentioned non-discrimination conditions, the Department will have a right to enter or re-enter said lands and facilities on said lands, and that above described land and facilities will thereon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the U.S. Department of Transportation and its assigns as such interest existed prior to this instruction].*
(*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary in order to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)

6.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of

APPENDIX C

CLAUSES FOR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED OR IMPROVED UNDER THE ACTIVITY,

FACILITY, OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, leases, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the recipient pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(a):

A. The (grantee, lessee, permittee, etc. as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree [in the case of deeds and leases add “as a covenant running with the land”] that:

1. In the event facilities are constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the property described in this (deed, license, lease, permit, etc.) for a purpose for which a U.S. Department of Transportation activity, facility, or program is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will maintain and operate such facilities and services in compliance with all requirements imposed by the Acts and Regulations(as may be amended) such that no person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities.

B. With respect to licenses, leases, permits, etc., in the event of breach of any of the above Nondiscrimination covenants, the recipient will have the right to terminate the (lease, license, permit, etc.) and to enter, re-enter, and repossess said lands and facilities thereon, and hold the same as if the (lease, license, permit, etc.) had never been made or issued.* C. With respect to a deed, in the event of breach of any of the above Non-discrimination covenants, the recipient will have the right to enter or re-enter the lands and facilities thereon, and the above described lands and facilities will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the recipient and its assigns.*
(*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)

6.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of

APPENDIX D

CLAUSES FOR CONSTRUCTION/USE/ACCESS TO REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED UNDER THE

ACTIVITY, FACILITY OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, permits, or similar instruments/agreements entered into by the recipient pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(b):

A. The (grantee, licensee, permittee, etc., as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest ,and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree (in the case of deeds and leases add, “as a covenant running with the land”) that (1) no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities, (2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land, and the furnishings of services thereon, no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits or, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination, (3) that the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will use the premises in compliance with all other requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Acts and Regulations, as amended, set forth in this Assurance.

B. With respect to (licenses, leases, permits, etc.) in the event of breach of any of the above of the above Non-discrimination covenants, the recipient will have the right to terminate the (license, permits, etc., as appropriate) and to enter or re-enter and repossess said land and the facilities thereon, and hold the same as if said (license, permit, etc., as appropriate) had never been made or issued.* C. With respect to deeds, in the event of breach of any of the above Non-discrimination covenants, the recipient will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the recipient and its assigns.

6.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of

APPENDIX E
During the performance of this contract, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “CONSULTANT”) agrees to comply with the following non- discrimination statutes and authorities, including, but not limited to:

Pertinent Non-Discrimination Authorities:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Part 21. • The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects);
• Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. § 324 et seq.), prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CR Part 27; • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), prohibits discrimination on the basis of age);
• Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 U.S.C. § 471, Section 47123), as amended, (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex); • The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal-aid recipients, sub-recipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not); • Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination of the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 – 12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38; • The Federal Aviation Administration’s Non-discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); • Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; • Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of Limited English Proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100); • Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C.1681 et seq).

6.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of

ARTICLE XXXII NOTIFICATION
All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of this AGREEMENT and changes thereto, shall be effected by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:

CONSULTANT: ___________________
NAME: ___________________________
ADDRESS: ___________________________________
LOCAL AGENCY: City of Pacifica
NAME: Roland Yip PE, Deputy PW Director/City Engineer
ADDRESS: 170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica, CA 94044

ARTICLE XXXIII CONTRACT
The two parties to this AGREEMENT, who are the before named CONSULTANT and the before named LOCAL AGENCY, hereby agree that this AGREEMENT constitutes the entire AGREEMENT which is made and concluded in duplicate between the two parties. Both of these parties for and in consideration of the payments to be made, conditions mentioned, and work to be performed; each agree to diligently perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT as evidenced by the signatures below.

ARTICLE XXXIV SIGNATURES

CITY OF PACIFICA
_________________________________ Dated: __________________ Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
________________________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
CONSULTANT: _____________________
________________________________ Dated: __________________ CSG Consultants, Inc. Cyrus Kianpour - President
550 Pilgrim Dr, Foster City, CA 94404
CSG Consultants, Inc. 1/22/2026

6.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of 1 Scope of Work
CSG has reviewed the RFP for the Sharp Park PDA Pavement Resurfacing Project (Project) and agrees with the scope of work identified by the City of Pacifica (City). To clarify and organize the scope into separate tasks, we have summarized CSG’s approach below. The staff members identified in the organization chart will be assigned to specific tasks, outlined below, according to their strengths and experience to increase task completion efficiency and coordination. The scope of services for this project shall consist of the following major tasks, as described in more detail below:

Task 1 Project Management
Upon issuance of a Notice to Proceed, CSG will schedule a Kickoff meeting with the City and relevant utility companies to clearly identify and discuss the project objectives, scope, schedule and budget. At this meeting, points of contact will be established; schedules reviewed; standards and guidelines identified; and expectations communicated. Continue to set up and manage the project, update project schedule, and provide continuous coordination. Attend up to three (3) design review meetings or conference calls after receiving the City’s review comments on submittals of Pavement Report, 50% and 95% design level plan sets, and prepare meeting agendas and minutes for each meeting. Review and submit monthly invoices to the City.

Task Deliverables: Schedule Updates, Invoices, Meeting Agendas and Minutes Task 2 Background Research
CSG will identify and collect existing record drawings, utility information, right-of-way maps, survey notes, sample improvement plans and specifications from the City and other agencies. Review and determine the extent of any extraordinary maintenance or reconstruction that may be needed. Conduct site reconnaissance of the project site, perform visual assessment of existing site condition, request utility maps, and evaluate project impacts to existing roadway and utility improvements and confirm the project scope and approach with City staff.

2.1 Field Investigation
CSG will conduct field investigation to develop base map and identify any project issues. Street and lane widths will be determined based on field measurements taken at representative cross sections to supplement available existing high-resolution imagery. Existing surface facility locations and types will be field verified to assist in utility coordination efforts.

Visual Field Assessment of Existing Site Conditions will include the following:
• Existing surface facilities (curb ramps, sidewalk, driveways, pavement markings, aboveground and underground utilities boxes and covers, storm drain inlets, monuments, traffic signs, street trees) • Features on adjacent properties (fences, gates, driveways, walls, walkways, signage, tree roots, mailboxes)
• Pavement conditions and limits of base failure repairs needed

2.2 Utility Research
CSG will coordinate with various utility companies, including North Coast County Water District, PG&E, AT&T, Comcast, to the maximum extent possible that have facilities within the project area to request mapping of their facilities in the area. Prepare and submit a project limit map showing the project area to request utility information from utility companies. Utilities impacted by the proposed improvements within the project area will be shown on base map and improvement plans. Copies of utility maps, data and correspondence received firm the utility companies will be submitted to the City for record.

CSG will prepare and submit Utility Letters to the utility companies. Comments from the reviews by the utility companies will be addressed on the subsequent design plan sets for their review and approval.

6.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of 2 A set of 100% plan will be submitted with the Utility Letter to utility companies and request written confirmation of utility adjustments and anticipated schedule. Provide copies of all utility data obtained from the utility companies to the City for record.

Task Deliverables: Utility Maps, Correspondence with various utility companies, Utility Letters Task 3 Pavement Report
CSG Team will perform visual assessments of the existing pavement conditions and explore possible rehabilitation options, including pulverization and resurfacing, microsurfacing, mill and overlay, conventional HMA & RHMA overlays, cold-in-place recycling (CIR), full depth replacement and full depth reclamation, etc. to strengthen existing pavement sections that are failing. CSG will perform cost analysis for the recommended alternatives and identify the locations and dimensions of base failure repairs for each street segment. After the cost analysis is completed, CSG will prepare a pavement report which includes the findings from site observation, photos of each street segment, rehabilitation and reconstruction options and estimated costs for the options for City to determine the best rehabilitation approach.

Task Deliverables: Pavement Report
Task 4 Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E)
CSG’s Team will use topographic survey and available aerial photos (i.e. Google Maps) to prepare a base map showing existing street improvements, right-of-way information, and existing utility information to facilitate the design of necessary improvements. The team will coordinate with City staff to determine the format and setup of plan sheets. A preliminary index schematic will be prepared for City review and concurrence.

4.0 ADA Ramp Design
Description of ADA Ramp/Corners design effort:
o ADA Curb ramps to be upgrade as determined by Client or field investigation to determine ADA non-compliance.
o Up to 17 ADA ramps summarized/described below:

Street Name # of corners with ADA
ramp upgrades
Francsico Blvd 13 +/-
Sharp Park Road 4 +/-
Total 17

4.1 Intermediate Design (50% and 95% PS&E)
CSG will prepare base map and develop plans in AutoCAD, specifications in Word, and engineer’s estimate in Excel formats at the 50% and 95% design levels in accordance with the latest City, Caltrans, and California MUTCD Standard. The 50% design plans only show the proposed limits and types of the selected pavement rehabilitation treatments, and preliminary geometric layouts of the proposed types of curb ramp upgrades. A response matrix will be prepared listing City’s review comments on the 50% design and CSG’s responses to those comments. Agreed upon comments will be incorporated at the 95% design level. The plans will be based on the following table which reflects the types and numbers of anticipated plan sheets:

Sheet Description Est Sheets Sheet Description Est Sheets Title/General Notes/Key Map/Typical Sections 2 Drainage/Utility Plans 1 Pavement Improvement Plans 10 Construction Details 4

6.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of 3 Signing and Striping Plans 10 Erosion Control/Pollution Prevention Plan 1 Assumption: The number of sheets shown in above table may change based on the final determination during design TOTAL 28 CSG will also provide technical specifications. The special specification will be prepared in City or Caltrans format and in accordance with applicable City Standards. It is assumed that general provisions (“front end” boilerplate) will be provided by the City in Microsoft Word document format for a similar type of project. CSG will tailor these general provisions for the project, incorporating any required specifications to conform to local funding requirements.

4.2 Final PS&E (100% Bid Set)
CSG will review comments from the 100% submittal and prepare a Final, bid and construction-ready set of documents, including Plans, Engineer’s Estimate, and Specifications using Bluebeam. The final submittal incorporates all previous City’s review comments.

4.3 Quality Control
CSG will perform quality assurance and quality control prior to each milestone submittal and in conformance to City, Caltrans and California MUTCD Standards. All deliverables will be reviewed by a QA/QC Reviewer/Manager for completeness, paying attention to see that all bid items are properly defined, and payment sections of the specifications cover all significant cost elements and major items of work.

Task Deliverables:
• Base Map
• One (1) set of Plans, Specifications and Engineer’s Estimate in PDF format at each submittal stage • One (1) set of the Plans, signed and stamped, in AutoCAD and PDF formats • One (1) set of the Specifications, signed and stamped in Word and PDF formats • One (1) set of the Engineer’s Construction Cost Estimate in Excel and PDF formats Task 5 Bid Phase and Construction Support

5.1 Bidding Support Services
CSG will assist the City during bidding to respond to contractors’ questions and Requests for Information (RFIs), support the City’s efforts to respond to RFIs, and develop supplemental design drawings, addendum and letters of clarifications, as needed.

5.2 Construction Support Services
CSG staff is highly responsive to requests received during construction and understands that timely are crucial in avoiding construction delays and claims. CSG will assist the City during construction and provide the following support services:
• Respond to Contractor’s Requests for Information (RFIs). • Review and approval of shop drawing submittals specified in Construction Documents. • Perform field observations during construction if needed.

5.3 As-Built Drawings
CSG will prepare As-Built Drawings in AutoCAD format per redlines provided by the Contractor. The AsBuilt Drawings will reflect all change orders and adjustments to all improvements constructed.

Task Deliverables:
• Responses to RFIs, Supplemental Design Drawings, Addendum and Letters of Clarifications, if needed • Approval of Shop Drawing Submittals
• One set of As-Built Drawings in AutoCAD and PDF formats

6.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of Principal
EngineerAssociate EngineerAssistant EngineerCSG
Category $295 $210 $180 Hours Cost

1.1 Project Coordination & Sub Consultant Management 6 6 $ 1,770

1.2 Project Meetings 6 6 $ 1,770

1.3 QA / QC 4 4 $ 1,180
16 0 0 16 $ 4,720

2.1 Gathering Data 2 2 4 $ 1,010

2.2 Site Review 4 8 8 20 $ 4,300

2.3 Prepare base mapping 4 20 24 $ 4,440

2.4 Utility Coordination 4 8 12 $ 2,280
6 18 36 60 $ 12,030

3.1 Pavement Report 4 20 8 32 $ 6,820
4 20 8 32 $ 6,820

4.0 ADA Ramp Design (up to 17 total) 12 60 60 132 $ 26,940

4.1 50% Design
50% Plans 12 40 80 132 $ 26,340
50% Specifications 1 24 25 $ 5,335
50% Cost Estimate 2 8 8 18 $ 3,710

4.2 95% PS&E
95% Plans 8 20 40 68 $ 13,760
95% Specifications 4 8 12 $ 2,860
95% Cost Estimate 1 4 4 9 $ 1,855

4.3 Final 100% PS&E 2 16 16 34 $ 6,830
42 180 208 430 $ 87,630

5.1 Bid support / Construction RFI's 1 1 2 $ 505

5.2 Construction Support 1 4 5 $ 1,135

5.3 Record Drawings 1 1 4 6 $ 1,225
3 6 4 13 $ 2,865
551
$ 114,065 TOTAL PROPOSED FEE / BUDGET
(TASKS 1-5)

CITY OF PACIFICA
CSG Consultants, Inc.

Task Description
TASK 1 – Project Management & Coordination
ATTACHMENT: DESIGN RESOURCE ALLOCATION ESTIMATE - 1/21/2026 Sharp Park PDA Pavement Resurfacing Project
Task 1 - Subtotal
TASK 2 – Background Research
Task 2 - Subtotal
TASK 4 – Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E)
Task 4 Subtotal
TASK 5 – Bid Phase and Construction Support
Task 5 - Subtotal
TASK 3 – Pavement Report
Task 3 - Subtotal

6.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Consultant Services Agreement for Design Eng. Srvc. For the Sharp Park PDA Pavement - CSG (6133 : Approval of

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/9/2026
1 SUBJECT:

One Shoreline Grant Application Support Letter for Concept Feasibility Study of Offshore Artificial Reef
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support for the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District’s (OneShoreline) application to the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways’ FY 2027-28 Shoreline Erosion Control Program seeking funding to lead a concept-level feasibility study of an offshore artificial reef near Beach Boulevard.

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City of Pacifica continues to experience significant and accelerating coastal erosion and storm-related flooding along Beach Boulevard, a critical transportation and coastal access corridor and promenade serving residents, businesses, and visitors. Increasingly frequent storm-driven wave runup and overtopping events threaten public safety, critical infrastructure along the roadway, and public access to the shoreline. These impacts are projected to intensify over time as sea levels rise and storms become more intense.

The City has previously received funding from the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project. That effort advanced the City’s understanding of coastal hazards and informed the development of seawall improvement and beach nourishment strategies. However, the pace and magnitude of erosion in this area warrant evaluation of additional measures that could complement the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project.

On February 2, 2026, the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) submitted a grant application to the Division of Boating and Waterways’ FY 2027-28 Shoreline Erosion Control Program to conduct a concept-level feasibility study evaluating the potential use of an offshore artificial reef to reduce flood risks along Beach Boulevard. Offshore artificial reefs are designed to dissipate wave energy before it reaches the shoreline, which can improve sand retention, extend the service life of existing and planned seawalls, and reduce wave runup and overtopping of shoreline infrastructure.

Led by OneShoreline and conducted in collaboration with researchers from the University of California, Santa Cruz Center for Coastal Climate Resilience, the proposed study would identify potential reef design alternatives and evaluate their effectiveness in reducing flood risk using advanced coastal modeling tools. The study would determine whether an offshore artificial reef could serve as a viable shoreline protection strategy to complement the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project and provide the City and partner organizations with critical 7 Packet Pg. 138
Pacifica City Council 2
February 09, 2026
information to inform future decision-making and long-term coastal resilience investments.

A draft of the support letter is provided as Attachment A. A similar support letter was submitted by the City Manager on January 29, 2026, but OneShoreline’s request is to also receive a support letter from the City Council.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council could decide to not submit a support letter, or could make specified revisions to the letter.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

A concept-level feasibility study of an offshore artificial reef would benefit the City’s Shoreline Adaptation Planning process and supports the City’s goal related to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with approving the letter of support.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Draft City Support Letter for One Shoreline Grant Application (PDF) Attachment B: Support Letter from City Manager (PDF)
7 Packet Pg. 139

CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue • Pacifica, California 94044-2506 www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Christine Boles

VICE MAYOR
Greg Wright

COUNCIL
Sue Beckmeyer
Mary Bier
Mayra Espinosa
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
February 4, 2026
Casey Caldwell, Program Lead
California State Parks, Division of Boating and Waterways Coastal Erosion Control Programs
Subject: Support for OneShoreline’s application to the FY27-28 Shoreline Erosion Control Program The City Council of the City of Pacifica writes to express its strong support for the application submitted by the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) to the Division of Boating and Waterways’ FY27–28 Shoreline Erosion Control Program. The proposed study, led by OneShoreline, would evaluate the concept-level feasibility of an offshore artificial reef as a complementary strategy to the City’s Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project.

Pacifica continues to experience severe and worsening coastal erosion that threatens homes and businesses, public infrastructure, underground utilities, and public access along Beach Boulevard, a critical corridor for the community. Overtopping of Beach Boulevard from storm-driven wave runup is occurring with increasing frequency, placing residents, visitors, and emergency responders at risk.

