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 April 27, 2026
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
April 27, 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 April 27, 2026
4:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 and paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9: Two Cases. 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier
Closed Session Report
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Pacifica Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee Preservation Award 2026 to Russ Hartman
B. Proclamation: Mental Health Month - May 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.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 April 27, 2026
Items on the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion unless a Councilmember requests, before the vote on the motion, to have an item discussed. Time limit on comments is three minutes or less.
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the February 9, 2026 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
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
2. Consideration of rezoning, development plan, and a specific plan to allow for single family residential use for currently existing residential use and uses consistent with single family residential use, in order to obtain a grading permit for the unpermitted grading that was subject to the Notice of Violation and a 400 square foot detached carport at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) (File No. 2022-037).
PROPOSED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council conduct the public hearing and consider this report and select either option 1 or option 2 below:
1. Adopt a Resolution determining that the grading in an already developed area that was subject to the Notice of Violation is not “development” subject to the requirements of Articles 22 and 22.5 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, and that applicant is thus not required to rezone to Planned Development with a development plan and specific plan in order to obtain a grading permit pursuant to Title 8 of the Municipal Code. This action would be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15268, 15270, 15378(c); or
2. Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) zoning district with development plan;” adopt a Resolution to approve Specific Plan SP-180-22 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200); and find the approval of the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(Class 1-“Existing Facilities”), 1504 (Class 4-“Minor Alteration to Land”) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption)
City Council Regular Meeting 4 April 27, 2026
3. AB 2561 Compliance – Vacancy Rate and Workforce Planning Public Hearing PROPOSED ACTION: Conduct a Public Hearing in accordance with Government Code Section 3502.3 (AB 2561) to present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retentions efforts in advance of the adoption of an annual budget.
CONSIDERATION
4. Economic Development Committee and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission Annual Accomplishments and FY 2026–2027 Work Plans
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive presentations on the Economic Development Committee (EDC) and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation (PB&R) Commission accomplishments and provide feedback on their respective FY 2026-2027 Work Plans.
5. Approval of Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and GHD, Inc. for Design and Engineering Services related to the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Consultant Services Agreement with GHD, Inc. for design and engineering services in the amount of $656,533.00 in connection to the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $788,000.00 which includes 20% contingency and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with 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:
City Council Regular Meeting 5 April 27, 2026
Agendas are posted no later than Friday prior to the City Council meeting date, at the entrance to the City Hall location at 170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica.
View on the Internet:
Follow the link to Council agenda, at www.cityofpacifica.org E-mail subscription:
Send a request to Sarah Coffey, at [email protected] City Clerk’s Office/City Manager’s Office
City Hall, 170 Santa Maria Ave.
Council meetings:
Agendas are available at the City Council meeting
HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, District 3, 500 County Center, Redwood City CA 94063 (650) 363-4569
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313 • Assembly Member Marc Berman, 721 Colorado Ave, Suite 101, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 324-0224 • Congressman Sam Liccardo, 1117 Longworth House Office Building, Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-8104
• Senator Alex Padilla, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 • Senator Adam Schiff, SD-B40B Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3841 • President Donald J. Trump, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500
CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Christine Boles, [email protected]
• Vice Mayor Greg Wright, [email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mayra Espinosa, [email protected]
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/27/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to approve the minutes for the February 9, 2026 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
STAFF CONTACT:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Move to approve the minutes for the February 9, 2026 City Council Special and Regular Meeting with edits indicated in the tracked changes (Attachment A).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Within budgeted operational expenses.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 6
CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
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
Mayor Christine Boles called the meeting to order on February 9, 2026 at 4:00 PM 4:00PM - CLOSED SESSION (CITY COUNCIL)
00a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS - Property: Pacifica Pier2100 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
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.
Police Captain Glasgo presented the staff report.
Chair Johnson stated that it has been a helpful process to go through this. She stated there was much discussion about the word “safety” and what it meant and she felt focusing on emergency preparedness is their focus and they look forward to progressing and hope the changes go smoothly.
Vice Mayor Wright thanked all the members of the Commission and police representative for the work on this. He was particularly appreciative of bringing the youth into this process.
Chair Johnson stated that they have been talking about this for quite a long time on how to do it.
Mayor Boles asked about ex officio vs. formal voting youth members.
Police Captain Glasgo stated it was addressed and a majority of the membership felt that having a youth ex-officio member would satisfy having input from youth.
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles appreciated the Commissioners’ input and understood many of the ex-officio members do not come to EPSC meetings and it would be helpful for them to be there more.
Police Captain Glasgo stated that was a concern of the Commissioners and it is up to the staff liaison to reach out to the appropriate people to make sure those entities have a seat at the table on a more regular basis, and those discussions are currently happening.
Mayor Boles stated Fire is not an official ex-officio position.
Police Captain Glasgo confirmed it is not.
City Manager Woodhouse added that North County Fire Authority is the City’s fire department and it would be unusual to have an ex-officio member from a City department.
Chair Johnson stated that, about ten years ago, they had fairly consistent representation from San Mateo County EMS, but she feels that they lost a significant input with not having a representative from the schools. She appreciated any help with that.
Councilmember Bier noticed that they added to designate the Youth Advisory Board to create a selection process for the position. She hesitates with that as there are positions in other committees and commissions too and she thought we should be recruiting and interviewing all of them in the same way as for the committees and commissions. It does not mean that someone from the Youth Advisory Board cannot be the ex-officio member.
City Clerk Coffey referred to the recommendation by the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission to create a youth ex-officio member position. Typically, for ex-officio members on the committees and commissions, it is another body that makes that designation; for instance, on the Library Advisory Committee, there is an ex-officio member position for the School District and the School District makes that designation of who would represent them as the ex-officio member. The difference is on a couple of committees where there is a designated youth position those are full member voting youth positions and the City does that recruitment for the full member voting positions. This recommendation is consistent with the way the City treats recruitment of ex-officio members.
Councilmember Bier thought we want youth to be full voting members.
Vice Mayor Wright supported that idea.
Vice Chair Miller thought part of their thinking was that they are probably going to cycle through more frequently than the other commission members.
Mayor Boles stated we have previously for other committees appointed youth for one year.
Vice Chair Miller understood and asked how that impacts their total number. She stated it was currently nine regular members and three non-voting ex-officio.
Commissioner Taverna asked if having an official voting youth member is practiced in other commissions also.
1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 09, 2026
City Clerk Coffey offered one more difference between the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission and other committees that have youth voting members. The other advisory committees that have youth members are Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee and the Library Advisory Committee, and those are advisory bodies that have no appeal jurisdiction.
Although removing the appellate body for the 72-hour parking ordinance, the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission serves as the appellate body for some building official decisions and she would have to turn to the City Attorney to advise on how that would work with a youth member under the age of 18 voting on an appeal situation like that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that might pose concerns because there are specific qualifications and a member who is under 18 may not qualify in due process.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if we could add the youth commissioner and preclude them from being involved in any things that they are not allowed to vote.
City Attorney Kenyon stated we can look into that and see what things on which they could vote.
She imagined that, with most of what the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission would do, youth would be able to participate.
Commissioner Wahlman thinks, in light of the concern about members under 18 voting as far as appeals decisions, it may make sense that they have two youths on the committee in such a capacity that would balance it out to nine voting members, i.e. whenever there is a commission related item for appellate issues, those two members would not be able to vote and that would keep them at nine in such a scenario. Everything else would be 11.
Police Captain Glasgo stated that, back in 2017, the Commission charter had changed. They only had seven voting members and it was increased to nine, which is the largest Commission in the City.
Councilmember Bier asked how many empty spots they have now.
Vice Chair Miller stated that they have no empty seats. She does not know how that would work. If youth members are recusing themselves from voting on the rare appellate, they could act as ex-officio members.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that voting makes it more stressful for the kids and she is not sure that they should vote.
Mayor Boles stated that they are allowed to vote on other committees.
Vice Mayor Wright thinks, if you have to cast a vote, you take more responsibility for the position; in the course of things, it would be a better service not just the community but to our youth as well to have them vote.
Councilmember Bier suggested talking with the Youth Advisory Board to see what they think.
Councilmember Espinosa agreed.
Chair Johnson thought it was a good idea. She mentioned the difference between committees versus commissions, and that is why they came up with it being an ex-officio. For them, it would be new, as opposed to the other committees that have youth, as no other commissions do.
1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles suggested for the Emergency Preparedness Commission to speak to the Youth Advisory Board, perhaps at their next meeting, as they prepare charter revisions.
Councilmember Bier stated she could also comment on it as Council liaison to the Youth Advisory Board.
Commissioner Wahlman asked if it would be a study session between the two bodies.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, if the direction was for the Commission to meet with the Youth Advisory Board, it would be a noticed Brown Act special meeting and it would take longer.
Chair Johnson asked if there is another commission that has a youth member.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated no, not to her knowledge.
Chair Johnson stated, if other commissions are thinking about that, perhaps it should be a group effort to figure out the whole commission issue.
City Attorney Kenyon stated the commissions are generally listed in the Code and they have a lot of adjudicatory duties and roles where she would not recommend having a resident who is not 18 on those adjudicatory bodies.
Vice Mayor Wright would love to hear from others whom they have not heard from.
Commissioner Blackburn encouraged the presence of a youth member on the commission.
However, he recalled the issue of red tagging of the three apartment buildings on Beach Boulevard and was concerned about that kind of heavy responsibility. He is hesitant on having youth as a voting member. He would be curious to see if they can have an internal bifurcated voting system or asking that the students give them their opinion as a student member. If it is something going to Council, they would have an opinion on that and would be expressed and recorded in the minutes but would not count as a vote that is a final decision.
City Attorney Kenyon stated her concern would still be the same. If someone were to challenge the decision, they could use that as a potential bias or conflict that influenced the adjudicators.
She could research that, but her initial reaction is that would pose the same problem as voting on any adjudicatory action would.
City Clerk Coffey stated another concern regarding the commissions that serve as appellant bodies, the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission and PB&R Commission, is that all the members of those bodies must submit their Fair Political Practices Commission Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) and she would have concerns about requiring youth members under the age of 18 to submit those forms.
Vice Chair Miller stated that they have nine filled seats, two recently appointed last year. She asked another operational or logistical consideration, i.e., what would they do, ask someone to resign.
Mayor Boles stated no, adding that they have done this at the next round of applications. She stated that, with the ex-officio, you can do that right away.
1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 09, 2026
Councilmember Bier appreciated the conversation and it makes sense for the Commission and staff to have youth as ex-officio.
Vice Mayor Wright heard reference to potentially doing two youth positions as opposed to one.
Commissioner Wahlman stated staff’s recommendation is one for right now.
Vice Chair Miller asked to clarify what the action was for identifying an ex-officio. She heard it was not asking Youth Advisory Board.
Commissioner Wahlman stated that staff can reach out to the other staff liaison and come up with something prior to the adoption of the ordinance.
Mayor Boles stated she saw a number of comments about their role and work plan. She mentioned she, Vice Mayor Wright, and the City Manager have been looking at spreading out the committee/commission annual reports and be able to discuss their work plans. That would be a place, if there is something they want to bring forward and they have time, where they can talk together and Council can give direction as a body.
Commissioner Taverna stated that in the past there has been some confusion on the commission on how to handle when their citizens from Pacifica may come to them with a concern about emergency preparedness. She remembers when we had high fire danger. In the future, when people come with concerns about tsunamis and evacuation, etc., they have the education, but if there are very serious concerns, they would just report it to Council. She asked if that is what they should do.
Police Captain Glasgo stated, theoretically and typically, concerns of that nature would be brought to the staff liaison who is assigned to that commission and further discussion can be had as to the direction and response to any given community member’s concerns.
Mayor Boles stated, if something was brought to you which raised an idea of something you might want to do in the community with some particular outreach, that is something the commissioners can take on.
Commissioner Wahlman asked which meeting bodies are on public access TV.
Councilmember Bier mentioned, even in OSPAC, they want more interaction and direction from us and she thinks we can figure out a way to do that.
Chair Johnson stated, in regards to the committee/commission annual report, she would like to see some potential of the different committees/commissions interacting more and the commissions keep in touch and know what they are all doing, in addition to the liaison work.
Commissioner Blackburn added they have their eyes on the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is up for a five-year renewal. He stated that identifying the risks and threats to the community is the beginning of pushing ourselves in that process whereby grant money from the federal government will be available to pay for projects to remediate or mitigate those hazards; that conversation that we would have with Council and other commissions can be very useful as they do their planning years out for projects that might be eligible and available for funding.
Mayor Boles adjourned the joint study session at 5:48 p.m.
1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 09, 2026
6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Boles called to order the regular meeting at 6:02 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Christine Boles Mayor Present
Greg Wright Vice Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Hina Gupta, Asst. City Attorney (Zoom); Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Melissa Tigbao, PW Director; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director-Engineering; Daniel Patten, PW Acting Dep. Director (Wastewater); Craig Wittner, Acting Fire Marshall; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Boles read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated there was no reportable action.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Jeanne Salisbury for service on Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission
Mayor Boles read a proclamation honoring former Commissioner Jeanne Salisbury’s service on the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission.
Ms. Salisbury appreciated the proclamation and shared her positive thoughts on her time on the Commission and appreciation for all the volunteers and staff supporters for the work they did.
Councilmember Bier thanked her for her long 19 years of service and stated that this Commission was her first liaison and she thanked them for their help to her as a Councilmember and their service to the community.
Vice Mayor Wright thanked her for the example she set and sense of community spirit.
1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 February 09, 2026
Councilmember Espinosa thanked her so much for her 19 years of service.
Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated hearing from her during interviews when she would apply to be reappointed. They appreciate her important service to the community.
Mayor Boles knows how much she and others did to prepare for ESPC, CERT, and Fog Fest to educate our community at every chance they get. She stated it was hard not to reappoint her as she applied again. They hope she will still stay involved in this important work through CERT and other ways. She thanked her so much.
There were no public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Boles asked if any councilmember wanted to pull an item off the consent calendar.
Seeing none, she stated that she wanted to make a couple of comments on Item 7.
Councilmember Bier stated that they have something to read for Item 8.
Mayor Boles opened public comments.
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, stated, for Item #8, he thanked Council for the reaffirmation, and for Item #7, he requested more information on that item as it was an amazing opportunity.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated he was in full support and was on board with OneShoreline and shared his thoughts on this feasibility study and hoped the funding supports this effort.
Sandy Mills, Pacifica, thanked Council for protecting our community as a Sanctuary City.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared, on Item #8, that she was grateful for having this reaffirmation, especially at this time, and thanked Council.
Tom Kendall, Pacifica, had submitted a written comment supporting the Mayor signing the letter to OneShoreline and shared his support.
Mayor Boles closed public comment. She stated, regarding Item #7, Council would sign a grant application with OneShoreline to look at further studies of the offshore reef in partnership with UC Santa Cruz scientists and engineers to do the modeling and proof of concept. She stated that our staff is overworked on so many engineering projects, but OneShoreline is a partner that is supposed to help all cities in the County work on our adaptation planning and sea level rise.
She stated that, regarding the sea wall, an offshore reef outside can break the wave energy and overtopping. For now, it is a $150,000 grant application, $75,000 coming from the Department of Boating and Waterways if approved and other regional money that is possible.
Vice Mayor Wright thanked staff for their responsiveness and thoroughness on the expenditures and his questions. He felt we are very lucky to have the people we have.
Councilmember Bier stated, for Item #8, Council is sworn into office to protect our Constitution of the State of California and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. She thought this is their way of trying to do that.
1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 February 09, 2026
Councilmember Bier and Mayor Boles read the resolution for Item #8.
Vice Mayor Wright moved to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
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 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
1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 February 09, 2026
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
Reannah Karstedt, Pacifica, stated she and Theresa Gio will be in charge as co-presidents of Fog Fest Organizing Group and they are both excited to work together for Fog Fest’s success for the foreseeable future. She then reported that the 2025 Fog Fest was a success and they were able to raise funds matching their level in 2024 and stated that the 39th annual Fog Fest will be on September 26-27, 2026.
Robine Runneals, Pacifica, stated that the Fog Fest theme is America’s 250th birthday and will be celebrating patriotism. They will call it America 250 and she hopes everyone registers for the parade, demonstrate their patriotism, etc.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, stated she is speaking on behalf of her friend, Caitlin Quinn, and her neighbors regarding the short-term rental located at 1987 Beach Boulevard and shared her concerns on revoking the STR permit due to its detrimental impacts on the neighbors.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, shared concerns about the effectiveness of City staff policing the number of STRs operating outside of the permit process and emphasized platform accountability. He asked how many times City staff asked for that information from platforms, how many times permit revocation hearings were held, and how many times inspections took place in the non-coastal zone under the new ordinance.
Mark Stechbart, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the issue of the STRs in Pacifica, including definitions of coastal vs. non-coastal, the STR list, rules for hearings, and strikes. He stated that communication from the City about STRs has been challenging. He raised concerns about permits at 1138 Grand Teton and 728 Noriega, and 1159 De Solo.
Aaron Reif, Pacifica, referred to the Ohlone Portola Heritage Trail and expressed concerns about the striping of the lanes near the condos on Fassler Ave, leading to speeding cars. He stated the speed limit needs to be enforced and the lanes need to be restriped.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared that most HUD funding from Housing Authority of SMC is continuing and that from Faith In Action Bay Area there have been no ICE raids in the Bay Area but other ICE raids in other jurisdictions and states. She provided resources for those impacted.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, referred to comments made at the last Council meeting on STRs and shared his concerns on the permit renewal for 1987 Beach Blvd. He also expressed frustration on City communications regarding STRs.
Mayor Boles asked if staff can answer any STR questions such as number of violations filed.
1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 February 09, 2026
City Manager Woodhouse stated that numerous comments tonight were not accurate. The data reports from the previous years include data about the current STRs, enforcement actions that were taken, and what Council went through regarding the ordinances; those reports and records speak for themselves. Concerning specific notices of violation and enforcement action that are underway, he cannot comment on that as a matter of legal issues.
Mayor Boles stated that there have been some that are closed.
City Manager agreed and stated that he can report back to Council as staff had recently submitted updated reports in December and January.
Mayor Boles stated her understanding that every short-term rental that has received a renewal has been specifically inspected at this point.
City Manager stated she was correct and all the renewed STRs are listed and available on the website and is transparently available.
Mayor Boles stated she would also follow up with some of the other questions that were asked.
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.
Mayor Boles asked councilmembers for any ex parte communications or conflicts of interest.
Vice Mayor Wright stated he had ex parte communications with the neighbors.
Councilmember Bier stated she has as well.
Mayor Boles stated she also has had conversations with a group of neighbors.
Community Development Director Updegrave and Sr. Planner James Lin presented the staff report. Chair Hauser was also present as the Planning Commission’s liaison.
Mayor Boles referred to the storm drain and thought in the Storm Drain Master Plan drawings all the storm water in the paved areas plus the upper portion of the site will drain to the driveway underneath and eventually to the street. She stated that adding a new storm drain would mean from the driveway all the way down to Bay View to take up the street to put it underneath. She is assuming there will be verification of the capacity of the existing storm drain in Rockaway
1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 February 09, 2026
area and that might need to be added to the conditions. She wanted to ask what it connects to and whether we are looking at increased impacts of storms which were also mentioned in the Storm Drain Master Plan. She asked if this is a de novo hearing, not just opining on the appeal questions.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, adding that it requires approval of the state site development permit and tree removal permit.
City Attorney Kenyon stated this is de novo even though it is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, and Council gets to look at the whole application de novo, or anew. If Council wants to add conditions of approval, staff has recommended one condition of approval to add already and, if Council agrees, we can add that tonight as it is a de novo review.
Mayor Boles asked if Planning Chair Hauser would like to say anything.
Chair Hauser stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this as indicated by staff. There were five commissioners present and, of the five, four voted for approval and one abstained.
She stated that this project came before them twice. The first time, Planning Commission had questions surrounding CEQA, geotechnical, storm water, as well as access. The Planning Commission appreciated that, when the applicant came back, they had done the work to do a completely new geotechnical report and clarified Planning Commission’s misunderstanding, i.e., the access was through an easement over someone else’s property. The applicant owns the access way and they amended the easement that was encumbering their land. It was a huge help in understanding access, as part of why there were discussions about potentially exploring other access points was it was not clear if access was legal. She empathizes with the community as this is a half-acre property that has been vacant for years and construction is always inconvenient. She thinks the key thing is that it is a site that is zoned for 2-6 homes and what is proposed is a minimum of one home and an ADU. She thinks there are objective design standards under state law that we have to review and both Planning Commission and City staff found that the project complied. The Planning Commission tried to address the concerns from the community through amended and additional conditions of approval.
Mayor Boles asked regarding the driveway access whether we have to provide access as they have a legal right to build something on the site. She asked if it is correct that our current codes do not define any required setbacks for driveways.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it is correct that there are no setback requirements for driveways.
Mayor Boles stated that we have height limits for retaining walls, but we are not able to review this project’s retaining wall heights in the setbacks for compliance.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the project did vest prior to changes in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the retaining walls associated with fire access are not subject to that section because they are required by law to support that access.
Mayor Boles stated other retaining walls outside of the fire department driveway and turnaround are still not subject to height because of our definition that we just changed.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that they are subject to height, but with a different measurement.
1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles asked what are the height limitations for retaining walls in setbacks.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the retaining walls within setbacks have different height allowances. Within side setbacks, they are allowed to be six feet and, within front setbacks, three feet. Under the code that this project is vested to, the retaining wall is measured from the high side.
Mayor Boles concluded that you could have an infinitely tall retaining wall.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the retaining walls are not so limited.
Mayor Boles concluded that we cannot review retaining wall heights. She opened the public hearing and invited the appellant to speak (10 minute testimony period).
Nathaniel Launer, Greenfire Law Attorney, stated he is representing the Coalition for a Safe Pacifica. He stated there are a number of concerns the Coalition and residents of Bay View Drive have with the proposed project that require granting the Coalition’s appeal and denying the site development permit. He stated these concerns were set forth in the Coalition’s appeal and supported by public comments by neighbors and experts hired by the Coalition. He stated the project requires a variance and none was provided, and the proposed project does not achieve the objectives of the R-1-H Hillside District. The project does not minimize the adverse impacts on existing neighbors, drainage, traffic, land stability, and natural resources. The project could increase stormwater runoff. It will require substantial grading and retaining walls in a no known landslide zone with legitimate concern for impact of traffic and emergency access.
The second argument for a variance is that the project is inconsistent with the City’s design guidelines. The third argument is that the project does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance requiring minimum side setbacks of at least five feet. He also stated that the project is not exempt from CEQA and Planning Commission violated CEQA in issuing a Class 3 exemption for this project and that the project location is on exceeding steep slopes in a known landslide zone and debris flow area. He requested Council grant the Coalition’s appeal and deny the development permit because a variance is required and send it back to Planning Commission for reconsideration.
Mayor Boles asked about the data points Mr. Steve Bonds used in his letter with the C3 numbers used on the application.
Mr. Launer stated he cannot attest to what the project’s applicant used to estimate the stormwater runoff, but he knows that Mr. Bonds used the most recent rainfall data from the NOAA for precipitation frequency estimates for Pacifica, specifically. Their rainfall estimates presented as storm events return intervals from 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year precipitation records and storm events.
Mayor Boles invited the applicant to speak (10 minute testimony).
Bradley Manione, an attorney representing the property owners, Robert Benda and John Spenker, stated that no variance has been requested and no variance is needed. The project meets all specific requirements. There is no setback requirement under the applicable Pacifica Code requiring any setbacks or retaining walls or driveway. Those are not structures under the Code. This project is exempt from CEQA as it is a single-family home with an ADU and a detached garage. It qualifies for a Category 3 exemption. There are no special circumstances
1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 February 09, 2026
that change that determination. They have submitted two geotechnical investigations that confirm that there is no concern about adverse environmental impacts of this project. The conditions of approval were imposed in compliance with applicable case law, finding that you can impose conditions that are standard regulations to make sure the project complies with requirements and there are no adverse environmental impacts. It was mitigation measures and, as such, this project satisfies the Category 3 exemption.
Javier Chavarria, project engineer, referred to the issue of the driveway. The initial driveway rendition was incorrect. The new rendering, along with the 3D shape of the drain terrain that was submitted to the appeal response are very accurately prepared; and, if you look at the grading plan, there is no portion along 125 Bay View, the south side of the driveway, that exceeds 18 inches in front of the building. There is no retaining wall from the right side of the driveway. The driveway follows existing grading and a curve curb is being constructed on the right-hand side. The retaining wall seen on the rendering at the further end of the driveway is where we turn and it is a retaining wall where the terrain at 125 is higher than the terrain on the driveway. The new rendering is accurate and there are no discrepancies, no retaining walls close to 4-feet in front of 125 Bay View and, therefore, no variance needed, as there is no structure per se along the driveway. The building has setbacks around. The driveway is a flat structure and does not protrude above the soil; therefore, no variances are required. Regarding the unusual circumstances of the project, if they look at the building immediately to the east, 741 Rockaway Beach Avenue, it is a building constructed exactly under the same conditions here. It has a driveway that is 150-feet away from Rockaway Beach and there are three buildings there, all accessible from the driveway going back there. The hillside behind them is the same hillside they have here. The amount of excavation done was the same. Regarding the size of the building, the square footage of the buildings, the heights, the soil conditions, and the access driveway are similar; therefore, they submit to Council that there is no variance needed, no unusual circumstances, and no issues with the geotechnical concerns. Regarding the drainage, he has not seen the calculations prepared by Mr. Bonds and would love to see them. It is their goal in the project to meet all the requirements. They are trying to build a home for a family and build something that is sound, complies with all regulations of the City, and is correctly done. If there is any issue, they will be willing, ready and available to fix them during the permit process.
Their goal is to have sound, properly designed project that complies with all the codes and regulations and provides a home for this family that has been trying to build it since 2018. He added, regarding the storm drain, on the topographic survey, it does not show the size of the storm drain system but at the end of Bay View on the right hand side, there is a 24 x 24 catch basin. At the base of Bay View, at the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue, there is another inlet, and those two inlets are connected by a 24-inch diameter pipe.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if the applicant considered moving the driveway uphill in order to offer some planting and more privacy for the downhill neighbor.
Mr. Chavarria stated that they did, but unfortunately, the planting easement that was granted to the property on the north initially only allowed 13-feet and through negotiations the space was increased to 18 feet. It appears that when some of the construction of the other homes was done, certain debris was thrown on this parcel and some negotiations of the previous owners granted the owners of 171 Bay View a planting easement along the 25-foot parcel and a planting easement on the eastern side which is the northern part of this property. Therefore, the access was limited and they worked very closely with the fire department and reached the situation that an 18-foot driveway would be acceptable for the fire department; the neighbors at 171 were willing and amended the easement to reduce their planting easement to 7 feet so that 18 feet would remain available for the access driveway. The 25-foot parcel belongs to Mr.
1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 February 09, 2026
Benda and Mr. Spenker, the owners of the property. That easement was the element of concern and that was the most that they were able to push it northward.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if they would be willing to have an additional conversation with the uphill neighbor to see if they could address that by moving it slightly uphill.
Robert Benda, owner, stated that there are reasons for that easement that was obtained by the Sublinskys, but part of it is the construction of a retaining wall that was required from some additional construction in the neighborhood. That easement has a long history and they are very grateful to the Sublinskys for renegotiating with them to the extent that they already have. Mr.
Benda stated that they would be willing to have the conversation.
Mayor Boles referred to the site plan and stated there was a deed that noted two planting easements, one on lot 6 and a second one on the triangular part where the swale part of the driveway and drain appear to be inside the easement. What she read on the easement is it is with the same owners as the house uphill. She asked if this has been discussed with them that they are doing work within this planning easement.