Without additional protective measures, erosion will continue to undermine public safety and the longterm resilience of this part of the coast.

The Division of Boating and Waterways has long been a valued partner to the City in addressing these coastal erosion challenges. Prior support for the Pacifica Beach Boulevard Protection Project advanced the City’s understanding of erosion and flooding challenges and informed the development of seawall improvement and beach nourishment efforts. As coastal hazards continue to intensify, it is important to evaluate additional tools that could play key in protecting our communities.

Through this grant application, OneShoreline proposes to assess whether an offshore artificial reef could further reduce wave impacts before they reach the shoreline, improve sand retention, and lessen overtopping along Beach Boulevard, thus enhancing the effectiveness and durability of existing and planned coastal protection infrastructure. The proposed study would also consider potential ecological and recreational benefits, such as habitat creation and improved surf conditions.

OneShoreline’s collaboration with the University of California, Santa Cruz Center for Coastal Climate Resilience will ensure that the analysis is informed by rigorous science and state-of-the-art coastal modeling. The findings of this study would provide the City with critical information to support future decision-making and long-term investment in shoreline protection.

7.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft City Support Letter for One Shoreline Grant Application (6137 : One Shoreline Grant Application Support California State Parks, Re: FY27-28 Shoreline Erosion Control Program For these reasons, the Pacifica City Council strongly encourages the Division of Boating and Waterways to fund OneShoreline’s application under the FY27–28 Shoreline Erosion Control Program.

Sincerely,
Christine Boles
Mayor, City of Pacifica

7.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment A: Draft City Support Letter for One Shoreline Grant Application (6137 : One Shoreline Grant Application Support

CITY OF PACIFICA
170 Santa Maria Avenue • Pacifica, California 94044-2506 www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Christine Boles

VICE MAYOR
Greg Wright

COUNCIL
Sue Beckmeyer
Mary Bier
Mayra Espinosa
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
January 29, 2026
Casey Caldwell, Program Lead
California State Parks, Division of Boating and Waterways Coastal Erosion Control Programs
Subject: Support for OneShoreline’s application to the FY27-28 Shoreline Erosion Control Program I am writing to express my strong support for the application submitted by the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) to the Division of Boating and Waterways’ FY27–28 Shoreline Erosion Control Program. OneShoreline proposes to lead a concept study evaluating the feasibility of an offshore artificial reef that, in combination with the City’s Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, could dissipate wave energy, slow shoreline erosion, and reduce flood risk along Beach Boulevard.

The City of Pacifica is experiencing significant coastal erosion. Accelerating shoreline loss poses an escalating threat to homes and businesses along Beach Boulevard, the critical roadway itself, underground utilities, and public access infrastructure. Storm-driven wave runup and overtopping events are becoming more frequent, placing residents and visitors at increasing risk. Without intervention, continued erosion threatens public health and safety as well as the long-term viability of this stretch of the coast.

The Division of Boating and Waterways has been an important partner to the City in addressing coastal erosion challenges, including prior support for the Pacifica Beach Boulevard Protection Project (now called the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project). The results of that effort informed the City’s approach to managing erosion and flooding risks through improvements to the existing seawalls along Beach Boulevard in conjunction with beach nourishment. As coastal conditions continue to evolve, the City recognizes the importance of evaluating additional strategies that can work alongside these measures to support long-term shoreline resilience.

In partnership with the City, OneShoreline is now seeking funding to assess whether an offshore artificial reef could further reduce wave runup and overtopping along Beach Boulevard and help retain beach sand. This concept study would complement ongoing seawall improvement and beach nourishment efforts by reducing wave energy before it reaches the shoreline, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and durability of existing and planned coastal protection infrastructure. The study would also explore potential environmental and recreational co-benefits, including habitat enhancement and improved surf conditions.

7.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment B: Support Letter from City Manager (6137 : One Shoreline Grant Application Support Letter for Concept Feasibility By collaborating with researchers from UC Santa Cruz’s Center for Coastal Climate Resilience, OneShoreline will ensure that this concept study is grounded in the best available science and advanced modeling tools. Given the importance of Beach Boulevard to the City and the ongoing challenges posed by coastal erosion and sea level rise, this study would provide valuable information to guide future planning and investment decisions.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the Division of Boating and Waterways to support OneShoreline’s application for funding under the FY27–28 Shoreline Erosion Control Program.

Sincerely,
Kevin S Woodhouse
City Manager
City of Pacifica

7.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment B: Support Letter from City Manager (6137 : One Shoreline Grant Application Support Letter for Concept Feasibility

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/9/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Resolution Reaffirming the City’s Commitment to the Constitution, Democratic Values, and Human Rights
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Reaffirming the City's Commitment to Protecting the United States Constitution, Democratic Values, and Human Rights; Expressing Grave Concern over Recent Federal Immigration Enforcement Actions and Their Impact on Civil Liberties; and Calling for Accountability, Transparency, and Respect for Due Process".

STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Councilmember Bier and Mayor Boles requested a resolution reaffirming the City’s commitment to the Constitution, democratic values, and human rights be agendized for City Council consideration at the February 9, 2026 City Council meeting. They have provided the following explanation for their request:

Given the recent events at the national level in Minneapolis where the Federal Department of Homeland Security as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as "ICE", appear to have engaged in actions that may have violated basic constitutional rights of individuals, it is critical for us to affirm the City of Pacifica's commitment to upholding all laws that apply in our jurisdiction. We will not tolerate these violations of law and of basic human rights, nor the intimidation and fear being spread through our community, as well as in other communities nationwide.

The killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, as well as other questionable actions of ICE, must be fully investigated by independent parties, and reviewed by the Judicial and Legislative branches of government. No one, including Federal Government employees, are above the law.

The City of Pacifica will continue upholding the rights of all people within our jurisdiction, as well as upholding our Sanctuary City policies, which align with state laws restricting local resources from being used for immigration enforcement. The City of Pacifica has also joined in several legal actions challenging federal government attempts to threaten our receipt of grant funding unless we cooperate with ICE. The City’s litigation efforts have successfully secured preliminary injunctions against these executive orders that would have otherwise withheld that funding.
8 Packet Pg. 144
Pacifica City Council 2
February 09, 2026
The City Council affirms our statement to be united against hate in any form, and this resolution reinforces that commitment to stop hate and implicit biases that are a dangerous threat to the safety and civility of our neighborhoods and city.

A draft resolution for Council consideration is attached.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council could decide to not adopt the resolution or make changes to the resolution.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

Reaffirming the City’s Commitment to the Constitution, democratic values, and human rights is consistent with the City’s Mission, Vision, and Values.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adoption of the resolution.

ORIGINATED BY:

Mayor Boles and Councilmember Bier
ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
City Council
ATTACHMENT LIST:
8 Packet Pg. 145
Pacifica City Council 3
February 09, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REAFFIRMING THE CITY’S COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, DEMOCRATIC VALUES, AND HUMAN RIGHTS; EXPRESSING GRAVE CONCERN OVER

RECENT FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES; AND CALLING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND

RESPECT FOR DUE PROCESS
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica (“City”) is a Sanctuary City under Ordinance No. 826- C.S., which affirms that all residents, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to city services, protections, and rights without discrimination; and WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica’s Sanctuary City Ordinance, consistent with the California Values Act (SB 54), limits the Pacifica Police Department’s cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, except as required by state or federal law, to protect public safety and maintain community trust; and
WHEREAS, the United States Constitution guarantees fundamental civil liberties, including due process, equal protection under law, freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable seizure with the understanding that these rights belong to every person, regardless of citizenship status, in the United States; and WHEREAS, due to recent federal immigration enforcement actions in Minneapolis, Minnesota — including multiple fatal shootings by federal immigration agents and federal agents’ resistance to local/state investigations — serious concerns have been raised nationwide regarding the protection and preservation of constitutional rights, the use of excessive force, and local autonomy in law enforcement oversight between municipalities and counties; and WHEREAS, federal immigration enforcement can escalate fear and pose an immediate chilling effect on cities, including but not limited to, inhibiting local residents from freely enjoying public facilities, attending schools, accessing medical services, and engaging in the basic civil liberties of life, as entitled in the United States Constitution; and WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica is a coastal community with a strong tradition of neighbor-to-neighbor care and is home to immigrant families, mixed-status households, refugees, and long-time residents who bring tremendous value to our local schools, businesses, faith communities, and neighborhood living, and whose wellbeing and dignity are essential to the health and safety of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that constitutional rights are not merely theoretical, but designed to be exercised and applied in daily life including the ability to go to work, take a child to school, seek healthcare, practice faith freely, engage in free speech, and request government assistance without fear; and
WHEREAS, the City’s democratic institutions are strengthened when local residents feel safe to freely exercise the civil liberties to which they are entitled, including the right to freely attend public meetings, contact elected officials, volunteer in schools, and engage in peaceful 8 Packet Pg. 146
Pacifica City Council 4
February 09, 2026
protest without fear of intimidation, retaliation, discrimination, or targeting; and WHEREAS, the City’s residents are carefully watching governmental leaders’ actions and responses to moments like these, and the City Council has a responsibility to model and demonstrate that the City will always choose lawfulness, humanity, due process, and democratic accountability over fear and division; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica’s Sanctuary City policy not only fosters a relationship of trust, respect, and open communication between City officials and the community, but serves as a public safety measure that encourages the community to report crimes, serve as witnesses, seek help during emergencies, and feel safe to engage with the City’s local law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica reaffirms that all government actions, local, state, or federal, must adhere to constitutional principles and that local democratic institutions play a vital role in upholding the rule of law and community trust.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DOES HEREBY FIND:

Section 1. Constitutional Commitment. The City reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the protection of civil liberties and human rights for all persons. This includes due process, equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and the right to peaceful protest.

Section 2. Protection of Sanctuary Principles. The City reaffirms Pacifica’s Sanctuary City policy, that city personnel shall not assist federal immigration enforcement in a manner that undermines the constitutional rights of any person, consistent with state law and public safety obligations.

Section 3. Accountability and Oversight. The City calls upon federal authorities to ensure full transparency and independent investigation into all incidents involving the use of force by federal officers, to respect local and state oversight, and to ensure that operations are conducted in a manner consistent with constitutional protections and respect for human dignity.

Section 4. Civic Education & Awareness. The City encourages civic and community organizations, in collaboration with local government, to expand education and outreach about constitutional rights, civic engagement, and mechanisms for accountability in law enforcement.

Section 5. Non-Retaliation & Protecting Civil Liberties. The City opposes any retaliatory action against local governments or officials who uphold constitutional protections, including through lawful sanctuary policies, civic advocacy, or defense of civil liberties.

Section 6. Communication to Officials. The City Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, California’s Governor and Attorney General, members of Congress representing Pacifica, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Justice, and relevant civic and civil rights organizations.

Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. 8 Packet Pg. 147
Pacifica City Council 5
February 09, 2026
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 9
th day of February, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

CITY OF PACIFICA
_________________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 8 Packet Pg. 148

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/9/2026
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s CEQA determination and approval of Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24 for construction of an approximately 3,180-square foot single-family residence with an approximately 668-square foot attached three-car garage and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf undeveloped lot located approximately 330 feet east-northeast of the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue and Bay View Road (APN 022-062-550).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Deny the appeal, affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of Site Development Permit PSD838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24, and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the attached resolution (Attachment A), including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution; and, incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.

STAFF CONTACT:

James Lin, Senior Planner
650.738.7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On December 1, 2025, after a duly noticed hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-017 (Attachment B) approving Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Permit TP-4-24, subject to conditions of approval, and found the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by a vote of 4-1 with 2 absences1. On December 11, 2025, Coalition for a Safe Pacifica (Appellant) timely filed an appeal with the City Clerk regarding the Planning Commission’s action (Attachment C).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would develop an approximately 3,180-square foot single-family residence with a 668 square foot three-car garage and associated improvements on a 26,055 square foot vacant lot located approximately 330 feet east-northeast of the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue and Bay View Road (APN 022-062-550), in the Rockaway Beach neighborhood of Pacifica.

For a detailed discussion of the project, please see the Planning Commission staff report, dated December 1, 20252.

Additional application materials are available here:
https://cityofpacifica.egnyte.com/fl/XwBjJkjP74XT
1 Ayes: Hauser, Ferguson, Godwin, Redfield; Nos: Davis; Absent: Berman, Devine 2 Planning Commission Staff Report, December 1, 2025:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1618&Inline=True 9 Packet Pg. 149
Pacifica City Council 2
February 09, 2026

APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
In hearing this appeal, the City Council should consider all evidence, including written and oral testimony, related to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project. The appeal letter (Attachment C) raised six points, which are summarized below, with staff analysis following. For the full content of the appeal, please refer to the attached appeal letter. The project owners submitted a written response to the appeal on February 2, 2026, included as Attachment D.

Appeal Point No. 1 – The difficulty of developing the lot is a result of choices of the landowner and their predecessors in interest.

The appeal letter contends that because the original parcel was not created as a flag lot and had its primary frontage on a paper street (Calera Terrace), that limitations on development arise from a 1974 easement granted by prior owners to Lot 5, not from the physical condition of the land. As such, the appellant asserts that any hardship requiring a variance is self-created and that self-induced hardship does not justify exemption from land use regulations or granting variances.

Staff Response: The Planning Commission did not approve a Variance, nor does the project request or require approval of a variance or an exemption from any applicable land use regulations. The project would meet all applicable objective development standards in the Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) that are required for new construction in the Single Family Residential Hillside (R-1-H) Zoning District pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.953.

The project site is a flag lot with a 25-foot wide and 120-foot long “flagpole” from Bayview Street to the wider lot area, and has a legal right to access the site from Bayview. Based on the most recent 2023 easement documents, the adjacent property at 171 Bayview Road has revised a landscape easement across a portion of the flagpole area that would allow for the site access to be widened by 6’-0” northward (Attachment G).

See Appeal Point No. 2, Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9), for discussion of the fire access.

This appeal point is not applicable because the applicant has not requested a variance.

Appeal Point No. 2 – Five findings for denial were met under the Site Development Permit.

The appeal letter claims that the project meets five of the nine site development permit findings that require denial of the project: PMC Section 9-4.3204(a)(3), (4), (6), (8) and (9).

For detailed findings related to the Site Development Permit, refer to the Planning Commission staff report, dated December 1, 2025.
a. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding PMC 9-4.3204(a)(3): “That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas.”
The appeal letter claims that the paved driveway is not designed or located in a manner that sufficiently breaks up or softens the visual impact of the hardscape, and that the ADU is not screened from neighboring Lot 16.
9 Packet Pg. 150
Pacifica City Council 3
February 09, 2026
Staff Response:
(1.) Driveway: Sufficient landscape areas have been reserved for the project. The proposed service and storage areas will be entirely contained within the residence and will not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. The proposed landscaping, combined with the remaining undeveloped vegetated area, covers more than 50 percent of the site, exceeding the 20 percent requirement for landscaping per PMC 9-4.402(i). The vehicular access is treated as Fire Department access road (see Appeal Point No. 2, Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9)). The proposed project would provide legal and conforming vehicular access to the housing development project. During review of the planning entitlements, the applicant considered multiple designs for the access, including a planted center strip on the paved driveway and the use of an open-faced block with grass infill (e.g., turf block or Grasscrete), but the designs were not feasible due to the fire access requirements. The applicant worked closely with the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) on access and site design and developed a driveway that meets the applicable fire requirements. The applicant prepared a revised rendering for the appeal that more accurately reflects the proposal and reduced visual impacts of the current design, shown below in Figure

1. To address the neighbors’ concern raised during the public hearing regarding the aesthetics of the driveway, the Planning Commission also added Condition of Approval 43 to ensure that the applicant and staff “make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing,” noting that final design approval is outside the Commission’s and City’s purview.

Figure 1. Driveway Rendering
(2.) Accessory Dwelling Unit (Figure 2): Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are required to be processed ministerially pursuant to State law and PMC Section 9-4.451(b), and are not subject to discretionary review, including the site development findings. However, the ADU complies with all applicable objective standards. For example, the minimum rear setback required for an ADU is 4 feet and 20 feet is proposed. The height of the ADU is lower than the existing 9 Packet Pg. 151
Pacifica City Council 4
February 09, 2026
residence on Lot 16. In addition to compliance of PMC Section 4-12.04(e) for replacement tree plantings, the applicant has provided additional shrubs, vines, and retaining wall plantings between the ADU and Lot 16 to reduce potential privacy and visual impacts.

Figure 2. ADU Height and Landscaping Plan
In conclusion, the design of the driveway is limited by the fire access requirements, and the project has been conditioned to explore additional measures to reduce potential impacts while ensuring life-safety access. Even if the ADU were subject to discretionary findings, which is prohibited by state and local law, the proposed design addresses the concerns raised by the appellant. Further, the project would provide 58 percent of lot area as landscape and vegetated undisturbed areas, where only 20 percent is required, and incorporates trees, shrubs, vines, and other plantings. There is sufficient landscape area reserved for the project. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
b. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(4): “That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof.” The appeal letter claims that the proposed layout is inconsistent with the code definitions of front and side lot lines, and that the elevated, paved driveway and retaining wall along the property line with Lot 7 does not comply with required setbacks and its placement would require a variance. Finally, the letter contends that the project’s driveway and placement of the house and ADU would block sunlight and restrict airflow to Lot 7 and Lot 16. The appellant also notes that story poles have not been provided, limiting the ability of neighbors and the Commission to fully assess these impacts.

Staff Response: The front and side lot lines are correctly identified, and the fire access complies with the applicable requirements and is permitted within required setbacks. Further, although light and air impacts are not objective standards, the potential impacts have been minimized to the extent feasible.

The front lot line is the western lot abutting Bay View Road (bottom of the “flagpole”) and the western lot line abutting Lot 7 (bottom of the “flag”). The rear lot line is the eastern lot line, and all other lot lines are sides. The front and side setbacks are properly identified, and the buildings exceed the minimum setbacks, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Lot Lines and Required Setbacks
9 Packet Pg. 152
Pacifica City Council 5
February 09, 2026
1: Garages require a 20’ front setback; 34’-3” proposed 2: ADUs have a maximum 4’ rear setback; 20’-3” proposed Although a retaining wall meets the general definition of “structure” (anything constructed on the ground), there are specific provisions in the PMC that address fences, hedges, and walls and establish how they are regulated. PMC Section 9-4.25023regulates fences, hedges, walls, and 3 Project is vested to the zoning regulations in effect on the date the application was deemed complete.

Article 25 Height Limits was modified in August 2025, however, the previous provisions of PMC 9-4.2502 apply, as stated below:

Sec. 9-4.2502. - Fences, hedges, walls, and plantings.
(a) No fence, hedge, wall, or screen planting of any kind shall be constructed or grown to exceed six (6′) feet in height (unless otherwise required by law) within any required side yard to the rear of the required front yard of any dwelling or within any required rear yard; nor exceed three (3′) feet in height within the required front yard of any dwelling, or, for corner lots, within twenty-five (25′) feet of a street corner measured at the property line. Fences or walls limited to three (3′) feet in height may be vertically extended up to four (4′) feet with open work fence material, as defined in subsection (b) of this section, subject to approval of the Planning Director, who shall consider the compatibility of the fence design with 9 Packet Pg. 153
Pacifica City Council 6
February 09, 2026
screen plantings located within the required setbacks. The applicable code does not impose setback requirements but regulates the height of retaining walls when located in a required setback, to between 3 to 6 feet, unless otherwise required by law. In this case, the retaining walls are required to provide fire access to the site and can exceed the height. Regardless, the fire access was designed with retaining walls that range from approximately 2 to 3 feet along the southern flagpole lot line, with one section of retaining wall at 5 feet in the southwest corner, located well over 30 feet from the house on Lot 7 (Attachment E, Sheet A-4.1 Grading Plan).

The retaining walls in the northern portion of the flagpole are outside of the required setbacks.

The design, including the slope, is required by law to meet fire access requirements, and the height of the retaining walls within the required setbacks substantially comply with the PMC Section 9-4.2503. Further, there are no setback requirements for fire access roadways or driveways.

Although light and air impacts are not an objective standard, the increased setbacks from property lines would minimize potential light and air impacts to surrounding properties more so than a project built to maximize the allowances for this district. The proposed residential use is consistent with the use in the vicinity and the buildings constructed would be scaled down with architectural features and detailing. This approach ensures that the project does not impede or discourage appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the area, nor diminish their value. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
c. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(6): “That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site.”
The appeal letter claims that the grading work will damage the natural grade of the site.

Staff Response: The project does not damage or destroy natural features and has been designed to meet standards for fire access while minimizing grading and preserving the natural slope to the greatest extent feasible, in coordination with NCFA. The development is set back on the hillside and incorporates a series of retaining walls supporting cuts from the north to south and containing fill for terraces to the south, facilitating construction of the residence and associated improvements. Landscaping beyond minimum requirements is proposed to integrate the buildings with the natural environment.
its site and surrounding uses. Commercial fences may not exceed six (6′) feet in height, unless additional height is allowed with a site development permit.
(b) When there is a difference in the ground level on opposite sides of a retaining wall or fence, height shall be measured from the higher ground level, however, any portion of a fence above the maximum allowable height as measured from the lower ground level may be required by the Planning Administrator to be an open work fence. An "open work fence" means a fence in which the component solid portions are evenly distributed and constitute not more than sixty (60%) percent of the total surface area of the fence. In addition, the height of fences or walls which are located within the front setback, parallel to the front property line, or within twenty-five (25′) feet of a street corner, shall be limited to three (3′) feet in height as measured from the side of the fence facing the street.

Archived code is available here:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances/476297?nodeId=TIT9PLZO_CH4ZO_ ART25HELI
9 Packet Pg. 154
Pacifica City Council 7
February 09, 2026
The overall site and building designs follow the slope of the site to the maximum extent feasible and reduce excavation requirements. The project balances the need for fire access and site development with efforts to preserve natural features and the site’s existing grade, consistent with the PMC requirements and intent of the Design Standards. For additional analysis on this Finding, refer to the project findings in Attachment A and the December 1, 2025 Planning Commission staff report. The submitted geotechnical engineering investigations (Attachment F and Attachment G) conclude that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint upon implementation of the recommendations contained in the accompanying reports, which are to be incorporated into the final plans and implemented during construction, per Condition 17 of the project. The project does not damage or destroy natural features and thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
d. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(8): “That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.” The appeal letter states that the proposed project is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines,
4 including A.2 Building Location, B.2 Scale, B.6 Privacy, and C.6 Parking Areas.

Staff Response: The project responds appropriately to the City’s Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines are advisory in nature and, unlike zoning regulations, do not contain explicit standards for determining strict compliance. They address significant elements of project design that, when balanced overall, result in the best possible site layout and building architecture for a project. An applicant may propose a project which complies with some but not all guidelines and still be consistent. While the Council has the discretion to determine the appropriate balance and priorities of the guidelines for a project, the guidelines do not contain objective standards and cannot be imposed in a manner that effectively denies or reduces the density of a “housing development project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. As the project qualifies as a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act,5the Council’s discretion regarding subjective standards from the Guidelines is governed by the Housing Accountability Act.

The project incorporates design features that reduce the perceived mass and integrate the project with surrounding homes while preserving views, privacy, and solar access to the greatest extent possible. The applicant has also worked extensively with NCFA to design the vehicular and fire access. For additional analysis on compliance with the Design Guidelines, refer to the project findings in Attachment A and the December 1, 2025 Planning Commission staff report.

The project has responded to the Design Guidelines and complies with all applicable objective development standards of the R-1-H zoning district, including height, setbacks, lot coverage, and off-street parking, as well as ADU standards. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
4 Pacifica Design Guidelines:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2394/637838931965700000 5 The project includes two or more residential dwellings, i.e. a single family and ADU, and is a “housing development project” for the purposes of the Housing Accountability Act.5 9 Packet Pg. 155
Pacifica City Council 8
February 09, 2026
e. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9): “That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.” The appeal letter raises three points under this criterion. First, that the proposed driveway does not comply with PMC Section 9-4.2813(i)6, which limits the width of driveways on lots with 50 feet or more of frontage to 50 percent of the frontage. Second, that the proposed driveway does not comply with a minimum 20-foot-wide driveway for emergency vehicle access required by the California Fire Code because the an18-foot wide driveway is proposed, and the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for a variance. Third, the appellant references the seismic and geologic hazards identified in the Safety Element of the General Plan and states that the project is inconsistent with the guiding policies related to landslides, liquefaction, erosion, and natural drainage.

Staff Response:
(1.) Driveway width: The vehicular access is consistent with PMC Section 9-4.2813(e)(1), which requires that when any portion of an exterior wall is located more than 150 feet from Fire Department vehicle access, the driveway must comply with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code. The vehicular access for the project is a Fire Department access roadway, subject to the standards of fire code. The project’s driveway complies with both the fire access requirements and with the residential driveways standards that allow driveways between 10 feet to 20 feet in width (see PMC Section 9-4.2813(e)). Further, the code provision noted in the appeal would not apply to this site because the lot frontage is only 25 feet and does not exceed 50 feet. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met. (2.) Fire Access: The proposed fire access is 18 feet wide, whereas 20 feet is the standard pursuant to the Fire Code. The applicant worked with NCFA and the proposed design was reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal as an Alternative Materials and Methods Request (AMMR). This allows for an 18-foot-wide driveway and fire apparatus turnaround based on sitespecific conditions and compliance with applicable fire safety standards. As the NCFA has approved the access and on-site turnaround to meet the fire access requirements, staff relies on the Fire Marshal’s determination that the approved driveway configuration provides adequate emergency vehicle access for the project. See Condition of Approval No. 36 (Attachment A, Exhibit A). Variances are only applicable to the Zoning Ordinance and are not applied to other codes and regulations. NCFA has approved an AMMR for the width of the access and a turnaround, in compliance with the applicable regulations. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
(3.) Geologic Hazards: The applicant originally submitted a geotechnical report, prepared in 2011, concluding that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint (Attachment F).

Following a request from the Planning Commission to further evaluate the previously prepared report, the applicant retained another firm in 2024 to review the initial geotechnical report and to conduct a new investigation, including borings and recommendations for grading, foundations, retaining walls, and drainage (Attachment G). Both geotechnical investigations concluded that the project is consistent with the guiding policies for seismic and geologic hazards. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
6 PMC 9-4.2813(i) Single-family residential driveways on lots with more than fifty (50′) foot frontages may exceed the maximum driveway width requirement if the purpose of the driveway is to create more offstreet parking or conform to the requirement of "swing" type parking, as permitted by applicable provisions of this Code. In no event shall the driveway access exceed more than fifty (50%) percent of the total lot frontage or forty (40′) feet, whichever is less. Driveways shall be designed to provide at least one on-street parking space for each lot.
9 Packet Pg. 156
Pacifica City Council 9
February 09, 2026
In conclusion, the driveway / fire access complies with applicable requirements, and geotechnical investigations conclude that project is consistent with the guiding policies for seismic and geologic hazards, therefore the project is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Point No. 3 – The Project was not in compliance with public notice requirements.

The appeal letter states that the public hearing notices for the December 1, 2025, Planning Commission hearing were mailed after the post marked date of November 20, 2025. It states that residents did not start receiving the notices until November 28, 2025, and contends that the City therefore did not comply with the required 10-day noticing period. The appellant further argues that the notices were received after the Thanksgiving holiday, when people may have been out of town, and that mailing notices immediately prior to the holiday failed to meet the spirit of the noticing requirement.

Staff Response: Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3203, the City must publish hearing notices in a newspaper of general circulation and mailing notices not less than 10 days prior to the hearing date to the owners and residents of property within a 500 foot-radius7 of the project site. It also states that “the failure of any person to receive such notice shall not invalidate the site development permit proceedings.”
The City published notice in the San Mateo Daily Journal on November 21, 2025, and mailed notices on November 20, 2025, as postmarked. While the appellant does not explicitly accuse the City of falsifying the postage meter or drop off date, the City disputes any implication, direct or indirect, that mailing dates were falsified, and maintains that the notices were handled accurately and in accordance with standard practice on November 20, 2025, which was 12 calendar days prior to the meeting. The City has no control over the processing, handling, or delivery of notices once they are provided to the USPS, nor is it reasonable to expect delivery that aligns with an individual’s travel plans.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Point No. 4 – Violation of the Brown Act
The appeal letter states that the Planning Commission violated the Brown Act by relying on supplemental materials distributed after agenda publication, specifically, the 2023 easement granted by the subject site to a neighboring lot. The appellant states that nearby residents were not able to adequately consider the materials, seek independent review, provide feedback, and prepare questions and comments for the December 1 meeting, and that the Commission cannot rush through a controversial, unusual, and unsafe development without at least providing nearby residents and interested parties with adequate notice and information.

Staff Response: The Brown Act requires that an initial staff report or similar document containing an executive summary and the staff recommendation, if any, relating to that agenda item is made available for public inspection at the office or location posted at least 72 hours in advance of a regular meeting, and that agenda items be described with sufficient specificity to inform the public of the business to be conducted.8 The initial staff report and agenda was 7 The code requires a 300-foot radius mailing; however, City policy is to use a 500-foot radius. 8 Government Code § 54954.2
9 Packet Pg. 157
Pacifica City Council 10 February 09, 2026
published online on November 26, 2025, at 2:29 PM, approximately 124 hours prior to the meeting. Further, the Brown Act does not prohibit the distribution of supplemental materials following agenda posting but requires that it be made available for public inspection at the time of distribution.9 At the meeting, printed copies of the easement were provided to the Commissioners, included in the publicly available agenda binder, and copies were available at the table with the extra agendas. In addition to the easement being made publicly available at the time of distribution to the Commission on December 1, 2025, it was also previously included as a publicly available supplemental exhibit attached to the Planning Commission staff report for the April 1, 2024, hearing.
10 As such, the Planning Commission complied with the Brown Act and no violation occurred.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Point No 5 – Project not in Compliance with Setback Requirements.

The appeal letter restates Appeal Point No. 2 regarding the setback requirements for retaining walls.

Staff Response: As noted under Appeal Point No. 2, Exclusion Criterion 9-4.3204(a)(4), there are no setback requirements for fire access roadways, driveways, or retaining walls.

Appeal Point No. 6 – Other Grounds for Appeal.

The appeal letter raises six sub-issues under this point. a. Failure to Consider or Pursue Alternatives. The Planning Commission failed to further investigate project design alternatives such as developing the paper street Calera Terrace.

Even if the Planning Commission were to have considered such an alternative, it would involve significant construction and grading beyond what is required for the proposed single-family residence, resulting in additional impacts, including disruption to neighboring properties and immediate area. The current proposal represents a less impactful development approach. This appeal point is not applicable because consideration of a project alternative is not required. 9 Government Code § 54954.2(b)(2)
10 Planning Commission staff report, dated April 1, 2024:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1524&Inline=True 11 PMC Section Sec. 2-2.202. - Purpose. The purpose of the Planning Commission shall be to recommend and advise the Council in the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the City's General Plan, Coastal Plan, Zoning Law, and other specific and area development plans which provide for and control the future physical development and conservation of the City, based upon geographic, social, economic, and environmental characteristics of the community. The Planning Commission shall also advise the Council on private development plans for the City in accordance with the State Planning Law and the City's established development review standards and processes. 9 Packet Pg. 158
Pacifica City Council 11 February 09, 2026
Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
b. Inconsistency with Plans and Rendering. There appear to be significant inconsistencies between the applicant’s architectural plans and renderings, such as with respect to height and placement of the proposed house. Without accurate rendering and story poles, neither nearby residents nor the Commission or its staff could accurately gauge, analyze, or provide feedback on what exactly applicant propose to build.

Further, even if the renderings were inaccurate, the proposed project meets all applicable objective development standards, including height, and the placement of the proposed house would comply with setbacks, exceeding the requirements from all lot lines.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(c) Inconsistency with Size and Scale of the Home. The size of the project is substantially larger than the surrounding homes.

4.453(c)(5)), which is comparable to neighboring sites. Additionally, there are other properties zoned R-1-H in the area that have been approved by the Planning Commission12 and City Council13 for houses with similar floor area, including a project known as “Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way14” for a 3,800 square foot single-family residence on a vacant lot.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(d.) Neighbor Access Required for Construction. The Planning Commission did not consider how the applicant plans to build without access to neighbor’s property.

Staff Response: The construction of the proposed project will not involve accessing or encroaching the adjacent neighbor’s lots, which will be verified through building permit review. 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-012:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1842/637831016077870000 13 City Council Resolution No. 54-2020:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1226/637830234956100000 14 File No. 2014-001, Site Development Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Logging Operations Approval
9 Packet Pg. 159
Pacifica City Council 12 February 09, 2026
This issue is adequately addressed by governing building codes during construction permit review and legally permitted construction activities.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(e.) Inadequate Analysis by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did not analyze the increase in heavy construction vehicle traffic on Bayview Road and surrounding streets. This will result in degradation of road quality and the blocking of a one-lane road used for ingress, egress (including for safety and emergency vehicles) and evacuation of residents in the case of fire or earthquake.

Staff Response: The City has a standard requirements related to construction vehicles based on the amount of grading. This would be required to be implemented for this project and have been incorporated as Condition of Approval No. 35. These include a requirement for prior approval of any lane closures from Public Works, coordination with the Pacifica Police and Fire departments and Recology, and written notice to affected properties. The standard Traffic Control Plan requirements adequately address ingress, egress, and evacuation during construction. This issue was adequately addressed by Planning Commission, as well as in local regulations.

Further, the Planning Commission added Condition of Approval No. 42 which requires the applicant to submit a pre-construction video survey documenting all existing conditions of all public improvement for Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue, to ensure restoration of any construction-related damage.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
(f.) Additional Information on Security or Bond. The Planning Commission should have provided more information or a formula for calculating the security for nearby residents have adequate assurance that construction will be completed safely and any potential damage will be addressed.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Point No. 7 – The project description is inadequate under California Environmental Quality Act.