Mr. Chavarria stated that they have. The swale that is being built behind the retaining wall will be an enhancement for the planting area and they are going to be improving some of the planting that they have in that section. The Sublinskys are fully appraised of the entire plan.
Mayor Boles stated she does not see a legal document that allows them to do this work in the easement. She referred to the swale as well as the 10-foot tall retaining wall at this location.
Mr. Chavarria stated that the retaining wall does not encroach on the easement.
Mayor Boles explained a depiction on the site plan that showed the retaining wall encroached on the easement. She had spoken with the City Attorney for this to be an added condition of approval, that they are doing work in that easement and need to get the approval of the owners.
Mr. Chavarria stated that his understanding is that the easement was modified so the retaining wall would allow for an 18-foot width of the free and accessible fire access and the remaining portion is a planting easement. He stated that the original line was the original depiction of the easement but that has been modified.
Mayor Boles stated that she did not see the modification. The only modification to the easement she saw was for Lot 6, the driveway.
Mr. Chavarria stated, if it needs to be modified, he is sure it will not be a problem.
Mayor Boles referred to the other easement and the actual language that was changed on packet pages 437-438. She stated this is related to the easement on Lot 6, a strip of land uniform 13-feet along the boundary line of Lot 6. She asked if he can confirm that this is the document that was revised in working with the neighbors that had this planted easement.
Mr. Chavarria responded affirmatively.
Mayor Boles thought it was changed in 2023. She read, “The retaining wall shall be constructed in such a manner that the stem thickness is not greater than 12 inches and the entire structure does not encroach more than 16 inches into the new easement measured from the northerly
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 February 09, 2026
line of the easement. The Replacement Retaining Wall design in all instances shall ensure feasible construction of a driveway not less than 16 feet in width...” Her recollection is that this talks about the retaining wall and not about the swales. There is also a catch basin at the bottom of the site. There was also language that trees and landscaping outside of this additional easement would not be affected. She has some concerns about the magnolia tree in the front. She stated that packet page 439 talks about removal of other improvements and plants: “Grantor shall have the right to remove any other improvements, trees, plants, irrigation systems, located more than 7 feet to the south of the northerly boundary.” She referred to the site plan on packet page 316. The easement document talks about the retaining wall but not about this additional swale; she also had not found the dimensions for it and not sure if it meets the 18 inches altogether. There is a catch basin at the property line that is also in the easement. She asked if he can talk about those things.
Mr. Chavarria stated the communication between his clients, Mr. Spenker and Mr. Benda, has been very close with the Sublinskys and they have been involved in all the process and traction of the easement and are very eager for the reconstruction of the retaining walls as that is going to improve the stability of their homes. All the drainage has been discussed with them and he is sure there will be no issues whatsoever on revising the language of the easement.
Mayor Boles appreciates him doing that. She wants to talk about the tree permit and referred to the arborist report in the Planning Commission’s agenda on packet page 174. She believes this is tree No. 1, the magnolia. What she can tell from the arborist report is it was written and analyzed before the driveway got widened because the arborist is showing tree protection on the inside of the existing retaining walls which they are taking out and she was concerned about the protected tree.
Mr. Chavarria stated they are also very concerned with the tree and they had conversations with the arborist, and the arborist characterized the tree as fair to poor condition. The way that the retaining wall is going to be constructed is with piers and one of the approaches that he was going to take is to map the root system and try to drill in locations where it will not impact the root of the trees. If, at that point, he feels that the tree will be affected to a level that it will not survive, the tree will have to be replaced.
Mayor Boles stated that their drain catch basin is digging into the roots of the tree, not just the retaining wall, but all these things that are affecting about half of the roots of the tree.
Mr. Chavarria stated it is a shallow catch basin and it does not go deep into the root system.
Mayor Boles stated that it is in the root area and has not been studied by the arborist. She stated that it ties into the legal document that says you are not supposed to touch a tree beyond that point. She thinks perhaps it is a condition of approval that the arborist has to go back and look at the tree and opine and, if it needs to be removed, there is tree replanting protection.
Mr. Chavarria stated that is most likely a route that needs to be followed because the location is critical.
Mayor Boles referred to the new rendering of the driveway. She thinks what she saw was the retaining wall on the right is about 2.7 feet above grade, opposite the back end of the house.
She stated that it is not right at grade and it slopes up a little bit. She added that what they are doing is removing soil and reducing the steepness of the driveway as it goes up. She noted, at the back of the property at 125 Bay View, they have a 5-foot high retaining wall where the road
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 February 09, 2026
is below the existing grade of the house. She stated that this rendering does not show a curb on the right side but she assumes there is a curb to prevent cars from striking into the fence.
Mr. Chavarria answered affirmatively.
Mayor Boles stated that this fence they are showing is not existing now. She asked if they are proposing building a fence. She did not see any fences noted as new on their plan.
Mr. Chavarria stated it is not existing there but they felt, after the construction of the driveway, it probably would be appropriate and the neighbor would be pleased if a fence is built there to protect his property and some privacy.
Mayor Boles thought that may be a conversation he should have with the neighbors.
Mr. Chavarria agreed.
Mayor Boles wished the renderings showed the windows in the house as it is hard to understand the impact. She thinks it was hard for the Planning Commission to review the project. She referred to the on ramp and she is concerned that it is not completely accurate.
Mr. Chavarria stated that the grades are accurate. The buildings are placeholders. They were intending to render the building, but the driveway slopes and grades are accurate.
Mayor Boles stated it is her understanding that in the grading plans that retaining wall gets taller as you go up the driveway. She asked what the height is of that approximately.
Mr. Chavarria stated that at the back of the property lines of the properties on Bay View, the retaining wall is 7.5 feet, and as it goes deeper into the property to 8.5, 10, and 13 feet at the very end of the cul-de-sac. On the portion of the driveway itself, it starts at 24 inches in front and gradually grows to 7.5 feet at the back of the Bay View properties.
Mayor Boles stated it is hard to see that view. He is not showing the swale either and the impact there. She stated that the driveway, the grass in the middle, and the plantar strip are something the Planning Commission asked for and she asked if they had a conversation with Fire about this and the use of turf blocks.
Mr. Chavarria stated that they initially had planned to use turf blocks throughout and the Fire Department was not very happy with that because the design and maintenance of turf block and grass is something is not very compatible with fire trucks. They have a full concrete driveway with a center street to mitigate the appearance of the big mass of concrete. The two sections where the truck will travel are designed to fire truck standards.
Mayor Boles concluded the Fire Department was okay with the landscaping in between.
Mr. Chavarria responded affirmatively.
Mayor Boles asked about the left edge.
Mr. Chavarria stated that the left planting is only a 10-inch strip in there to allow some ivy to be planted so a truck is never going to get that close to the retaining wall.
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles wanted to go back to their grading plan. She stated that they note the driveway has 18 feet and she asked if he can explain the conversations with Fire as she thought she heard that they typically required 20.
Mr. Chavarria stated no, it is 18 feet, and they would approve 18 feet as long as they have an AMMR for the building and fire sprinkler system.
Mayor Boles asked if that 18 feet clear driveable width.
Mr. Chavarria stated it is the full driveway.
Mayor Boles stated that his sections show the retaining walls inside those 18 feet dimension and that is one thing she wanted to clarify with him and Fire. Assuming 18 inches, or 8 inches for each retaining wall, that is a reduction from the drawing on packet page 318.
Mr. Chavarria stated that these drawings were presented to the Fire Department. During the building permit process, they will also be deeply, closely scrutinized.
Mayor Boles added that the retaining wall on the left and the curb on the right both project into that 18 feet width.
Mr. Chavarria understands and these drawings were presented to the Fire Department. They did not go at this level of the project into a very detailed plan check with them. They accepted the driveway conceptually. He is sure, at the time of building permit, this will be deeply scrutinized and, if they need to reduce the retaining wall location to obtain a full unobstructed 18 feet, then they will have to do that.
Mayor Boles referred to page 316 and asked if he can explain what the red dash lines and the blue curved lines are in Bay View Road.
Mr. Chavarria stated that those are the turning radius for the interior and exterior wheel of a fire truck. He stated that the red dashed lines are a tangent to the curve to establish the radius.
Mayor Boles stated there is parking on both sides of Bay View Road currently and there are driveways he is not showing for the homes across the street. He is showing the turning radius starting from the left hand side where cars are parked. She asked if he can explain how a fire truck can turn if cars are parked.
Community Development Director Updegrave thought this was a good opportunity to bring Acting Fire Marshall Wittner to speak to the fire issues.
Mayor Boles asked him to explain the Fire Department turning at those blue curves from the left side of Bay View Road when cars are parked on Bay View Road on that side.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that Fire originally asked for them to show this from the center line but then they took a closer look at that actual Bay View Road and they noticed that there are two driveways on the west side and it is unlikely that cars will be parking in the driveway section. He stated that there is a small curb section in between driveways which he does not think is long enough for an authorized spot. That would be his oversight for not calling that as a condition of approval to red curb that small section between driveways on the west side of Bay View. He stated that it is not uncommon that Fire does that, even for a non1.a Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 February 09, 2026
authorized spot, but that would be required to make that turn. If for some reason they could not make the turn, which is indicated from the engineer on there, the radiuses are 52 feet outside and 28 feet inside diameters and they would need to start from that opposite lane in order to make the turn. That is not uncommon but, as far as not calling out the portion of the red curb on the west side, that was his oversight and that would be a condition of approval.
Mayor Boles went through our planning parking codes which allow people to park in front of their driveway up to 72 hours and this condition would take away from the rights of the two property owners. She asked the City Attorney if that is something we can do.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the Fire Marshall is giving his opinion on why he granted that.
He is recommending a red curb condition of approval and she asked if that red curb is on the applicant’s property.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that it is not.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it is not on the applicant’s property and we do not need to make it a condition of approval because that is something, if the Fire Marshall thinks it is necessary, he would talk to Engineering and they would give a recommendation and staff would move forward.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner added that, if that did not work, the engineer and applicant would show another way to make that turning radii.
City Attorney Kenyon reiterated the concern that it does not appear from the plan that there is enough area to provide safe access for a fire truck and what she is hearing from him is that Fire has looked at this and believes, given the circumstances and actual review or vision of the road, that these plans and the addition of a red curb would satisfy any safety concerns with access.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner agreed, adding that he sent Engine 72 up there today to confirm.
He stated that it is not ideal but it is what they have to work with in Pacifica as far as narrow streets go. They look for opportunities to make things work with some adjustments; otherwise with so many areas in town that would not be buildable if not for some alternate means which carries over into hearing the Mayor asking question about the driveway width. Normally the minimum apparatus access is 20 feet. In communities statewide, it is very common to have a reduction up to X for residential driveways, particularly single family dwelling lots; it is not uncommon to reduce to 18 feet, 16 feet, and some communities allow 14 and 12 feet driveways.
He has never gone that far but he did allow a reduction up to 18 feet in the clear, not including retaining walls. That entire driveway would need to meet imposed loads of 75,000 pounds. He added that he was surprised with the applicant’s response to some original comment rounds:
When they had resubmitted, it was a big step towards compliance when they brought in their more recent design of that engineer driveway and was part of the alternate means and methods. The state code and regulation statute allows them to make exceptions, variances, or tradeoffs. If you cannot meet a prescriptive requirement as outlined in the California Fire Code, California Building Code, etc. the law allows you to propose an alternate as long as the alternate is equal to and strength effectiveness durability, etc. In this case, the engineer and applicant submitted an alternate design to have an engineered, grooved concrete driveway, reduction to 18 feet, which they felt was acceptable. Given standard streets throughout cities like Pacifica and Brisbane are even narrower than that, given Point A to Point B on many main streets, they did give us adequate co-compliant working room with a full complaint hammerhead turnaround, all on their property up where the structures were. He felt that was a good tradeoff and met the intent in the spirit of the code.
Commented [SC1]: Confirmed that this is documented
exactly as stated.
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated that there were no other options to that hammerhead to put it up higher on Bay View because of the distance.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner agreed that it was a tough option because they could not meet the 150-foot hose pull. There may have been some others but that was looked at and discussed before it was accepted.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, when it comes down to that turnaround spot, would it be prohibited for the residents to park in that portion of the driveway.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated technically it would. When it comes to signage from a fire service point of view, they typically do not require signage for private property and hammerhead turnaround for single family dwellings. As long as they get it recorded on the legal documents as a fire lane and turnaround, then they have legal proof that it is a requirement. If it becomes an issue in the future, they would enforce it, whereas the difference would be, if this were a commercial development, fire hazard, or an apartment complex, it would not be uncommon for them to require signage from the get-go.
Vice Mayor Wright stated, if the applicant intended to park up there, he would be required to increase the size of that parking area.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated he would be required to discontinue the parking or potentially increase or redesign it to provide Fire Department access to the hammerhead turnaround.
Mayor Boles noted there is no visitor parking other than what is in the garage, so a delivery vehicle or courier would have to be parking in the Fire Department turnaround.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that his only response to that is that it is a single family lot.
Although it is not ideal, he has seen situations, even on commercial streets, where access was an issue and he has seen where restrictions have approved loading and unloading zones in a fire lane. It is not ideal, but they know it happens and, if it were to become an issue, they would enforce it at that point.
Mayor Boles stated, if they are having a party, you do not want cars parked there in case there is a fire.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated, typically, the overall use of a single-family dwelling is going to have x number of cars and, unless they have RVs anytime, long-term storage of trailers, etc. coming and going cars do not have a lot of stock.
Mayor Boles stated 18 feet clear and the proposed drawing that shows a planter at the edge might affect their wheels or are they okay with one foot planting edge not being paved.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated it would need to be 18 feet in the clear. He knows there is a need for drainage, etc., and they are okay as long as it is not excessive and it meets the 75,000 pound engineering load for an apparatus.
Mayor Boles stated there is the 28-foot interior radius and two arcs not drawn concentrically and she asked if that matters.
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 February 09, 2026
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that Fire uses these plans for access and water supply initial approvals. When there are stamped engineered documents, they pay more attention to those when they are submitted for plan check.
Mayor Boles appreciates that and is just concerned because, with those blue lines drawn now, they are hitting retaining walls on both sides so there is no room for error.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated, when they give their approvals in the form they use, it gives people a caveat that these are approvals but not approval to violate a provision of the code or to abase approval because they missed something. When those documents are submitted for plan review, they look at them quite thoroughly.
Mayor Boles appreciated that, adding that, if for some reason it does not work, it would preclude a development on the site.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated it would preclude that particular proposal and they would need to come up with a proposal that met the code or the intent of the code. That AMMR would then become void unless it was modified and agreed upon.
Vice Mayor Wright asked how else Fire would turn around on this street.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that what they do is use available driveways because it is a dead end street. If there is no way to turn around, their engineers are backing up with the assistance of a captain until it can turn around. They have a lot of areas in our communities where they have difficulty turning around.
Mayor Boles asked if this was in a wild land urban interface zone.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner responded affirmatively. He stated that, when this project originally came in for review, we had not yet adopted their local responsibility area maps created by CalFire; any permit issued after January 1, 2026 would need to comply with what they call the old Chapter 7A requirements, California Wildl and Urban Interface Codes, meaning exterior finish improvements would have to comply with fire resistant and defensible space requirements.
Mayor Boles asked if he would be reviewing the landscape plans in terms of defensible space requirements.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated that they would look at that, along with their partners in CSG.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if that would necessitate ember cast proof venting.
Acting Fire Marshall Wittner stated yes, it would be a full chapter 7A compliance because this entire parcel was located within the high fire hazard severity zone. The vast majority of the projects they have been working with have to deal with the wildland urban interface construction standards will be in the high areas.
Mayor Boles appreciated him being here. She stated she will continue to find her reference to people being able to park in front of their driveways now.
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 February 09, 2026
City Attorney Kenyon stated the vehicle code prevents parking in front of a driveway and our code would be in conflict with state law and state law preempts codes that violate the vehicle codes. Even if we do have that code, it would be preempted by the vehicle code.
She thanked her for that clarification.
Councilmember Beckmeyer would like to know the other categories of questions that Councilmembers have. She has a question about catchment and water, the treatment of runoff, stormwater, etc.
Mayor Boles has hydrology and Geotech questions, as well as rendering questions.
Vice Mayor Wright stated most of his questions were toward staff as opposed to the applicant.
Councilmember Bier stated that we heard a lot from the community was fear around steep grading, landslide area, drainage, etc.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they can explain the catchment process and exact way in which the stormwater is treated or handled on the property. The concerns she received expressed multiple times was the sense of increased runoff in light of increased rainfall.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if we can include also during construction.
Mayor Boles thought it might be helpful to pull up packet page 321 which is the drainage plan.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, with the drainage question, it is a standard comment that comes from Engineering. They are the ones who review for impacts to our storm drain system.
With every project that has impervious areas, such as grass or dirt, if they cover it with concrete, they will typically increase that area’s runoff by around three times more. They are allowed to increase the runoff, but they have to mitigate for that additional stormwater runoff before it enters our system. He read the Condition of Approval 41 in its full context. He stated that they are allowed to increase the stormwater runoff but cannot increase that flow rate during the peak storm. Staff asked for them to do 100-year storm, a storm that occurs once every 100 years, and the duration and intensity at that time of concentration of one hour. It is a large system that they have to put in place. What they have currently on the plan, which will be further verified when they enter into the building permit, is a series of bioswales across the property, a 5-foot x 33-foot and 6 inch deep gravel dissipation area to disburse the water so it does not concentrate flows and cause a stream, as well as a 2-foot diameter pipe at the southwest of the property to hold the stormwater. He then stated that, during construction, they have an erosion control plan and a construction best management practice plan and they have to put a series of fences, straw waddles, etc. that have to be spaced properly for how steep the hillsides are. If they do construction during the summer, there will be less impact. If they do not, there will be more frequent inspections on the property to ensure that those best management practices are installed properly.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, if for some reason that plan is inadequate and water or debris goes down or they get saturated soil that slides towards the neighbors, who is liable for that.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the applicant will be liable for all of their construction and their contractors need to have the proper insurance as they will be liable for all the work they do.
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated she is still trying to understand the rain intensity in an hour for a 100-year storm. She does not know if he had a chance to review the letter from Steven Bonds, who is consulting geologist/hydrologist, that was submitted today.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated he has not had a chance to review it but it does increase it around three-fold but that is not something that cannot be mitigated for a larger project. There is a way to detain this extra stormwater to hold it until the storm has passed so it can still go into our storm drain system. After the storm passes, there is no more rain coming into our storm system and they can continue to release the water back out at that time. It is a common practice done all around and everyone has their own manuals to calculate what they call stormwater runoff; it is a standard equation called the rational method and that is done all around as all counties have their own hydraulic manuals.
Mayor Boles wants to confirm that she is looking at a C3 check list on A5.8 and it says 0.2 inches of rainfall intensity per hour and it says 4.3 hours of rain duration. She asked if that is the number that relates to what he is asking.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they use NOAA and it is different based on the storm event, 100-year storm or 10-year storm, and they will verify that. They are following the County’s requirement for a one-hour duration and one-hour time of concentration.
Chair Hauser added that the Planning Commission added the condition of approval that was read into the record and modified Condition of Approval No. 29. They have endowed the City with rights and it took a long time to do this with the City Attorney to make sure that there was a proper nexus for it, but to answer Councilmember Beckmeyer’s question, they treated this as a big site and not as a single family home site.
Mayor Boles appreciated that and that there will be more scrutiny as they go into building.
Mayor Boles called for a break and then reconvened the meeting. She had one more question regarding a bird’s eye view in the staff presentation. She stated that you can see the ADU at the top and the right side of the house is about in plane with the house on the right. She asked referred to packet page 342 with the renderings. She asked about the accuracy of the rendering that shows the house from Rockaway.
Mr. Chavarria stated that there is a drawing comparing the elevation of the house and ADU with adjacent property and it shows that the roof of ADU is 4-feet lower than the adjacent house.
The angle of this view may be a little deceptive from the eye, but the building is skewed on the property. The property lines are very strangely located as the building is contouring to the fire truck turnaround. From this angle and that vantage point, the ADU is not seen because the elevation of the roof of the ADU is the same as the highest elevation of the roof of the building.
Mayor Boles understood, adding that it is in parallel to the other building.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated packet page 341 has the section drawing of the single story accessory dwelling unit and shows the property line in the adjacent houses.
Mr. Chavarria stated that immediately above where it says Section E, that is 741 Rockaway Beach. The peak elevation of that house is about 1,004 on a relative scale and the peak elevation of ADU in their building is 1,001.06.
1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated that the peak elevation is at the top of the slope and the bottom of the slope is fairly close to the top of the roof of the ADU. She stated you can see how close they are together here and it seems odd to her that this does not show up on the plan. She referred to packet page 315.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that the setback from the ADU to that blue house is 20 feet if he recalls correctly as opposed to the four feet that was required.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that is correct. The maximum rear setback that can be imposed on an ADU under local and state law is four feet. The ADU here is located 20 feet at its closest point and 25 feet at its furthest point.
Mayor Boles stated that you can see how the ADU relates to the house as they are at about the same slope of the land and the house extends all the way over to the ADU. She stated that the rendering does not look accurate to her. She stated that this is hard for her as an architect to read these plans and trying to understand the impacts. She knows that the neighbors have asked for story poles and they were told they could not be done because doing the grading and plant removal was problematic. It is hard for a lay person and the neighbors to understand what to expect from this project. She would have asked for confirmation that those were accurate and to show the massing on the hillside in relation to the other houses.
Mr. Chavarria stated that all the architectural plans, slope land elevation, site plans, contour lines, etc. depict correctly all the information.
Mayor Boles understands that, but most people do not read these drawings and even Planning Commissioners were having trouble. If you are not going to do story poles, the renderings are important. She asked Community Development Director Updegrave if it was correct that they were requested by Planning Commissioners.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the Planning Commissioners had asked for the renderings that were provided. She stated that it is also important to remember that the accessory dwelling unit is not subject to discretionary review.
Mayor Boles understands that, but the house is basically in line with the ADU. She stated that it is understanding the right side of the building and where all this sits on site. She stated that we can take out the ADU reference; that was important in terms of understanding the roof height as the roof height of the ADU is about the same as the roof site of the main house at 1001.
Vice Mayor Wright stated, as a follow up on packet page 159, you stated that the City does not require story poles for development projects, and he asked if that was something in the future that we should consider changing to make this kind of visualization easier.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it is something Council could consider adding, but the trends within the state for housing development projects reviews and approvals are based on objective standards and, if they wanted to require story poles, they would have to find what the objective standard is that those are being tied to.
Mayor Boles asked if that is true for renderings as a request of the check list, especially for projects on steep hillsides that are hard to hard to understand the relationships to existing structures and the grade.
1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 February 09, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we can ask for renderings and we ask for them, which is different than putting in physical structures on a property as a development review requirement.
Mayor Boles stated the staff report said there is no requirement that the renderings be accurate.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it did not say that there was no requirement for them to be accurate. It said that renderings are a visual tool, but not something that staff bases a compliance review on. Staff are not looking at setbacks, at height, or at the regulatory or development standards requirements. That is done through the plans, not through the renderings.
Mayor Boles stated that there was not a problem that the Planning Commission reviewed the driveway with an incorrect rendering.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the Planning Commission approved the project under the assumption that it was an accurate rendering and added a condition of approval asking the applicant, staff, and Fire to work together to try to find a more visually pleasing alternative and she thinks that was considered.
Mayor Boles opened public comments.
Ron Maykel, Pacifica, stated this is a very complicated project and believed Council should uphold the appeal and send it back to the Planning Commission. He raised concerns with some of the layout included on the site plan.
Carol Fregly, Pacifica, stated she would like Council to uphold the appeal. She shared her concerns regarding the development of this project and nearby properties, as well as the capacity of the City to provide infrastructure to such projects.
Ted Garber, Pacifica, emphasized what Ms. Fregly said and shared his concerns on various parts of this project, stating it was a lot to be sold for profit. He also expressed frustration about the inaccuracy of the renderings.
Susan Miller, Pacifica, shared a letter from their independent contractor expressing concerns on possible development shortcuts that could lead to negative impacts on the neighborhood.
She was also concerned about errors on the renderings and plans and would like the project to meet the current ire standards. She asked that Council approve the appeal.
Gregg Jones, Pacifica, stated he supports the appeal and shared his concerns regarding the project including impacts to his home, such as water runoff and potential property damage from construction work. He also raised issues regarding story poles in the renderings and the easement agreement.
Max Reinhardt, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the project, including the loss of vegetation, the inaccuracy of the renderings, and the calculations for the water runoff. He also thought the language used by some of the public comments to discourage development was problematic.
Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, supported the appeal and shared her safety concerns on this project, including mudslides and rockslides, hillside runoffs, and a lack of alternative exit from Rockaway Beach Ave.
1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 February 09, 2026
Vera Toth-Fejel, Pacifica, shared her concerns on this project, including building below legal standards and asked that the project be sent back to the Planning Commission.
Jeff Morgan, Pacifica, stated he reiterates everything his neighbors said about the project and is fully in support of the appeal. He thought you should be able to develop the property you bought but he was concerned about parking opportunities on the street.
Mayor Boles asked if the appellant is providing any rebuttal, inviting 3 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Launer wanted to address two points. FFirst is applicability of the Housing Accountability Act. He stated that the Commission suggested in their summary report that, while the Council has the discretion to determine the appropriate balance and priorities of the applicable city design guidelines for a project, the guidelines do not contain objective standards and cannot be imposed in a manner that effectively denies or reducing density of a housing development project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. He stated that the courts have held that the HAA does not apply to single family dwellings and it does not apply to this single family unit dwelling. Second thing is that they heard that the retaining wall structure will be 7.5 feet in height at the back of Bay View at the properties on Parcel 7 at 125 Bay View Road. He reiterated that this is a structure within the definition of the Municipal Code because it is constructed, not just following the natural grade of the land but 7.5 feet in addition to that, and is constructed or erected so the use of which will require the attachment to something having on location of the ground. He stated 7.5 feet is higher than the 6-foot maximum for the applicable code regulating fences and walls of other sorts. They heard about multiple inconsistencies that warranted recommendations of additional conditions of approval at this meeting and reconsideration. He stated that there is an appropriate procedure for this which is a variance.
They recommend Council grant the appeal, deny the site development permit, and find that it requires a variance to be in compliance with the applicable Zoning Code.
Mayor Boles then invited the applicant representatives to provide any rebuttal, inviting 3 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Manione, attorney for the property owners, referred to several points. One, this project is being built as a home for the owners, not going to be flipped. Second, this is not a case for a variance as the project meets the Zoning Code. When it comes to the Housing and Accountability Act, this project includes two or more residential dwellings, a single family and ADU. It is a housing development project for the purpose of Housing Accountability Act.
Another point is the property has the right to access Bay View Road.