The appeal letter claims that the project description for analyzing compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was not stable or consistent because it had changed over time, including the addition of conditions of approval 41-45 introduced by the Planning Commission at their meeting on December 1, 2025. The appeal letter claims that as a result, input from the public and review by the Planning Commission was inadequate. 9 Packet Pg. 160
Pacifica City Council 13 February 09, 2026
Staff Response: Under CEQA, a project description should contain a “general description” of the project’s “main features,” and other information sufficient to foster a complete and informative evaluation of the project’s environmental impacts.15
While a project description must be stable and consistent throughout the document,16 a requirement for a consistent project description does not mean that the project cannot change as it proceeds through CEQA review and other stages in the approval process.17 The project description should allow for the flexibility needed to respond to unforeseeable events and changing conditions that could affect the project’s final design.18 A lead agency may also approve changes to a project without revising the project description if such changes do not result in increased environmental impacts.19
Here, the project description’s “main features” have been stable throughout the development process, including at the time of staff review and analysis and at the time of Planning Commission review and action. At all times, the project has consisted of a single-family residence, an attached garage, and an ADU. Any project changes have been minor and have not impaired a complete and informative evaluation of the project’s environmental impacts. The project remains consistent with the project description, as discussed in further detail under Appeal Point No. 8, because it has not changed for purposes of CEQA or project review. The conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission have not fundamentally changed the project and have not caused the project to be removed from the scope of CEQA exemption or result in any significant environmental impacts. No mitigation measures have been imposed, as further discussed under Appeal Point No. 8. The Planning Commission relied on the accurate project description for determining the CEQA categorical exemption.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Staff Response: The conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission were not mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts. As explained in detail below, the majority of these conditions were added to allay public concerns and provide additional 15 See Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 28; see also San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 654. 16 County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 197. 17 See Gooden v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1, 23. 18 See Claremont Canyon Conservancy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 474, 490; Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036.
19 Western Placer Citizens for an Agric. & Rural Env’t v. County of Placer (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 890, 905.
9 Packet Pg. 161
Pacifica City Council 14 February 09, 2026
assurances to ensure that the Project complies with already applicable state and local regulations or the standards City conditions for a development Project. Regulations of general applicability that will prevent a significant impact from occurring (and conditions of approval requiring compliance with such regulations) are not treated as mitigation measures.20 Similarly, a feature built into the design or operation of a project is not treated as a mitigation measure that would preclude a categorical exemption.21
The conditions of approval added at the meeting on December 1, 2025, do not constitute mitigation measures and are unrelated to the Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” Categorical Exemption from CEQA. The conditions of approval are intended to ensure compliance with regulations of general applicability, such as standard requirements in the PMC, state law, and other regulatory requirements. Discussed below are the challenged conditions and staff’s analysis confirming they are not mitigation measures.

Condition 41 states:
• Condition 41. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, hydraulic calculations along with a letter from the engineer of record indicating that the proposed storm drain system does not increase runoff above the pre-development condition shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. The on-site drainage system shall be designed to detain on-site all flows in excess of the existing flows during a 100-year frequency storm. The detention systems shall be designed to detain water only during peak flows.

City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 824 (condition of approval requiring compliance with local noise standards was not a mitigation measure defeating the use of a categorical exemption, when the city found the project would meet those standards and imposed the condition of approval to ensure that it would do so).
21 See, e.g., Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1352 (developer’s agreement to dedicate land for a turning lane was a design feature, not a mitigation measure); Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City & County of San Francisco (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 863, 881 (fee imposed on the use of bags at retail stores was part of the plastic bag ban as originally proposed, not something added as a mitigation measure).
9 Packet Pg. 162
Pacifica City Council 15 February 09, 2026
improvements limits of Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue, including but not limited to pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, drainage structures, utility boxes, adjacent landscaping, and any other visible surface features. The video survey shall be submitted electronically to the City Engineer for review and acceptance prior to permit issuance. Any damage to Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue caused by the project shall be repaired by applicant at the applicant’s expense.

Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. This condition requires documentation of existing site and public improvements to assign responsibility in the event of any project-related damage to public improvements. The project is not expected to damage public improvements. It is a condition to implement some of the PMC provisions that make the project applicant responsible for any damages or work done within public improvements, should they occur, and is not a mitigation measure.

Condition 43 states:
• Condition 43. Applicant, Planning staff, Engineering staff, and NCFA staff shall make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing.

For all of these reasons, Condition 43 is not a mitigation measure. Condition 44 states:
• Condition 44. The Applicant shall prepare a dust control plan conforming to the City Standards and complying with the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Best Management Practices for dust control prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The Applicant shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours23.

Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. While there were general concerns raised during the public hearing about construction dust, neither the appeal nor the public comments provide any substantial evidence in the record that the project construction will result in significant construction air quality impacts.24 Further, this condition 22 CEQA Guidelines § 15384.
23 The final Condition of Approval No. 44 corrects the agency name to Bay Area Air District, which was formerly Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)). 24 Argument, speculation, and unsubstantiated lay opinion do not constitute substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384; see also Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 588 [generalized aesthetic objections to project without regard to surrounding context of urbanized development were not substantial evidence].)
9 Packet Pg. 163
Pacifica City Council 16 February 09, 2026
merely reiterates the requirements that dust is controlled during construction in accordance with Bay Area Air District best management practices, which are standard conditions and regulations of general applicability. These standards would be required for any grading activities and reviewed by the Engineering Division prior to grading permit issuance. Therefore, Condition 44 is not a mitigation measure under CEQA.

Condition 45 states:
• Condition 45. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit involving grading, retaining walls, or slope disturbance, the applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City to require the completion of the retaining walls and other related improvements (“Retaining Wall Improvements”) and shall provide security in an amount necessary to complete the Retaining Wall Improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit and shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.

Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. This condition relates to a financial mechanism (improvement agreement for a security amount) to ensure that certain improvements which are already proposed as part of the project design are completed if the project is abandoned mid-way. The improvements themselves are project design features, not mitigation measures. Further, Condition 45 is intended to ensure that the project is constructed in compliance with applicable standards. . Accordingly, Condition 45 is not a mitigation measure under CEQA.
b. Class 3 Categorical Exemption. “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,” does not apply to the project because it is comprised of a large single-family residence, ADU, three-car garage, retaining walls, elevated driveway, and grading.

Staff Response: The Class 3 exemption applies to the “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures” (CEQA Guidelines § 15303). Examples of the Class 3 “exemption include, but are not limited to25… “[o]ne single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences” and “[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.” (Ibid.) There are no floor area restrictions for new construction associated with this exemption.

The appellant selectively quotes the first example, omitting the provision allowing up to three single-family residences in urbanized areas. An urbanized area is defined, in part, as: (a) an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) has a population of at least 100,000 persons; [or] (2) has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons (Pub. Resources Code § 21071). Per the 2020 U.S. Census, the population of the City of Pacifica is 38,640, and the populations of its contiguous neighboring cities of Daly City and South San Francisco are 104,901 and 66,105, respectively.26 The City of Pacifica is an urbanized area because it is an incorporated city contiguous to not more than two incorporated cities that exceed 100,000 people.
25 Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 818 [“the Guidelines themselves say it is not limited to the listed examples” in the Class 3 exemption]. 26 See U.S. Census Bureau data for the 2020 population and related demographic data for the cities of Daly City (https://data.census.gov/profile/Daly_City_city,_California?g=160XX00US0617918) and South San Francisco
(https://data.census.gov/profile/South_San_Francisco_city,_California?g=160XX00US0673262) 9 Packet Pg. 164
Pacifica City Council 17 February 09, 2026
Accordingly, the Class 3 exemption would allow the construction of up to three single-family residences because the City of Pacifica is an urbanized area. Here, the Project’s construction of one single-family residence, an ADU, and a garage is a lesser intensity of development than three single-family residences and thus cannot be expected to have greater environmental impacts than three single-family residences. The Project clearly falls under the Class 3 exemption.

Furthermore, the second referenced example refers to accessory structures, in the plural. Here, the accessory dwelling unit27 and garage are accessory structures that can be built under the Class 3 exemption.
c. Project size, steep topography, flag-lot location, and proximity to neighbors constitute “unusual circumstances” under CEQA.

Staff Response: Further, the exception for “unusual circumstances” does not apply. This exception applies where, due to “unusual circumstances,” there is a “reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment” (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b)). A claim that this exception applies can be proven in only two ways: (1) by showing both that the project is unusual and that there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant adverse impact on the environment due to the project’s unusual circumstances; or (2) by showing that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.28 “[U]nusual circumstances are those that (i) differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by the particular categorical exemption and (ii) create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects.” 29“[W]hether a circumstance is ‘unusual’ is judged relative to the typical circumstances related to an otherwise typically exempt project.”30 Unusual circumstances are generally found on the basis of “some feature of the project that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class,” which can sometimes be on the basis of its size or location.31
As discussed above in Staff Response (b), the project proposes a single-family residence, a garage, and an ADU, which is exactly the kind of development contemplated by the CEQA Class 3 exemption, as evidenced by the enumerated examples in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 language, so it cannot be distinguished from others in the exempt class. The project complies with all applicable objective zoning standards for the Single-Family Residential Hillside (R-1-H) District, and the project is consistent with the scale and intensity anticipated for residential development in the City, such that the height, FAR, ground coverage etc. of the project cannot be considered “unusual.” Hillside conditions, grading, retaining walls, and engineered foundations are common characteristics of development in the R-1-H district and do not constitute unusual circumstances when compared to similar projects on hillside lots in Pacifica. Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.951, the R-1-H zone regulates development of “certain hillside areas” and “allow[s] residential development compatible with the slope limitations of the development site” and consistent with the Pacifica Design Guidelines.

27 Accessory Dwelling Units require ministerial review and approval, and are statutorily exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2)
28 (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105 [“Berkeley Hillside I”].) 29 North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832, 868. 30 San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1024. 31 San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1381; Berkeley Hillside I at p. 1105. 9 Packet Pg. 165
Pacifica City Council 18 February 09, 2026
The applicant provided two geotechnical investigations (Attachment F and Attachment G) by different firms, both of which demonstrate that the proposed project will not have significant environmental impacts related to grading, excavation, slope stability, and drainage.

In conclusion, mitigation measures have not been included, the project qualifies for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, and there is no evidence that the Project itself presents unusual circumstances. Thus, the analysis on the application of the unusual circumstances exception would need to end there under the applicable law. The City cannot require an Initial Study if the project is found to be categorically exempt and the exceptions to the exemption do not apply. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15063; see also Pub. Resources Code § 21080(a), (c)). This appeal point was adequately addressed by the Planning Commission.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE
Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) sections 9-4.3602 and 9-4.3208, the Council may approve, deny or modify the Site Development Permits, after considering the Appeal. In the event that the Council determines that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s approval of the Site Development Permit, the Council should deny the Appeal by adopting the attached Resolution in Attachment A. The Council’s review of the Project on appeal is considered a de novo review. Findings for approval of the Revised Project are included in the draft resolution in Attachment A, Exhibit A.

In the event that the Council decides to uphold the Appeal and deny the Project, Council will need to provide staff with the basis for those findings that are supported by substantial evidence so that staff can prepare a Resolution to be brought back to Council at a later date.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Staff received 13 public comments between December 1, 202535, through noon February 4, 2026, prior to the agenda packet publication. the City Council Hearing. All public comments can be found here: https://cityofpacifica.egnyte.com/fl/t8CFdrjQ9KXj.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
32 CEQA Guidelines § 15384.
33 Association for Protection of Environmental Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720,736. 34 See Association for Protection of Environmental Values, 2 Cal.App.4th at 736; see also Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 943. 35 Date of Planning Commission public hearing
9 Packet Pg. 166
Pacifica City Council 19 February 09, 2026
Staff incorporate the analysis in Appeal Point Nos. 7 and 8 by reference. As discussed, staff’s analysis of the proposed Project supports a conclusion that the Project qualifies as a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” categorical exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, and no exceptions to the exemption applies. See also, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-017 (Attachment B).

STAFF SUMMARY
The issues raised in the appeal letter do not identify any new information or issues that would warrant a change to staff’s recommendation for approval of the project. The project has legal site access, complies with the applicable objective development standards, and was properly analyzed as categorically exempt from CEQA. The Planning Commission added Conditions of Approval to include assurances that the project would comply with all applicable codes and regulations, as well as provide financial assurances should the project be abandoned while under construction, and contrary to appellants’ claims, do not represent mitigation measures under CEQA.

Further, the project is a housing development project and subject to certain provisions of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and Housing Crisis Act of 2019. As shown in Table 1 of the Planning Commission staff report, December 1, 2025, the project complies with the objective zoning standards. While the project may include discretionary permits, there are no objective criteria in the findings; therefore, the project still complies with the HAA. Because the project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, Government Code Section 65589.5(j) applies to the project. The City Council has the discretion to approve, deny, or modify the request according to the zoning findings, provided the action does not reduce the project density or effectively deny the project by making it infeasible, unless the Council is also able to make the required findings for denial set forth under Section 65589.5(j). No significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impacts, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, polices, or conditions, have been identified.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The Council may take the following alternative actions:
• Continue the public hearing to direct staff to prepare a resolution to uphold the appeal and deny the project, including findings for denial required by the Housing Accountability Act; or
• Remand the project to the Planning Commission. Because this appeal hearing is the third public hearing since the application was deemed complete, the Planning Commission would be required to either approve or deny the project at their meeting, as one meeting would need to be reserved for an additional appeal pursuant to Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

The project is not directly associated with an item on the City Council’s Work Plan. It is the City Council’s normal governance process to hear and determine the appeals of Planning Commission actions under the enforcement or interpretation of the Zoning Regulations.

FISCAL IMPACT:
9 Packet Pg. 167
Pacifica City Council 20 February 09, 2026
None. All costs to the City associated with the project would be reimbursed by the applicant.

ORIGINATED BY:

Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A - Draft City Council Resolution_Conditions of Approval_Bayview Calera Ter - File 2021-058 - 02092026 (DOCX)
Attachment B - Planning Commission Resolution No 2025- 017_Bay View_File No 2021_058 (PDF)
Attachment C - Appeal Letter Dated December 11, 2025 (PDF) Attachment D - Owner Response to Appeal-2026-02-02 (PDF) Attachment E -Project Plans-Bay View (PDF)
Attachment F - Summit Engineering Geotechnical Report-11-03-09 (PDF) Attachment G - Micheluccci Associates Geotechnical Report-24-07-10 (PDF) Attachment H - Amendment to Grant of Easement (PDF)
9 Packet Pg. 168
Pacifica City Council 21 February 09, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION AND APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PSD-838-18 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TP-4-24, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,180-SQUARE FOOT (SF) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 668-SF

ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 26,055-SF, UNDEVELOPED LOT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 330

FEET EAST-NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE AND BAY VIEW ROAD (APN 022-062-550); AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, Robert Benda and John Spenker (“Owner”) has submitted an application to the City of Pacifica (City) for the construction of a 3,180 square foot (sf) single-family residence with an approximately 668-sf attached three-car garage, an approximately 680-sf and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf, undeveloped lot located approximately 330 feet east-northeast of the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue and Bay View Road (APN 022-062-550) (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Project’s location in the R-1-H Zoning District requires approval of a Site Development Permit prior to issuance of a building permit per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-

4.953, with the objective of ensuring that new structures and streets are designed to protect the visual and natural resource qualities of the hillsides and to minimize adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods, drainage, traffic, land stability, and natural resources; and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Tree Removal Permit per PMC Section 4-12.04, whereby any person who desires to remove a protected tree or City tree shall obtain a tree removal permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 1, 2024, which was continued to December 1, 2025.

WHEREAS, in continuing the public hearing for the Project, the Planning Commission directed the Applicant and the City staff to provide additional information on erosion control, drainage, additional renderings and details to the plans, preliminary title report, easement documents, and updated geotechnical reports.

WHEREAS, the Applicant provided the additional information and studies about the Project to City staff in accordance with the direction of the Planning Commission.

WHEREAS, after holding a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-017 approving Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24; and
9 Packet Pg. 169
Pacifica City Council 22 February 09, 2026
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by Vera Toth-Fejel on behalf of “Coalition for a Safe Pacifica” (“Appellant”) on December 11, 2025, in opposition to the Planning Commission’s action (“Appeal”); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on February 9, 2026, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented relating to the Appeal, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

2. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby deny the Appeal based upon all of the reasons set forth in the Staff Report and upholds the Planning Commission’s Approval on December 1, 2025, and makes the following findings pertaining to its denial of the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to approve the Project:

Appeal Point No. 1 – The difficulty of developing the lot is a result of choices of the landowner and their predecessors in interest.

See Appeal Point No. 2, Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9), for discussion of the fire access.

This appeal point is not applicable because the applicant has not requested a variance.

Appeal Point No. 2 – Five findings for denial were met under the Site Development Permit.

The appeal letter claims that the project meets five of the nine site development permit findings that require denial of the project: PMC Section 9-4.3204(a)(3), (4), (6), (8) and (9).

Staff Response:
(1.) Driveway: Sufficient landscape areas have been reserved for the project. The proposed service and storage areas will be entirely contained within the residence and will not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. The proposed landscaping, combined with the remaining undeveloped vegetated area, covers more than 50 percent of the site, exceeding the 20 percent requirement for landscaping per PMC 9-

4.402(i).The vehicular access is treated as Fire Department access road (see Appeal Point No. 2, Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9)). The proposed project would provide legal and conforming vehicular access to the housing development project. During review of the planning entitlements, the applicant considered multiple designs for the access, including a planted center strip on the paved driveway and the use of an open-faced block with grass infill (e.g., turf block or Grasscrete), but the designs were not feasible due to the fire access requirements. The applicant worked closely with the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) on access and site design and developed a driveway that meets the applicable fire requirements. The applicant prepared a revised rendering for the appeal that more accurately reflects the proposal and reduced visual impacts of the current design, shown below in Figure 1. To address the neighbors’ concern raised during the public hearing regarding the aesthetics of the driveway, the Planning Commission also added Condition of Approval 43 to ensure that the applicant and staff “make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing,” noting that final design approval is outside the Commission’s and City’s purview.

Figure 1. Driveway Rendering
9 Packet Pg. 171
Pacifica City Council 24 February 09, 2026
(2.) Accessory Dwelling Unit (Figure 2): Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are required to be processed ministerially pursuant to State law and PMC Section 9-4.451(b), and are not subject to discretionary review, including the site development findings. However, the ADU complies with all applicable objective standards. For example, the minimum rear setback required for an ADU is 4 feet and 20 feet is proposed. The height of the ADU is lower than the existing residence on Lot 16. In addition to compliance of PMC Section 4-12.04(e) for replacement tree plantings, the applicant has provided additional shrubs, vines, and retaining wall plantings between the ADU and Lot 16 to reduce potential privacy and visual impacts.

Figure 2. ADU Height and Landscaping Plan
In conclusion, the design of the driveway is limited by the fire access requirements, and the project has been conditioned to explore additional measures to reduce potential impacts while ensuring life-safety access. Even if the ADU were subject to discretionary findings, which is prohibited by state and local law, the proposed design addresses the concerns raised by the appellant. Further, The project would provide 58 percent of lot area as landscape and vegetated undisturbed areas, where only 20 percent is required, and incorporates trees, shrubs, vines, and other plantings. There is sufficient landscape area reserved for the project. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
b. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(4): “That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof.”
The appeal letter claims that the proposed layout is inconsistent with the code definitions of front and side lot lines, and that the elevated, paved driveway and retaining wall along the property line with Lot 7 does not comply with required setbacks and its placement would require a variance. Finally, the letter contends that the project’s driveway and placement of the house and ADU would block sunlight and restrict airflow to Lot 7 and Lot 16. The appellant also notes that story poles have not been provided, limiting the ability of neighbors and the Commission to fully assess these impacts.

Figure 3. Lot Lines and Required Setbacks
9 Packet Pg. 172
Pacifica City Council 25 February 09, 2026
1: Garages require a 20’ front setback; 34’-3” proposed 2: ADUs have a maximum 4’ rear setback; 20’-3” proposed Although a retaining wall meets the general definition of “structure” (anything constructed on the ground), there are specific provisions in the PMC that address fences, hedges, and walls and establish how they are regulated. PMC Section 9-4.250236 regulates fences, hedges, walls, and screen plantings 36 Project is vested to the zoning regulations in effect on the date the application was deemed complete. Article 25 Height Limits was modified in August 2025, however, the previous provisions of PMC 9-4.2502 apply, as stated below:

Sec. 9-4.2502. - Fences, hedges, walls, and plantings.
(a) No fence, hedge, wall, or screen planting of any kind shall be constructed or grown to exceed six (6′) feet in height (unless otherwise required by law) within any required side yard to the rear of the required front yard of any 9 Packet Pg. 173
Pacifica City Council 26 February 09, 2026
located within the required setbacks. The applicable code does not impose setback requirements but regulates the height of retaining walls when located in a required setback, to between 3 to 6 feet, unless otherwise required by law. In this case, the retaining walls are required to provide fire access to the site and can exceed the height. Regardless, the fire access was designed with retaining walls that range from approximately 2 to 3 feet along the southern flagpole lot line, with one section of retaining wall at 5 feet in the southwest corner, located well over 30 feet from the house on Lot 7 (Attachment E, Sheet A-4.1 Grading Plan). The retaining walls in the northern portion of the flagpole are outside of the required setbacks. The design, including the slope, is required by law to meet fire access requirements, and the height of the retaining walls within the required setbacks substantially comply with the PMC Section 9-

4.2503. Further, there are no setback requirements for fire access roadways or driveways.

This approach ensures that the project does not impede or discourage appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the area, nor diminish their value. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

The overall site and building designs follows the slope of the site to the maximum extent feasible and reduce excavation requirements. The project balances the need for fire access and site development with efforts to preserve natural features and the site’s existing grade, consistent with the PMC requirements dwelling or within any required rear yard; nor exceed three (3′) feet in height within the required front yard of any dwelling, or, for corner lots, within twenty-five (25′) feet of a street corner measured at the property line. Fences or walls limited to three (3′) feet in height may be vertically extended up to four (4′) feet with open work fence material, as defined in subsection (b) of this section, subject to approval of the Planning Director, who shall consider the compatibility of the fence design with its site and surrounding uses. Commercial fences may not exceed six (6′) feet in height, unless additional height is allowed with a site development permit. (b) When there is a difference in the ground level on opposite sides of a retaining wall or fence, height shall be measured from the higher ground level, however, any portion of a fence above the maximum allowable height as measured from the lower ground level may be required by the Planning Administrator to be an open work fence. An "open work fence" means a fence in which the component solid portions are evenly distributed and constitute not more than sixty (60%) percent of the total surface area of the fence. In addition, the height of fences or walls which are located within the front setback, parallel to the front property line, or within twenty-five (25′) feet of a street corner, shall be limited to three (3′) feet in height as measured from the side of the fence facing the street.

Archived code is available here:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances/476297?nodeId=TIT9PLZO_CH4ZO_ART25H ELI
9 Packet Pg. 174
Pacifica City Council 27 February 09, 2026
and intent of the Design Standards. For additional analysis on this Finding, refer to the project findings in Attachment A and the December 1, 2025 Planning Commission staff report. The submitted geotechnical engineering investigations (Attachment F and Attachment G) conclude that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint upon implementation of the recommendations contained in the accompanying reports, which are to be incorporated into the final plans and implemented during construction, per Condition 17 of the project. The project does not damage or destroy natural features and thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
d. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(8): “That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.”
The appeal letter states that the proposed project is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines,
37 including A.2 Building Location, B.2 Scale, B.6 Privacy, and C.6 Parking Areas.

While the Council has the discretion to determine the appropriate balance and priorities of the guidelines for a project, the guidelines do not contain objective standards and cannot be imposed in a manner that effectively denies or reduces the density of a “housing development project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. As the project qualifies as a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act,38 the Council’s discretion regarding subjective standards from the Guidelines is governed by the Housing Accountability Act.

The project has responded to the Design Guidelines and complies with all applicable objective development standards of the R-1-H zoning district, including height, setbacks, lot coverage, and offstreet parking, as well as ADU standards. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
e. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9): “That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.” The appeal letter raises three points under this criterion. First, that the proposed driveway does not comply with PMC Section 9-4.2813(i)39, which limits the width of driveways on lots with 50 feet or more 37 Pacifica Design Guidelines:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2394/637838931965700000 38 The project includes two or more residential dwellings, i.e. a single family and ADU, and is a “housing development project” for the purposes of the Housing Accountability Act.38 39 PMC 9-4.2813(i) Single-family residential driveways on lots with more than fifty (50′) foot frontages may exceed the maximum driveway width requirement if the purpose of the driveway is to create more off-street parking or conform to the requirement of "swing" type parking, as permitted by applicable provisions of this Code. In no event shall the driveway access exceed more than fifty (50%) percent of the total lot frontage or forty (40′) feet, whichever is less. Driveways shall be designed to provide at least one on-street parking space for each lot. 9 Packet Pg. 175
Pacifica City Council 28 February 09, 2026
of frontage to 50 percent of the frontage. Second, that the proposed driveway does not comply with a minimum 20-foot-wide driveway for emergency vehicle access required by the California Fire Code because the an18-foot wide driveway is proposed, and the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for a variance. Third, the appellant references the seismic and geologic hazards identified in the Safety Element of the General Plan and states that the project is inconsistent with the guiding policies related to landslides, liquefaction, erosion, and natural drainage.

4.2813(e)). Further, the code provision noted in the appeal would not apply to this site because the lot frontage is only 25 feet and does not exceed 50 feet. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
(2.) Fire Access: The proposed fire access is 18 feet wide, whereas 20 feet is the standard pursuant to the Fire Code. The applicant worked with NCFA and the proposed design was reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal as an Alternative Materials and Methods Request (AMMR). This allows for an 18-foot-wide driveway and fire apparatus turnaround based on site-specific conditions and compliance with applicable fire safety standards. As the NCFA has approved the access and on-site turnaround to meet the fire access requirements, staff relies on the Fire Marshal’s determination that the approved driveway configuration provides adequate emergency vehicle access for the project. See Condition of Approval No. 36 (Attachment A, Exhibit A). Variances are only applicable to the Zoning Ordinance and are not applied to other codes and regulations. NCFA has approved an AMMR for the width of the access and a turnaround, in compliance with the applicable regulations. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
(3.) Geologic Hazards: The applicant originally submitted a geotechnical report, prepared in 2011, concluding that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint (Attachment F). Following a request from the Planning Commission to further evaluate the previously prepared report, the applicant retained another firm in 2024 to review the initial geotechnical report and to conduct a new investigation, including borings and recommendations for grading, foundations, retaining walls, and drainage (Attachment G). Both geotechnical investigations concluded that the project is consistent with the guiding policies for seismic and geologic hazards. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

In conclusion, the driveway / fire access complies with applicable requirements, and geotechnical investigations conclude that project is consistent with the guiding policies for seismic and geologic hazards, therefore the project is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable laws of the City.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Point No. 3 – The Project was not in compliance with public notice requirements.

Staff Response: Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3203, the City must publish hearing notices in a newspaper of general circulation and mailing notices not less than 10 days prior to the hearing date to the owners and 9 Packet Pg. 176
Pacifica City Council 29 February 09, 2026
residents of property within a 500 foot-radius40 of the project site. It also states that “the failure of any person to receive such notice shall not invalidate the site development permit proceedings.” The City published notice in the San Mateo Daily Journal on November 21, 2025, and mailed notices on November 20, 2025, as postmarked. While the appellant does not explicitly accuse the City of falsifying the postage meter or drop off date, the City disputes any implication, direct or indirect, that mailing dates were falsified, and maintains that the notices were handled accurately and in accordance with standard practice on November 20, 2025, which was 12 calendar days prior to the meeting. The City has no control over the processing, handling, or delivery of notices once they are provided to the USPS, nor is it reasonable to expect delivery that aligns with an individual’s travel plans.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Staff Response: The Brown Act requires that an initial staff report or similar document containing an executive summary and the staff recommendation, if any, relating to that agenda item is made available for public inspection at the office or location posted at least 72 hours in advance of a regular meeting, and that agenda items be described with sufficient specificity to inform the public of the business to be conducted.41 The initial staff report and agenda was published online on November 26, 2025, at 2:29 PM, approximately 124 hours prior to the meeting. Further, the Brown Act does not prohibit the distribution of supplemental materials following agenda posting but requires that it be made available for public inspection at the time of distribution.42 At the meeting, printed copies of the easement were provided to the Commissioners, included in the publicly available agenda binder, and copies were available at the table with the extra agendas. In addition to the easement being made publicly available at the time of distribution to the Commission on December 1, 2025, it was also previously included as a publicly available supplemental exhibit attached to the Planning Commission staff report for the April 1, 2024, hearing.
43 As such, the Planning Commission complied with the Brown Act and no violation occurred.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Point No 5 – Project not in Compliance with Setback Requirements.

The appeal letter restates Appeal Point No. 2 regarding the setback requirements for retaining walls.

Staff Response: As noted under Appeal Point No. 2, Exclusion Criterion 9-4.3204(a)(4), there are no setback requirements for fire access roadways, driveways, or retaining walls.

Appeal Point No. 6 – Other Grounds for Appeal.

The appeal letter raises six sub-issues under this point. 40 The code requires a 300-foot radius mailing; however, City policy is to use a 500-foot radius. 41 Government Code § 54954.2
42 Government Code § 54954.2(b)(2)
43 Planning Commission staff report, dated April 1, 2024:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1524&Inline=True 9 Packet Pg. 177
Pacifica City Council 30 February 09, 2026
a. Failure to Consider or Pursue Alternatives. The Planning Commission failed to further investigate project design alternatives such as developing the paper street Calera Terrace.

Staff Response: The Planning Commission has purview over discretionary permits for “private development plans for the City in accordance with the State Planning Law and the City's established development review standards and processes.44” Developing Calera Terrace to provide frontage for the project would constitute a substantially different project and was not part of the proposed project. Neither state law nor the City’s established development review standards require consideration of project alternatives for discretionary projects that are exempt from environmental review. An environmental impact report (EIR) must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a)), but there is no such requirement to evaluate project alternatives where a project is exempt from CEQA review. Even if the Planning Commission were to have considered such an alternative, it would involve significant construction and grading beyond what is required for the proposed single-family residence, resulting in additional impacts, including disruption to neighboring properties and immediate area. The current proposal represents a less impactful development approach.

This appeal point is not applicable because consideration of a project alternative is not required.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
b. Inconsistency with Plans and Rendering. There appear to be significant inconsistencies between the applicant’s architectural plans and renderings, such as with respect to height and placement of the proposed house. Without accurate rendering and story poles, neither nearby residents nor the Commission or its staff could accurately gauge, analyze, or provide feedback on what exactly applicant propose to build.

Staff Response: The City does not require story poles for any development projects, as reflected in the state-mandated application submittal checklist. As discussed above under Appeal Point No. 2(b) and shown in Figure 1, the applicant has provided a more accurate rendering of the driveway. The two other renderings showing the building from the southwest (Bay View Road) and northwest (Rockaway) appear accurate in both height and placement. Further, even if the renderings were inaccurate, the proposed project meets all applicable objective development standards, including height, and the placement of the proposed house would comply with setbacks, exceeding the requirements from all lot lines.

Staff Response: As previously discussed, the subject property is larger than surrounding lots – over 26,000 square feet where 5,000 square feet is the minimum lot area, allowing the proposed building to meet zoning standards while maintaining appropriate scale relative to the site. Based on compliance with these objective standards established in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the lot size, the proposed building’s height, bulk and mass, and location are appropriate for the project site. This issue is adequately addressed by local and State law. Further, cursory calculations based on review of Google Earth images 44 PMC Section Sec. 2-2.202. - Purpose. The purpose of the Planning Commission shall be to recommend and advise the Council in the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the City's General Plan, Coastal Plan, Zoning Law, and other specific and area development plans which provide for and control the future physical development and conservation of the City, based upon geographic, social, economic, and environmental characteristics of the community. The Planning Commission shall also advise the Council on private development plans for the City in accordance with the State Planning Law and the City's established development review standards and processes. 9 Packet Pg. 178
Pacifica City Council 31 February 09, 2026
and Zillow, the lot coverage on neighboring properties averages approximately 22 percent. The proposed project would have a lot coverage of approximately 15 percent (excluding the ADU pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.453(c)(5)), which is comparable to neighboring sites. Additionally, there are other properties zoned R-1-H in the area that have been approved by the Planning Commission45 and City Council46 for houses with similar floor area, including a project known as “Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way47” for a 3,800 square foot single-family residence on a vacant lot.

Staff Response: The construction of the proposed project will not involve accessing or encroaching the adjacent neighbor’s lots, which will be verified through building permit review. This issue is adequately addressed by governing building codes during construction permit review and legally permitted construction activities.

Staff Response: The form and amount of any security or bond are determined by the City Engineer in accordance with standard practice, tailored to the scope and potential impacts of construction. The Planning Commission cannot specify these details, as it is not within their purview. In order to address 45 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-012:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1842/637831016077870000 46 City Council Resolution No. 54-2020:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1226/637830234956100000 47 File No. 2014-001, Site Development Permit, Heritage Tree Removal Permit, and Logging Operations Approval 9 Packet Pg. 179
Pacifica City Council 32 February 09, 2026
community concerns, Condition of Approval 45 was added to ensure that construction of retaining walls and other related improvements would be completed should the project be abandoned mid-way, while providing appropriate oversight by the City Engineer. This appeal point was adequately addressed by Planning Commission.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Point No. 7 – The project description is inadequate under California Environmental Quality Act.

Staff Response: Under CEQA, a project description should contain a “general description” of the project’s “main features,” and other information sufficient to foster a complete and informative evaluation of the project’s environmental impacts.48
While a project description must be stable and consistent throughout the document,49 a requirement for a consistent project description does not mean that the project cannot change as it proceeds through CEQA review and other stages in the approval process.50 The project description should allow for the flexibility needed to respond to unforeseeable events and changing conditions that could affect the project’s final design.51 A lead agency may also approve changes to a project without revising the project description if such changes do not result in increased environmental impacts.52 Here, the project description’s “main features” have been stable throughout the development process, including at the time of staff review and analysis and at the time of Planning Commission review and action. At all times, the project has consisted of a single-family residence, an attached garage, and an ADU. Any project changes have been minor and have not impaired a complete and informative evaluation of the project’s environmental impacts. The project remains consistent with the project description, as discussed in further detail under Appeal Point No. 8, because it has not changed for purposes of CEQA or project review. The conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission have not fundamentally changed the project and have not caused the project to be removed from the scope of CEQA exemption or result in any significant environmental impacts. No mitigation measures have been imposed, as further discussed under Appeal Point No. 8. The Planning Commission relied on the accurate project description for determining the CEQA categorical exemption.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Point No. 8 – The project is not exempt from California Environmental Quality Act The appeal letter claims three reasons that the project is not eligible for a categorical exemption from CEQA and that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact is required. 48 See Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 28; see also San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 654. 49 County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 197. 50 See Gooden v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1, 23. 51 See Claremont Canyon Conservancy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 474, 490; Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036. 52 Western Placer Citizens for an Agric. & Rural Env’t v. County of Placer (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 890, 905. 9 Packet Pg. 180
Pacifica City Council 33 February 09, 2026
a. Conditions of Approval: The appeal letter claims that the Planning Commission improperly relied on conditions of approval added at the meeting on December 1, 2025, as mitigation measures to support a categorical exemption. The appellant claims that the Conditions of Approval added by the Commission at the public hearing were actually mitigation measures, and the Planning Commission improperly relied on to apply CEQA Categorical Exemption to the project.

Staff Response: They conditions of approval added by the Planning Commission were not mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts. As explained in detail below, the majority of these conditions were added to allay public concerns and provide additional assurances to ensure that the Project complies with already applicable state and local regulations or the standards City conditions for a development Project. Regulations of general applicability that will prevent a significant impact from occurring (and conditions of approval requiring compliance with such regulations) are not treated as mitigation measures.53 Similarly, a feature built into the design or operation of a project is not treated as a mitigation measure that would preclude a categorical exemption.54 The conditions of approval added at the meeting on December 1, 2025, do not constitute mitigation measures and are unrelated to the Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” Categorical Exemption from CEQA. The conditions of approval are intended to ensure compliance with regulations of general applicability, such as standard requirements in the PMC, state law, and other regulatory requirements. Discussed below are the challenged conditions and staff’s analysis confirming they are not mitigation measures.