Mr. Chavarria stated that there is no 7.5 foot retaining walls on the south side of Bay View. The
7.5 foot he referred to is on the north end which does not impact the adjacent property. The story poles were not installed because temporarily, they would have to remove vegetation without erosion control. There is no landslide and unstable condition on site. He stated that the project complies. Most importantly, there are errors on the plan, but drawings for entitlement have not construction drawings. Drawings for entitlement are allowed to have conceptual drawings that can be modified for construction once the formal design is done.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that staff has a few points to clarify. The Housing Accountability Act does apply to this project. It applies when there are two or more dwelling units. The project includes a single family and an ADU, so it is subject to the Housing Accountability Act. She reiterated that this project meets all of the development standards in the
1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 February 09, 2026
Zoning Ordinance and a variance is not required. It meets all of the requirements of our Zoning Ordinance. She knows the appellant had mentioned definitions in the Building Code. The Building Code does not define or establish setbacks for zoning purposes. There are no variances. In terms of CEQA, the added conditions of approval do not mitigate specific environmental impacts but represent standard conditions. Any new construction in the R1H district requires a site development permit which is a discretionary permit granted by the Planning Commission. There is no such thing as an over-the-counter approval of a single family home within the R1H unless they are invoking other state laws that allow ministerial approval between 4 to 10 units. She reiterated what Acting Fire Marshall Wittner said that the building code requirements for local responsibility areas for the high fire hazard severity zones apply to this project. Planning entitlement cannot vest a project to Building Codes and the project will be subject to the Building Code in effect when that application is made. Those requirements for the local responsibility areas are already in effect when we adopted the 2025 Building Code. The Planning Commission did not require story poles. They are not a requirement in our Code or our submittal requirement and we cannot require them as part of the review.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated regarding stormwater potentially constantly flowing even after the storms are over, because the City is full of the hillsides and there is ground water over it, there are certain areas during the summer that constantly have flows. He points back to the magnitude of the amount of water that we are collecting with these storm drains, 3.4 inches per hour. These pipes are full of water at 6-8 inches. If they drive around, some of the storm drains will be full and the gutters are gushing water down the hillside, and that is the kind of storms they are talking.
City Clerk Coffey stated that it is 9:51 PM now and at 10:00 PM, Council will need to consider if the Council will complete the items on the agenda or need to adjust the agenda and/or consider a potential extension of the meeting beyond 11:00 PM.
Mayor Boles asked City Manager Woodhouse that there is another item on the agenda after this and asked if that has to be heard at this meeting or could be pushed to a later date.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the other item after this relates to their wastewater master plan contract approval to get that work going. There is not any rigid deadline or regulatory deadline related to that but he will point out that their next Council meeting agenda is very highly impacted and, if they were to push that item off, they would need to figure out how to do that.
City Clerk Coffey stated she is bringing that up for potential discussion of completing the agenda but a motion will need to be made before 11:00 PM to extend the meeting beyond 11:00 PM.
Mayor Boles closed the public hearing.
Mayor Boles referred to construction staging and thought that is something that will be submitted as part of the building permit review.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, along with a traffic control plan, will need to be reviewed. All the impacts to the right of way will be reviewed by Engineering with an encroachment permit and everything on private property will be done with the building permit.
Mayor Boles asked if we can add a condition of approval that does not allow for construction vehicles to use private driveways.
1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 February 09, 2026
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we can review that with the traffic control plan and it is already in condition 35.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what kind of impact is this going to have on the roads.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there are conditions related to the traffic control plan. The Planning Commission also added a condition requiring a video survey or video documentation of the condition of the right of way and public improvement as documentation that, should damage occur, the owner would be responsible for the repairs.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if there were any impact fees associated with that.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there are impact fees for new development.
City Manager Woodhouse believes that there are construction roadway impact fees that was approved by Council a couple of years ago.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that there is something called a utility cut fee, any time someone opens a trench, they will be required to pay that into our utility cut fees and that is used to resurface streets in the City. In this case, they are going to have to do some sort of tie-ins with their sewer or domestic water into our system; if they have to do a storm drain trench all the way down to Rockaway, there will be significant utility cut fees for that trench.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that those are for cut fees but not for excessive wear and tear due to the weight of the high utility vehicles, other than the video necessitated repairs as a result.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated the utility cut fees are used for resurfacing projects and roadway repair projects. In terms of what the trucks do to the street, if we can verify that they damaged the street, we will ask that some repair be made.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that there are a number of retaining walls on this project and asked how those retaining walls will address the build up of hydrostatic pressure behind them in order to mitigate any potential risk of mudslides, etc.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that it is standard to have sub drains underneath a retaining wall so it does not build up water pressure. In this case, the Geotech report has a sub drain detail that’s required behind the retaining walls and that will be something they verify during the building permit process in their structural plans to make sure that they do have sub drains on their retaining walls.
Vice Mayor Wright asked how the Housing Crisis Act applies to this project.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, similar to the Housing Accountability Act, there are provisions within the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 that also apply because of the housing development project because it is two or more units.
Mayor Boles stated she has three geotech questions.
Project geologist John Petroff of Michelucci & Associates and certified engineering geologist Patrick Drum in California introduced themselves.
1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated she is reading the report from Michelucci & Associates and note No. 3 says the review of the plan prepared by JC Engineering was December 3, 2018 with the latest revision date of October 16, 2023 were reviewed but she knows there was a later issue. She asked if that was incorrect or have they reviewed a more recent plan.
Mr. Petroff stated that, at the time they were preparing the report, those were the plans made available to them to review and, no, they have not reviewed the latest plans and they expect that it will be part of the process at some point.
Mayor Boles stated that there was another place where it specifically said they had not reviewed the driveway and retaining walls in the report and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Petroff stated that was correct as they have not reviewed any plans formally for the project as of yet.
Mayor Boles mentioned to staff that it seems problematic.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we do not have the construction level drawings and plans at this point so they are still being developed. Part of the building permit review includes additional incorporation of geotechnical recommendations, conditions of approval, and geotechnical review.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated there is a condition No. 17 requiring geotechnical monitoring and investigation during the project. All of the Geotech recommendations in this report does not end there; someone will have to sign off after the building permit plans are reviewed once more and during construction, all the grading, all the drill piers are installed and this geotechnical engineer needs to sign off on everything that is being done.
Mayor Boles understands there is more detail coming but was uncomfortable that major parts had not yet been reviewed. She stated that we sometimes ask for peer review of the geotechnical and she asked if we do that for a resident or is that only for larger projects.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we only ask for a third party peer review if there was something that we had a question on its feasibility. He knows this hillside project is very concerning for the residents but it is common. He stated that it can be done, and Engineering would ask only for a third party if we thought it was not feasible. The geotechnical report here is standard in terms of the recommendations to do drill piers on the hillside.
Mayor Boles stated that the Summit Engineering report said that none of the onsite soil could be used for fill and she did not see that in the more recent report. They had concerns about the driveway because those are very different soils than they found on the hillside where the buildings are going.
Mr. Petroff stated they fully intend to review the plans that are still in the development stage now and, once they have a full set of architectural civil and structural plans, they will review them formally. During construction, while excavations are being made and while digging is being done, they commonly look at the soil to see whether or not it can be used. That typically happens during the construction phase of the project.
1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated it may be possible, when they are working on the site, some of it is not usable and there will be more export than is currently calculated.
Mr. Petroff stated that was a definite possibility.
Mayor Boles stated that there is deep seated landslides and there are debris flow landslides.
She stated that they referred to some of the USGS reports and a great report done here locally by Howard Donnelly in 1983. She asked if he can reassure them about increased rains and what they have looked at for that and do they see the rest from slip slope failures above or below this site.
Mr. Drum stated that the site and all the surrounding properties are within a California seismic hazard zone for earthquake-induced landslides. Part of his job was to investigate and explore the possibility of the debris reflows and landslides of on the property. There is a publication by the California Geological Surveys, special publication 117, which gives him a recipe to conduct a screening investigation. In order to do that, you review all the published geology maps, literature on landslides in the area, historic stereopairs of aerial photographs, visit the site, etc.
There is plenty of aerial photography that predates the development there. He did not see any evidence of the landslides, the briefdebris flows, etc. on the property or that would impact the property.
Mayor Boles stated it is in an area that is mapped in our General Plan as susceptible to brief debris flow landslides and, as we know, we are getting more storms with more intensity.
Mr. Drum agreed, adding that there is no zero risk. His report says it is a low probability.
Vice Mayor Wright stated there seems to be a slight discrepancy in the grade calculations between different sources regarding the slope of the lot and he asked if they can explain how they calculated that.
Mr. Drum stated he can only speak for himself. When he measured the slope from top to bottom, that is the average, but inside the average, there can be steeper areas and flatter areas.
Vice Mayor Wright stated, in terms of the soil to keep on site, they want that soil to be able to compact to what ratio.
Mr. Petroff stated typically 90% if it’s on-site soil. Something that is imported, like a base rock they would typically say 95% compaction.
Vice Mayor Wright asked staff to explain the class 3 exemption for CEQA.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that class 3 exemption is for new construction or conversion of small structures; within Pacifica, it applies to the construction of up to three single family residences and includes accessory structures that are pertinent to a single family residence. ADUs are statutorily exempt.
Chair Hauser added that, at the first Planning Commission hearing, Planning Commission spoke a lot about this question and asked the City Attorney to confirm because it was mapped in all these different zones and does that create unusual circumstances. She thinks part of the fact that the entire neighborhood is built in the zone itself is a parity that is also through our zoning that got rid of the peculiar or unusual circumstances.
1.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 February 09, 2026
Vice Mayor Wright thought Conditions 35 through 45 address a lot of the concerns of the people that are being the most impacted by this.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the conditions added were conditions 41 through 45. The conditions were added to reflect the regulatory requirements and to offer more specificity and assurance of compliance with the general regulations that apply to the project.
Chair Hauser thinks that Planning Commission wanted to make sure the things they were asking for were documented in conditions. Condition No. 45 took two different breaks for Commission to get the language right. Essentially, what it says is that, prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant has to enter into an improvement agreement that will require bonds. For example, because of all the slopes here, they did not want there to be a situation where the applicant ran out of money halfway through building a retaining wall. It was important to treat this as a half-acre site and not as a single-family home site for this condition.
Vice Mayor Wright stated what he heard from that is safety first.
Chair Hauser agreed.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that staff and the Commission have done an excellent job in imposing conditions to make sure that this site is safe and to address all of the issues.
Condition No. 45 is a real testament to that as it is not a normal condition for a single-family home development.
Mayor Boles stated that the resolution on packet page 169 is asking Council to specify the appeal point from certain things that we are agreeing to.
Vice Mayor Wright wanted to thank the Planning Commissioners who did a tremendous amount of work on this project over the time.
Councilmember Bier mentioned historically what Pacifica does is come out and say they do not want this kind of a development but they can have this other kind of development. She feels, when a whole neighborhood comes together and continues to have all these concerns, that is up to Council to make sure that their concerns have been rectified before anything else. One thing that bothers her at this meeting is that one of the neighbors learned that there was going to be a red painted curb and parking taken away. She understands that the City does not require story poles but the developer can put them there anyway to work with the neighborhood.
She felt requiring a variance does not stop development, just assures that it fits the neighborhood constraints and the project can be tailored to those realities rather than forcing the neighborhood to absorb the impact.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated there is not a need for a variance per our zoning. She thinks the conditions of approval are the way in which the Planning Commission and staff sought to address issues. She appreciates the work to correct the driveway renderings and design of the driveway, but in the condition of approval, it says that the applicant and staff will work together to design a more visually appealing driveway. One thing she also heard tonight, with which she agrees, is that it is not clear from the drawing as submitted what the actual impact is going to be for the home at the base on the right hand side of where the driveway going up. It is hard for her to tell what that impact is going to be. She imagines the owners are significantly concerned.
1.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 February 09, 2026
She wonders if there is any way of asking for a drawing. She stated that there does not seem to be room for planting to give barrier or anything.
Chair Hauser stated we have to respect that the Fire Marshall has requirements and the question she would have is can it be a 16-foot wide driveway and does it provide an extra foot or so for planting.
Mayor Boles stated that it has to be 18 feet clear which we do not have now.
Chair Hauser thinks, with a Planning Commissioner reviewing this, the whole neighborhood is hills and every single property line almost has retaining walls. Even the neighbor’s driveway is retained. The fences between property lines are on retaining walls for a significant amount of the homes here. She thinks, in the spirit of providing parity, they have to let people use their property. She thinks, in good faith, the applicant should continue to work with Director Updegrave and the Fire Marshall on an even more aesthetically appealing rendering and provide a rendering to the neighbor as a good faith effort.
Vice Mayor Wright reiterated that, at the beginning, the first question he asked was, if the applicant would again speak to the neighbor to move a deep offer that one foot planting.
Hopefully there is room for compromise there, to work together for the benefit of all so everyone can feel comfortable.
Councilmember Espinosa added making sure that the neighbors feel that Council is doing what they are supposed to do and to make sure they are safe. That is important, especially if contractors are going to build above you. She noticed that, before you buy a house, if you have a vacant lot in the back of your house, you have to consider that something might happen there and you have to be careful.
Vice Mayor Wright mentioned dust mitigation plan during construction.
Chair Hauser stated that condition of approval 44 was added at the Planning Commission hearing and addresses dust and the Bay Area Quality Management District requirements.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, in condition 44, there is a sign that is required to be placed and the telephone number for people to give the contact about dust complaints and the person shall be responsible for the correct action within 48 hours.
Vice Mayor Wright asked about fencing and waddle holes and erosion control.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we can get into that if they are doing work during the winter time. He stated that the straw waddles are mainly for storm water runoff. The fencing will create a perimeter control around the whole area and that is something they will have to do.
Straw waddles are spaced every 15-25 feet depending on how steep the hillside is and that is to prevent erosion of the hillside during rain.
Mayor Boles referred to the appeal claim on packet page 172 stating that the proposed development as set forth on the plan will unreasonably restrict or cut out light and air on the property and on other property in the neighborhood or will hinder or discourage appropriate development and use of the plans and buildings in the neighborhood or impair the value thereof.
She knows staff has refuted their arguments about variances, the driveway, and the setbacks, but she is having trouble with the cutting out light and air without seeing those renderings on the
1.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 February 09, 2026
windows on the driveway to understand if the project will restrict or cut out the light. She asked if they can address that outside of the specificity of the variance and retaining walls.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that impact to light and air are not tied to an objective standard.
Mayor Boles concluded that we are completely limited to objective standards.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, not just the HAA but the fact that this property is under the HAA and the Housing Crisis Act. SB 330 also has restrictions with regard to imposing objective standards. This property is categorically exempt from environmental review which is a vehicle that we tend to use to impose conditions that she hears Council is having concerns with.
Planning Commission has done the best possible job they could with limitations of state law to impose those protections. The one issue that she thinks Council may be able to address is requiring the applicant to submit new renderings. The question for Council is when do they need to submit those renderings.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what is the maximum height of the retaining walls along the building line of the downhill neighbor.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the height of the retaining walls is driven by the requirements to provide fire access. That includes things like slope and the ability to bear the required weight as legally required to meet the six conditions for the fire access.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that the applicant earlier stated the heights.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, on the plans on that side, they are shown as between 2-3 feet, terracing up, but on the downhill part of the flag pole.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what the code is for the minimum base of a window.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she does not have that information.
Vice Mayor Wright believes it is a minimum of 18 inches.
Mr. Chavarria stated the revised rendering is a duplication of the existing conditions. From the sidewalk to the back of the existing building, the existing grades do not change. They are going to grade it to create a base that the fire trucks need and put a curve curb on the side. The only area where the retaining wall becomes a retaining wall that is going from 18 inches to 4 feet is at the very rear corner of the property, way beyond existing building. If you look at the existing photograph, that is your driveway there and that is the relationship from the windows to the driving surface. That is what they tried to represent with that other rendering that they presented there. In front of the building, there is no retaining walls.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if that was the recollection when Chair Hauser went to the site.
Chair Hauser thinks that, if we keep the condition as worded, they give a lot of discretion to Director Updegrave and the Fire Marshall. As mentioned by City Attorney, Planning Commission put these conditions on this project that are not single family conditions. The applicant was very amendable and collaborative in taking them. She is making an assumption that the applicant will continue to be collaborative with the City and, if the downslope retaining
1.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 February 09, 2026
walls get smaller, the upslope retaining walls get bigger. She thinks, if they tell staff what they want to see, they can continue to craft something that will be better.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that the direction she is looking for is what is our interpretation of what the community would prefer to see there, particularly the downhill neighbor.
Chair Hauser would be interested to hear what Councilmember Bier who talked to the neighbors heard because that is a more recent conversation and she thought that would be very important.
Councilmember Bier stated that Council all talked with them about storm water drainage, fear around construction, driveways being blocked, and the main driveway rendering, all of which revolve around the safety of the neighborhood.
Mayor Boles stated she spent time with the neighbors and she was showing them why the rendering was wrong and walking them through the grading plan and the heights of the retaining walls. She referred to the City Attorney saying Council could ask for submittal of new renderings, and she asked how that relates to this process.
City Attorney Kenyon stated we can ask for the renderings but for what purpose. Under the Housing Crisis Act, there is a limit to the number of meetings that we can continue to have. As Director Updegrave made clear, there are some limitations on what kind of conditions we can impose. If they are not objective, then we cannot impose those. She was thinking, if we want additional renderings to give the neighbors a better idea of what will be built, we can make that a condition of approval. However, if it is about safety, the renderings will not give any more assurance regarding safety. For the safety, we need to look at the actual plan, as renderings do not tell you how that project is going to be built and exactly where it is going to be built. It is designed to give the community and Council a better idea of what it will look like but not designed to assure that the construction is built to certain specific designs. We have to think about what we want to use the renderings for. She stated, based on the concerns about the neighbors not knowing what is going to be built there, maybe Council would want to ask the applicant to provide more accurate renderings, but there is nothing that Council will be able to do with those renderings.
Mayor Boles thought it would be helpful regarding the fence design in relation to the windows.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it would help the neighbors to understand where the fence design is going to be but you cannot impose additional conditions after the rendering unless continuing to another meeting, but they have restrictions on the number of meetings.
Mayor Boles asked how many meetings we are up to.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that this is the third meeting so there could be two more.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if it was Dep. Director Yip’s understanding that they are going to capture all that rooft water load and put it in the drainage system.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, stating that is how it has to be designed.
Vice Mayor Wright thought they will be taking some of the rainfall that would have fallen on the dirt and put it in the storm drain for the 3,000 square feet of building that they are doing.
1.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 February 09, 2026
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, as all of the additional runoff that caused from the new building has to be captured inside of their storm drain detention system and held there. It cannot be released until the storms are over.
Vice Mayor Wright asked, in terms of the driveway load, if that is what is getting moved to the storm drain.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that level of detail will have to be reviewed during the building permit phase. In terms of a feasibility standpoint, it can be done. Under drainage law, they are allowed, wherever the water was going before, to continue to do that at the same slow rate, but they cannot increase flow rate on the site. On that particular area where it was draining towards Bay View, there were draining a certain flow rate and they can continue doing that. How that is split up will be reviewed during the building permit in that level of detail.
Mayor Boles asked, in terms of the parking space lost due to a red curb, if that should be noticed to the neighbors. It is a loss to the neighborhood that has limited street parking.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the red curbing would not be a condition of approval. The City has the ability to red curb and it would not be the applicant’s responsibility as it is not on their property and you cannot impose conditions that is not on their property. Red curbing determination is within the City’s discretion, not the applicant. She stated it is under Council’s discretion and they will get a recommendation from the City Engineer generally and staff who will determine why they have a rationale for the red curbing. They heard it from the Fire Marshall and it will be a determination that staff makes. She asked Dep. Director Yip about how those red curbs are approved.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the red curbs are requested through the Engineering Division and it is discretionary, based on the City Engineer, on whether or not they will approve that, based on the request. It depends on what the need is. They have not done noticing.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that Council could request that the neighbors be notified.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if the picture on packet page 387 is the section we are talking about.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the image on packet page 387 is a photograph where the fire access will be located.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that is where the driveway is going to be.
Mayor Boles stated that the problem is that none of this shows on any of the drawings and we do not know where the driveway is, how wide that section is, if another part of the curb further down the street outside of the driveway is affected, etc. She would personally like to see that come back to Council and see the renderings too. She stated that we do not know the full impact of this project as all the engineering drawings just show a line as a curb all the way and does not show any of the driveways except the roads where Calera Terra.
City Clerk Coffey stated it is 10:48 PM and we will need a motion to continue beyond 11:00.
1.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated she has a bunch of COAs and some new ones she wants to write too. She wonders if we should continue the meeting and ask for these things and go on to our next item and give direction on that.
Councilmember Bier expressed frustration for not doing anything for her community thus ar and does not think it is fair to try to do another thing tonight.
Mayor Boles asked if it was an option to continue this item.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we can continue it but we would need to make it clear what the direction is for the applicant to return with. That will require deliberation and a motion to continue the meeting and describe why we are continuing the meeting and what are we waiting to receive from the applicant.
Mayor Boles stated that we can call out to a particular plan, the site plan, or grading plan, that shows the road and the neighbors’ driveway across the street and overlays the turning radius so they know the impact to the other side of the street.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we need to be careful about the level of technical information that we are requiring for a planning entitlement.
Mayor Boles stated that Fire will do their own review and Council wants to see the site plan with the impact to the driveways and the parking spot.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if she was talking about renderings.
Mayor Boles stated that renderings are a different thing but she would like to see them updated too. In terms of the plan, it is just the site plan that adds the driveways so we can see the overlap and understand the impact to the neighborhood in terms of the parking.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the renderings would not be an issue but she is not clear on what Council wants. She thinks Director Updegrave would like more clarity on exactly what is missing from the site plan that Council would like the applicant to submit.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 11:30; seconded by Mayor Boles.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Mayor
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
Mayor Boles referred to packet page 314. She referred to Bay View Road and stated they show the driveway for existing house at 125 and the other one on either side of the new driveway but not the driveway for the houses across the street. They don’t fully understand where the turning radius will impact those properties and the existing parking. She stated that it is a matter of adding the driveways across the street.
City Attorney Kenyon wants to make it clear for what purpose, i.e. Council wants to know what they are going to construct or because Council thinks, by getting the additional site plans they
1.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 36 February 09, 2026
will be able to impose additional conditions which must be objective standards, not other issues.
She thinks it is important that Council understands that, if they are continuing the meeting for the ability to impose additional conditions, that is going to be difficult if the conditions are not objective standards. She asked what they are hoping to achieve. She does not have an issue with the renderings but with asking for site plans. They can ask for the renderings and still take action on the project tonight.
Mayor Boles stated that they cannot act tonight because they are out of time and she has a bunch of conditions of approval that she wants to add.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she is concerned about the delay, not just the meeting requirement. We have continued this item many times. There needs to be a reason why Council is continuing it and what we expect to receive when it comes back.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that the renderings will speak directly to the feasibility of the turning radius for the fire trucks which is whether the project would be able to be built in the first place.
That is what their concern is and they want to protect the City from potentially moving something forward that is later going to be restricted by a more in-depth analysis by the Fire Department.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that normally they do not submit those detailed plans until they are seeking an application for their permit. She needs Council to understand that this is not the same type of discretionary review that they have with development applications.
Mayor Boles thinks it is important for Council to understand the impact to the neighborhood and to communicate those impacts to the neighbors who are very angry and upset. This is something completely new that has not been addressed in the staff report and they do not completely understand the impacts.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought we need to trust the Fire Marshall’s good judgement and, in terms of the neighborhood, it would be useful for them to be able to have a picture of what that professional decision will result in. She is wondering if they can add one condition of approval, i.e., a new rendering is done and it satisfies us and she thinks it’s for the neighborhood to be able to have access to. She does not expect them to change that decision as it seems to her that decision has been made.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Fire Marshall Wittner mentioned that the red curbing is very short; the driveway adjacent to that is a very long and skinny driveway running in the opposite direction.
Mayor Boles stated that she is saying it might be more than that red curb and how does one project get to impact multiple parking areas.
City Attorney Kenyon stated new state laws that have limited local control. She understands the frustration. However, state laws have limited Council’s ability to use their discretion in projects just like this. If they are going to continue the meeting to ask for additional plans, to impose additional conditions potentially, those conditions can only be addressing objective standards.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if they can continue it as they feel like they need to talk more.
City Attorney Kenyon stated no, adding that there has to be a reason for the continuance that is reasonable and is not for the purpose of delay. She understands that is not Council’s intent but
1.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 37 February 09, 2026
what she is concerned about is the Council believing that, in this process, by getting additional materials, Council will be able to impose additional conditions that go beyond objective standards. She wants to manage their expectations on what they can do in that next meeting.
Vice Mayor Wright would like a condition of approval in the talk to the neighbor about giving that little blending strip and move that driveway uphill a foot.
Councilmember Beckmeyer would like to see renderings with a better picture of what the driveway is going to look like.
Mayor Boles stated that there are things in the resolution that are wrong and there are things in the COAs. She does not know how long it is going to be. She stated that, at some point, they are exhausted and she asked if they have to go and finish.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she is trying to manage their expectations.
Mayor Boles stated she hears her and concluded that they cannot ask for that drawing, but they can ask for the renderings and come back and finish their deliberation.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if they are just asking for renderings and want to continue the meeting because of the hour, and they understand that the restrictions that they are talking about here are still going to apply in the next meeting, then that is fine. She wants Council to understand that there are major restrictions on their ability to impose additional conditions that are not objective standards. She thinks that, when the item comes back, they are going to be facing the same type of questions without the ability to do much more than they can do at this meeting, other than ask for new renderings.
Mayor Boles stated she can try to go through the things she has seen and the conditions she would like to add.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if she has conditions that she would like to see changes to, they should go through that. Her recommendation would be to use the time that they have left to finish this item, however they are going to.
Mayor Boles stated that they heard the City Manager say that it is important to get that next item as that may not fit on an agenda any time soon.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they may need to schedule a special meeting. She understands that the next item is important and what she is concerned about is delaying a decision on this project because that could lead to other exposure and other liability. She thinks, unfortunately, they are both important and her recommendation is to try to finish this item at least through 11:30 PM.
Mayor Boles referred to packet page 189, and the resolution at the top of that page talks about the arborist report, and it says the recommendations in the arborist report have been reviewed and approved by the city arborist. The point she made earlier is that the plans have changed and other trees are affected that are not properly reviewed in the arborist report and she is not comfortable with this language in this resolution.
Vice Mayor Wright stated that the contention is that the magnolia was not properly considered when they widened the driveway.
1.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 38 February 09, 2026
Community Development Director Updegrave believes that was one of the conditions of approval that Council had been giving direction on earlier in the evening to add language about tree No. 1 to the condition.
Mayor Boles stated not just that but it needs to be reviewed by the arborist.
City Attorney Kenyon asked Director Updegrave if she was in agreement with the Mayor that they need to change that language because it is not accurate.
Community Development Director Updegrave believes it can be corrected by the condition of approval.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if it is incorrect in the resolution.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the recommendations in the report were reviewed and approved by the city arborist and that is a true statement. She stated that the statement itself is accurate.
Mayor Boles stated that it also says it recommends a tree protection plan for all trees and the tree protection plan does not work because the driveway is in the way of where they put the tree protection.
Vice Mayor Wright asked if we can condition it that they have an arborist approved plan to address tree No. 1.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we can add that as a condition.
Vice Mayor Wright would be in favor of that condition.
Mayor Boles asked if he is okay with the language in the resolution.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, according to Director Updegrave, that is still an accurate statement. She thinks she is saying that it may be accurate but an additional arborist report is needed. Council can impose that as a condition of approval.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, based on what Council was discussing before, a condition could be prior to the issuance of grading and building permit, the impact of access roadway and other improvements on tree No. 1 shall be analyzed by a qualified arborist.
Tree 4The report shall include specific protection measures or, if preservation is not possible, recommended appropriate replacement species to be planted at a 2-1 ratio.
Mayor Boles stated that there is still the issue of the neighbors and the easement because they say they cannot touch that tree. She stated that is a separate thing for the applicant. She stated that is another condition of approval to go back to the neighbors to revise the easement for both Lot 6 and Lot 13 to correctly reflect the work that is being done in the easements.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we do not know that the easement is going to be impacted.
That is an issue between two private parties so not an issue for Council. We do not have control over that contractual relationship and we cannot impose a condition that forces the applicant to do something that he is unable to do because he does not have a willing party.
1.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 39 February 09, 2026
That would effectively deny the project. We cannot impose requirements regarding negotiations on an easement that we are not a party to.