Staff Response: This condition was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. Rather, this condition was included in response to public concerns raised at the Commission hearing requiring an additional method for the project to demonstrate that the Project’s design for stormwater management is complying with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance requirements (Chapter 12 of the PMC) and other regulatory requirements (e.g. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). Under the NPDES permit requirements, the Project is already required to be designed to detain on-site all flows in excess of the existing flows during a 100-year frequency storm, and a condition requiring the applicant to demonstrate that effectiveness of the project’s 53 See San Francisco Beautiful v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1032 (upheld city’s reliance on standard permit review requirements to conclude that impacts would not be significant and therefore mitigation was not needed); Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 943, 961 (“Berkeley Hillside II”) (construction traffic management plan required by the city’s standard conditions of approval was not an impermissible mitigation measure because it was not adopted to address specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project); Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 824 (condition of approval requiring compliance with local noise standards was not a mitigation measure defeating the use of a categorical exemption, when the city found the project would meet those standards and imposed the condition of approval to ensure that it would do so).
54 See, e.g., Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1352 (developer’s agreement to dedicate land for a turning lane was a design feature, not a mitigation measure); Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City & County of San Francisco (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 863, 881 (fee imposed on the use of bags at retail stores was part of the plastic bag ban as originally proposed, not something added as a mitigation measure). 9 Packet Pg. 181
Pacifica City Council 34 February 09, 2026
design to meet this regulatory requirement is a standard engineering stormwater detention requirement applied for all single-family residential building permits Condition 42 states:
• Condition 42. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a preconstruction video survey documenting all existing site conditions and all public improvements limits of Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue, including but not limited to pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, drainage structures, utility boxes, adjacent landscaping, and any other visible surface features. The video survey shall be submitted electronically to the City Engineer for review and acceptance prior to permit issuance. Any damage to Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue caused by the project shall be repaired by applicant at the applicant’s expense.

Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. This condition requires documentation of existing site and public improvements to assign responsibility in the event of any project-related damage to public improvements. The project is not expected to damage public improvements. It is a condition to implement some of the PMC provisions that make the project applicant responsible for any damages or work done within public improvements, should they occur, and is not a mitigation measure.

Condition 43 states:
• Condition 43. Applicant, Planning staff, Engineering staff, and NCFA staff shall make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing.

Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. This condition was imposed to address community concerns, and memorializes staff’s commitment to seek additional options to create a more visually appealing driveway while also meeting fire access requirements as determined by NCFA. The Commission noted that final design approval of the driveway was highly subjective and was “more aesthetically pleasing”. As the City’s subjective imposition of driveway design condition of approval was for aesthetic purposes and there is not evidence that there are aesthetic impacts under CEQA. As a result, the condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. There is no substantial evidence in the record that the project will result in aesthetic impacts; argument, speculation, and unsubstantiated lay opinion do not constitute substantial evidence.55 Because there is no evidence of aesthetic impacts under CEQA, this condition of approval is not intended to “reduce” any environmental impact. For all of these reasons, Condition 43 is not a mitigation measure. Condition 44 states:
• Condition 44. The Applicant shall prepare a dust control plan conforming to the City Standards and complying with the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Best Management Practices for dust control prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The Applicant shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours56.

Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. While there were general concerns raised during the public hearing about construction dust, neither the appeal nor the public comments provide any substantial evidence in the record that the project construction will result in significant construction air quality impacts.57 Further, this condition merely reiterates the requirements that dust is controlled during construction in accordance with Bay Area Air District best management practices, which are standard 55 CEQA Guidelines § 15384.
56 The final Condition of Approval No. 44 corrects the agency name to Bay Area Air District, which was formerly Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)). 57 Argument, speculation, and unsubstantiated lay opinion do not constitute substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384; see also Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 588 [generalized aesthetic objections to project without regard to surrounding context of urbanized development were not substantial evidence].) 9 Packet Pg. 182
Pacifica City Council 35 February 09, 2026
conditions and regulations of general applicability. These standards would be required for any grading activities and reviewed by the Engineering Division prior to grading permit issuance. Therefore, Condition 44 is not a mitigation measure under CEQA.

Staff Response: This condition is not a mitigation measure because it was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. This condition relates to a financial mechanism (improvement agreement for a security amount) to ensure that certain improvements which are already proposed as part of the project design are completed if the project is abandoned mid-way. The improvements themselves are project design features, not mitigation measures. Further, Condition 45 is intended to ensure that the project is constructed in compliance with applicable standards. . Accordingly, Condition 45 is not a mitigation measure under CEQA.
b. Class 3 Categorical Exemption. “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,” does not apply to the project because it is comprised of a large single-family residence, ADU, three-car garage, retaining walls, elevated driveway, and grading.

Staff Response: The Class 3 exemption applies to the “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures” (CEQA Guidelines § 15303). Examples of the Class 3 “exemption include, but are not limited to58… “[o]ne single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences” and “[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.” (Ibid.) There are no floor area restrictions for new construction associated with this exemption.

The appellant selectively quotes the first example, omitting the provision allowing up to three singlefamily residences in urbanized areas. An urbanized area is defined, in part, as: (a) an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) has a population of at least 100,000 persons; [or] (2) has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons (Pub. Resources Code § 21071). Per the 2020 U.S. Census, the population of the City of Pacifica is 38,640, and the populations of its contiguous neighboring cities of Daly City and South San Francisco are 104,901 and 66,105, respectively.59 The City of Pacifica is an urbanized area because it is an incorporated city contiguous to not more than two incorporated cities that exceed 100,000 people.

Accordingly, the Class 3 exemption would allow the construction of up to three single-family residences because the City of Pacifica is an urbanized area. Here, the Project’s construction of one single-family residence, an ADU, and a garage is a lesser intensity of development than three single-family residences and thus cannot be expected to have greater environmental impacts than three single-family residences.

The Project clearly falls under the Class 3 exemption.
58 Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 818 [“the Guidelines themselves say it is not limited to the listed examples” in the Class 3 exemption].
59 See U.S. Census Bureau data for the 2020 population and related demographic data for the cities of Daly City (https://data.census.gov/profile/Daly_City_city,_California?g=160XX00US0617918) and South San Francisco (https://data.census.gov/profile/South_San_Francisco_city,_California?g=160XX00US0673262) 9 Packet Pg. 183
Pacifica City Council 36 February 09, 2026
Furthermore, the second referenced example refers to accessory structures, in the plural. Here, the accessory dwelling unit60 and garage are accessory structures that can be built under the Class 3 exemption.
c. Project size, steep topography, flag-lot location, and proximity to neighbors constitute “unusual circumstances” under CEQA.

Staff Response: Further, the exception for “unusual circumstances” does not apply. This exception applies where, due to “unusual circumstances,” there is a “reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment” (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b)). A claim that this exception applies can be proven in only two ways: (1) by showing both that the project is unusual and that there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant adverse impact on the environment due to the project’s unusual circumstances; or (2) by showing that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment.61
“[U]nusual circumstances are those that (i) differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by the particular categorical exemption and (ii) create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects.” 62“[W]hether a circumstance is ‘unusual’ is judged relative to the typical circumstances related to an otherwise typically exempt project.”63 Unusual circumstances are generally found on the basis of “some feature of the project that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class,” which can sometimes be on the basis of its size or location.64 As discussed above in Staff Response (b), the project proposes a single-family residence, a garage, and an ADU, which is exactly the kind of development contemplated by the CEQA Class 3 exemption, as evidenced by the enumerated examples in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 language, so it cannot be distinguished from others in the exempt class. The project complies with all applicable objective zoning standards for the Single-Family Residential Hillside (R-1-H) District, and the project is consistent with the scale and intensity anticipated for residential development in the City, such that the height, FAR, ground coverage etc. of the project cannot be considered “unusual.” Hillside conditions, grading, retaining walls, and engineered foundations are common characteristics of development in the R-1-H district and do not constitute unusual circumstances when compared to similar projects on hillside lots in Pacifica. Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.951, the R-1-H zone regulates development of “certain hillside areas” and “allow[s] residential development compatible with the slope limitations of the development site” and consistent with the Pacifica Design Guidelines.

The applicant provided two geotechnical investigations (Attachment F and Attachment G) by different firms, both of which demonstrate that the proposed project will not have significant environmental impacts related to grading, excavation, slope stability, and drainage.

By contrast, the appellant and other public commenters have raised only generalized concerns and unsubstantiated opinions that Project creates geological risks, which do not present substantial evidence that unusual circumstances exist here, nor substantial evidence of any impacts due to unusual circumstances.65 These concerns raised by the Appellant are “normal and common considerations in the construction of a single-family residence”, and are not evidence of unusual circumstances.66 Further, the 60 Accessory Dwelling Units require ministerial review and approval, and are statutorily exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2)
61 (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105 [“Berkeley Hillside I”].) 62 North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832, 868. 63 San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1024. 64 San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1381; Berkeley Hillside I at p. 1105. 65 CEQA Guidelines § 15384.
66 Association for Protection of Environmental Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720,736. 9 Packet Pg. 184
Pacifica City Council 37 February 09, 2026
courts have generally rejected such size and location arguments presenting unusual circumstances in the case of single-family homes, as the appellant is raising here for this project.67 Thus, the appellants fail to provide substantial evidence that the project includes unusual circumstances or that the project will result in significant impacts to remove the project from the scope of the Class 3 CEQA exemption.

Resources Code § 21080(a), (c)). This appeal point was adequately addressed by the Planning Commission.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub.

Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) pursuant to the Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) categorical exemption (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 [“CEQA Guidelines”] § 15303). CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 applies to the Project as described below:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 states that Class 3 applies to the “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures.” Examples of the Class 3 “exemption include, but are not limited to . . . “[o]ne single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences” and “[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15303.)
The City Council finds that the Project fits within the scope of the Class 3 exemption because it involves the construction of a single-family residence and accessory structures in a residential zoning district (R-1-H). There are no floor area restrictions for new construction associated with this exemption. The City Council finds that the City of Pacifica is an urbanized area, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21071, because the City is an incorporated city contiguous to not more than two incorporated cities that exceed 100,000 people. Accordingly, the Class 3 exemption would allow the construction of up to three single-family residences because the City of Pacifica is an urbanized area. This Project would only involve the construction of one singlefamily residence. Therefore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

Additionally, the City Council finds that none of the exceptions to application of a categorical exemption contained in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply to the Project, as described below:
• Location (§ 15300.2(a)): There is no evidence in the record that the Project will impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern in an area designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies. The Project site is located within a substantially developed residential neighborhood and is not located in a sensitive environmental area. Therefore, the “location” exception is not applicable.
• Cumulative Impacts (§ 15300.2(b)): There is no evidence in the record that successive 67 See Association for Protection of Environmental Values, 2 Cal.App.4th at 736; see also Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 943. 9 Packet Pg. 185
Pacifica City Council 38 February 09, 2026
projects of the same type in the area would have a cumulatively significant environmental impact. The Project proposes residential development, in accordance with the General Plan, within a substantially developed residential neighborhood. Staff is aware of no evidence of impending development of other similar projects in the area that would have a significant impact on the environment, either alone or cumulatively with other projects in the vicinity.
• Unusual Circumstances (§ 15300.2(c)): There is no evidence in the record that the Project (1) involves unusual circumstances or (2) may have a significant effect on the environment due to those unusual circumstances. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The Project does not differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by the Class 3 categorical exemption and the Project does not create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects. Because the City is an urbanized area, the Class 3 exemption would allow construction of three single-family residences; the Project consists of one single-family residence and associated accessory structures, and is therefore a lesser intensity of development than allowed under the Class 3 exemption. The Project site is zoned and designated for residential use, and the hillside development pattern is consistent with the surrounding development. The project complies with all applicable objective zoning standards for the Single-Family Residential Hillside (R-1-H) District, and the project is consistent with the scale and intensity anticipated for residential development in the City, such that the height, FAR, ground coverage, etc. of the project cannot be considered “unusual.” Hillside conditions, grading, retaining walls, and engineered foundations are common characteristics of development in the R-1-H district and do not constitute unusual circumstances when compared to similar projects on hillside lots in Pacifica. There is no evidence to indicate the site has any value to protected species. The applicant provided two geotechnical reports (Attachment F and Attachment G) of the staff report) by different firms, both of which demonstrate that the Project will not have significant environmental impacts related to grading, excavation, slope stability, or drainage. By contrast, the Appellant and other public commenters have raised just generalized concerns and unsubstantiated lay opinions that Project creates geological risks, which do not present substantial evidence that unusual circumstances exist here, nor substantial evidence of any impacts due to unusual circumstances. As such, there are no identifiable unusual circumstances and no evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment due to those unusual circumstances. There is also no evidence in the record that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, the “unusual circumstances” exception does not apply.
• Scenic Highways, Hazardous Waste Sites, Historical Resources (§ 15300.2(d)-(f)): The Project is not proposed near a designated scenic highway, does not involve a current or former hazardous waste site, and does not affect any historical resources. Therefore, the exceptions in subsections (d) through (f) are not applicable to this Project.

Because substantial evidence in the record shows that the Project is consistent with the requirements of a Class 3 exemption, and none of the exceptions to applying a categorical exemption in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, the City Council finds that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby finds that none of the negative findings under PMC Section 9-4.3204(a) can be made with respect pertaining to Site Development Permit PSD-838-18, and hereby makes the following findings:
9 Packet Pg. 186
Pacifica City Council 39 February 09, 2026

1. That the location, size, and intensity of the proposed operation will create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern, taking into account the proposed use as compared with the general character and intensity of the neighborhood; The Project would not substantially increase traffic since only one single-family residence and one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) are proposed, and because the Project site is located in an area of established residences. The Project includes three covered parking spaces in a garage attached to the primary residence, which meets the PMC requirement of two parking spaces for a single-family residence and one guest parking space. The Project will provide adequate emergency vehicle access through provision of an on-site emergency vehicle turnaround. The proposed 18’-0” access driveway from Bay View Road does not meet the 20’-0” standard width required for emergency vehicle access pursuant to the California Fire Code (CFC). However, the design has been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) given the project site’s limitations, including limited space from Bay View Road for access to the site and lack of any other feasible access route. The 18’-0” width of the access driveway is the widest access point that can be obtained in light of an existing landscaping easement on the applicant’s property. The proposed development will not affect or impede alternative transportation modes. On balance, the location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern.

1. That the accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on adjacent streets will create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses;
The Project includes three covered parking spaces in a garage attached to the primary residence. The parking spaces are accessible via the driveway from Bay View Road to the proposed residence. The proposed driveway is designed with approximately 12 feet of separation from the neighboring driveway to the north. The circulation and access aspects of the project, including ingress/egress between Bay View Road and the project site via the proposed driveway have undergone review and approval by the City's Engineering Division staff to ensure safe operations. Additionally, Bay View Road will be maintained and repaired as per the Engineering conditions of approval.

The three-car garage parking spaces meet the PMC requirement of two parking spaces for a single-family residence and one guest parking space, fulfilling the off-street parking requirements for the proposed development. The single-family residence proposed is not expected to significantly increase traffic on Bay View Road, which serves as the access route to the development. Moreover, 11 other single-family residences use Bay View Road for access with similar driveway configurations.

Therefore, the Project will not create any hazardous or inconvenient conditions for adjacent or surrounding uses with respect to the accessibility of off-street parking and the relationship of off-street parking area to traffic.

2. That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas; The proposed service and storage areas will be entirely contained within the residence and will not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. The proposed landscaping, combined with the remaining undeveloped vegetated area, covers more than 50 percent of the site, exceeding the 20 percent requirement for landscaping per PMC 9-4.402(i). This extensive landscaping plan incorporates a variety of plantings such as shrubs, ground covers, grasses, and trees. Specifically, plantings along the driveway and near retaining walls are strategically placed to break up and soften the visual impact of these hardscape elements. The selection of small and large broadleaf trees aims to screen the proposed development from neighboring residential properties. A detailed landscape plan, including information on 9 Packet Pg. 187
Pacifica City Council 40 February 09, 2026
the full spread and height of the plantings, will be finalized during the building permit stage to ensure effective screening.

To address concerns from neighbors’ regarding the visual impacts of the driveway design, Condition of Approval 43 was added by the Planning Commission to ensure that the applicant and staff “make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing”, noting that that final design approval for the driveway is outside the City’s purview.

As such, as conditioned, the project’s landscaping will provide adequate screening and relief from hardscaping and paved surfaces.

1. That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof;
The project entails the development of an approximately 3,180-square foot (sf) single-family residence, along with an approximately 668-sf attached three-car garage, and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf undeveloped lot.

The placement of the buildings on this relatively spacious site allows for setbacks from all property lines that exceed the minimum requirements for the single-family residence. The proposed development is located on significantly higher ground than the nearest residences along Rockaway Beach Avenue to the south. However, the proposed residence will set back a minimum of 15 feet-6 inches at its southeastern corner with its taller, two-story portions setback further behind. The setbacks from common property line of the proposed buildings will ensure that there are no light and air impacts to surrounding properties, including those that are not developed at present. Structures such as retaining walls, driveway, fence and hedges are not subject to setback requirements pursuant to PMC section 9-4.2502. The proposed singlefamily residence is a use consistent with the use in the vicinity and the buildings constructed would be scaled down with architectural features and detailing. This approach ensures that the project does not impede or discourage appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the area, nor diminish their value.