Mayor Boles added even though the owners in the public record agreed to talk to the neighbors and work on those issues.
Vice Mayor Wright stated he will take the owners at their words that they will talk to them.
City Attorney Kenyon thinks they are going to discuss it with them and she thinks, if the applicant has no issues with that, they can mention it tonight and, if they do not object, it will be fine. She is just telling them that it is a private party dispute.
Mayor Boles stated that we can add the condition about the arborist, including the drain and the swale. She wanted to talk about the trees but she does not see anything on the plan for the replacement trees, and at the bottom of packet page 190, it talks about the site plan and the setbacks. They have a few trees in a couple of spots and nothing on the southern part of the site. The neighbor to the right is also complaining about the large tree that is being removed.
There are no large trees being planted on the right to screen the property from his home.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that there is a condition of approval related to the replacement trees. The conditions of approval get printed on the plans and are enforced at the building permit. She believes the landscape plan shows eight large broad leaf trees and seven small broad leave trees throughout the site in various locations. Any replacement trees would be shown on the final. The final landscape plan is also going to be reviewed by the Fire Department for dispensable defensible space.
Mayor Boles asked if how many trees are being removed now that need to be replanted at 2-1.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it is just the protected tree that need to be replanted at 2-1 subject to the tree ordinance.
Mayor Boles stated on packet page 195, COA 7 talks about two Monterey pines being removed.
Community Development Director Updegrave believes the second is 10 inches and is dead, according to the arborist report.
Mayor Boles stated that this COA talks about the locations of the four replacement Monterey pines so does the COA need to be revised to reflect the right number of trees.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we can reduce it if that is what Council would like to do.
Mayor Boles stated that it conflicts with the prior document. She stated this says the four replacement trees shall be planted south of the proposed residence and serves to screen development from downhill residential properties along Rockaway Beach. That is where they have all the retaining walls really close to the property line.
Community Development Director Updegrave does not think the conditions say they have to be on the property line. These are details that need to be reviewed with the final tree planting and landscaping plan.
1.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 40 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles stated that condition 9 is where we are going to add the other language about the other trees.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated we can add language to condition No. 9.
Mayor Boles referred to packet page 197, condition 20, and suggested striking the incorrect language about the 100-year event. She asked if the 100-year event is correct.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that is his understanding of what a 100-year event is. Some of these conditions may not have been written by him as this project has been going on for quite some time.
Mayor Boles stated that she found the definition: A 100-year storm is different than 100-year event and is a rainfall event with a 1% chance or 1 in 100 probability of occurring in any given year. She stated that it is not the same as it might happen every 100 years. There is always a chance in any year that it could happen.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we can go ahead and remove the parentheses.
Mayor Boles appreciated page 199 calls for adding to the survey existing fences and structures on adjacent properties within 10 feet of the property lines. She thinks it is important to be sure they understand all the project impacts, especially because this one has a retaining wall next to it, and they are being reviewed so they are not impacting existing structures. They also add on a lot of projects on steep hills of no grubbing or tree removal before granting a building permit.
Chair Hauser asked if that can also be a trigger for the improvement agreement in 45 which should also be in place before grubbing.
Mayor Boles and Vice Mayor Wright agreed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it needs to be worded differently or does the one Mayor Boles is adding reference condition COA 45.
Chair Hauser defers to staff on it but, in her opinion, something as simple as no grubbing or tree removal prior to granting of a grading permit or recordation of subdivision agreement as specified in condition 45 encompasses the whole thing.
Mayor Boles asked where did they say there is something about not allowing a neighbor driveway for construction vehicles. While they are looking for that item, she has a question for Dep. Director Yip. He mentioned hoping that they do their grading in the dry season but do they not have a grading moratorium in the rainy season.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated he looked up their erosion control plans and there is a Note No. 7 that their grading activities are to be done during the dry season.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the traffic control plan is where engineering reviews past travel, travel to and from the site, and is condition No. 35.
Mayor Boles asked if we can add prohibiting them from turning on neighbor driveways.
1.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 41 February 09, 2026
PW Dep. Director Yip stated it is in the condition that this will be reviewed with the traffic control plan and they have to know their starting and returning to the City’s designated truck route.
Vice Mayor Wright moved to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:45 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
PW Dep. Director Yip stated, in their review of traffic control plans, they do not direct trucks to go onto private property to make their movements. It is not something they will approve on the traffic control plan. He does not think it needs to be explicitly stated.
Mayor Boles knows it is not approved but she fears that they will use it that way. There might be times when a truck is not necessarily driving up the driveway but it might drop off a load and then there is no place on the road within the turnaround.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated this is a question about enforcement after they have received their permit. However we condition some of these things, it is about enforcement and what they are allowed to do under their permitting.
Mayor Boles wants to talk about the storm drain in the street.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated staff has prepared a condition of approval.
She read, “prior to the issuance of building permit, the applicant shall feel field verifyied with location and functionality of the existing storm drain system indicated on the civil plans. If the existing storm drain cannot be located or confirmed as functional, the applicant shall design and install a new storm drain line connecting to the public storm drain system on Rockaway Beach Avenue to the satisfaction of the city engineer.”
Mayor Boles asked if the satisfaction of City Engineer include verifying the capacity of the storm drain on Rockaway Beach Avenue that it can take additional storm water.
PW Dep. Director Yip is not aware of any flooding issues at that location. Whatever the flow rate is now, we are assuming that it can handle the flow but they can only discharge at that same flow rate and that is what they will have to do. They have a 24-inch pipe holding water on site.
Most of these smaller storm drains for these residential areas are 6-8 inches in diameter. They have a 24-inch line holding the water until the storm passes.
Mayor Boles appreciated that. She referred to the 18-foot clear driveway width.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that is already part of the Fire review.
Mayor Boles stated that is all she has. She thanked them all for their patience with her.
Councilmember Beckmeyer added the renderings.
1.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 42 February 09, 2026
City Attorney Kenyon asked if there are any other conditions of approval that Council would like to add besides what they heard from the Mayor and Vice Mayor other than the renderings.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed the renderings and asked if it needs to be specified to inform the neighborhood.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she would like clarification on that. The condition would be, prior to the issuance of grading and building permit, the applicant shall provide revised rendering of the refined driveway design that includes the windows at 125 Bay View to the property owners and residents and where Council wants to do that, whether a radius or adjoining properties and provide receipt of certified mail.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it is not just adjacent property but across the street too. It is a defined area.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what is the grade separation treatment with the downhill neighbor where it shows a fence on the rendering. He asked if we have clarity on that. He stated you are allowed to not have something at 24 inches in case you fall off so you do not get hurt.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that guardrails are regulated by the Building Code and that is something that will be determined during plan check.
Vice Mayor Wright concluded it is not for consideration.
City Attorney Kenyon stated he was correct.
Mayor Boles thought that will be true for these tall retaining walls that are close to property lines.
Councilmember Bier stated, to be clear, we cannot condition story poles.
Community Development Director Updegrave said she was correct.
Vice Mayor Wright added that we can change that rule.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if there are no other conditions that Council would like to add, we would need to bring this resolution back to Council for their review. She is assuming that there will be a motion to continue this meeting, directing staff to bring back the resolution denying the appeal and with revised conditions of approval as directed by Council.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we could read them into the record.
Mayor Boles thought it would be good to see it in writing because it is so late and we talked about so much today. She would rather have them come back to them in writing.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is going to be another public hearing.
Mayor Boles asked if we can continue the meeting and not necessarily have public comments.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we continue it to a date certain and close public hearing and are continuing this item, then we would pick it up where they are now, but we have to continue it to a date certain.
1.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 43 February 09, 2026
Mayor Boles asked City Manager if we can do that.
City Manager Woodhouse would have staff build the next meeting agenda around including that. He stated that it will be another long meeting or we will postpone other important decisions.
Vice Mayor Wright asked what substantive information will we gain between now and then.
Mayor Boles stated we will be able to look at the conditions of approval that we have changed with fresh eyes.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if that is the desire of Council, then her recommendation would be that Council would like to amend the resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and approving the site development permit and tree removal permit, subject to conditions of approval which will be revised and brought back to the Council for final approval at the February 23 City Council meeting.
Vice Mayor Wright so moved; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Wright, Beckmeyer, Bier, Espinosa
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.
The City Council continued Item #10 to the next meeting on February 23, 2026.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS – NONE.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS – NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor Boles adjourned the meeting at 11:41 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
1.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 44 February 09, 2026
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
1.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-9-2026 City Council Special & Regular Meeting (6197 : Approval of Minutes)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/27/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Consideration of rezoning, development plan, and a specific plan to allow for single family residential use for currently existing residential use and uses consistent with single family residential use, in order to obtain a grading permit for the unpermitted grading that was subject to the Notice of Violation and a 400 square foot detached carport at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) (File No. 2022-037).
SUBJECT:
Consideration of rezoning, development plan, and a specific plan to allow for single family residential use for currently existing residential use and uses consistent with single family residential use, in order to obtain a grading permit for the unpermitted grading that was subject to the Notice of Violation and a 400 square foot detached carport at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) (File No. 2022-037).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
While staff has made its prior recommendations based on the historical application of the term “development,” the Council may reject or modify staff’s interpretation and may determine that the illegal grading that occurred at 650 Cape Breton Drive (the relocation of soil from the existing Covered Arena) does not constitute grading that would be subject to the requirements of the HPD.
Given that it is within Council’s purview to make a different interpretation than staff, a second option has been included in the Recommended Action that would allow the Council to adopt a Resolution determining that the grading that occurred at 650 Cape Breton Drive is not “development,” if the Council desires to select that option.
Therefore, staff recommends that Council conduct the public hearing and consider this report and select either option 1 or option 2 below.
1. Adopt a Resolution determining that the grading in an already developed area that was subject to the Notice of Violation is not “development” subject to the requirements of Articles 22 and 22.5 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, and that applicant is thus not required to rezone to Planned Development with a development plan and specific plan in order to obtain a grading permit pursuant to Title 8 of the Municipal Code. This action would be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15268, 15270, 15378(c); or
2. Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) zoning district with development plan;” adopt a Resolution to approve Specific Plan SP-180-22 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200); and find the approval of the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(Class 1-“Existing Facilities”), 1504 (Class 4-“Minor Alteration to 2 Packet Pg. 51
Pacifica City Council 2
April 27, 2026
Land”) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption)
STAFF CONTACT:
James Lin, Senior Planner
(650)738-7341
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
At the Council meeting on February 23, 20261, the City Council considered an Ordinance approving legislative permits for a Rezoning (RZ-211-22) and Development Plan (DP-87- 22), along with a Resolution approving the Specific Plan (SP-180-22), as well as a 400- square-foot detached carport, to facilitate issuance of a retroactive grading permit to correct unpermitted grading identified in the Notice of Violation for illegal grading that occurred at 650 Cape Breton Drive.
During the Council deliberations, Council gave direction to City staff to research and analyze the definition of “development” to determine if the retroactive grading permit to correct the illegal grading is the type of “development” intended to be encompassed within and subject to all of the regulatory standards in Article 22 (Planned Development-PD) and Article 22.5 (Hillside Preservation District) of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code.
This staff report provides the Council with the results of that research and analysis. While Staff made its prior recommendations based on the historical application of the term “development” and a conservative reading of the standards in Articles 22 and 22.5, the Council may modify or reject staff’s interpretation. Specifically, if after review of the legislative history the Council determines that the illegal grading that occurred on the site (the relocation of soil from the existing Covered Arena) does not constitute land disturbance in the form of grading, the Council could determine that the Project is not subject to the requirements of the HPD as set forth in Articles 22 and 22.5 Project Location
The project site is located at the eastern terminus of Cape Breton, as shown in Figure 1, and is comprised of two parcels that total approximately 835,400 square feet, or 19.17 acres (82,400 square feet on APN 022-320-200 and 755,000 square feet on APN 018- 170- 060). The site sits uphill at the top of Cape Breton Drive. The average slope across the entire site is approximately 52.3 percent. The project site was first developed in the 1970s, prior to that the site was undeveloped. Two single-family homes, one covered arena, and six nonhazardous storage buildings are currently existing on the subject site.
The project site has an HPD overlay on both parcels. The City’s Municipal Code requires that a property owner of property within the HPD obtain certain legislative approvals prior to undertaking any “development,” which staff has historically interpreted to include any grading. Any development on a site designated as HPD requires rezoning to Planned 1 City Council Agenda and Staff Report, dated February 23, 2026:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=1629&Inline=True 2 Packet Pg. 52
Pacifica City Council 3
April 27, 2026
Development (P-D) and approval of a Development Plan as well as a Specific Plan.
Figure One: Project Site
Project Description
The project would retroactively authorize the illegal grading that occurred at the site.
On May 20, 2021, the City issued a Declaration of Public Nuisance and Intent to Abate (“NOV”) relating to the removal of sand/soil without a necessary grading permit. The applicant involved had removed sand/soil from the Covered Horse Arena to areas outside of the Covered Arena on the property. The approximate volume of the relocated soil is 100 to 300 cubic yards. The Owners of 650 Cape Breton Drive, Iglesia Ni Cristo (“INC”), filed a timely appeal and an administrative hearing was held on August 10, 2021. The applicant argued during the hearing that the relocation of sand/soil was not grading subject to a grading permit. After conducting the hearing, the hearing officer issued a Decision and Order of Public Nuisance Hearing Officer and Notice of Intent to Abate (“Order”) on August 18, 2021, upholding the City’s NOV and concluding that grading, as defined by the California Building Code did occur on the property without the required grading permit, as required by section 8-1.17 of the City’s Municipal Code.
The Hearing Officer, through the Order, directed that INC do the following:
2 Packet Pg. 53
Pacifica City Council 4
April 27, 2026
1. Install erosion control measures such as, but not limited to, silt fences, gravel bags, or straw wattles to contain soil piles in their current locations to the satisfaction of the Building Official; and
2. Limit the use of the Covered Arena to its occupancy classification and subject to approval by the Building Official; and
3. Refrain from any additional grading or removal of sand/soil from the property and to obtain a grading permit for the illegal grading/sand relocation that occurred on the Property as set forth in the NOV no later than May 30, 2022.
The City and INC entered into an agreement to extend the deadline. The Agreement set forth the agreed upon terms and obligations relating to compliance with the provisions of the Order and extended the May 30, 2022, deadline. The application was subsequently filed by the agreed upon date.
At that time, Staff, in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office, determined that there was no specific plan on file for the site and therefore in order for the applicant to obtain a retroactive grading permit for the work cited in the Notice of Violation, the following approvals would be required: Rezone (RZ-211-22), Development Plan (DP-87-22), and Specific Plan (SP-180-22)2to allow for continued single-family residential use of the existing residence and associated improvements pursuant to the HPD provisions. Additionally, to comply with the parking requirements in Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-
4.2259(a), the applicant proposes to install an 8-foot-tall, 20-by-20-foot prefabricated carport in front of the existing single-family residence, outside of all required setbacks and on a developed foundation in order to comply with the covered parking requirements for singlefamily residential use.
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the proposed project on August 4, 2025, and November 17, 2025. At the public hearing on November 17, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council disapproval of the Specific Plan SP-180-22 (“Development Permit”), and to recommend City Council denial of Rezoning RZ211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 (“Legislative Approvals”) by adopting PC Resolution No. 2025-016 (Attachment D).
ANALYSIS
The City Council conducted a public hearing on February 23, 2026, and continued the item to a date uncertain. During the hearing, the City Council directed staff to conduct additional research into the applicability and requirements for a rezone, development plan, and specific plan, and return to Council at a later date.
The City Council, in its capacity as the legislative body of the City and in the exercise of its police power under the California Constitution, may consider and approve legislative actions on behalf of the City. The City Council is not bound by specific findings when approving legislative items and may consider all information relevant to the public health, safety, and 2 Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.2256 requires that any development proposal within the HPD “pursue the procedures and standards set forth for the P-D District,…[s]uch procedures and standards shall include the requirement for reclassification to a P-D District…” This reclassification requires the preparation of a Development Plan2 and a Specific Plan3 to authorize the retroactive grading work 2 Packet Pg. 54
Pacifica City Council 5
April 27, 2026
welfare of persons within the City. It is also within the purview of the City Council to evaluate the applicability of the Zoning Ordinance to a project and reach an interpretation that differs from staff.
Results of Research and Analysis
Staff has historically taken a very conservative approach and interpreted the definition of “development,” for purposes of applying the HPD regulations, to include any type of grading because of the intent of the HPD, which is to preserve and enhance land within the HPD and to help protect people and property from all potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides. (See PMC sections 9-4.2250 and 9-4.2252). There is, however, no definition of “development” in Articles 22 or 22.5. Moreover, certain provisions of both Articles appear to be intended for the development of sites for residences or structures, rather than the simple act of relocating soil to correct previous illegal activity undertaken on already developed property.
Based on Council’s direction provided at the hearing on February 23, 2026 and the research and analysis provided in this staff report, the Council may determine that the specific illegal grading that was subject to the NOV is not “development” for the purposes of applying the HPD regulations in Articles 22 and 22.5 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 4. Rationale for this interpretation includes the unique facts associated with the illegal grading performed by the Applicant on the Property. As there is no definition in the HPD for “development”, the Council has the discretion to interpret “development” as not including the type of grading involved in this case, which does not involve any residential or structural development and would not have any detrimental effect on the land within the HPD or create any potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides. The Council could, therefore, determine that the type of grading involved in this particular instance is not “development” subject to the regulations in Articles 22 and 22.5.
This determination would not negate the requirement that INC obtain a grading permit from the Building Official pursuant to the requirements in Title 8 of the PMC. The owner would still need to apply for and obtain a retroactive grading permit pursuant to the Building Code, NOV and Agreement. However, planning entitlements would not be required.
In the event the Council determines that the grading undertaken by the applicant to correct the illegal grading does not constitute “development,” staff has prepared a Draft Resolution (Attachment A) in support of the interpretation based on the analysis provided above.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
In the event that the Council moves forward with the determination that the grading that occurred is not “development,” then no CEQA review is necessary prior to that determination (CEQA Guidelines sections 15268, 15270, 15378(c)).
In the event that the City Council moves forward with Rezoning RZ211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) zoning district with development plan;” adopt a Resolution to approve Specific Plan SP-180-22 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200), staff analysis supports that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to a Class 1 (“Existing Facilities Section 15301(e)) and Class 4 (“Minor Alteration to Land” 15404(a)). Additionally, the project would be exempt under the Commonsense exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as CEQA applies only 2 Packet Pg. 55
Pacifica City Council 6
April 27, 2026
to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Please refer to the detailed CEQA findings in the Draft Ordinance to enact the Rezoning and Development Plan (Attachment B) and Draft Resolution to approve the Specific Plan (Attachment C).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the City Council hold a hearing, consider the options outlined in this report, and take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution determining that the grading that occurred at 650 Cape Breton in an already developed area that was subject to the Notice of Violation is not “development” subject to the requirements of Articles 22 and 22.5 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, and that the applicant is not required to rezone to Planned Development with a development plan and specific plan but rather only needs to obtain a grading permit pursuant to Title 8 of the Municipal Code.; or
2. Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) zoning district with development plan;” adopt a Resolution to approve Specific Plan SP-180-22 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200); and find the approval of the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(Class 1-“Existing Facilities”), 1504 (Class 4-“Minor Alteration to Land”) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Council could reject both options identified by staff and provide alternative direction to staff.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Review of the proposed resolution and ordinance is not directly associated with a City Council goal or an item on the City Council’s Work Plan. Serving in a legislative capacity is a routine function of the City Council as part of its normal governance process as established in the Pacifica Municipal Code and in State Law.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct fiscal impact. Processing costs for this item are paid by the applicant.
ORIGINATED BY:
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Draft Resolution-Not Development-650 Cape Breton (DOCX) Attachment B - Draft Ordinance_650 Cape Breton (DOCX)
2 Packet Pg. 56
Pacifica City Council 7
April 27, 2026
Attachment C - Draft Resolution-Specific Plan-650 Cape Breton (DOCX) Attachment D - Planning Commission Resolution for Denial(PDF) Attachment E - Project Plans dated February 19 2025 (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 57
RESOLUTION NO. ___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA
DETERMINING THAT THE RELOCATION OF SAND/SOIL FROM THE
COVERED ARENA TO DEVELOPED AREAS OUTSIDE OF AND AROUND
THE PERIMETER OF THE COVERED ARENA ON THE PROPERTY IS NOT
CONSIDERED DEVELOPMENT AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE
OR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS UNDER THE HILLSIDE PRESERVATION
DISTRICT (HPD) PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE 22 AND 22.5 OF TITLE 9, CHAPTER 4 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE (PMC) AT 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200)
(FILE NO. 2022-037)
________________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Patrick Lam, ENGO Incorporated (“Applicant”) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to allow for continued single family residential use through a rezone from R-1(Single-Family Residential)/Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and C-R (Commercial Recreation)/HPD to P-D/HPD and reclassification of the existing HPD overlay to permit land disturbance consistent with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) in Pacifica (File No. 2022- 037)(“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the R-1/HPD (Single-Family Residential /Hillside Preservation District) and C-R/HPD (Commercial Recreation/Hillside Preservation District) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, any development in the Hillside Preservation District requires a rezone to PD (Planned Development) Zoning District from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD Zoning District per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256, and a reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan per PMC Section 9-4.2256, which requires the City Council’s adoption of a Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, development in the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District requires approval of a Specific Plan and the project must demonstrate proper orientation, desirable design character, and compatible land uses, per PMC Section 9-4.2210; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2025, to consider the Project, and continued to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on November 17, 2025, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting, the Planning Commission determined that certain findings could not be made to support the Project and adopted Resolution No. 2025-016 recommendation of denial of enactment of the Rezoning (RZ-211-22), and recommendation of disapproval of the Development Plan (DP-87-22), which negated the need to make findings for disapproval of the Specific Plan (SP-180-22) and negated the needed to make a CEQA determination; and
2.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution-Not Development-650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) 4923-1569-8851 v1 A-2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on February 23 2026, and gave direction to staff to research and analyze the definition of “development” to determine if the retroactive grading permit to correct the illegal grading is the type of “development” intended to be encompassed within and subject to all of the regulatory standards in Article 22 (Planned Development-PD) and Article 22.5 (Hillside Preservation District) of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and continued to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on April 27 2026, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporates all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting, the City Council of the City of Pacifica determined that the application to rezone and reclassify the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan and Specific Plan to permit land disturbance is not considered “development” and therefore does not require a rezone from R-1(Single-Family Residential)/Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and C-R (Commercial Recreation)/HPD to P-D/HPD and reclassification of the existing HPD overlay nor is the approval of a Development or a Specific Plan required; and WHEREAS, because no discretionary action is being taken on the application to rezone and reclassify the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan and Specific Plan, no review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15268, 15270, 15378(c).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:
A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
B. 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 hereby determines that the application for the Project does not require the application of Rezoning (RZ-211-22), Development Plan (DP-87-22) and Specific Plan SP-180-22 because the relocation of soil/sand from the Covered Arena does not constitute “development” that would be subject to the requirements the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) in Articles 22 and 22.5 of Chapter 4, Title 9 of the Municipal Code as it does not involve any residential or structural development and would not have any detrimental effect on the land within the HPD or create any potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination is specific to this project and the City Council reserves its right to analyze future projects located within the HPD based on the specific facts and determinations relative to each project. * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
2.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution-Not Development-650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) 4923
-1569-8851 v1A-3
______________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
2.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution-Not Development-650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP-87-22 AND REZONING RZ-211-22 TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (P-D) ZONING DISTRICT WITH DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200).
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to allow for continued single family residential use through a rezone from R-1(Single-Family Residential)/Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and C-R (Commercial Recreation)/HPD to P-D/HPD and reclassification of the existing HPD overlay to permit land disturbance consistent with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) in Pacifica (File No. 2022-037)(“Project”); and WHEREAS, development in the HPD requires a rezone to P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD Zoning District per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256, and a reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan per PMC Section 9-4.2256, which requiresthe Commission’srecommendation of Council’s adoption of a Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2025, and continued to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on November 17, 2025, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting, the Planning Commission determined that certain findings could not be made to support the Project and adopted Resolution No. 2025-016 recommending denial of enactment of the Rezoning (RZ-211-22), and recommending disapproval of the Development Plan (DP-87- 22) with a 5-0 vote, which negated the need to make findings for disapproval of the Specific Plan (SP-180- 22) and negated the needed to make a CEQA determination; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on February 23 2026, and continued to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on April 27 2026, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, a nd incorporates all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting the City Council of the City of Pacifica introduced Ordinance No. ###.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds in the exercise of its independent judgement that the Project qualifies for a Class 1 (“Existing Facilities”) and Class 4 (“Minor Alteration of Land”) Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and 15304, respectively, and that none of the exceptionsto application of an exemption contained in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines
2.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance_650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) Section 15061(b)(3), where it is clear that there’s no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
The analysis of the application of the CEQA exemptions isset forth more fully in Resolution No. XX-2026.
Section 3. Initiate Rezoning. Pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.3502(b), the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby initiate rezoning to the P-D zoning district for 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200), as provided in Exhibit A (Proposed Zoning Map), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 4. Findings. The City Council hereby makes and adopts its own findings in support of approval for Rezoning RZ-211-22 to change the zoning classification of the site from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD to PD/HPD (Planned Development with Hillside Preservation District Overlay) from the existing zoning classifications, and approval of Development Plan DP-87-22, based on the following findings required by PMC Section 9-4.2206:
(1) The proposed P-D District can be substantially completed within the time schedule submitted by the applicant.
The applicant’s proposed project does not involve new construction or demolition of existing structures, and therefore, the scope of work is limited in nature and easily achievable within a short timeframe. To comply with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2259(a), the applicant proposes to install an 8-foot-tall, 20-by-20-foot prefabricated carport in front of the existing singlefamily residence, outside of all required setbacks and on a developed foundation, as shown in the project plans (plans entitled “650 CAPE BRETON DR POST-CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA” prepared February 19, 2025).
Because the proposed carport exceeds 120 square feet, a building permit will be required prior to installation. The applicant has indicated that the carport would be installed within 90 days of project approval. Given the minor scope of work, the limited permitting requirements, and the applicant’s proposed schedule, the City Council findsthat the project can be substantially completed in a timely manner consistent with the requirements of PMC Section 9-4.2259(a). (2) Each unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objective will be attained.
The project does not include any demolition of existing structures and no new construction other than the pre-fabricated carport. The site is already developed with a single-family residence and associated improvements, and the current configuration has demonstrated the ability to function independently and compatibly within the surrounding neighborhood.
The project’s intent is to bring the existing development into conformance with zoning requirements through the Planned Development process. The continued use of the site for singlefamily residential purposes is consistent with the character of the area and provides an environment of sustained desirability and stability. No physical or operational changes are proposed that would adversely affect this objective. Therefore, the City Council finds that the existing development can continue to function independently and maintain long-term compatibility with its surroundings.
2.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance_650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) (3) The land uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.
The existing site already contains existing structures for residential use as well as a covered arena previously utilized for equestrian purposes and other non-hazardous storage buildings. The site is bordered by single-family residences along Cape Breton Drive to the west and undeveloped agriculturally zoned land to the north, east, and south of the site.
Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed single-family residential use on the subject site will be consistent with the existing developed area on and around the project site; would not be detrimental to any potential future development surrounding the site; and, would not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses and would have a beneficial effect on the same which would not be achieved through other zoning districts. The approval of the project does not authorize any improvements or development beyond those specifically authorized by Specific Plan SP 180- 22, Rezoning RZ-211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22. Thus, the approval of this project would bring the property into compliance with the building code requirements by allowing the applicant to obtain the retroactive grading permit and would not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses and will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.
(4) The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District.
There is no proposed new construction other than the pre-fabricated carport and no demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. Access onto the project site isfrom the eastern terminus of Cape Breton Drive. Cape Breton Drive is an existing residential street characterized by singlefamily residences. No new streets are proposed with the project. As there would no significant additional densities and traffic from the proposed project, as there is no new construction of residences as part of this project, the City Council finds that the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the P-D District. (5) The area surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development, and the P-D District uses proposed are in conformance with the General Plan and, where applicable, the Local Coastal Plan, or that changes in the General Plan or Local Coastal Plan are justified.
The application proposes to rezone from R-1 and C-R to P-D. The proposed project also includes the reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan and Specific Plan process in order to permit the land disturbance pursuant to PMC Section 9-4.2256.
The surrounding neighborhood is substantially developed with single-family residences. The sizeable land area that is not developed is the Sweeney Ridge portion of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), which is northeast of the project site and is owned by the Federal government and outside the City’s jurisdiction for planning and zoning.
2.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance_650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) Therefore, the City Council finds that the area surrounding the project site can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development. There is no proposed new construction other than the pre-fabricated carport and no demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. The approval of this project would bring the property into compliance with the building code requirements by allowing the applicant to obtain the retroactive grading permit. The uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan, as they are principally residential in nature.
The Local Coastal Plan is not applicable to this project as it is not located in the Coastal Zone. (6) The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and, if applicable, Local Coastal Plan.
The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and its policies that are intended to continue to implement the requirements of the HPD, including submission of siting and grading plans.
The applicant is taking the necessary steps to comply with the requirements of the HPD, including the submission of siting and grading plans, in order to apply for a retroactive grading permit for the previously unpermitted grading work. Therefore, the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the General Plan.
(7) Any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities for the area. a. Any exception from the standard district requirement is warranted by the design of the project and amenities incorporated in the development plan.
No commercial development or any new construction or demolition of existing buildings are proposed; therefore, the City Council finds that these findings are not applicable. (8) The project is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.
There are no proposed new construction and demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. A prefabricated carport is proposed to be installed through a building permit on the existing foundation. Therefore, this finding is not applicable and the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the Design Guidelines.
Section 5. Development Plan. The Development Plan DP-87-22 for the project site is hereby approved, which shall be implemented through a development more particularly set forth in a specific plan approved in accordance with Article 22 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, shall be as set forth in the following Table 1:
2.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance_650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) TABLE 1
Standards Approved
Permitted Uses • Single Family Residential Use and Other Uses Consistent with Single-Family Residential Use, such as
home occupations, in accordance with Pacifica
Municipal Code.
• Accessory Dwelling Unit(s) and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit(s) as allowed by Pacifica Municipal Code
Lot Area • 82,400 square feet (APN 022-320-200)
• 755,000 square feet (APN 018-170-060)
Any uses beyond those specifically authorized by Development Plan DP-87-22 must be approved by the City.
Section 6. Reclassification. Section Map G7 of the Zoning Map of the City of Pacifica, as described in Section 9-4.302 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, is hereby amended as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto. The reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan and Specific Plan process to permit land disturbance consistent with PMC Section 9-4.2256 does not alter the existing HPD zoning applicable to the site which shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 7. Expiration. The approval of Development Plan DP-87-22 and Rezoning RZ-211-22 conferred in this Ordinance shall not expire unless and until this Ordinance is repealed.
Section 8. 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 9. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published once in the San Mateo Daily Journal, a newspaper of general circulation and is adjudicated to publish legal and public notices throughout San Mateo County, including the City of Pacifica, California.
Section 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective 30 days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law.
* * * * *
2.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance_650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) The foregoing ordinance was introduced on April 27 2026, and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica held on , 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
2.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance_650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) 4907
-1257-9983 v1
ExhibitA
C-R/HPD toP-D/HPD
R-1/HPD toP-D/HPD
2.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Attachment B - Draft Ordinance_650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) RESOLUTION NO. ___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN SP-180-22 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, TO
PERMIT LAND DISTURBANCE CONSISTENT WITH PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE (PMC) SECTION 9-4.2256 AT 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE (APN 018-170- 060, 022-320-200); AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
(FILE NO. 2022-037)
________________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Patrick Lam, ENGO Incorporated (“Applicant”) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to allow for continued single family residential use through a rezone from R-1(Single-Family Residential)/Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and C-R (Commercial Recreation)/HPD to P-D/HPD and reclassification of the existing HPD overlay to permit land disturbance consistent with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) in Pacifica (File No. 2022- 037)(“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the R-1/HPD (Single-Family Residential /Hillside Preservation District) and C-R/HPD (Commercial Recreation/Hillside Preservation District) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, development in the Hillside Preservation District requires a rezone to P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD Zoning District per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256, and a reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan per PMC Section 9-4.2256, which requires the City Council’s adoption of a Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Project’s location in the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District requires approval of a Specific Plan prior to issuance of a retroactive grading permit because development in the P-D district must demonstrate proper orientation, desirable design character, and compatible land uses, per PMC Section 9-4.2210; and WHEREAS, once the Project is approved, issuance of a building permit for installation of a prefabricated carport in front of the existing single-family residence would be required to comply with PMC Section 9-4.2259(a); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2025, and continued to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on November 17, 2025, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting, the Planning Commission determined that certain findings could not be made to support the Project and adopted Resolution No. 2025-016 recommendation of denial of enactment of the Rezoning (RZ-211-22), and recommendation of disapproval of the Development Plan (DP-87-22), which negated the need to make findings for
2.c
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Attachment C - Draft Resolution-Specific Plan-650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) A-2
disapproval of the Specific Plan (SP-180-22) and negated the needed to make a CEQA determination; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on February 23, 2026, and continued to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on April 27, 2026, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented, and incorporates all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, at that same meeting, the City Council of the City of Pacifica introduced an ordinance to approve Development Plan DP-87-22 and Rezoning RZ-211-22 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) Zoning District with a Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:
A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
B. 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 of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the finding that the Project qualifies for Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land) Categorical Exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301(e) and 15304(a), respectively, and the Common Sense Exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as described below, applies to the Project:
The Project is categorically exempt as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land) Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e) and 15304(a), as described below:
15301(e) Existing Facilities
Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.
The types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. Examples include but are not limited to:
(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than:
(1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or
The subject proposal will allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit. While all existing structures and buildings on site remain, the proposed project includes the installation of an 8-foot tall, 20 by 20-foot prefabricated carport in order to comply with the covered parking requirements as part of the PMC Sec 9-4.2259(a). This
2.c
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Attachment C - Draft Resolution-Specific Plan-650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) A-3
would be a negligible expansion of existing use to allow a carport to be installed on the site.
15304(a) Minor Alterations to Land
Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Examples include but are not limited to:
(a) Grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, except that grading shall not be exempt in a waterway, in any wetland, in an officially designated (by federal, state, or local government action) scenic area, or in officially mapped areas of severe geologic hazard such as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or within an official Seismic Hazard Zone, as delineated by the State Geologist.
The subject proposal for a P-D (Planned Development) designation and a Specific Plan for the property would allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit. The approximate volume of the relocated soil taken from the covered arena is 100-300 cubic yards. The average slope of where the unpermitted grading took place is calculated at 0 percent.
Because the project is consistent with the requirements for a Class 1 and Class 4 exemption and none of the exceptions to applying an exemption in Section 15300.2 apply, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
The project is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), as described below:
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The proposed project is for a P-D (Planned Development) designation and a Specific Plan for the property will allow for the Applicant to retroactively apply for a grading permit. The P-D and Specific Plan approvals would not have a significant effect on the environment as they are administrative actions. The grading that was undertaken by the applicant involved removing sand/soil from the covered arena to areas outside of the covered arena on the property. The approximate volume of the relocated soil is 100- 300 cubic yards, which also would not have a significant effect on the environment as the amount is relatively minor and the location from the covered arena to outside the covered arena would not have a significant effect on the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby make the following findings pertaining to Specific Plan SP-180-22, pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) section 9-4.2209:
(1) That the specific plan is consistent with the approved development plan.
An approved development plan contains a list of approved uses for an area with P-D zoning. The approved uses in a development plan are implemented with approval of one or more specific plans which specify the site layout, architectural design, and other detailed
2.c
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Attachment C - Draft Resolution-Specific Plan-650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) A-4
parameters of individual projects proposed for construction. The application for the proposed project includes the development plan and the specific plan together.
The City Council finds that the Development Plan would allow the existing single-family residential uses and uses such as home occupations, in accordance with the PMC provisions in order to obtain a retroactive grading permit and is consistent with the Development Plan, that is being approved concurrently with this Specific Plan. (2) That the specific plan is consistent with the City's adopted Design Guidelines.
There are no proposed new construction and demolition of existing buildings as part of the application. A prefabricated carport is proposed to be installed through a building permit on the existing foundation. Therefore, the Commission finds that the finding is not applicable.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the Specific Plan SP180-22, subject to conditions of approval included as Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated into this resolution by reference.
* * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
2.c
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment C - Draft Resolution-Specific Plan-650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) A-5
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval:
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-180-22) TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL USE AND RECLASSIFICATION OF THE HPD OVERLAY TO
PERMIT LAND DISTURBANCE CONSISTENT WITH PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE (PMC) SECTION 9-4.2256. (FILE NO. 2022-037)
City Council Meeting of April 27, 2026
Planning Division of the Community Development Department
1. Development shall be substantially in accordance with the plans set entitled “650 CAPE BRETON DR POST-CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA” prepared February 19, 2025, and attached to the November 17, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report, except as modified by the following conditions.
2. Any improvements not identified in the plans set entitled “650 CAPE BRETON DR POSTCONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA,” prepared February 19, 2025, or changes in use not specifically authorized by this Specific Plan SP 180-22, Rezoning RZ-211-22, and Development Plan DP-87-22, shall be prohibited unless any modifications to the current uses authorized by Specific Plan SP 180-22 are processed and approved by the City.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading and building permit, the City Council of the City of Pacifica shall approve the Rezoning RZ-211-22 and Development Plan DP-87-22.
4. 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 grading and building permit application.
5. Applicant shall clearly indicate compliance with all conditions of approval on the plans and/or provide written explanations to the Community Development Director’s satisfaction prior to the issuance of a retroactive grading permit and building permit for the proposed carport.
6. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with the processing of this project shall be paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
7. The Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant’s Project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion,
2.c
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment C - Draft Resolution-Specific Plan-650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) A-6
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.
8. The approval of Specific Plan SP-180-22 (“Development Permits”) is contingent on the City Council’s approval of Development Plan DP-87-22 . The City Council’s approval of the Development Permits shall take effect on and shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of final determination. For the purposes of this Resolution, “final determination” shall mean effective date of the Ordinance approving the Rezoning (RZ211-22) and Development Plan (DP-87-22). 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, at the Community Development Director’s 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. In the event of litigation filed to overturn the City’s determination on the approval or approvals, the Community Development Director may toll the expiration of the approval or approvals during the pendency of such litigation.
Building Division
9. The applicant shall ensure that all materials are stored and maintained in a manner that complies with the requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent potential violations.
10. The applicant shall obtain a retroactive grading permit for the previously unpermitted grading work within 90 days of project approval. The permit application shall include soil treatment measures consistent with the plans titled "650 Cape Breton Dr Post-Construction Site Plan, Pacifica, California," prepared on February 19, 2025. All work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Building Official.
11. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within 90 days of project approval and install the detached carport in accordance with the design, dimensions, and specifications approved by the Planning Commission. Any modifications to the approved design shall require review and approval by the Community Development Director, or as otherwise required by the Planning Commission.
Engineering Division
12. Any Construction shall be in conformance with the City of Pacifica Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Best Management Practices shall be implemented and the
2.c
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment C - Draft Resolution-Specific Plan-650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) A-7
construction BMPs plans sheet from the Countywide program shall be included in the project plans.
13. The improvements shall be consistent with the plans approved by, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Conditions of Approval. All construction shall meet the latest California Building Code, California Fire Code, City of Pacifica Municipal Code and the City Standard Specifications and Drawings. Securities for all required improvements, and applicable fees and charges, shall be submitted prior to permit issuance. The applicant shall obtain all required permits before commencing work. All required improvements shall be constructed at no cost to the City except where specifically agreed to by the City under the provisions of a written agreement. Grading and improvement plan review and approval by the City Engineer are required before any City Permit is issued. The improvement plans shall include details for on‐site and off‐site improvements for vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, traffic signs and markings, utility service connections, modifications and extension of the City’s sewer, storm drain, safety lighting, landscaping, and other public service and common facilities. All utility services shall be underground unless otherwise approved. Said improvements shall conform to City of Pacifica and affected Agency’s standards.
14. Roadways shall be maintained clear of construction materials, equipment, storage, and debris, especially mud and dirt tracked onto Cape Breton Drive. Dust control and daily road cleanup will be strictly enforced.
15. Existing curb, sidewalk or other street improvements adjacent to 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. ***END***
2.c
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment C - Draft Resolution-Specific Plan-650 Cape Breton (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PACIFICA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
ENACTMENT OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING RZ-211-22 AND
DISAPPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP-87-22; AND
RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN SP-180-22, TO
DENY RECLASSIFICATION OF THE EXISTING HILLSIDE PRESERVATION
DISTRICT (HPD) OVERLAY TO PERMIT LAND DISTURBANCE
CONSISTENT WITH PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE (PMC) SECTION 9-4.2256 AT 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200)(FILE NO. 2022- 037)
______________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: Patrick Lam, ENGO Incorporated (“Applicant”) WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to allow for continued single family residential use through a rezone from R-1(Single-Family Residential)/Hillside Preservation District (HPD) and C-R (Commercial Recreation)/HPD to P-D/HPD and reclassification of the existing HPD overlay to permit land disturbance consistent with Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256 at 650 Cape Breton Drive (APN 018-170-060, 022-320-200) in Pacifica (File No. 2022- 037)(“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the R-1/HPD (Single-Family Residential/ Hillside Preservation District) and C-R/HPD (Commercial Recreation/Hillside Preservation District) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, development in the Hillside Preservation District requires a rezone to P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD Zoning District per Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC) Section 9-4.2256, and a reclassification of the existing HPD overlay through the Development Plan per PMC Section 9-4.2256, which requires the Commission’s recommendation of Council’s adoption of a Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the Project’s location in the P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District requires approval of a Specific Plan prior to issuance of a retroactive grading permit because development in the P-D district must demonstrate proper orientation, desirable design character, and compatible land uses, per PMC Section 9-4.2210; and WHEREAS, once the Project is approved, issuance of a building permit for installation of a prefabricated carport in front of the existing single-family residence would be required to comply with PMC Section 9-4.2259(a); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2025, at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to make findings for recommending the City Council to enact an ordinance approving Rezoning (RZ-211-22) and Development Plan (DP-87-22) and approving Specific Plan (SP-180-22) during the August 4, 2025 meeting and continued the item to date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica did hold a duly noticed public hearing on November 17, 2025 (continued from the August 4, 2025, meeting), at which time
2.d
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Resolution for Denial (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) A-2
it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that certain findings could not be made to support the Project and a recommendation of denial of enactment of the Rezoning (RZ-211-22), and recommendation of disapproval of the Development Plan (DP-87-22), which negated the need to make findings for disapproval of the Specific Plan (SP-180-22) was made by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, because the Planning Commission could not make certain findings to support the Project, no determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is necessary, as CEQA does not apply to projects in which a public agency rejects or disapproves per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15270(a).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica as follows:
A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
B. In making its findings, the Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does not need any review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as CEQA does not apply to projects in which a public agency rejects or disapproves per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15270(a), “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.” Therefore, this action recommending denial of the Project approvals is exempt from CEQA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica recommends that the City Council deny approval of Rezoning RZ-211-22 to the City Council to change the zoning classification of the site from R-1/HPD and C-R/HPD to P-D/HPD (Planned Development with Hillside Preservation District Overlay) from the existing zoning classifications, and further recommends disapproval of Development Plan DP-87-22, because the Planning Commission was unable to make the following findings required by PMC Section 9-4.2206 for the reasons set forth below:
(1) Each unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an independent development capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or adequate assurance that such objective will be attained.
The proposed project does not create an environment of sustained desirability and stability and does not provide adequate assurance that objectives for development would be attained. The benefit of the corrective grading action does not equate to a sustained outcome.
(2) The land uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.
The grading has had detrimental effects to surrounding uses, has altered the land and altered the drainage on the property, and has created potential hazardous
2.d
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Resolution for Denial (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) A-3
effects. The rezoning to P-D would not have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved through other districts.
(3) The area surrounding the development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development, and the P-D District uses proposed are in conformance with the General Plan and, where applicable, the Local Coastal Plan, or that changes in the General Plan or Local Coastal Plan are justified.
The proposed development does not align with the intent of the P-D District in PMC section 9-4.2202 because the project is not substantially compatible with the surrounding uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica was unable to make the following findings pertaining to Specific Plan SP-180-22:
(1) That the specific plan is consistent with the approved development plan.
Because the findings for the Development Plan cannot be made, the Specific Plan cannot be approved and this finding cannot be made.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica hereby recommends that the City Council deny enactment of an ordinance rezoning RZ-211-22 and recommends disapproval of Development Plan DP-87-22; and recommends disapproval of the Specific Plan SP-180-22 to deny reclassification of the existing Hillside Preservation District (HPD) Overlay to permit land disturbance consistent with PMC Section 9-4.2256.
* * * * *
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 17th day of November 2025.
AYES, Commissioner Hauser, Devine, Godwin, Redfield, Davis NOES, None
ABSENT, Commissioner Berman, Ferguson
ABSTAIN, None
______________________________
Samantha Hauser, Chair
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Samantha Updegrave, Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
Community Development Director
2.d
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Resolution for Denial (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) EJM
NLK
KJM
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
PROJECT NO.
20844.000.001
1000 ft
500 ft
500 ft
500 ft
500 ft
1000 ft
1000 ft
500 ft
1000 ft
SITE
0 1000 2000
FEET
PARCEL BOUNDARY
EASEMENTS
0 50 100
FEET
PROJECT INFORMATION
10 00 ft
SITE
1 ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
EXPLANATION
CL 30' SDE
5497 O.R. 202
N42°50'01 W
1039.91'
CL 30' SDE
5497 O.R. 202
N26°47'24 E
746.67'
N55°00'11" W
883.49'
S42°50'01" E
220.73'
APN 022-320-200
APN 018-170-060
OWNER:
IGLESIA NI CRISTO
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
APNS: 018-170-060, 022-320-200
PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
CIVIL/GEOTECH:
ENGEO, INC.
3890 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
KEVIN McFADDEN
[email protected]
PROJECT CONTACTS:
1. PROJECT INFORMATION
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS/GRADING PLAN
3. DRAINAGE/BMP PLAN
4. LAND USE
5. SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE CONSTRUCTION BMPs
SHEET INDEX:
LOCATION MAP VICINITY MAP PARCEL INFORMATION
650 CAPE BRETON DR
POST-CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN
PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
SURVEY NOTE: PARCEL BOUNDARY, EASMENT
LOCATION, AND TOPOGRAPHY ARE BASED ON "ALTA/
NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY, 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE,
PACIFICA, CA, 94044" DATED SEPTEMBER 2020
CAPE BRETON DR
GLACIER AVE
52'
6 02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025 PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
02/19/2025
2.e
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans dated February 19 2025 (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) EJM
NLK
KJM
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025 PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
PROJECT NO.
20844.000.001
F
F
F
2 1
3 0 40
FEET
ARENA SOIL - CURRENT LOCATION
ARENA SOIL - ORIGINAL LOCATION
CAR PORT (PROPOSED)
BUILDING 10 PROPERTY SETBACK
F PHOTO LOCATION
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS/GRADING PLAN
CA
P
E
B
R
ETO
N
DRAWINGS DO NOT DEPICT ALL OF THE IN-USE OR ABANDONED UTILITIES PRESENT WITHIN THE WORK AREA.
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD
UTILITIES AS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT. UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT: 811 OR (800) 422-4133 DESIGN CRITERIA:
GRADING NOTES:
UTILITIES NOTES:
Photograph 1 Facing West Photograph 2 Facing South
Photograph 3 Facing West
15'
PREFAB
CARPORT
LOCATION:
2x MINIMUM 9'
WIDTH BY 19'
LENGTH EACH
SANGBAGS
DEBRIS
ARENA SOIL
ARENA SOIL
EXPLANATION
────────────────────────────────────────
*DISPLACED ARENA SOIL. NO ADDITIONAL
EARTHWORK IS PROPOSED
6 02/19/2025
02/19/2025
-THE PROJECT SCOPE IS ESTABLISHED IN THE "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF 650 CAPE BRETON AUGUST 29, 2022" (AGREEMENT). KEY PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT AS THEY PERTAIN TO THIS PLAN SET ARE AS FOLLOWS:
-INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO HYDROSEED, SILT FENCES, GRAVEL BAGS, OR STRAW WADDLES TO CONTAIN SOIL PILES IN THEIR CURRENT LOCATION. -LIMIT USE OF THE COVERED ARENA TO ITS OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION. -REFRAIN FROM ADDITIONAL GRADING OR REMOVAL OF SAND/SOIL FROM THE PROPERTY AND TO OBTAIN A GRADING PERMIT FOR THE ILLEGAL GRADING/SAND RELOCATION THAT OCCURRED ON THE PROPERTY. -NO ADDITIONAL SOIL RELOCATION/EARTHWORK IS PROPOSED UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT. GRADING DEPICTED ON THIS SHEET IS TO OBTAIN A RETROACTIVE GRADING PERMIT. -ARENA SOIL WAS ORIGINALY SPREAD ACROSS THE INTERIOR SURFACE OF BUILDING (1) AND WAS APPROXIMATELY 1-3" IN THICKNESS.
-ARENA SOIL WAS RELOCATED INTO PILES AS DEPICTED ON THIS GRADING PLAN. -THE APPROXIMATE VOLUME OF RELOCATED SOIL IS 100 TO 300CY. -BMP MEASURES ARE REQUIRED FOR RELOCATED SOIL (SEE SHEET 3). 20'
2.e
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans dated February 19 2025 (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) EJM
NLK
KJM
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
PROJECT NO.
20844.000.001
1 F
3 BMP/DRAINAGE PLAN
- REMOVE DEBRIS FROM EXISTING ARENA SOIL PILES. DEBRIS SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF AT A LEGAL LANDFILL.
- INSPECT EXISTING SANDBAGS FOR SERVICEABILITY (RIPS, TEARS, ETC.) AND REPLACE ANY UNSERVICABLE SANDBAGS. DISPOSE OF UNSERVICABLE SANDBAG FABRIC AT A LEGAL LANDFILL.
- HYDROSEED SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL DENUDED SOIL PILES. ALL SEEDS SHOULD
BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE SEED LAW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. EACH SEED BAG SHOULD BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE SEALED AND
CLEARLY MARKED AS TO SPECIES, PURITY, PERCENT GERMINATION, DEALER'S GUARANTEE, AND DATES OF TEST.
- THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IRRIGATION OF APPLIED HYDROSEED. ALL
HYDROSEEDING SHALL BE GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS TO GROWTH AND HEALTH FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL ACCEPTANCE. AREAS THAT FAIL TO GROW SHALL BE RESEEDED. THE CONTRACTOR IS SUBJECT TO A 60 DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD OF THE RESEEDED AREAS.
- THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE/TRAINING FOR APPLYING RECOMMENDED BMPS.
- CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES SHALL BE LIMITED TOO DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS.
BMP NOTES:
0 40
FEET
HYDROSEED (EXISTING ARENA
SOIL)
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
EXISTING SAND BAGS FILED WITH
ARENA SOIL; USED AS EROSION
AND/OR SEDIMENT CONTROL
F PHOTO LOCATION
EXISTING SWALES TO MANAGE
HILLSIDE RUNOFF
DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
EXPLANATION
Photograph 1 Facing South East
CONCRETE LINED SWALE
6 02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025 PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
02/19/2025
2.e
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans dated February 19 2025 (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) EJM
NLK
KJM
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025 PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
PROJECT NO.
20844.000.001
4 Cape Breton Dr
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
EXPLANATION
NON-HAZARDOUS STORAGE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
CAR PORT (PROPOSED)
TEMPORARY STRUCTURE;
REMOVED FROM PROPERTY
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
LAND USE
0 40
FEET
SITE
OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURE/RESIDENTIAL
IN THE OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURE/RESIDENTIAL (OSAR) DESIGNATION,
RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURE, AND RECREATION USES ARE ALLOWED AT A GROSS DENSITY OF UP TO ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES (OR 0.2 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE). FARM WORKER HOUSING MAY BE PERMITTED ON SITES
ZONED FOR AGRICULTURE USES, CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, AND SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN DENSITY CALCULATIONS FOR A SITE. THE DENSITY ASSUMED FOR BUILDOUT CALCULATIONS IS 0.15 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE.
LAND USE PER CITY OF PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN 2040 (JULY 2022) NOTE:
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURE/RESIDENTIAL (OSAR) BY THE CITY OF PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN. FUTURE LAND USE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO
LAND USE SPECIFIED FOR OSAR AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF PACIFICA GENERAL PLAN AND THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE.
Building # Land Use Building Area (ac)
1 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.71
2 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.27
3 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.09
4 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.02
5 Temporary structure; removed from property 0.00
6 Temporary structure; removed from property 0.00
7 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.23
8 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.01
9 Single Family Residence 0.03
10 Single Family Residence 0.04
11 Non-Hazardous Storage 0.00
Proposed Carport 0.01
N/A Open Space 19.29
Total 20.69
Use Area (Acres) Percentage of Total Land
Buildings (Non-Hazardous Storage) 1.33 6.43%
Buildings (Single Family Residence) 0.07 0.34%
Open Space (Impervious) 0.85 4.11%
Open Space (Pervious) 18.44 89.13%
Total 20.69
Table 1: Existing Building Usage
Table 2: Land Coverage
6 02/19/2025
02/19/2025
2.e
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans dated February 19 2025 (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) EJM
NLK
KJM
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025 PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA
650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE
PROJECT NO.
20844.000.001
6 02/19/2025
02/19/2025
5 8
9 7
10 4
1 11
3 2
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
EXPLANATION
PROJECT SITE
PARCEL BOUNDARY
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 4
BUILDING 7
BUILDING 8
BUILDING 9
BUILDING 10
BUILDING 11
0 100
FEET
BUILDING OFFSET FROM
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
SETBACK DISTANCES BASED ON MEASUREMENTS
TAKEN FROM PROVIDED "ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE
SURVEY, 650 CAPE BRETON DRIVE, PACIFICA, CA,
94044". MEASUREMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE
METHOD USED.
Building ID North East South West
1 463 532 242 117
2 438 605 433 330
3 362 529 489 526
4 401 562 516 573
7 728 510 318 306
8 763 652 142 105
9 468 714 337 22
10 409 710 338 20
11 406 644 488 192
Building Setback Measurements (Feet)
2.e
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans dated February 19 2025 (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) 02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
02/19/2025
2.e
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans dated February 19 2025 (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) 650 Cape Breton
CREATED ON
2023-06-26
DETAILS
Total area: 1571.02 sq ft
Living area: 1571.02 sq ft
Floors:1
Rooms: 14
THIS FLOORPLAN IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. SENSOPIA
DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, SATISFACTORY QUALITY
OR ACCURACY OF DIMENSIONS.