As such, the project is planned in a way that does not unreasonably restrict or obstruct light and air on the property or neighboring properties, nor does it hinder or discourage appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood or diminish their value.

2. That the improvement of any commercial or industrial structure, as shown on the elevations as submitted, is substantially detrimental to the character or value of an adjacent R District area; The proposed development is a residential project and no improvements to any commercial or industrial structures are proposed. Therefore, this finding is inapplicable to the subject project.

3. That the proposed development will excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the natural grade of the site, except as provided in the subdivision regulations as set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of this Code; The project site is currently undeveloped and covered with vegetation, including thick brush, bushes, and scattered trees. Four of the trees are either within the project site or within 50 feet of the construction limits. Two of these trees, both Monterey Pines, are protected trees, per PMC Section 4-12.02(n). One of these protected trees is proposed for removal to facilitate the proposed development on the project site, in addition to a dead, 10-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) Monterey Pine tree and another 8-inch DBH tree of the same species. Removal of the two healthy trees will require four new tree plantings of the same species at a replacement ratio of 2:1, per PMC Section 4-12.04(e). 9 Packet Pg. 188
Pacifica City Council 41 February 09, 2026
The Project arborist report, titled “Tree Assessment & Protection,” dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis (Attachment F) of the Planning Commission staff report, dated December 1, 2025 <https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1618&Inline=True>), recommends a Tree Protection Plan for all trees, including trees on neighboring properties that are six or more DBH in size and located within the proposed project site and fifty (50’) feet of within project’s limits of disturbance, in accordance with PMC. The recommendations in this report have been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. The Project arborist report will be updated with the description of the plan for watering trees during the construction activities, in accordance with PMC Section 4-12.11(c)(3), prior to issuance of the building permit, as set forth in the conditions of approval of this project.

The other potentially significant natural feature is the natural grade present on the site. The steeply sloping topography of the Project site presents significant challenges to minimizing excavation. The Project proposes extensive retaining walls on the north and the southern side of the Project site with a retaining wall east of the ADU, as part of development on the Project site. However, the overall site and building design follows the slope of the site to the maximum extent feasible. The Project’s site plan, largely driven by the site access requirements for fire safety, locates the Project’s driveway on the relatively less steep northern portion of the project site with the building footprint configured to accommodate the shape of the hammerhead required for fire truck access. The proposed buildings are located along the contours with access to the residence on the upper level on higher ground with the lower level below setback into the hillside. These features of the site and building design serve to reduce excavation and, thus minimize adverse impacts to the natural topography.

The submitted geotechnical engineering investigations conclude that the Project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations contained in the accompanying reports are incorporated into the final plans and implemented during construction. Condition of Approval 30 has been included to ensure recommendations proposed in the geotechnical reports are incorporated within the final Project plans prior to the issuance of the building permit.

As such, as conditioned, the project will not excessively damage or destroy the natural features of the site.

4. That there is insufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the external appearance;
As earlier indicated, the Spanish revival style of the residence blends several architectural elements such as varied roof profiles, balconies, and curves and arches for window and door openings. These elements along with the complementary colors and materials associated with the Spanish Revival style, such as red terracotta tiles for the roofs, brown wood-framed windows and roof shelves, and white stucco for the exterior walls ensure a visually interesting and harmonious design that avoids monotony.

The facades of the residence display complementary variety, exhibiting similarity in colors and materials while varying the size, shape, and treatment of windows. Large curved and arched windows and door elements on the northern and southern facades, coupled with square windows on the sides, introduce variety to the design.

Overall, the combination of diverse architectural treatments and articulations, along with the variety of plant materials used in landscaping, ensures that the external appearance of the proposed buildings exhibits sufficient variety and avoids any sense of monotony.

5. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines; or The proposed project has achieved consistency with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines as follows:
• Site Planning
9 Packet Pg. 189
Pacifica City Council 42 February 09, 2026
Screening: Exterior trash and storage areas, service yards, landing docks and ramps, electrical utility boxes, etc., should be screened from view of all nearby streets and adjacent structures in a manner that is compatible with building and site design. Such facilities should be conveniently located, but must not interfere with the circulation and parking on the site.

As earlier mentioned, all service and storage areas would be located within the building interior and screened from view of all nearby streets and adjacent structures, with no visual impact or interference with parking and circulation on the Project site. • Building Design
Scale: An important aspect of design and compatibility is scale. A development can be out of scale with its surroundings due to its relative height, bulk, mass, or density. A structure which is out of scale with its site and neighborhood threatens the integrity of the overall streetscape, and residential projects, particularly single-family dwelling which are much larger than neighboring structures are therefore discouraged.

Details. Use architectural features and details to help create a sense of human scale. Wall insets, balconies, window projections, etc., are examples of building elements which may help reduce the scale of larger buildings.

Materials: Compatibility of materials is an essential ingredient in design quality. Consistency and congruity of materials and design elements on individual structures is also important.

Privacy. Consideration should be given to the impact of development on the privacy of surrounding properties. Use judicious window placement and appropriate landscaping to help minimize the potential for loss of privacy.

Consistency: There should be architectural consistency among all building elevations.

The proposed project complies with the objective development standards of the R-1-H zoning district, including height, bulk, mass, and lot coverage, and all of the buildings exceed the minimum setbacks. As mentioned earlier, the proposed residence is articulated in the Spanish Revival architectural style to include curves and arches above window and door openings on both the southern and northern facades.

The southern façade also includes lower and upper-level balconies with wood railings that extend to the western façade. The overall mass of the building is tempered with varied wall planes between the upper and lower levels that are visible from the south and offsets visible from the west and the north. The wall planes on the east are broken by the distance between the primary residence and the ADU that is located to the north of the residence.

The above-mentioned features and the varied roof profiles of both buildings serve to scale down the development consistent with the surrounding residences of smaller footprints and mass. This effect is more notable on the south side that faces the residential development downslope. The proposed materials, including terracotta tiles for the roofs, wood railings and frames for the balconies, and stucco for exterior walls, align with the Spanish Revival style of the buildings and bring seamless consistency among all facades of the buildings.

The proposed site plan allows for relatively deep setbacks from all property lines and trees would be strategically planted in accordance with the final landscape plan to screen the proposed development that would minimize privacy impacts to surrounding residences. Additionally, the proposed design accounts for the neighbors’ expressed concern regarding privacy in not pursuing the alternative that placed the building closer to the project site’s southern boundary and lower on the hillside. 9 Packet Pg. 190
Pacifica City Council 43 February 09, 2026
Therefore, on balance, the Project design is consistent with this design guideline. • Hillside Development
Excavation. Large amounts of cut and/or fill are unattractive on hillsides, and can have a detrimental impact on the immediate and surrounding environment. (a) Structures should relate to and follow site topography to work with the slope, not against it. (b) Whenever feasible, buildings and roads should be sited to align with existing contours of the land.
(c) Retaining walls should be avoided or, if necessary, their height should be reduced to the minimum feasible.
(d) Avoid one-level solutions which would result in excessive lot coverage and more disruption of the site. Multi-level structures which step down the slope can help to minimize cut and fill.

As previously discussed, the steeply sloping topography of the project site presents significant challenges for minimizing excavation that has required extensive retaining walls on the northern and the southern side of the Project site as well as a retaining wall east of the accessary dwelling unit. However, the overall site and building design follows the northeast to southeast downward slope of the site with a step-down design to the south integrating the buildings with the surrounding terrain. The access driveway and emergency vehicle turnaround have also been designed to relate to and follow site topography to work with the slope, not against it, by placing them at the flatter portions of the upper site. Additionally, the placement of the proposed buildings is such that the longer facades are aligned with the direction of the existing contours. Therefore, on balance, the Project design is consistent with this design guideline.

2. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, or other applicable laws of the City.

The land use designation for the project site is Low Density Residential (LDR) per the 2040 General Plan.

The LDR land use designation allows for the development of three to nine dwelling units per gross acre.

The resulting density of the proposed Project is 3.3 units per acre, based on the proposal for two dwelling units (comprised of a primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit) on a 0.598-acre site. Therefore, the density of the proposed development is consistent with that of the LDR designation. Additionally, the proposed single-family residential use is consistent with the primary intended use in LDR designation of the General Plan.

The Project is also consistent with the development standards of the applicable R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) zoning district. Specifically, the height, setbacks, lot coverage, off-street parking, and other applicable development standards of the R-1-H zoning district as further detailed in the staff report.

Further, the Project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies that include, but are not limited to, the following:

Community Design Element:

Policy CD-I-11. Minimize Visual Impacts of Hillside Development. Require new development to employ innovative site planning, engineering and design techniques that:
• Seek first to avoid impacts to scenic resources through site planning and design; • Minimize grading and conform with natural landforms to the greatest extent possible; • Design structures so that they follow contours and limit their downslope exposure; and 9 Packet Pg. 191
Pacifica City Council 44 February 09, 2026
• Use landscaping to screen and integrate buildings with the natural environment.

Policy CD-I-14. Design Review. Continue to use Design Guidelines to evaluate proposed projects in Planned Development, Hillside Development, and Special districts.

Land Use Element
Policy LU-I-5. Density Ranges. Ensure that development is permitted within the allowable density range for the applicable land use designations.

Circulation Element
Policy CI-I-22. Improvements for Existing Facilities. Maintain and upgrade local streets, sidewalks, utilities, and other City infrastructure in a manner that prevents deterioration and corrects existing deficiencies.

Housing Element
HE-G-1. Maintain, Improve, and Develop Housing: Encourage the development and retention of housing in a variety of types for all income levels with priority given to low-income households and projects that foster sustainable urban development.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby makes the following findings pertaining to Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24:
(a) The condition of the tree, presence of disease, pest infestation, damage, public nuisance, risk, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and/or interference with utility services.

The protected tree to be removed, as identified above, is in close proximity to a retaining wall necessary to allow for the construction of the hammerhead portion of the Project driveway, which is necessary for the required fire truck access to the site. Given the proximity of the subject tree to proposed construction including structures, the removal of this tree is necessary. Removal of this tree is also justified, as it will not survive the impact to its root zone because of the grading and construction associated with the proposed site improvements as described above. (b) Whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property.

The subject tree removal is necessary to facilitate the construction of the hammerhead portion of the Project’s driveway that is essential for fire truck access to the development. The Project’s driveway is located in the only feasible location on the project site, given the limitations of slope and site access from public street. In the absence of such access, the Project site cannot be developed, thus depriving the owner of economically viable use of the property.
(c) The topography of the land and effect of the requested action on it.

The Project includes geotechnical evaluation, as incorporated in Attachment F and Attachment G to the staff report, that evaluated slope stability. The geotechnical evaluation concluded that the Project could be constructed safely, subject to the recommendations in the report, including those pertaining to removal of trees.
(d) The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty and upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the area and the City as a whole.

As noted above, removal of the subject protected tree would facilitate the fire access necessary for the 9 Packet Pg. 192
Pacifica City Council 45 February 09, 2026
development of the Project site, thereby promoting health, safety, and general welfare of the area, and by extension, the City as a whole. The planting of required replacement trees would be located in accordance with the final landscape plan that would be reviewed and approved by City staff, ensuring that such plantings contribute to the scenic beauty associated with trees on the project site. Removal of one protected tree in relation to the large size of the Project site would not result in adverse impacts to shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, or historic value on the Project site or immediate surroundings.
(e) The number of healthy trees the parcel is able to support.

The Project site is 26,055 square feet in size, which is adequate to ensure that the two replacement trees required for mitigation of the removal of the subject protected tree can be installed and maintained on the project site healthfully.

Based on the foregoing analysis, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the criteria for approval of a tree removal permit to remove one protected tree have been met by the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council of the City of Pacifica approves Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree Removal Permit TP-4-24, subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A to this resolution, and finds the Project exempt from CEQA.
* * * * *
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 9th day of February 2026.

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
______________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney 9 Packet Pg. 193
Pacifica City Council 46 February 09, 2026
Exhibit A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PSD-838-18 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TP-4-24 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 3,180-SQUARE FOOT (SF) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN APPROXIMATELY 668-SF ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 26,055-SF, UNDEVELOPED LOT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET EAST-NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE AND BAY VIEW ROAD (APN 022-062-550) City Council Meeting of February 9, 2026
Planning Division of the Community Development Department

1. Development shall be substantially in accordance with the plans set entitled “Benda-Spenker Residence,” prepared December 3, 2018, last revised October 21, 2024, except as modified by the following conditions.

2. Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 is valid for a period of two years from the date of final determination. If the use or uses approved is/are not established within such period of time, the approval shall expire unless Applicant submits a written request for an extension and applicable fee prior to the expiration date, and the Community Development Director or Planning Commission approves the extension request as provided below. The Community Development Director may administratively grant a single, one-year extension provided, in the their sole discretion, if the circumstances considered during the initial project approval have not materially changed. Otherwise, the Planning Commission shall consider a request for a single, one-year extension.

3. The approval letter issued by the City and all conditions of approval attached thereto shall be included as plan sheets within all plan sets submitted to the City as part of any building permit application.

4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all applicable conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction.

5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit plans that include an update to the project data table on the Cover Page, accurately depicting the applicable R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) development standards and correcting the error in the proposed lot coverage (lot area covered by the proposed structures) mentioned.

6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a detailed on-site exterior lighting plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Said plan shall indicate fixture design, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. Lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residences. 9 Packet Pg. 194
Pacifica City Council 47 February 09, 2026
Buffering techniques to reduce light and glare impacts to residences shall be required. Building lighting shall be architecturally integrated with the building style, materials and colors and shall be designed to minimize glare. Show fixture locations, where applicable, on all building elevations.

7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for approval by the Community Development Director. The landscape plan shall show each type, size at maturity, and location of plant materials, including the location of the four replacement Monterey Pine trees (or other acceptable species as approved by the City Arborist) in lieu of the two Monterey Pine trees removed (2:1 replacement ratio) for Project construction, as well as the irrigation system. The four replacement trees shall be planted south of the proposed residence and serve to screen the development from downhill residential properties along Rockaway Beach Avenue. Landscaping materials included on the plan shall be coastal compatible, drought tolerant and shall be predominantly native. All landscaping shall be completed consistent with the final landscape plans prior to occupancy. In addition, the landscaping shall be maintained as shown on the landscape plan and shall be designed to incorporate efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

Landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in a healthful condition and replaced, when necessary, as determined by the Community Development Director.

8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a completed Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) checklist demonstrating compliance with the MWELO water efficiency standards for review and approval by the Community Development Director.

9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit an updated Project arborist report for review and approval by the City Arborist that, in addition to the tree protection plan included in the Project arborist report titled “Tree Assessment & Protection,” dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis, includes the following:
a. A description of the plan for watering trees during the construction activities; b. Plan for tree replacement at 2:1 ratio for the proposed tree removal, as described in Condition of Approval No. 7; and
c. Correct the error in the identification as a protected tree of Tree #12, labeled as Red Ironbark Eucalyptus tree in the Project arborist report titled “Tree Assessment & Protection,” dated March 18, 2023, prepared by Byron Ellis.

10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , all transformers, HVAC units, backflow preventers and other ground-mounted utility equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall be located out of public view and/or adequately screened through the use or combination of walls or fencing, berming, painting, and/or landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit a roof plan with spot elevations showing the location of all roof equipment including vents, stacks and skylights. All roof equipment shall be screened to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction.

12. All permanent mechanical equipment, such as motors, compressors, pumps, and compactors, which is determined by the Building Official to be a source of structural vibration or structure9 Packet Pg. 195
Pacifica City Council 48 February 09, 2026
borne noise, shall be shock mounted in inertia blocks or bases and/or vibration isolators in a manner approved by the Building Official.

13. During construction, Applicant shall maintain its site in a fashion that does not constitute a public nuisance and that does not violate any provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

14. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this Project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.

15. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant’s Project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Applicant’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Applicant of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

Building Division of the Community Development Department

16. The Project requires review and approval of a building permit by the Building Official. Applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a building permit prior to commencing any construction activity.

17. The Project shall comply with all recommendations from the geotechnical engineering investigations:
a. The applicant shall retain a California-licensed Geotechnical Engineer to provide all required geotechnical review, observation, and testing during grading, excavation, and foundation construction. A letter from the Geotechnical Engineer confirming review and approval of the project plans shall be submitted prior to issuance of any grading or building permit.
b. The contractor shall provide the Geotechnical Engineer and the City a minimum of 72 hours’ notice prior to any earthwork, subdrain installation, retaining walls, or drilled pier operations.
9 Packet Pg. 196
Pacifica City Council 49 February 09, 2026
c. Prior to occupancy of the building, the applicant shall submit certification by the Geotechnical Engineer of record confirming that all work has been completed in substantial conformance with the soils investigation/geotechnical report.

Engineering Division of the Public Works Department

18. Construction shall be in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented during construction, and the construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the Project plans prior to issuance of a building permit.

19. The following requirements must be clearly noted on the construction plans for the Project:
a. Bay View Road shall be maintained clear of construction materials, equipment, storage, debris, and soil. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced. A properly signed no-parking zone may be established during normal working hours only. b. All recorded survey points, monuments, railroad spikes, pins, cross cuts on top of sidewalks and tags on top of culvert headwalls or end walls whether within private property or public right-of-way shall be protected and preserved. If survey point/s are altered, removed or destroyed, the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the services of a licensed surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer to restore or replace the survey points and record the required map prior to occupancy of the first unit. c. Existing public improvements within the property frontage that are damaged or displaced shall be repaired or replaced as determined by the City Engineer even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this project. Any damage to improvements within city right-of-way or to any private property, whether adjacent to subject property or not, that is determined by the City Engineer to have resulted from construction activities related to this project, shall be repaired or replaced as directed by the City Engineer.