0' 2' 4' 6'
1:56
▼ 1st Floor
TOTAL AREA: 1571.02 sq ft• LIVING AREA: 1571.02 sq ft• ROOMS: 14 6' 4
3 /
4 "
1 2' 8
1 /
2 "
12' 4 3/4"
6' 21/4"
10' 3"
3' 4 3/4" 7' 5"
13' 3"
3' 9"
6' 6"
19' 41/2"
3' 9
"
8' 2
1 /
2 "
3' 9
"
1 9' 4
1 /
2 "
3' 1
0 "
3' 9
1 /
4 "
3' 1
0 1
/
2 "
1 1' 5
3 /
4 "
4' 93/4"
8' 61/4"
5' 8" 4' 10"
12' 11 1/4"
10' 12' 11 1/4" 2' 5"
4' 101/2"
10' 23/4"
4'
Bedroom
157.62 sq ft (12' 8 1/2" × 12' 5")
Bathroom
163.96 sq ft (12' 8" × 13' 3")
Living Room
507.34 sq ft (19' 4 3/4" × 26' 2 1/4")
Kitchen
148.75 sq ft (11' 5 3/4" × 12' 11 1/2")
Laundry Room
63.66 sq ft (8' 6 1/4" × 7' 5 3/4")
Bathroom
40.82 sq ft (8' 3/4" × 5' 3/4")
Hallway
36.72 sq ft
Bedroom
129.38 sq ft (10' × 12' 11 1/4")
Bedroom
132.31 sq ft (10' 2 3/4" × 12' 11 1/4")
Closet
14.58 sq ft
4' 2 1/2" × 4'
Closet
14.61 sq ft
4' 1/4" × 4' 2 1/2"
Closet
24.85 sq ft (6' 7" × 4' 8")
Storage
6.96 sq ft
3' 4 1/4" × 2' 3/4"
Storage
6.90 sq ft
3' 3 3/4" × 2' 1"
Appendix C - Single-Family Residence Floor Plan and House Photos Bedrooms: 3 Building Height: 13.18'
2.e
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans dated February 19 2025 (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) 650 Cape Breton
CREATED ON
2023-06-26
DETAILS
Total area: 1571.02 sq ft
Living area: 1571.02 sq ft
Floors: 1
Rooms: 14
THIS FLOORPLAN IS PROVIDED WITHOUT
WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. SENSOPIA
DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, SATISFACTORY QUALITY
OR ACCURACY OF DIMENSIONS.
0' 2' 4' 6'
1:56
▼ 1st Floor TOTAL AREA: 1571.02 sq ft • LIVING AREA: 1571.02 sq ft • ROOMS: 14 6' 4 3/4"
12' 8 1/2"
12' 4
3/4"
6' 2 1/4"
10' 3"
3' 4
3/4" 7' 5"
13' 3"
3' 9" 6' 6"
19' 4 1/2"
3' 9" 8' 2 1/2" 3' 9"
19' 4 1/2"
3' 10" 3' 9 1/4" 3' 10 1/2"
11' 5 3/4"
4' 9 3/4"
8' 6 1/4"
5' 8" 4' 10"
12' 11 1/4"
10'
12' 11 1/4"
2' 5" 4' 10 1/2"
10' 2 3/4"
4'
Bedroom
157.62 sq ft (12' 8 1/2" × 12' 5")
Bathroom
163.96 sq ft (12' 8" × 13' 3")
Living Room
507.34 sq ft (19' 4 3/4" × 26' 2 1/4")
Kitchen
148.75 sq ft (11' 5 3/4" × 12' 11 1/2")
Laundry Room
63.66 sq ft (8' 6 1/4" × 7' 5 3/4")
Bathroom
40.82 sq ft (8' 3/4" × 5' 3/4")
Hallway
36.72 sq ft
Bedroom
129.38 sq ft (10' × 12' 11 1/4")
Bedroom
132.31 sq ft (10' 2 3/4" × 12' 11 1/4")
Closet
14.58 sq ft
4' 2 1/2" × 4'
Closet
14.61 sq ft
4' 1/4" × 4' 2 1/2"
Closet
24.85 sq ft (6' 7" × 4' 8")
Storage
6.96 sq ft
3' 4 1/4" × 2' 3/4"
Storage
6.90 sq ft
3' 3 3/4" × 2' 1"
TOTAL AREA: 1571.02 sq ft
RAMP
STAIRS 10' 6"
19'
CONCRETE
FOOTINGS (TYP.)
Deck Information:
1) 19' W x 10'6" D x 2'4" to 3'5" H
2) Handrails approx. 38" above treads
3) Guardrails approx 42" above deck
4) Six concrete footings under deck
5) 2x8 pressure treated lumber floor joists 16" o.c.
6) 4x4 pressure treated lumber posts at footing locations indicated below Three in each direction at corners and at center line
7) Deck components secured to house with screws and lag bolts Deck surface is free-standing on footings
8) Lateral bracing (horizontal member below joists) visible on photos below 9) Decking is pressure treated 2x6 lumber
10) Rise & run of stairs approx 6 3/4" rise with 11 1/2" run PHOTO 4 - FRONT OF HOUSE FACING EAST (JUNE 2024) PHOTO 5 - BACK OF HOUSE FACING NORTH (JUNE 2024) PHOTO 1 - FRONT DECK STAIRS (JUNE 2023)
PHOTO 2 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FRONT DECK
(JUNE 2023)
PHOTO 3 - RAMP TO FRONT DECK
(JUNE 2023)
Appendix C - Single-Family Residence Floor Plan and House Photos Bedrooms: 3 Building Height: 13.18'
2.e
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans dated February 19 2025 (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive) OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3
2.e
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment E - Project Plans dated February 19 2025 (6196 : 650 Cape Breton Drive)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/27/2026
1 SUBJECT:
AB 2561 Compliance – Vacancy Rate and Workforce Planning Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct a Public Hearing in accordance with Government Code Section 3502.3 (AB 2561) to present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retentions efforts in advance of the adoption of an annual budget.
STAFF CONTACT:
Zach Harris, HR Manager
650-501-0443
[email protected]
Marisol Gómez, Director of Administrative Services
(650) 501-0257
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Overview of AB 2561:
AB 2561 is a new state mandate that requires "a public agency to present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts at a public hearing at least once per fiscal year", prior to budget adoption. The legislation calls for agencies to review and publicly report on barriers to recruitment and retention, identify any necessary changes to policies, procedures, or recruitment activities, and outline workforce strategies to address these issues. Recognized employee organizations must also be notified and given the opportunity to participate.
Vacancy Analysis:
As of the last week of March 2026, the City of Pacifica had 201.75 budgeted positions. Vacancy rates were reviewed by department and bargaining unit to provide a focused and actionable overview of staffing gaps across the organization. These figures were presented in visual form and will be updated annually to meet AB 2561’s transparency requirements. 3 Packet Pg. 87
Pacifica City Council 2
April 27, 2026
Barriers to Hiring and Retention:
• Highly Competitive Job Market: Neighboring agencies and private sector employers frequently offer higher salaries and more flexible work environments. • Cost of Living Constraints: High housing and living costs in the Bay Area continue to discourage applicants from relocating.
• Career Pathway Perception: Some positions are viewed as offering few promotion opportunities, reducing applicant interest.
• Workforce Transition and Knowledge loss: A large portion of the City's workforce is eligible for retirement within the next five years, risking loss of institutional knowledge and increased vacancy backfill pressure.
Strategic Recruitment and Retention Initiatives:
To support the City’s Strategic Goal of attracting and retaining a talented workforce, several recruitment and retention strategies have been implemented:
Recruitment Initiatives
• Optimize Job posting and interview scheduling processes to reduce time-to-hire. • Continue the City's internship program as a key pipeline for early-career talent. • Pursue grant funding opportunities to strengthen diversity-focused recruitment and outreach efforts.
Retention Initiatives
• Conduct periodic employee engagement surveys, including a follow-up to the 2025 survey to assess initiatives by the Employee Engagement Committee that was formed in response to the 2025 survey results.
• Support career mobility through structured classification frameworks, supplemented by ongoing benchmarking against peer agencies to ensure continued alignment and relevance.
3 Packet Pg. 88
Pacifica City Council 3
April 27, 2026
• Ongoing compensation studies are conducted to ensure market alignment and competitiveness.
Conclusion:
The City of Pacifica is committed to proactively addressing workforce vacancies and planning needs in accordance with AB 2561. These efforts will continue to evolve with ongoing collaboration between City leadership, departments, and meeting with employee organizations and designated representatives to build a resilient and sustainable workforce.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. This is an informational report only.
ORIGINATED BY:
Human Resources
ATTACHMENT LIST:
3 Packet Pg. 89
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/27/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Economic Development Committee and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission Annual Accomplishments and FY 2026–2027 Work Plans
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive presentations on the Economic Development Committee (EDC) and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation (PB&R) Commission accomplishments and provide feedback on their respective FY 2026-2027 Work Plans.
STAFF CONTACT:
Gretchen Heckman, Economic and Housing Development Manager (650) 501-6007
[email protected]
Scott Leslie, Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Director
(650) 738-7387
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
SUMMARY:
This report provides an overview of the accomplishments and upcoming work plans for two City Council advisory bodies: the Economic Development Committee (EDC) and the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation (PB&R) Commission.
Both groups play important, but distinct, roles in supporting City Council priorities. The EDC focuses on economic vitality, business support, and visitor attraction, while the PB&R Commission provides advisory input on parks, recreation programming, and coastal and community amenities.
This report outlines each body’s purpose, highlights key accomplishments, and presents their respective FY 2026-2027 Work Plans for Council feedback.
These Work Plans are preliminary and were developed in advance of the City’s FY2026-27 Budget. Staff’s review of each committee’s proposed work plan and assessment of the City’s capacity to support implementation are based on current staffing levels and existing resource allocations. The qualitative estimates provided reflect this present-day assessment.
As the budget development process moves forward, staffing levels and resource availability may change. Should that occur, staff will re-evaluate its capacity to support committee work 4 Packet Pg. 90
Pacifica City Council 2
April 27, 2026
plans and incorporate any necessary adjustments into the staff-driven work plan supporting the City Council’s Strategic Plan, which will be presented to Council on June 8, 2026.
DISCUSSION:
Economic Development Committee (EDC)
The Economic Development Committee (EDC) was established in 2009 to support the City of Pacifica’s efforts to strengthen local economic vitality and to provide a structured forum for collaboration between the City, the business community, and other key stakeholders.
As laid out in City Council Resolution No. 09-2019, the EDC “exists to support the City’s economic development goals, including the retention of local businesses in Pacifica, the development and expansion of local businesses, and assist in the attraction of new businesses to Pacifica.”
The Resolution further defines the Committee’s objectives, which include:
1. Working with the City’s Economic Development Program, the community, and visitors to identify new businesses that fill neighborhood market gaps;
2. Providing a forum for exchanging ideas, education, and information, and addressing the economic needs of the business community, residents, and visitors; and
3. Conducting outreach to promote business development and support implementation of the City’s Economic Development Plan.
The EDC is a volunteer committee that works in tandem with City of Pacifica Economic Development Staff under the direction of City Council, to provide a coordinated economic development effort for the City, reflective of residents’ quality of life through business attraction and existing businesses’ needs. The Committee is generally composed of members representing the local business community, residents, and stakeholders with an interest in economic development in Pacifica. The Pacifica Chamber of Commerce has the ability to designate a member of its choosing to the Committee, and like other City Council Committees, one Council Member holds a liaison position for the Committee. Committee members are intended to reflect a range of perspectives from across the community, including small business owners, industry representatives, and community members.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• Installed Sharp Park wayfinding signs via the pilot program Supported the development and implementation of a pilot wayfinding program to improve visibility and connectivity to local businesses in Sharp Park. • QR code deployed at Ahni Trail kiosk
Recommended and supported the use of a QR code at the Ahni Trail kiosk to provide visitors with easy access to information about local businesses and destinations. • Launched KRON holiday advertising campaign, resulting in over 100,000 ad impressions
4 Packet Pg. 91
Pacifica City Council 3
April 27, 2026
Contributed to a regional marketing effort to promote Pacifica during the holiday season, generating significant visibility through targeted advertising. • Free TV airtime secured for Pacifica
Increased television airtime through regional marketing efforts to increase awareness of Pacifica as a destination.
• Partnered with Seaside Merchants Association on many initiatives Collaborated with the Seaside Merchants Association to support business district initiatives and strengthen connections with the local business community. • Tracked commercial vacancies district-wide
Tracked commercial vacancies across districts to better understand trends and inform economic development strategies.
• Recommended vacancy and blight tax options
Conducted research and provided input on potential policy tools, including vacancy and blight taxes, to address underutilized properties.
• Food truck program research
Conducted preliminary research and provided input on the feasibility of a food truck program to activate spaces and support local entrepreneurship.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORKPLAN AND ALIGNMENT
The City’s Economic Development Workplan was finalized and presented to the City Council on February 23, 2026 and serves as the strategic framework to guide staff efforts in advancing economic and housing development initiatives. The Workplan reflects the City Council’s priority to strengthen Pacifica’s economic base, support long-term fiscal sustainability, and enhance the overall quality of life for residents and businesses. The City’s Economic Development Workplan is organized around four primary focus areas: (1) catalyst projects and opportunity sites, (2) business attraction, (3) business retention, and (4) planning, analysis, grants, and policy development. Collectively, these efforts are designed to revitalize commercial districts, attract new investment and visitors, support existing businesses, and position Pacifica as a vibrant place to live, work, and invest.
Staff presented the City’s Economic Development Workplan to the Committee to provide context as this work plan was developed. Maintaining alignment between the Committee’s work plan and the City Council-reviewed Economic Development Workplan is important to ensure staff is advancing a coordinated, strategic approach that supports the City Council’s broader priorities and Strategic Plan. Staff appreciates the Committee’s time and thoughtful effort in developing a work plan that contributes to these shared goals.
The Economic Development Committee’s FY 2026-2027 Workplan is organized around three primary goals: (1) promoting local businesses to residents and visitors to encourage local spending, (2) supporting existing and prospective businesses in coordination with the City, and (3) marketing Pacifica to out-of-town visitors to drive economic activity.
1. Local Events and Business Promotion
Develop guidance for event organizers, evaluate business participation, and partner with local businesses to support at least one event that drives customer traffic. 4 Packet Pg. 92
Pacifica City Council 4
April 27, 2026
City Staff Resources: Under current staffing levels, staff has adequate capacity to provide guidance on project goals and analysis of outcomes.
2. Wayfinding and Business Visibility
Coordinate with City staff on a pilot signage program, develop a QR code-based city guide, and support placement of signage directing visitors to business districts.
City Staff Resources: Under current staffing levels, staff capacity to support new signage installation is limited due to existing workload and budget constraints within the Public Works and Economic Development Departments. Staff can support coordination on planning and concept development for a pilot signage program and a QR code-based city guide, which will require a moderate level of staff time for content creation and ongoing maintenance. Staff will also work with the Committee to consider opportunities for limited new signage as part of broader placemaking efforts, where those efforts align with the City’s Economic Development Workplan and available resources.
3. Economic Vibrancy and Placemaking
Collaborate on placemaking efforts and identify grant opportunities that support business and infrastructure improvements.
City Staff Resources: This item fully aligns with the City’s Economic Development Workplan and can be supported at an advisory level with existing staff capacity.
Implementation will require close coordination with Economic Development staff, as well as collaboration with Public Works and Planning to assess project feasibility. Grant identification and applications may require moderate staff time depending on scope and timing of specific opportunity.
4. Business Resources and Support
Maintain a shared inventory of commercial space, pilot a local jobs board, and coordinate with the San Mateo SBDC to connect businesses with resources and programming.
City Staff Resources: Under current staffing levels, staff has limited capacity to review commercial space inventory data and serve as liaison to the San Mateo SBDC. It does not have capacity to support implementation of a local jobs board. However, staff will remain available to provide guidance, coordination support, and technical input to the subcommittee as needed, particularly in connecting with partners and sharing relevant data or existing resources.
5. Food Truck Program Evaluation
Assess feasibility through research, stakeholder outreach, and development of recommendations for City consideration.
City Staff Resources: This item was assigned to the Economic Development Committee by the City Council due to limited staff capacity to advance a citywide food truck program. That condition has not changed. Under current staffing levels, staff in 4 Packet Pg. 93
Pacifica City Council 5
April 27, 2026
Planning, Public Works, Police, and Economic Development Departments do not have the capacity to support research, stakeholder coordination, ordinance/program development efforts, including regulatory, permitting, and enforcement considerations needed for implementation or creation of an Ordinance.
However, staff will have the capacity to review the Committee’s findings and provide input and feedback as appropriate. Any potential implementation actions would need to be evaluated against other City priorities and available resources, through the City’s future goal-setting and budget process.
6. Marketing and Visitor Attraction
Coordinate with tourism partners, contribute to VisitPacifica.com, and support targeted marketing campaigns during key periods.
City Staff Resources: Under current staffing levels, staff has capacity to serve as liaison between the EDC and the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District and the San Francisco Peninsula, in order to support education on the tourism marketing efforts. Any campaign development, branding, and content updates will be led and managed by these partner organizations. As such, the Committee’s role will be strictly advisory in nature with limited ability to direct or shape campaign development or content updates.
As the Workplan continues to evolve, staff will maintain regular communication with the EDC to share updates, gather input, and identify opportunities where the Committee can provide meaningful support. This collaborative but distinct relationship helps ensure that the City’s economic development initiatives are well-informed, responsive to local needs, and effectively implemented.
Parks, Beaches, and Recreation (PB&R) Commission
The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission (PB&R Commission) is a seven-member advisory body established by the City Council to support the planning, development, and stewardship of the City’s parks, beaches, and recreational services.
As outlined in the Pacifica Municipal Code, the Commission exists to recommend and advise the City Council on the acquisition, development, and maintenance of parks, beaches, and other recreational areas, and to encourage the planning and implementation of a comprehensive recreation program that serves the needs of all age groups within the community.
The Commission’s responsibilities are advisory in nature and include:
1. Assisting in the preparation, annual review, and refinement of long-range plans for parks, beaches, and recreation;
2. Advising the City Council, City Manager, and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Director on matters related to public recreation and services;
3. Promoting community awareness of the importance of accessible parks, beaches, and year-round recreational opportunities;
4. Supporting the use and coordination of recreation programs across public facilities, 4 Packet Pg. 94
Pacifica City Council 6
April 27, 2026
including parks, beaches, and school sites;
5. Recommending improvements related to park beautification, development, and recreation services;
6. Encouraging coordination with other public agencies, school districts, and community organizations;
7. Reviewing and encouraging donations or gifts that support parks and recreation programs; and
8. Carrying out additional responsibilities as directed by the City Council.
The PB&R Commission serves as a key advisory partner to City staff, providing communitybased input and recommendations that help guide policy decisions, long-range planning efforts, and the continued development of inclusive and accessible recreation opportunities for Pacifica residents.
Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission Accomplishments (FY 2025-2026) • Maintained active liaison roles with various City departments, community organizations, and public events to support alignment with community recreation goals. • Participated in review and adjudication of Tree Permit Appeals in accordance with the Municipal Code.
• Reviewed and submitted feedback on the City’s Priority Parks Plan, contributing to the strategic planning of future park enhancements.
• Completed a comprehensive Parks Review of City parks, focusing on conditions, amenities, and improvement opportunities.
• Provided editorial feedback on the seasonal PLAY Activity Brochure to ensure clear, engaging, and accessible communication of recreation offerings. • Supported the City’s Poet Laureate Program by recruiting a new Poet Laureate. • Participated in community engagement and outreach supporting parks and recreation programming.
• Completed a draft E-Bike Report addressing growing community concerns related to ebike use, safety, and education.
PB&R Work Plan and Alignment (FY 2026-2027)
On-Going Assignments
Assignment 1: Surf Camp/School Policy
Description: Continue monitoring implementation of the City’s Surf Camp permitting program and provide advisory input related to outreach and education.
Timeframe: On-Going / Review twice a year before application period opens City Staff Resources: Under current staffing levels, staff has sufficient capacity to support this work plan item; No additional City staff resources required.
Assignment 2: Liaison Assignments
Description: Commissioners will maintain liaison assignments with city departments, committees, and community organizations, reporting updates regularly.
Timeframe: On-Going
City Staff Resources: Under current staffing levels, staff has sufficient capacity to support this work plan item; No additional City staff resources required. 4 Packet Pg. 95
Pacifica City Council 7
April 27, 2026
Assignment 3: Poet Laureate Program
Description: Support community engagement and arts appreciation through continued support of the City’s Poet Laureate Program.
Timeframe: On-Going
City Staff Resources: Under current staffing levels, staff has sufficient capacity to support this work plan item; No additional City staff resources required.
Assignment 4: Tree Appeals
Description: Review and adjudicate tree permit appeals in accordance with the Municipal Code.
Timeframe: On-Going
One-time Subtask: Draft a recommendation to City Council to request the removal of the loophole language (identified as “otherwise healthy”) from the Tree Ordinance as it has an impact on tree appeals.
Timeframe: FY 2026-2027
City Staff Resources:
Staff resources vary based on the number of Tree Appeal Hearings.
One-time Subtask - Removal of Loophole Language: PB&R staff time minimal. Any resulting ordinance changes would require moderate to significant additional support from the Community Development Department, City Clerk’s Office, and City Attorney’s Office for drafting, processing, and legal review.
Assignment 5: Beach Safety
Description: Continue supporting beach safety education and outreach initiatives.
Timeframe: On-Going
City Staff Resources: Under current staffing levels, staff has sufficient capacity to support this work plan item; No additional City staff resources required.
Assignment 6: Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Recommendations Description: Provide advisory input on parks, beaches, and recreation-related projects within the City’s CIP.
Timeframe: On-Going
City Staff Resources: Under current staffing levels, staff has sufficient capacity to support this work plan item; No additional City staff resources required.
Assignment 7: Community Engagement & Special Event Support Description: Support outreach efforts and participation in community events promoting recreation and environmental stewardship.
Timeframe: On-Going
City Staff Resources: Under current staffing levels, staff has sufficient capacity to support this work plan item; No additional City staff resources required.
Assignment 8: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Responsibilities Description: Serve as the designated Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) for the City of Pacifica, engaging with all necessary stakeholders. Provide input on policies, 4 Packet Pg. 96
Pacifica City Council 8
April 27, 2026
projects, and grant applications related to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, safety, and access.
Timeframe: On-Going / Semi-Annual Meetings or more as needed City Staff Resources:
Under current staffing levels, staff has sufficient capacity to support this work plan item; Additional Public Works and PB&R staff time required for semiannual (or as-needed) meetings under the revised BPAC meeting structure.
Assignment 9: Recreation Program and Service Overview
Description: Receive informational presentations from staff regarding recreation programs, services, and facilities, and providing advice as appropriate.
Timeframe: On-Going
City Staff Resources: Under current staffing levels, staff has sufficient capacity to support this work plan item; No additional City staff resources required.
Tasks for FY 2026-2027
Task 1: Priority Parks Project
Description: Provide advisory input and receive updates related to Priority Parks improvements. Engage in community outreach and implement park grand openings.
Timeframe: FY 2026-2027
City Staff Resources:
Priority Parks Opening: Significant additional PB&R and Public Works staff time anticipated for coordination, outreach, and grand opening events, which is the final element to complete the project.
Task 2: Parks and Beaches Review
Description: Meet with City Council to review recommendations from the 2025 Parks and Beaches Review report and provide advisory input on implementation priorities.
Timeframe: FY 2026-2027
City Staff Resources:
Preparation of presentations and potential joint City Council/PB&R Commission meetings will require additional PB&R staff time and City Clerk support.
Implementation of recommendations may require substantial PB&R staff time, Public Works support, City Attorney review, potential CIP funding, and coordination with grant writing resources.
Task 3: Beach Accessibility Improvements
Description: Explore the feasibility of installing accessible beach mat pathways at key coastal access points in Pacifica to improve mobility for individuals with disabilities, seniors, and families with strollers. This project supports the City’s Age Friendly Action Plan by enhancing inclusive access to outdoor spaces.
Timeframe: FY 2026-2027
City Staff Resources:
This effort is expected to require a significant level of staff involvement and resources. Parks, Beaches, and Recreation staff would be needed to support initial planning, coordination, and 4 Packet Pg. 97
Pacifica City Council 9
April 27, 2026
community engagement; however, Public Works would play a substantial role in evaluating site feasibility and, if pursued, in the installation, seasonal deployment/removal, and ongoing maintenance of accessible beach matting. Given current staffing and workload, this level of effort may be challenging to absorb without impacting other priority work plan items.
In addition to staff capacity, this project would have associated capital and ongoing maintenance costs (including materials, installation, storage, replacement, and potential liability considerations), which have not yet been quantified and would require further analysis. The need for City Attorney review will be determined as the scope is more clearly defined. Any advancement of this effort would need to be evaluated in the context of available resources, competing priorities, and potential funding sources.
Task 4: PB&R Commission Charter Review
Description: Review the current PB&R Commission charter, propose amendments, and participate in a public process to update the charter in collaboration with City Council.
Timeframe: FY 2026-2027
City Staff Resources:
This effort will require a moderate level of involvement from Parks, Beaches and Recreation staff to support research, coordination, and facilitation of the review process. The City Clerk’s Office is expected to play a key role in managing the formal public process. City Attorney support will also be needed to review proposed amendments and ensure compliance with applicable laws and governance standards.
Task 5: Form a Tree Subcommittee
Description: Form a Tree Subcommittee to help meet annual Tree City USA reporting requirements, and collaborate on the Arbor Day Celebration, a PB&R event.
Timeframe: FY 2026-2027
City Staff Resources:
Limited staff support initially. Additional PB&R and Public Works support may be required depending on any additional project scope.
Task 6: E-Bike Report and Recommendations
Description: Present an e-bike report, including making recommendations and implementation of recommendations in the report, and responding to any additional e-bike requests.
Timeframe: FY 2026-2027
City Staff Resources:
This item is expected to require a significant level of coordination across multiple departments, as well as regional partners. PB&R staff could support community outreach and the public process; however, Police Department currently does not have staffing available to take on additional enforcement or ongoing programmatic responsibilities in this area. This effort would also require coordination with county and state partners, which may add complexity to timelines and implementation considerations.
Long-Term Implementation:
Implementation of any e-bike recommendations would have broader operational and resource implications and would need to be carefully evaluated and may require significant additional City staff support. PB&R may be asked to support education and outreach efforts. Public Works could be involved in evaluating and implementing any infrastructure-related elements (e.g., 4 Packet Pg. 98
Pacifica City Council 10 April 27, 2026
signage), subject to available capacity and competing priorities. Police Department resources would be a key consideration for any enforcement-related components, and current staffing levels do not support expansion in this area. Coordination with county and state agencies would likely be necessary for consistency in regulations, safety initiatives, and potential funding opportunities. City Clerk support would be required for agenda preparation and public meetings, and any regulatory or enforcement measures would require review by the City Attorney’s Office.
Given the cross-departmental and multi-jurisdictional nature of this topic, along with existing resource constraints, any implementation actions would need to be thoughtfully timed and prioritized through the City Council’s broader strategic planning and goal-setting process and future budget development.
CONCLUSION:
The Economic Development Committee (EDC) and the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation (PB&R) Commission both play a meaningful role in advancing the City’s priorities by serving as advisory bodies that bring forward community, business, and stakeholder perspectives. Their input helps ensure that City initiatives are informed by real-world experience and aligned with broader goals to support a vibrant economy and high quality of life.
Through their respective work, the EDC contributes to efforts that strengthen local businesses and economic vitality, while the PB&R Commission supports community well-being through parks, recreation, and coastal access. Together, these efforts help reinforce Pacifica’s identity as both a desirable place to live and an attractive destination for visitors.
Ongoing coordination between City staff, both advisory bodies, and the City Council remains important to effective implementation. Through continued collaboration, shared dialogue, and alignment with adopted work plans, the City is better positioned to respond to emerging opportunities and challenges in a balanced and strategic way.
Collectively, the EDC and PB&R Commission provide valuable advisory support that contributes to Pacifica’s long-term prosperity, livability, and sense of place.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Following the Council’s direction, there might be an additional impact that will be presented during the future budget discussions.
ATTACHMENT LIST:
A - Parks Beaches & Recreation Commission Workplan FY 2026-2027 B - Economic Development Committee Workplan FY 2026-2027 ORIGINATED BY:
City Manager's Office
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Pacifica Parks Beaches Recreation WorkPlan FY 2026-2027 (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 99
Pacifica City Council 11 April 27, 2026
Attachment B- Pacifica Economic Development Committee_Workplan FY26-27 (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 100
City of Pacifica
Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission
Annual Work Plan Draft - Fiscal Year 2026-2027
Chair 2025-2026: Gail Benton Shoemaker / Vice Chair 2025-2026: Stefanie Phillips / Commissioners: Cindy Abbott, Cherie Chan, Michael Watkins, Bobby Watcharasakunee, Christine Acuna I. Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Ordinance
Sec. 2-2.301. - Established: Membership.
The Council hereby establishes a Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission which shall consist of seven (7) members.
Sec. 2-2.302. - Purpose.
The purpose of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission shall be to recommend and advise the Council in the acquisition, development, and maintenance of parks, beaches, and other recreational areas and to encourage the planning and implementation of a comprehensive recreation program which will serve the needs of all age groups in the City.
Sec. 2-2.303. - Powers and duties.
The powers and duties of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission shall be advisory only and include the following:
• To assist in the preparation and adoption of, and review annually and revise as may be necessary, a longrange plan for parks, beaches, and recreation; • To act in an advisory capacity to the Council, the City Manager, and the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department in all matters pertaining to public recreation; • To focus public attention upon the need for adequate parks and beaches and healthful, year-round supervised recreation for all;
• To assist in promoting the public recreation program in public school buildings and grounds, public parks and buildings, public beaches, and such other places as may be approved by the Council by identifying the program with all public welfare, education, family relations, and constructive leisure time activities;
• To make recommendations concerning the beautification development and improvement of parks, beaches, and recreation services;
4.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A - Pacifica Parks Beaches Recreation WorkPlan FY 2026-2027 (6195 : EDC and PB&R Commission Annual • To aid in coordinating the recreation and park services with the programs of other governmental agencies, including school districts and voluntary organizations; • To encourage and review gifts and property for the parks, beaches, and recreation program; and • To perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Council.
II. Achievements (FY 2025-2026)
• Maintained active liaison roles with various City departments, community organizations, and public events to support alignment with community recreation goals.
• Participated in review and adjudication of Tree Permit Appeals in accordance with the Municipal Code. • Reviewed and submitted feedback on the City’s Priority Parks Plan, contributing to the strategic planning of future park enhancements.
• Completed a comprehensive Parks Review of City parks, focusing on conditions, amenities, and improvement opportunities.
• Provided editorial feedback on the seasonal PLAY Activity Brochure to ensure clear, engaging, and accessible communication of recreation offerings.
• Supported the City’s Poet Laureate Program by recruiting a new Poet Laureate. • Participated in community engagement and outreach supporting parks and recreation programming. • Completed a draft E-Bike Report addressing growing community concerns related to e-bike use, safety, and education.
III. FY 2026-2027 Work Plan Draft
On-Going Assignments
Assignment 1: Surf Camp/School Policy
Description: Continue monitoring implementation of the City’s Surf Camp permitting program and provide advisory input related to outreach and education. Timeframe: On-Going / Review twice a year before application period opens
Assignment 2: Liaison Assignments
Description: Commissioners will maintain liaison assignments with city departments, committees, and community organizations, reporting updates regularly.
Timeframe: On-Going
Assignment 3: Poet Laureate Program
Description: Support community engagement and arts appreciation through continued support of the City’s Poet
4.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A - Pacifica Parks Beaches Recreation WorkPlan FY 2026-2027 (6195 : EDC and PB&R Commission Annual Laureate Program.
Timeframe: On-Going
Assignment 4: Tree Appeals
Description: Review and adjudicate tree permit appeals in accordance with the Municipal Code.
Timeframe: On-Going
Subtask: Draft a recommendation to City Council to request the removal of the loophole language (identified as “otherwise healthy”) from the Tree Ordinance as it has an impact on tree appeals.
Timeframe: FY 2026-2027
Assignment 5: Beach Safety
Description: Continue supporting beach safety education and outreach initiatives. Timeframe: On-Going Assignment 6: Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Recommendations Description: Provide advisory input on parks, beaches, and recreation-related projects within the City’s CIP.
Timeframe: On-Going
Assignment 7: Community Engagement & Special Event Support Description: Support outreach efforts and participation in community events promoting recreation and environmental stewardship. Timeframe: On-Going
Assignment 8: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Responsibilities Description: Serve as the designated Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) for the City of Pacifica, engaging with all necessary stakeholders. Provide input on policies, projects, and grant applications related to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, safety, and access.
Timeframe: On-Going / Semi-Annual Meetings or more as needed Assignment 9: Recreation Program and Service Overview
Description: Receive informational presentations from staff regarding recreation programs, services, and facilities, and providing advice as appropriate. Timeframe: On-Going Tasks for FY 2026-2027
Task 1: Priority Parks Project
Description: Provide advisory input and receive updates related to Priority Parks improvements. Engage in community outreach and implement park grand openings. Timeframe: FY 2026-2027
Task 2: Parks and Beaches Review
Description: Meet with City Council to review recommendations from the 2025 Parks and Beaches Review report and provide advisory input on implementation priorities. Timeframe: FY 2026-2027 Task 3: Beach Accessibility Improvements
Description: Explore the feasibility of installing accessible beach mat pathways at key coastal access points in Pacifica to improve mobility for individuals with disabilities, seniors, and families with strollers. This project supports the City’s Age Friendly Action Plan by enhancing inclusive access to outdoor spaces.
Timeframe: FY 2026-2027
4.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment A - Pacifica Parks Beaches Recreation WorkPlan FY 2026-2027 (6195 : EDC and PB&R Commission Annual Task 4: PB&R Commission Charter Review
Description: Review the current PB&R Commission charter, propose amendments, and participate in a public process to update the charter in collaboration with City Council. Timeframe: FY 2026-2027 Task 5: Form a Tree Subcommittee
Description: Form a Tree Subcommittee to help meet annual Tree City USA reporting requirements, and collaborate on the Arbor Day Celebration, a PB&R event. Timeframe: FY 2026-2027 Task 6: E-Bike Report and Recommendations
Description: Present an e-bike report, including making recommendations and implementation of recommendations in the report, and responding to any additional e-bike requests. Timeframe: FY 2026-2027
4.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A - Pacifica Parks Beaches Recreation WorkPlan FY 2026-2027 (6195 : EDC and PB&R Commission Annual City of Pacifica
Economic Development Committee
Workplan FY2026-2027
Goals and Objectives:
1. Promote local businesses to residents of Pacifica and visitors to encourage local spending.
2. Provide assistance and support to existing and prospective local businesses in collaboration with the City.
3. Market Pacifica and its businesses to out-of-town visitors to drive revenue.
4.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment B- Pacifica Economic Development Committee_Workplan FY26-27 (6195 : EDC and PB&R Commission Annual City of Pacifica
Economic Development Committee
Workplan FY2026-2027
1. Priorities Workplan Item #1:
1. Support Local Events
a) For event planners: Suggest guidelines for organizing events that support local businesses, including “how local businesses can participate” information b) For business owners: Evaluate success of event participation c) Partner with local businesses to plan and market one event that drives store visits
2. Wayfinding & Infrastructure
a) Continue working with City staff on pilot program to install directional signage connecting entrances to the City with local businesses
b) Develop and launch a web-based city guide, accessible via QR codes that can be placed on signage throughout Pacifica
c) Collaborate with City staff, committees, commissions, and City Council to design trailhead signage and other locations that highlights nearby business districts and links to up-to-date online business information
2. Priorities Workplan Item #2:
1. Foster economic vibrancy
a) Collaborate with other committees, businesses, non-profits, and the City on placemaking initiatives
b) Identify and apply to grant(s) for improvements benefiting businesses and infrastructure
2. Supporting business operation
a) Maintain spreadsheet, shared with the City, of leasing and sale opportunities with notes regarding any needed build-out
b) Pilot a free jobs board for local businesses
c) Act as a liaison between San Mateo Small Business Development Center (SBDC) and Pacifica businesses
• Identify the types of resources most beneficial to Pacifica businesses • Coordinate information sessions
3. Study viability of a Pacifica food truck program
a) Analyze food truck programs in cities comparable to Pacifica b) Gather input from both local and non-local food truck operators on challenges of doing business in Pacifica
c) Offer recommendations for City Council and staff to inform potential future municipal code changes
3. Priorities Workplan Item #3:
1. Digital & Marketing Strategy
a) Collaborate with the Pacifica tourism marketing district and management agency to suggest content for VisitPacifica.com
b) Setup online marketing campaign(s) to drive out-of-town visitors to Pacifica businesses during holiday and noteworthy periods throughout the year
4.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment B- Pacifica Economic Development Committee_Workplan FY26-27 (6195 : EDC and PB&R Commission Annual
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
4/27/2026
1 SUBJECT:
Approval of Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and GHD, Inc. for Design and Engineering Services related to the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Consultant Services Agreement with GHD, Inc. for design and engineering services in the amount of $656,533.00 in connection to the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $788,000.00 which includes 20% contingency and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.
STAFF CONTACT:
Rey Soriano, Assistant Civil Engineer
(650) 676-5608
[email protected]
Roland Yip, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer (650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Melissa Tigbao, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 501-6016
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In January 2021, high tides and large waves caused significant damage to a forty-foot section of the Pacifica Municipal Pier’s west-facing deck and concrete railing, prompting an immediate assessment by Public Works Engineering. Following this event, the City hired GHD, Inc. (GHD) to conduct a comprehensive handrail condition assessment. The report stated that the section of the Pier running parallel to the shoreline, where the railing was broken from the Pier deck, would need to be fenced off and closed to public access. The report also noted that railing sections identified as severely damaged that were within the area of the pier running perpendicular to the shoreline should be repaired within a year period. A follow-up structural report completed in summer 2022 provided updated findings indicating that railing deterioration was occurring more slowly than originally anticipated. While several panels still required replacement within two years, the full railing system was projected to need replacement over approximately ten years.
Following the updated structural report in 2022, the City sought and secured grant funding from California State Parks and the California Coastal Conservancy, and staff worked with GHD to design a project that would replace all railings at once to reduce repeated mobilization costs and future closures. On June 27, 2022, City Council moved to reject all bids and re-bid the project due to the one bid received of $3.2 million, which was significantly over the Engineer’s Estimate 5 Packet Pg. 107
Pacifica City Council 2
April 27, 2026
of approximately $800,000. The scope was adjusted and project was re-bid to include only the most deteriorated railing sections. On October 24, 2022, City Council moved to reject all bids again due to the bid amount of $1.4 million being significantly higher than the $960,000 budget for the project. Given consistently high bid prices, limited available funding, and concerns raised by both funding agencies about undertaking construction without fully understanding the pier’s broader structural condition, staff determined that a complete structural assessment of the entire pier was necessary. The City Council also awarded GHD a contract to perform this full structural assessment at the October 2022 meeting, following updated inspection findings indicating that the railing deterioration rate was slower than previously anticipated, allowing additional time to complete the repair work.
The full structural assessment, 2023 Pier Condition Assessment Report, documents the assessment methodology, field observations, evaluations, and recommendations for potential repairs. The estimated cost to complete the recommended repairs for the handrails, girder, deck, and piles was estimated with a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) of $11 million. The assessment did not include the additional damage sustained during the December 28, 2023 high tide and large wave event; a subsequent evaluation determined that the western end of the main pier and the L‑section are in serious condition and should be repaired within two years, while the remaining portions of the main pier are in poor condition and should be addressed within four years, along with ongoing inspections following major storm events and annual evaluations to monitor deterioration.
The structural reports for the Condition Assessment of Pier Handrails - 2022, 2023 Pier Condition Assessment Report, and Post Storm Condition Assessment - April 2024 can be viewed at: www.cityofpacifica.org/pier.
The Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project will include comprehensive structural evaluation, engineering design, and preparation of plans, specifications, and cost estimates (PS&E) for phased repairs to the pier. The project will address deteriorated structural components including piles, deck elements, and handrails, and will prioritize critical safety-related repairs while supporting long-term resilience of this publicly accessible coastal facility. The design will be phased into three construction phases, prioritizing repairs to the most deteriorated portions of the Pier first, given the significant level of funding required for full rehabilitation.
The City of Pacifica submitted a Community Project Funding (CPF) request to its congressional representative in April 2023. The project was subsequently included in federal appropriations legislation approved by Congress and signed into law. Funding was then allocated through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which issued a $963,000 grant to support engineering, design, and planning efforts for the rehabilitation of the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project.
To implement this work, the City initiated a competitive procurement process for professional design and engineering services. The Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued through the City’s formal procurement process via OpenGov on February 2, 2026. A total of seventy-one (71) firms downloaded the solicitation documents, and four (4) firms submitted proposals by the March 6, 2026 deadline.
1. GHD Inc.
2. Moffatt & Nichol
3. Foth
4. Wilsey Ham
Proposals were evaluated and scored by three City staff engineers, with final scores compiled on March 26, 2026. GHD, Inc. received the highest overall score among the four proposers and 5 Packet Pg. 108
Pacifica City Council 3
April 27, 2026
was determined to be the most qualified firm to perform the required services.
Staff have successfully worked with GHD, Inc. on several city projects and have been satisfied with their work. GHD, Inc. is a global, multidisciplinary professional company providing clients with integrated solutions including engineering, architecture, environmental and construction management. They have expertise in many aspects of civil design and are also familiar with the City.
The City Manager recommends adopting the resolution and approving the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and GHD, Inc. (Attachment "A"), for design and engineering services.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose not to authorize the agreement for design and engineering services for the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project. However, this would delay the preparation of plans and specifications needed to address existing structural deficiencies and could result in continued deterioration of the pier, prolonged closures, and potential safety risks to the public. Staff does not recommend this alternative 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 - Includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities, improving streets stormwater and wastewater infrastructure and responding to impacts of sea level rise and other effects of climate change. Adopting the resolution will improve the condition of the Pacifica Pier.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Grant - NOAA $788,000.00
Total Source of Funds $788,000.00
Design of Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project $656,533.00 Project Contingency, 20% $131,467.00
Total Use of Funds $788,000.00
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (PDF)
5 Packet Pg. 109
Pacifica City Council 4
April 27, 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 GHD, INC. FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $656,533.00 IN CONNECTION TO THE PACIFICA PIER REHABILITATION PROJECT; APPROVE BUDGET AUTHORITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $788,000.00, WHICH INCLUDES CONTINGENCIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY PERCENT (20%) 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 Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project using NOAA grant funds; and
WHEREAS, the City evaluated GHD’s proposal, and is satisfied that 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 Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and GHD, Inc. for design and engineering services in the amount of $656,533.00 in connection to the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project (Attachment 1), approves budget authority in the amount of $788,000.00 which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of design contract amounts, and authorizes the City Manager to execute all documents related with the Project.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 27th day of April 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 5 Packet Pg. 110
Pacifica City Council 5
April 27, 2026
ATTACHMENT 1
5 Packet Pg. 111
4866-2656-6648 v1 - 1 -
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 27th day of April, 2026, by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and GHD, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires Coastal & Marine Engineering Services in connection with the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project;
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, CONSULTANT and CITY agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1. Scope of Work. CONSULTANT agrees to furnish the services set forth in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Services").
1.2. Compliance with Law. The Services shall be performed in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders.
1.3. Time is of the Essence. CONSULTANT agrees to diligently prosecute the Services. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence.
1.4. Professional Competence. CONSULTANT represents that it has the professional skills necessary to perform the Services and that it will perform the Services in a skillful and professional manner. CONSULTANT represents that it has all the necessary licenses to perform the Services and shall maintain them throughout the term of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT agrees that the Services shall be performed consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT is in responsible charge of the Services. Acceptance by CITY of the Services does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from professional responsibility for the Services performed.
1.5. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT expressly warrants that it will not represent that it is an employee of CITY.
5.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) 4866-2656-6648 v1 - 2 -
1.6. Confidentiality. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in confidence and not disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation, without CITY's prior written consent, any trade secret or confidential information, knowledge or data relating to the products, process, or operation of CITY. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain in confidence and not to disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation any data, information, technology, or material developed or obtained by CONSULTANT during the performance of the Services. The covenants contained in this Section 1.6 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause.
1.7. Ownership of Material. Any reports and other material prepared by or on behalf of CONSULTANT under this Agreement (collectively, the "Documents") and provided to the CITY shall be and remain the property of CITY. All Documents not already provided to CITY shall be delivered to CITY on the date of termination of this Agreement for any reason. The Documents may be used by CITY and its agents, employees, representatives, and assigns, in whole or in part, or in modified form, for all purposes CITY may deem appropriate without further employment of or payment of any compensation to CONSULTANT.
1.8. Documentation. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation and accounting records, employee time sheets, and correspondence pertaining to the performance of the Services, and CONSULTANT shall make such documents available for review and/or audit by CITY and CITY's representatives at all reasonable times for at least four years after the termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services.
1.9. Testimony. CONSULTANT agrees to testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with the Services. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT or is based upon CONSULTANT's negligence, CITY will compensate CONSULTANT for the preparation and the testimony at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates.
ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION
2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with Exhibit B, Compensation, attached hereto and incorporated herein. It is agreed that the compensation for the Services shall not exceed $ ("Cost Ceiling").
2.2. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices in a form satisfactory to CITY on or before the tenth day of each month for Services provided during the preceding month. CONSULTANT shall submit time and cost records as necessary to substantiate performance of the Services. Within 35 days after receipt of each such invoice, CITY shall verify the accuracy of the invoice, correct the charges where appropriate and as discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in
5.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) 4866-2656-6648 v1 - 3 -
CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.
2.3. Status Reports. Together with each monthly invoice, CONSULTANT shall submit a status report detailing the amount expended on the Services to that date and the remaining amount to be expended before the Cost Ceiling is reached. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY in writing when payments have reached 90 percent of the Cost Ceiling.
2.4. Withholding. In lieu of holding retention, CITY shall withhold CONSULTANT's final payment until the Services are complete and CITY has received all Documents.
CONSULTANT shall diligently continue and complete performance of the Services if the Services are not complete at the time CONSULTANT has performed services up to the Cost Ceiling.
ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE
3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until the Services are completed (the "Term"). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all services by December 27th , 2027.
3.2. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by CITY upon written notice to CONSULTANT.
3.3. Final Payment. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation for Services performed up to the time of such termination, it being understood that any payments are full compensation for the Services rendered under this Agreement.
3.4. Other Remedies. Nothing in this Article 3 shall be deemed to limit the respective rights of the parties to terminate this Agreement for cause or otherwise to exercise any rights or pursue any remedies which may accrue to them.
ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS
4.1. CITY Contact. CITY designates Melissa Tigbao, Public Works Director, as its contact who shall be responsible for administering and interpreting the terms and conditions of this Agreement, for matters relating to CONSULTANT's performance under this Agreement, and for liaison and coordination between CITY and CONSULTANT. In the event CITY wishes to make a change in CITY 's representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.
4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT designates Craig Lewis, PE, Principal in Charge as its contact, who shall have immediate responsibility for the performance of the Services and for all matters relating to performance under this Agreement. Any change in CONSULTANT's designated contact shall be subject to written approval by CITY.
5.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) 4866-2656-6648 v1 - 4 -
ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
5.1. Indemnification. To the fullest extent allowed by law, CONSULTANT hereby agrees to defend, indemnify, and save harmless CITY, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees, directors, volunteers and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, actions liability, loss, damage, expense, injury (including, without limitation, economic harm, injury to or death of any person, including an employee of CONSULTANT or its Subconsultants), cost (including, without limitation, costs and fees of litigation) of every nature, kind or description, at law or equity, which may be brought against, or suffered or sustained by, City of Pacifica, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees, directors, volunteers or agents that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to any negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, any Subconsultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed or retained by them, or anyone that they control. In the event one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, the CONSULTANT shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs.
The duty of CONSULTANT to indemnify and save harmless, as set forth herein, shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify City of Pacifica, its Council, boards, commissions, officers, employees and agents against any responsibility or liability in contravention of Section 2782 of the California Civil Code.
CONSULTANT’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law.
The defense and indemnification obligations of this agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained within this Agreement.
If CONSULTANT is a “design professional,” as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c), CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Indemnitees harmless against Liability only to the extent such Liability arises out of, pertains to, or relates to CONSULTANT’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. In such an event, the cost to defend charged to CONSULTANT shall not exceed CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault.
5.2. Health and Safety. CONSULTANT may perform part of the Services at sites which contain unknown working conditions and contaminated materials. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of CONSULTANT's employees during the performance of the Services.
5.3. Insurance. CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency shall procure, provide and maintain at all times during the performance of this Agreement, and for such additional periods as described herein, the
5.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) 4866-2656-6648 v1 - 5 -
insurance listed below with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a Best's rating of no less than A:VII.
A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.
B. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with limits providing a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage for each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products/completed operations aggregate. The insurance shall cover all operations including but not limited to the following: (1) premises, operations and mobile equipment liability; (2) completed operations and products liability; (3) contractual liability insuring the obligations assumed by CONSULTANT in this Agreement; (4) broad form property damage liability; (5) personal injury liability endorsement, including death; and (6) automobile bodily injury and property damage insurance, including all owned, hired and non-owned equipment.
C. Workers Compensation Insurance. Workers Compensation insurance, occupational disease insurance and employer’s liability insurance shall be required with minimum limits as required by law, covering all workplaces involved in this Agreement.
D. Policy Terms. Concurrently with execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with Certificates of Insurance evidencing that CONSULTANT has obtained or maintains the insurance required by this Section
5.3. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also furnish CITY with original endorsements with the following documentation:
• Precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of thirty (30) days after CITY shall have received written notification thereof from CONSULTANT by United States mail;
• Providing that CONSULTANT's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, and include a “separation of insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability (crossliability endorsement); • Excepting CONSULTANT’S professional liability insurance, naming CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds (“Additional Insureds”); and • Providing that for any claims relating to CONSULTANT's services hereunder, CONSULTANT's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents, and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers,
5.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) 4866-2656-6648 v1 - 6 -
employees and agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
• It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance.
Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of:
(a) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (b) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured.
E. Material Breach. If CONSULTANT fails to maintain insurance coverage or provided insurance documentation which is required pursuant to this Agreement, it shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. CITY, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from CONSULTANT resulting from said breach. Alternatively, CITY may purchase the required insurance coverage, and without further notice to CONSULTANT, may deduct from sums due to CONSULTANT any premium costs advanced by CITY for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY.
ARTICLE 6 - NOTICES
All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by facsimile or reputable overnight courier and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of: (1) if personally delivered, the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice; (2) if delivered by Federal Express or other overnight courier for next business day delivery, the next business day; (3) if sent by facsimile, with the original sent on the same day by overnight courier, the date on which the facsimile is received, provided it is before 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time; or (4) if sent electronically, the date of delivery on the confirmed read receipt. Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner described in this Article 6. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of a change in address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice or communication sent. Unless changed in accordance herewith, the addresses for notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be as follows:
If to CITY: City Manager
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]
If to CONSULTANT:Craig Lewis, PE, Principal in Charge
GHD, Inc.
655 Montgomery Street
Suite 1010
5.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) 4866-2656-6648 v1 - 7 -
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-350-8337
[email protected]
ARTICLE 7 - MISCELLANEOUS
7.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and CONSULTANT as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may only be modified by an amendment in writing signed by each party.
7.2. No Assignment. The Services are deemed unique and neither party shall assign, transfer, subcontract or otherwise substitute its interest in this Agreement or any of its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. As limited by this Section
7.2, this Agreement is to be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
7.3. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or beyond the authority of either party, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement can be interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties.
7.4. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and, when fully signed, such counterparts shall have the same effect as if signed in one document.
7.5. Choice of Law. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without reference to its choice of laws principles and venue shall be in the appropriate court in San Mateo County, California.
7.6. Waiver. No failure on the part of either Party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder. A waiver by either CITY or CONSULTANT of any breach of this Agreement shall not be binding upon the waiving party unless such waiver is in writing. In the event of a written waiver, such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party's rights with respect to any other further breach.
7.7. Mediation. In the event the parties are unable to resolve a dispute arising under this Agreement through good faith negotiations, the parties agree to submit the matter to mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator. Prior to the mediation, the parties shall exchange any documents reasonably necessary to resolve the matter to be mediated.
7.8. Interpretation. In the event this Agreement is ever construed in any dispute between the parties, it and each of its provisions shall be construed without regard to the party or parties responsible for its preparation and shall be deemed to have been prepared jointly by the parties. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement.
5.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) 4866-2656-6648 v1 - 8 -
7.9. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of one of the parties represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the Agreement on behalf of such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in accordance with its terms.
7.10. Third Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the CITY or CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT’s Services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of CITY.
[Signature on Next Page]
5.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) 4866-2656-6648 v1 - 9 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.
CITY OF PACIFICA
By:_________________________________________
Yulia Carter, Interim City Manager
Date:________________________________________
Approved As To Form
By:_________________________________________
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
Date:________________________________________
CONSULTANT
GHD, Inc.
By:_________________________________________
Craig Lewis, P.E., Principal in Charge
Date:___4/7/2026_____________________________
5.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) 4866
-2656-6648 v1
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
5.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Pacifica Pier
Rehabilitation
Project
Proposal
City of Pacifica March 6, 2026
GHD Reference: 12690772
5.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) City of Pacifica
Public Works – Engineering Department
Attn: Rey Gian Soriano, Assistant Civil Engineer
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
March 6, 2026
Re: Proposal for Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project
Dear Mr. Soriano,
The City of Pacifica (City) needs an experienced partner who can act decisively to protect public safety while stabilizing a pier that is deteriorating under relentless storm exposure. The Pacifica Municipal Pier is facing accelerated structural damage, repeated storm impacts, and increasing limitations on public access—conditions that demand immediate, practical action. With longstanding hands-on experience with the pier and deep coastal and marine expertise, GHD Inc. (GHD) can rapidly transition from condition assessment to a safety‑focused, constructible rehabilitation design. Our approach prioritizes risk reduction, funding protection, and implementable solutions, delivering real improvements that allow the City to keep the pier safely open and serve the Pacifica community.
The City is best served by a team that already understands what the risks are, which repairs matter most, and how the pier actually behaves in Pacifica’s high‑energy marine environment. GHD brings the City that advantage. Having completed the City’s 2023 condition assessment, 2024 and 2025 post‑storm assessments, seawall evaluations, and the ongoing Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, our team has first‑hand knowledge of the pier’s most vulnerable elements, deterioration mechanisms, and constructability constraints. This continuity allows GHD to immediately prioritize safety‑critical repairs, avoid redundant investigation, and translate existing data directly into defensible Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E), saving the City time, cost, and risk.
GHD’s approach is deliberately aligned with the City’s realities: limited funding, urgent safety needs, and the need to phase construction without losing momentum. We focus on developing stand‑alone, construction‑ready PS&E packages that can be bid and built as funding becomes available—each phase independently improving safety, durability, and service life while fitting into a coherent long‑term rehabilitation strategy. Our designs emphasize durability, corrosion resistance, and constructability in rough marine conditions, helping slow future deterioration rather than simply reacting to it.
Equally important, GHD understands that this project must be delivered without jeopardizing federal funding or schedule. Our team integrates National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) grant conditions, National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) readiness, and Build America, Buy America (BABA) considerations into design from the outset, reducing the risk of late‑stage redesign, permitting delays, or compliance issues. These considerations benefit the City by giving you clear, defensible documents that support bidding, construction, and grant reporting with confidence.