20. Excess site drainage must be conducted under the sidewalk to the street. Storm drainage should be designed for a 100-year event (a rate of rainfall anticipated to occur only once in 100 years, on average). The storm drainage system must be in compliance with Section C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit for San Mateo County, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

21. Prior to certificate of occupancy or final inspection, existing curb, sidewalk or other street improvements adjacent to the property frontage that is damaged or displaced shall be repaired or replaced as deemed by the City Engineer, even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed for this Project.
9 Packet Pg. 197
Pacifica City Council 50 February 09, 2026

22. New driveway approach ramp and new concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be per City Standards. Where the sidewalk crosses the driveway approach it must be ADA-compliant, providing no more than 2% cross-slope for no less than 48" width.

23. Applicant shall grind the existing asphalt street pavement with a minimum of 2 inches to street centerline or to the extent of the longest utility trench if beyond the centerline along Bay View Road, and an overlay of Caltrans specification ½" Type 'A' hot mix asphalt concrete shall be placed. If, in the opinion of the City Engineer, damage to the pavement during construction is more extensive, a larger area may have to be ground & overlaid. All pavement markings and markers shall be replaced in kind.

24. All utilities shall be installed underground from the nearest joint pole or box.

25. New waterline for fire sprinkler system shall be per City Standards 300 and 301.

26. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit to Engineering Division the construction plans and necessary reports and engineering calculations for all on-site improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such plans and reports shall include but are not limited to:
a. An accurate survey plan, showing:
i. survey marks and identifying the reference marks or monuments used to establish the property lines;
ii. property lines labeled with bearings and distances; iii. edge of public right-of-way
iv. any easements
b. A site plan, showing:
i. the whole width of right-of-way of adjacent streets, including existing and proposed improvements such as, but not limited to, pavement overlay, undersidewalk drainage, driveway approaches, sidewalk, curb & gutter, ADAcompliant curb ramps, existing underground utilities and trenches for proposed connections, boxes for underground utility connections and meters, existing power poles and any ground-mounted equipment, any existing or proposed street markings and signage; existing and requested traffic control devices, existing and proposed street lights; existing and proposed street monuments 9 Packet Pg. 198
Pacifica City Council 51 February 09, 2026
ii. the slopes of existing adjacent and any proposed streets; iii. plan, profile and cross sections of the proposed driveways; proposed driveway shall not exceed the maximum grade of 18%;
iv. measurements to adjacent driveways within 25' of the project limits; v. any existing fences, and any structures on adjacent properties within 10' of the property lines;
vi. any existing trees that might be affected by the project; vii. any creeks or seasonal drainage swales or ditches on the property or near enough to be affected by the project
c. Details for construction within the public right-of-way or public easements such as, but not limited to:
i. structural sections for pavements, sidewalks, driveways; ii. water, storm drainage and sanitary sewer pipes and structures; iii. gas, electric and communications facilities;
iv. retaining walls, fences, planters, steps or stairways, or any other fixed structures; v. All plans and reports must be signed and stamped by a California licensed professional.

27. Prior to the site being physically disturbed in any way that could affect storm water runoff, Applicant shall obtain approval of an erosion control plan by the Building Official.

28. Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to any work undertaken in the public rightof-way. All work shall be done in accordance with City Standards, Caltrans Standard Specifications, Pacifica Municipal Code, Administrative Policies, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or his designee, and shall be completed prior issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Permit fees shall be determined per the current adopted fee schedule at the time of permit issuance.

29. Applicant shall provide an Operations and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Agreement for the Stormwater Treatment Measures, which shall specify that measures shall be inspected at an interval to be determined by the City Engineer. The draft agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. The agreement shall include provisions that allow the City to perform maintenance if not performed by the owner, with such costs to be lien on the property if not promptly reimbursed by owner. 9 Packet Pg. 199
Pacifica City Council 52 February 09, 2026

30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide documentation that the geotechnical engineer has confirmed that the bio-swales will not create stability issues with the grade slopes, to the satisfaction of the Building Official and City Engineer.

31. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise to conform Drainage Area Codes (A, B, C, D) to Worksheet D of C.3 checklist (1,2,3), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Coordinate area of Drainage Area B with area in Worksheet D.

32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall revise the drainage plan to identify Self Treating Areas on the plan and on the table.

33. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide a detail for the catch basin with sump pump downslope of the house for review and approval by the City Engineer.

34. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall show how stormwater flows into each of the Bio Swales from pipes and driveway surface, as applicable, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

35. Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan (TCP), which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. The TCP shall include the following and any other information as deemed necessary by the City Engineer upon review of the TCP:
a. Identification of the path of travel for delivery trucks to and from the project site. This travel-path shall be shown starting from and returning to the City’s designated truck route or the City limits and starting from and returning to the offload location at the project site.
b. Identification of a “turn-around” area for delivery trucks on site. All open-bed trucks shall be tarped.
c. Identification of all on- and off-site worker parking locations, including any carpool pickup and drop-off locations. d. Identification of an access lane of not less than 11 feet in width between parked vehicles and equipment at all times for emergency vehicle access. e. Staging and storing of equipment and materials in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited unless authorized with an encroachment permit. f. Lane closures shall only be permitted with prior approval from the Department of Public 9 Packet Pg. 200
Pacifica City Council 53 February 09, 2026
Works and requested from the Department not less than 72 hours in advance of schedule and coordinated with Pacifica Police and Fire Department and Recology. The contractor shall provide the affected properties with written notice not less than 10 days in advance of any road closure. Through traffic shall be maintained at all times along Olympian Way.
g. The TCP shall include a note indicative of these requirements.

North County Fire Authority

36. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall complete fee payment of an Alternate Materials and Methods Request (AMMR) application to North County Fire Authority (NCFA).

37. Fire sprinkler system is required. Applicant shall submit plans to NCFA under separate fire permit.

38. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall provide fire flow information per the California Fire Code, Appendix B, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.

39. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall install illuminated address identification, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.

40. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall install utility identification, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.

Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Added at the December 1, 2025, Hearing

41. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, hydraulic calculations along with a letter from the engineer of record indicating that the proposed storm drain system does not increase runoff above the pre-development condition shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. The on-site drainage system shall be designed to detain on-site all flows in excess of the existing flows during a 100-year frequency storm. The detention systems shall be designed to detain water only during peak flows.

42. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a pre-construction video survey documenting all existing site conditions and all public improvements limits of Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue, including but not limited to pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, drainage structures, utility boxes, adjacent landscaping, and any other visible surface features. The video survey shall be submitted electronically to the City Engineer for review and acceptance prior to permit issuance. Any damage to Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue caused by the project shall be repaired by applicant at the applicant’s expense. 9 Packet Pg. 201
Pacifica City Council 54 February 09, 2026

43. Applicant, Planning staff, Engineering staff, and NCFA staff shall make a good faith effort to redesign the project driveway to be more aesthetically pleasing.

44. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a dust control plan conforming to the City Standards and complying with the requirements of the Bay Area Air District’s (formerly Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)) Best Management Practices for dust control for review by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

45. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit involving grading, retaining walls, or slope disturbance, the applicant shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City to require the completion of the retaining walls and other related improvements (“Retaining Wall Improvements”) and shall provide security in an amount necessary to complete the Retaining Wall Improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit and shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.
*** END OF CONDITIONS ***
9 Packet Pg. 202
RESOLUTION NO. __________

THREE-CAR GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 26,055-SF, UNDEVELOPED LOT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET EASTNORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROCKAWAY BEACH AVENUE AND BAY VIEW ROAD (APN 022-062-550); AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, Robert Benda and John Spenker (“Owner”) has submitted an application to the City of Pacifica (City) for the construction of a 3,180 square foot (sf) single-family residence with an approximately 668-sf attached three-car garage, an approximately 680-sf and associated improvements on an approximately 26,055-sf, undeveloped lot located approximately 330 feet east-northeast of the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue and Bay View Road (APN 022-062-550) (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the R-1-H (Single-Family Residential Hillside) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Project’s location in the R-1-H Zoning District requires approval of a Site Development Permit prior to issuance of a building permit per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-

WHEREAS, the Applicant provided the additional information and studies about the Project to City staff in accordance with the direction of the Planning Commission.

WHEREAS, after holding a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-017 approving Site Development Permit PSD-838-18 and Tree

9.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft City Council Resolution_Conditions of Approval_Bayview Calera Ter - File 2021-058 - 02092026 (6136 : Appeal Removal Permit TP-4-24; and
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by Vera Toth-Fejel on behalf of “Coalition for a Safe Pacifica” (“Appellant”) on December 11, 2025, in opposition to the Planning Commission’s action (“Appeal”); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on February 9, 2026, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented relating to the Appeal, and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.

2. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.

Appeal Issue No. 1
“The difficulty of developing the lot is a result of choices of the landowner and their predecessors in interest.”
The appeal letter contends that because the original parcel was not created as a flag lot and had its primary frontage on a paper street (Calera Terrace), that limitations on development arise from a 1974 easement granted by prior owners to Lot 5, not from the physical condition of the land. As such, the appellant asserts that any hardship requiring a variance is self-created and that self-induced hardship does not justify exemption from land use regulations or granting variances.

See Appeal Point No. 2, Finding 9-4.3204(a)(9), for discussion of the fire access.

This appeal point is not applicable because the applicant has not requested a variance.

9.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft City Council Resolution_Conditions of Approval_Bayview Calera Ter - File 2021-058 - 02092026 (6136 : Appeal Appeal Issue No. 2
“Five findings for denial were met under the Site Development Permit.” The appeal letter claims that the project meets five of the nine site development permit findings that require denial of the project: PMC Section 9-4.3204(a)(3), (4), (6), (8) and (9).

For detailed findings related to the Site Development Permit, refer to the Planning Commission staff report, dated December 1, 2025
<https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1618&Inline=True>. a. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding PMC 9-4.3204(a)(3): “That insufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, and separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open areas.”
The appeal letter claims that the paved driveway is not designed or located in a manner that sufficiently breaks up or softens the visual impact of the hardscape, and that the ADU is not screened from neighboring Lot 16.

9.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft City Council Resolution_Conditions of Approval_Bayview Calera Ter - File 2021-058 - 02092026 (6136 : Appeal Figure 1. Driveway Rendering
(2.) Accessory Dwelling Unit (Figure 2): Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are required to be processed ministerially pursuant to State law and PMC Section 9-4.451(b), and are not subject to discretionary review, including the site development findings. However, the ADU complies with all applicable objective standards. For example, the minimum rear setback required for an ADU is 4 feet and 20 feet is proposed. The height of the ADU is lower than the existing residence on Lot 16. In addition to compliance of PMC Section 4-12.04(e) for replacement tree plantings, the applicant has provided additional shrubs, vines, and retaining wall plantings between the ADU and Lot 16 to reduce potential privacy and visual impacts.

9.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft City Council Resolution_Conditions of Approval_Bayview Calera Ter - File 2021-058 - 02092026 (6136 : Appeal the proposed design addresses the concerns raised by the appellant. Further, The project would provide 58 percent of lot area as landscape and vegetated undisturbed areas, where only 20 percent is required, and incorporates trees, shrubs, vines, and other plantings. There is sufficient landscape area reserved for the project. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
b. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(4): “That the proposed development, as set forth on the plans, will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood, or will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of land and buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof.”
The appeal letter claims that the proposed layout is inconsistent with the code definitions of front and side lot lines, and that the elevated, paved driveway and retaining wall along the property line with Lot 7 does not comply with required setbacks and its placement would require a variance. Finally, the letter contends that the project’s driveway and placement of the house and ADU would block sunlight and restrict airflow to Lot 7 and Lot 16. The appellant also notes that story poles have not been provided, limiting the ability of neighbors and the Commission to fully assess these impacts.

9.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft City Council Resolution_Conditions of Approval_Bayview Calera Ter - File 2021-058 - 02092026 (6136 : Appeal Figure 3. Lot Lines and Required Setbacks
1: Garages require a 20’ front setback; 34’-3” proposed 2: ADUs have a maximum 4’ rear setback; 20’-3” proposed Although a retaining wall meets the general definition of “structure” (anything constructed on the ground), there are specific provisions in the PMC that address fences, hedges, and walls and establish how they are regulated. PMC Section 9-4.2502 regulates fences, hedges, walls, and screen plantings located within the required setbacks. The applicable code does not impose setback requirements but regulates the height of retaining walls when located in a required setback, to between 3 to 6 feet, unless otherwise required by law. In this case, the retaining walls are required to provide fire access to the site and can exceed the height. Regardless, the fire access was designed with retaining walls that range from approximately 2 to 3 feet along the southern flagpole lot line, with one section of retaining wall at 5 feet

9.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft City Council Resolution_Conditions of Approval_Bayview Calera Ter - File 2021-058 - 02092026 (6136 : Appeal in the southwest corner, located well over 30 feet from the house on Lot 7 (Attachment E, Sheet A-4.1 Grading Plan). The retaining walls in the northern portion of the flagpole are outside of the required setbacks. The design, including the slope, is required by law to meet fire access requirements, and the height of the retaining walls within the required setbacks substantially comply with the PMC Section 9-

4.2503. Further, there are no setback requirements for fire access roadways or driveways.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
d. Appeal Claim Regarding Finding 9-4.3204(a)(8): “That the proposed development is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.”
The appeal letter states that the proposed project is inconsistent with the ’Citys adopted Design Guidelines <https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2394/637838931965700000>, including A.2 Building Location, B.2 Scale, B.6 Privacy, and C.6 Parking Areas.

9.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft City Council Resolution_Conditions of Approval_Bayview Calera Ter - File 2021-058 - 02092026 (6136 : Appeal Staff Response: The project responds appropriately to the City’s Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines are advisory in nature and, unlike zoning regulations, do not contain explicit standards for determining strict compliance. They address significant elements of project design that, when balanced overall, result in the best possible site layout and building architecture for a project. An applicant may propose a project which complies with some but not all guidelines and still be consistent. While the Council has the discretion to determine the appropriate balance and priorities of the guidelines for a project, the guidelines do not contain objective standards and cannot be imposed in a manner that effectively denies or reduces the density of a “housing development project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. As the project qualifies as a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act, the Council’s discretion regarding subjective standards from the Guidelines is governed by the Housing Accountability Act.

The project has responded to the Design Guidelines and complies with all applicable objective development standards of the R-1-H zoning district, including height, setbacks, lot coverage, and offstreet parking, as well as ADU standards. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Further, the code provision noted in the appeal would not apply to this site because the lot frontage is only 25 feet and does not exceed 50 feet. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met. (2.) Fire Access: The proposed fire access is 18 feet wide, whereas 20 feet is the standard pursuant to the Fire Code. The applicant worked with NCFA and the proposed design was reviewed and approved by the

9.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft City Council Resolution_Conditions of Approval_Bayview Calera Ter - File 2021-058 - 02092026 (6136 : Appeal Fire Marshal as an Alternative Materials and Methods Request (AMMR). This allows for an 18-foot-wide driveway and fire apparatus turnaround based on site-specific conditions and compliance with applicable fire safety standards. As the NCFA has approved the access and on-site turnaround to meet the fire access requirements, staff relies on the Fire Marshal’s determination that the approved driveway configuration provides adequate emergency vehicle access for the project. See Condition of Approval No. 36 (Attachment A, Exhibit A). Variances are only applicable to the Zoning Ordinance and are not applied to other codes and regulations. NCFA has approved an AMMR for the width of the access and a turnaround, in compliance with the applicable regulations. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.
(3.) Geologic Hazards: The applicant originally submitted a geotechnical report, prepared in 2011, concluding that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint (Attachment F). Following a request from the Planning Commission to further evaluate the previously prepared report, the applicant retained another firm in 2024 to review the initial geotechnical report and to conduct a new investigation, including borings and recommendations for grading, foundations, retaining walls, and drainage (Attachment G). Both geotechnical investigations concluded that the project is consistent with the guiding policies for seismic and geologic hazards. Thus, contrary to the appeal claim, this finding is not met.

Accordingly, there is no merit to Appellants’ claim and does not warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.

Appeal Issue No.3
“The Project was not in compliance with public notice requirements.” The appeal letter states that the public hearing notices for the December 1, 2025, Planning Commission hearing were mailed after the post marked date of November 20, 2025. It states that residents did not start receiving the notices until November 28, 2025, and contends that the City therefore did not comply with the required 10-day noticing period. The appellant further argues that the notices were received after the Thanksgiving holiday, when people may have been out of town, and that mailing notices immediately prior to the holiday failed to meet the spirit of the noticing requirement.

Staff Response: Pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.3203, the City must publish hearing notices in a newspaper of general circulation and mailing notices not less than 10 days prior to the hearing date to the owners and residents of property within a 500 foot-radius of the project site. It also states that “the failure of any person to receive such notice shall not invalidate the site development permit proceedings.” The City published notice in the San Mateo Daily Journal on November 21, 2025, and mailed notices on November 20, 2025, as postmarked. While the appellant does not explicitly accuse the City of falsifying the postage meter or drop off date, the City disputes any implication, direct or indirect, that mailing dates were falsified, and maintains that the notices were handled accurately and in accordance with standard practice on November 20, 2025, which was 12 calendar days prior to the meeting. The City has no control over the processing, handling, or delivery of notices once they are provided to the USPS, nor is it reasonable to expect delivery that aligns with an individual’s travel plans.

Pacifica City CouncilFebruary 9, 2026

Pacifica City Council
February 9, 2026