Responsiveness and availability are critical for a pier that is routinely impacted by storms. GHD’s San Francisco–based team, located approximately 14 miles from Pacifica, provides rapid site access for meetings, inspections, and post‑event coordination.
Key personnel led by Satish Chilka, Stephanie Gould, and Craig Lewis will remain continuously engaged throughout the project, ensuring leadership continuity and direct access to decision‑makers. We also leverage Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and advanced inspection technologies to safely and efficiently assess hard‑to‑reach areas and support informed design decisions.
By selecting GHD, the City gains more than a designer, you gain a partner who already understands the pier’s risks, has helped the City manage them through multiple storm seasons, and is prepared to deliver practical, fundable, safety‑driven rehabilitation solutions. Our focus is on helping the City reduce risk now, extend service life, protect public access, and move confidently from planning into construction.
We appreciate the opportunity to continue our partnership with the City on this critical project. Please do not hesitate to contact proposed Project Manager and Lead Consultant Satish Chilka should you have any questions or require additional information during your review.
Regards,
Satish Chilka, PE
Project Manager
925.849.1019
[email protected]
Jeremy Svehla, PE
Business Group Leader
707.267.2246
[email protected]
Authorized to bind the firm
655 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
415.283.4970
www.ghd.com
1 5.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Contents
1. Executive Summary and Understanding of Required
Services 2
Executive Summary 2
Project Understanding & Approach 3
Project Implementation 6
2. Description of Proposer 10
Company Information, Background, Size, and Relevant History 10 Office Location and Project Delivery Office 11
Experience with Public Agencies and Relevant Projects 12 Referenced Work 18
3. Proposer's Team 19
Project Team Organization and Roles 19
Meet your Project Manager, Lead Consultant, and Primary Contact 22
4. Exceptions to the RFP 23
5. Project Cost, Fees, and Charges 23
6. Project Timeline and Initial Draft Results 24
Appendix
Professional Biographies and Key Personnel Resumes
© GHD 2026: This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorized use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project II
5.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Executive Summary and
Understanding of Required Services
→ Executive Summary
The Pacifica Municipal Pier is a high‑visibility coastal asset that has sustained progressive structural deterioration from decades of wave exposure and repeated storm events.
Advancing this project successfully requires a consultant who not only understands coastal rehabilitation in theory, but who already understands this pier—its deterioration mechanisms, constructability constraints, regulatory context, and the City of Pacifica's (City’s) need to act decisively to protect public safety while preserving funding flexibility. GHD is uniquely positioned to deliver that outcome.
GHD Inc. (GHD) brings unmatched continuity and first‑hand knowledge to the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project (Project), having served as the City’s consultant for the 2023 baseline condition assessment, the 2024 and 2025 post‑storm
assessments, handrail repairs, and related coastal infrastructure efforts. This direct involvement provides immediate
understanding of priority deficiencies, safety‑critical elements, and realistic repair strategies, allowing the project to transition efficiently from assessment into rehabilitation design without redundant investigation, schedule delays, or avoidable risk.
GHD’s approach is centered on safety‑driven, phased
rehabilitation that aligns with the City’s funding realities, permitting requirements, and operational constraints. We will deliver three independent, construction‑ready PS&E packages, each capable of standing alone for bidding and construction as funding becomes available. This strategy enables the City to address life‑safety and liability‑driven repairs immediately while preserving flexibility for future phases. Phasing is informed by observed deterioration patterns, constructability in a high‑energy marine environment, and the need to maintain public access where feasible.
Public safety is the primary driver of our technical approach.
GHD prioritizes repairs to safety‑critical elements—including deteriorated piles, deck components, and handrails—based on direct field observations and documented failure mechanisms.
Our designs emphasize durability, corrosion resistance, and constructability to slow future deterioration rather than simply reacting to it, extending the pier’s service life while reducing long‑term maintenance risk.
Equally important, GHD integrates funding, environmental, and regulatory requirements from the outset. Our team is experienced with federally funded coastal projects and will incorporate National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Community Project Award conditions, National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) readiness, and Build America, Buy America (BABA) considerations directly into design decisions. This proactive approach reduces the risk of late‑stage redesign, permitting delays, or compliance issues and supports defensible documentation for bidding, construction, and grant reporting.
The project will be led by Satish Chilka, PE, who will serve as the City’s dedicated Project Manager and primary point of contact. Mr. Chilka and the identified key personnel will remain actively engaged throughout the project duration, ensuring staffing continuity, institutional knowledge retention, and responsive communication. GHD commits to consistent accessibility for meetings, coordination, site visits, and urgent needs—including post‑storm response—supported by structured project management practices, clear communication protocols, and reliable documentation tools that provide the City with continuous visibility into project status and decisions.
By selecting GHD, the City gains more than a designer—it gains a trusted partner who already understands the pier’s risks, has helped the City manage them through multiple storm seasons, and is prepared to deliver practical, fundable, and constructible rehabilitation solutions. Our focus is on helping the City reduce risk now, protect public safety, preserve funding flexibility, and move confidently from planning into phased implementation.
2.5 GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.5. Executive Summary and Understanding of Required Services | 2
5.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) → Project Understanding &
Approach
GHD brings to the City unmatched continuity, first‑hand knowledge, and technical judgment to the Pacifica Pier
Rehabilitation Project (Project). Our team has been directly involved in evaluating the pier’s condition following multiple storm events and over several assessment cycles, providing a detailed understanding of deterioration mechanisms,
risk progression, and repair priorities that directly inform rehabilitation design.
Following damage to a section of the handrail during winter storms in December 2020 and January 2021, GHD evaluated the handrail system along the entire length of the pier and rated damage levels to support the City’s near‑term safety decisions and longer‑term repair planning. This work was followed by a comprehensive structural condition assessment in 2023 and annual post‑storm assessments in 2024 and 2025. This continuous involvement provides GHD with first‑hand, current knowledge of the pier’s condition and uniquely positions our team to transition efficiently from assessment to
rehabilitation design with continuity, accuracy, and reduced interpretation risk.
GHD’s project team is structured to provide continuity, senior leadership, and focused depth without diluting accountability.
Satish Chilka, PE, who led the prior condition and post‑storm assessments of the Pacifica Municipal Pier, will serve as Project Manager and the City’s primary point of contact, providing day‑to‑day leadership, technical decision‑making, and
coordination. Craig Lewis, PE, SE, Project Director, will remain actively engaged to support executive‑level coordination, risk resolution, and continuity with prior City engagements.
Stephanie Gould, PE, Senior Engineer, will support the team as Deputy Project Manager, providing schedule coordination and continuity of delivery. Andrew Cronin, PE, Senior Structural Engineer and experienced diver, will support condition
verification and constructible repair design, bridging assessment findings with rehabilitation detailing. Environmental review and permitting will be led by Kristine Gaspar, Technical Director – Environmental Planning, providing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation, NEPA coordination,
and regulatory consistency aligned with NOAA funding
requirements. This team structure provides the City with direct access to senior staff, planned technical backup, and efficient project management throughout design, permitting, and bid support.
GHD’s Project Management Plan (PMP) will establish clear communication protocols, coordination pathways, and response expectations for the duration of the project. During early project phases—when scope definition, repair prioritization, phasing, and funding decisions are being established—GHD will conduct regular weekly coordination calls with City staff to maintain regular communication and resolve issues efficiently.
As design progresses and decision frameworks are established, coordination will transition to monthly meetings, supplemented by ad hoc calls as needed to address time‑sensitive technical, regulatory, or funding‑related issues. This structured approach drives consistent accessibility, responsive communication, and alignment with the City’s decision‑making needs throughout the project.
Phased Rehabilitation Strategy
The PS&E packages will be developed to implement a phased rehabilitation strategy that directly addresses public safety, structural reliability, constructability, and funding flexibility. Each phase will be prepared as a standalone, construction‑ready bid package suitable for separate advertisement and bidding.
Standalone bid packages provide the City with flexibility to time advertisement to favorable market conditions, reduce contractor risk pricing, and avoid delaying high‑priority repairs while later phases are refined, permitted, or funded.
GHD’s three‑phase PS&E strategy is intentionally structured to enable the City to act immediately on life‑safety‑ and liability‑driven deficiencies while preserving flexibility to align subsequent phases with funding availability, permitting timelines, and seasonal marine constraints associated with the pier’s high‑energy coastal environment. This approach allows near‑term risk reduction without committing the City to a single, all‑at‑once rehabilitation pathway.
The recommended phasing is informed by deterioration
patterns and repair priorities documented in GHD’s prior condition assessment reports, which identified both
localized critical deficiencies requiring near‑term action and widespread age‑related degradation of reinforced concrete elements typical of coastal pier structures.
Public Safety as the Primary Driver
Public safety is the primary driver of the rehabilitation strategy, consistent with the City’s evaluation emphasis on project understanding, risk management, and constructible technical solutions. Structural conditions directly influence public access and risk exposure along the Pacifica Municipal Pier. In a high‑energy marine environment, deterioration of reinforced concrete piles typically progresses gradually; however, repeated wave loading can breach damaged concrete cover, expose reinforcing steel, and accelerate deterioration, increasing the potential for localized structural failure if not addressed in a timely manner. Based on this understanding, critical pile deficiencies are prioritized for early repair.
Another element with direct public safety implications is the deteriorated handrail system, which represents the most frequent point of public interaction. The existing cast‑in‑place handrails are structurally integrated with the pier deck, and prior assessments have shown that corrosion at the deck‑to‑handrail interface is often concealed. This condition can result in failures without advance warning, including documented
handrail collapses in 2020–2021. These findings highlight the importance of addressing handrails as safety‑critical components rather than isolated architectural features.
Based on this understanding of deterioration mechanisms, constructability, and life‑safety risk, GHD’s phased PS&E approach prioritizes repairs that deliver the greatest immediate public safety benefit while maintaining cost efficiency.
Handrail repair or replacement is most effective when
coordinated with localized deck repairs, allowing corrosion to be addressed comprehensively rather than in isolation.
Accordingly, early project phases strategically combine deck and handrail repairs where feasible to reduce public safety risk, manage City risk exposure, and maximize return on investment—while preserving flexibility to align subsequent rehabilitation phases with available funding, permitting pathways, and marine construction constraints.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.5. Executive Summary and Understanding of Required Services | 3
5.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Phase 1 – Immediate Risk Mitigation
and Load Management
Phase 1 focuses on addressing near‑term life‑safety risks identified during the condition assessments. This phase targets structural elements exhibiting advanced concrete deterioration, reinforcement exposure, and limited remaining service life, particularly at the pier abutment, selected deck and girder locations, and deteriorated handrail segments. Phase 1 is structured to reduce public safety exposure and City liability while longer‑term rehabilitation planning proceeds.
Planned measures include implementation of recommended
load restrictions, targeted access controls where required, and removal, stabilization, or replacement of elements assessed to have insufficient residual service life. Although handrails are non‑primary structural elements, they are safety‑critical components necessary to maintain continued public use of the pier. Prior assessments documented widespread handrail deterioration and storm‑related failures, with recommendations for replacement using durable precast components to reduce construction duration and marine exposure.
Phase 1 improvements are intended to immediately reduce public safety risk, limit further deterioration, and manage City liability, while allowing the City to sequence work around operational, funding, or permitting constraints. This phase may be implemented independently of full rehabilitation construction and is specifically designed to maintain safe public access while longer‑term repairs are designed and permitted. Where feasible, interim measures are selected to avoid precluding permanent repair solutions in subsequent phases.
Phase 2 – Priority Structural Repairs to
Arrest Deterioration
Phase 2 addresses structural components exhibiting moderate to major deterioration where continued exposure would
accelerate damage if left unaddressed. Based on assessment findings, this phase prioritizes reinforced concrete deck soffits, girders, pile caps, and localized pile zones where cracking, spalling, delamination, and corrosion were observed. Targeted handrail repairs and replacements are included where they improve public safety and construction efficiency.
Repairs in this phase are intended to arrest active
corrosion, restore structural capacity, and improve
long‑term durability through selective concrete removal and replacement, patch repairs, and protective treatments consistent with assessment recommendations. Work
sequencing will be planned to minimize impacts to public access and to account for tidal, wave, and seasonal constraints at the site.
Phase 3 – Abutment and Shore
Interface Rehabilitation
The pier abutment and landward interface are addressed as a distinct phase due to their critical role in both structural performance and shoreline resilience. Condition assessments identified deterioration of concrete facing and localized backfill loss at the abutment, contributing to seawater intrusion and periodic flooding of Beach Boulevard during high tides and storm events.
This phase includes abutment fascia repairs, backfill restoration, and associated drainage or protective measures needed
to improve performance at the pier‑to‑shoreline interface.
Coordination with adjacent seawall and roadway infrastructure is incorporated to confirm compatibility with future shoreline protection or adaptation projects and to avoid conflicts with planned City improvements.
The final phase supports the City’s long‑term asset
management objectives by incorporating provisions for future inspections, condition monitoring, and adaptive repairs.
This approach recognizes the pier’s continued exposure to extreme coastal conditions and future storm events and allows resilient‑focused improvements to be incorporated where feasible, without delaying critical structural repairs in earlier phases.
Grant Funding Awareness and Support
GHD recognizes that the Project is supported in part by federal grant funding administered by NOAA, and that
future phases of the Project may rely on additional state or federal funding opportunities. GHD has extensive experience delivering projects funded by state and federal agencies and understands the added complexity associated with
grant‑driven project delivery. While grant administration and compliance responsibilities remain with the City, GHD works closely with clients to understand funding mechanisms early, identify potential opportunities and constraints, and align technical decisions with applicable eligibility, documentation, and compliance requirements to protect funding eligibility, schedules, and long‑term implementation flexibility.
GHD’s approach is to proactively integrate grant awareness into project delivery, confirming that design, environmental documentation, and technical analyses are prepared in a manner that supports both current and future funding needs without expanding the City’s administrative burden. This funding‑aware approach supports informed decision‑making and helps position projects to meet—and where appropriate, exceed—funding criteria, while reducing the risk of redesign or compliance challenges later in the project lifecycle. As applicable to the consultant’s scope of work, this includes maintaining consistency with relevant federal requirements such as 2 CFR Part 200, NOAA special award conditions, and Buy America / Build America (BABA) considerations.
On recent work for the California State University Maritime Academy (CSU Maritime Academy), GHD aligned design
deliverables with anticipated federal funding requirements.
Our role included preparing and coordinating technical
studies and design criteria required for federal review, GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.5. Executive Summary and Understanding of Required Services | 4
5.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) including ship‑mooring analyses, seismic design criteria, and sea‑level‑rise evaluations. GHD also advised on procurement considerations influenced by BABA requirements, confirming that design‑phase decisions accounted for material sourcing, availability, and schedule implications. This experience directly informs our approach to integrating NOAA Community Project Award requirements into the Project.
By embedding funding considerations into early planning and design, GHD helps clients preserve funding flexibility, support realistic delivery schedules, and reduce downstream risk. This integrated approach keeps grant requirements, documentation needs, and regulatory expectations at the forefront of technical decision‑making, supporting efficient, defensible, and resilient project delivery.
Grant-Informed Technical Support
GHD will support the City and incorporate measures to meet the binding requirements for the NOAA Community Project Award identified in the Request for Proposers, including the following:
– Support the City and NOAA by preparing technical materials, clarifications, and environmental studies in NEPA‑ready format, and by providing federal environmental compliance inputs coordinated with CEQA documentation, as requested by the City.
– Coordinate and sequence fieldwork consistent with NOAA’s restriction on federal fund expenditure prior to written NEPA clearance, ensuring activities are planned in close coordination with NOAA and implemented in accordance
with NOAA Best Management Practices.
– Support BABA compliance by documenting repair material types and anticipated sourcing, preparing a detailed materials inventory prior to bidding and procurement, and identifying items that may require waivers for NOAA consideration.
– Coordinate with the City and NOAA to incorporate required federal funding acknowledgment signage into project design and PS&E documents.
– Prepare grant‑ready technical documentation—including PS&E packages, cost estimates, technical memoranda, and phasing strategies—that can be used to support current and future funding applications.
– Structure phased PS&E packages to align with incremental funding availability, allowing discrete construction phases to advance independently as funds are secured.
– Maintain clear and organized project records, cost data, calculations, and technical documentation to support
NOAA record‑retention, audit, and reporting requirements, and incorporate these same requirements consistently into subconsultant agreements.
Funding Coordination and Future
Readiness
Where requested by the City, GHD can also provide limited, tasks specific support to inform future funding pursuits, such as:
– Identifying how project phasing, scope definition, and cost estimates may align with common eligibility criteria for state or federal infrastructure and resilience funding programs. – Providing technical descriptions, figures, or cost information suitable for inclusion in grant applications prepared and submitted by the City.
– Coordinating with City staff to confirm that engineering decisions do not inadvertently constrain future funding opportunities or compliance pathways.
GHD’s role is intended to support, not replace, the City’s grant administration responsibilities, while helping confirm that technical decisions made during design protect funding flexibility, minimize rework, and support efficient advancement from planning through construction when funding becomes available.
Stakeholder & Public Engagement
Capability
GHD brings direct experience supporting stakeholder
engagement for high-visibility waterfront infrastructure, including work for the City of Berkeley Municipal Fishing Pier Structural Assessment. For Berkeley, GHD supported cityled public and agency engagement by developing technical analyses, graphics, and presentation materials used in public meetings to communicate pier condition findings, ferry terminal feasibility concepts, constructability considerations, and public access implications. This work required translating complex marine engineering topics—such as vessel maneuvering, pier modifications, dredging needs, and structural rehabilitation options—into clear, decision-focused materials suitable for community members, city leadership, and regulatory
stakeholders.
In addition, GHD provided technical input supporting
environmental review efforts for the Berkeley ferry terminal, coordinating with regulatory agencies and ensuring that engineering assumptions presented to stakeholders were
consistent with CEQA documentation and permitting materials prepared by the City and its environmental consultants.
This coordination reduced the risk of conflicting technical information during public review and agency engagement, which is an important consideration for federally and state-funded waterfront projects.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.5. Executive Summary and Understanding of Required Services | 5
5.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Stakeholder & Community
Engagement
GHD will support the City’s stakeholder and public engagement efforts for this high‑visibility coastal infrastructure project.
Services include preparation of presentation materials, participation in community or City Council meetings as
requested, and coordination support with regulatory agencies.
As appropriate, GHD can also coordinate with and integrate support from external specialty firms at the City’s direction where additional expertise or value would benefit the Project.
Deliverables
– Public engagement outline or strategy memo
– City Council and community meeting presentation materials – Regulatory agency coordination materials
– Summary memo documenting comments and responses
Technical Studies
GHD will prepare or update the following technical studies to support CEQA, NEPA, and resource agency permitting.
Studies will include the figures necessary to meet permitting requirements, as noted under each study below. Design exhibits and footprint diagrams will be provided under the Permitting Support Task. All studies will be concise, defensible, and suitable for multi‑agency review.
Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum
GHD will perform a condition assessment to supplement the available information and prepare a technical memorandum describing the current conditions of the pier. The condition assessment will include in-person field work to check the handrails, pier deck and other appurtenances on deck. A drone equipped with a camera will be utilized, similar to the post-storm assessments, to document the condition of areas that are not accessible or visible from the deck. The data will be integrated with the previously collected images to determine the progression of concrete deterioration and prioritize various repairs.
Biological Resources Technical Memorandum
GHD will prepare a comprehensive Biological Resources Report (BRR) to support CEQA and NEPA review of the proposed
project. The BRR will be prepared with the expectation that the project will be at a minimum of 30% design, allowing for a clearer understanding of potential permanent and temporary project impacts and more precise evaluation of direct, indirect, and cumulative biological impacts. The report will be developed in a manner adequate for CEQA and NEPA review and will
GHD recognizes that the Pacifica Municipal Pier, coastal setting, funding context, and community priorities are
unique. Accordingly, stakeholder support for the Project will be tailored in close coordination with the City. GHD will align technical messaging, phasing rationale, public access considerations, and construction impacts with City direction, regulatory requirements, and project-specific risks. Our role will focus on supporting the City by preparing clear technical exhibits, figures, and presentation materials for City Council, community meetings, and agency coordination—explaining
repair priorities, phased implementation, public safety considerations, and anticipated construction impacts—while maintaining consistency between engineering decisions,
permitting, funding requirements, and public communication throughout the rehabilitation effort. This approach aligns with the City’s expectations for consultant-supported, City-led engagement on high-profile coastal infrastructure projects.
GHD’s approach emphasizes informed decision‑making
grounded in direct familiarity with the structure, disciplined prioritization of needs, and practical implementation. Building on prior evaluations, the team focuses on addressing the most consequential deficiencies first while sequencing work to remain adaptable to external constraints and City direction.
Integrated technical, environmental, and coordination support enables clear communication, efficient design development, and steady progress toward extending the pier’s useful service and supporting long‑term stewardship objectives.
→ Project Implementation
Our scope of work is aligned with the City’s proposed outline to adequately cover the design and engineering support services required to implement the Project.
Project Management
GHD will provide overall project management and coordination services throughout design, environmental review, permitting support, and bid/construction support. Services include coordination with City staff, regulatory agencies, NOAA representatives, and subconsultants; schedule and budget management; and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC).
A Project Management Plan (PMP) will be prepared to
define roles, responsibilities, communication protocols, QA/QC procedures, and key milestones. GHD will maintain documentation required to support NOAA Community Project Award compliance, including NEPA coordination tracking.
Deliverables
– Project Management Plan (PMP)
– Project schedule with monthly updates
– Meeting agendas and meeting minutes
– Monthly progress reports (schedule, budget, risks)
– Project file management system
– Comment/response tracking logs
– NOAA coordination log
– NEPA technical support inputs and responses
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.5. Executive Summary and Understanding of Required Services | 6
5.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Permit Requirements Summary Matrix
GHD will prepare a Permit Matrix identifying the agency with jurisdiction over the project, type of permit to be issued, material requirements for each permit, and anticipated
application fee. The draft matrix will be provided to the City for their use in assembling the permit application packages. This will be a living document, updated as new information becomes available or as the design evolves.
Deliverables
– Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum
– Biological Resources Technical Memo
– Historic Resources Screening Letter
– Geotechnical Review Memorandum
– Water Quality & Construction Impact Memorandum
– CEQA‑ready technical appendices
– NEPA‑ready summaries (if requested)
– Permit support exhibits and figures
– Permit requirements summary matrix
Field Assessment & Data Verification
Having served as Engineer of Record and led the previous assessments, GHD is positioned to build upon the completed work and conduct supplemental field verification as necessary to confirm the current state of deterioration extents to prepare the bid items. All field activities will comply with NOAA restrictions, BMPs, and NEPA funding limitations.
Due to the pier’s height above open water and limited access to sidewalls and soffits, full hands-on inspection of all structural elements is not feasible without water-based operations or using crange assisted lift basket. Deck-based access is therefore prioritized to minimize marine impacts, reduce permitting complexity, and control construction costs. Past experience indicates that dive-based inspections and repairs require specialized crane mobilization and lift basket, materially increasing project cost, schedule, and risk.
Drone inspections, conducted in accordance with NOAA
best practices, will be used to verify current conditions in areas not accessible from the deck without extensive staging.
However, internal concrete deterioration may not be fully visible, resulting in unavoidable uncertainty in repair quantities.
To protect funding adequacy and minimize mid-construction cost exposure, the repair quantities will include conservative contingencies consistent with marine engineering practice.
GHD will work closely with the City to implement a costeffective, risk-managed assessment strategy that balances fiscal stewardship with structural reliability. Where beneficial, targeted optional hands-on inspections at selected locations can be performed to better define deterioration extents, reduce uncertainty, and support informed funding and construction decisions.
identify applicable regulatory and permitting considerations from relevant agencies, including but not limited to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA Fisheries/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the California Coastal Commission (CCC), as well as recommend appropriate avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential impacts to biological resources.
In addition, a map will be prepared indicating jurisdictional aquatic boundaries in relation to the pier and proposed project footprint. This will be required in support of the City’s permit application process.
Historic Resource Screening Letter
GHD, in partnership with Treanor, will develop a historic resource screening letter in support of the proposed project.
The pier will be assessed for eligibility to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and as a local landmark. Constructed in 1973, the pedestrian bridge is located at Sharp Park Beach. The pier is not currently listed on any national, state, or local historic inventory. The screening letter will determine eligibility of the pier to be listed as a resource in compliance with both CEQA and NEPA. If the pier is determined to be an historical resource, then additional analysis of potential impacts of the proposed project would be required. Treanor will conduct a site visit, undertake historic research, and prepare the screening letter.
Geotechnical Review Memorandum
As the rehabilitation are in-kind repairs to restore the structural capacity of the pier, geotechnical exploration is not required for the project. GHD will review the data available from the Pacifica Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project to document the conditions on site.
Water Quality and Construction Impact
Memorandum
The repairs are unlikely to include new piles. The existing piles will be repaired from the soffit of the deck girder and extend to portions of the pile within the water. It is also anticipated that the repairs to the exterior sides of the deck girder will be performed from a temporary staging platform built above the high water levels. GHD will provide a technical memorandum describing the repair method, encroachments in the water and potential impacts and mitigations for in-water work.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.5. Executive Summary and Understanding of Required Services | 7
5.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Deliverables
– Field Investigation Plan
– Supplemental structural assessment memorandum
– Photo documentation
– Updated repair quantity tables (as needed)
Rehabilitation Design Development
GHD will develop rehabilitation design concepts informed by validated condition data, deterioration mechanisms,
constructability constraints, and durability objectives for a high‑energy marine environment. Field assessment constraints identified during prior evaluations also directly inform construction approach and risk. Repair alternatives will be evaluated for constructability to identify critical challenges and considerations that reduce uncertainty for prospective bidders, thereby minimizing impacts to construction cost and schedule.
The rehabilitation designs will support phased implementation and independent construction packages aligned with funding availability and access requirements.
Deliverables
– Design criteria memorandum
– Repair detail concepts
Permitting Support
GHD will provide technical support for regulatory approvals, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 10/404), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(401 Certification), California Coastal Commission (Coastal Development Permit), and California State Lands Commission (CSLC) (Lease Amendment). The City will prepare and submit the permit applications; GHD’s role is limited to design content and developing impact avoidance measures during construction. The City will provide any legal exhibits that may be required by CSLC. This task is limited to attendance by 2 GHD staff at 1 meeting with each of the 4 regulatory agencies listed above.
Deliverables
– Figures, plans, and footprint diagrams
– Impact quantities and areas (based on design)
– Responses to agency comments related to design
– Agency Meeting Notes (4 meetings)
Environmental Clearance (CEQA)
The following scope assumes that the appropriate CEQA
documentation would be a Notice of Exemption with supporting documentation, and that none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 apply.
Based on our current understanding of the project, and in review of the CEQA exemptions, the project could qualify under multiple exemptions including: Class 1 Existing Facilities (repair of existing public facilities) and Class 2 Replacement or Reconstruction (replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will have the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced). GHD will prepare the necessary Categorical Exemption documentation for the project to satisfy the requirements set forth by CEQA.
This will include completion of a Notice of Exemption form, as well as a supporting memorandum describing the project, the qualifying exemption(s), and the evaluation of the project against the list of exceptions outlined in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Notice of Exemption form and
supporting memorandum will be submitted to the City for review, and upon receipt of comments, will be revised and resubmitted, if necessary.
Analysis of the project will include the following in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15300.2:
– Analysis of the project location relative to sensitive environments;
– Identification and analysis of cumulative impacts;
– Analysis of potential impacts on the environment due to unusual circumstances;
– Analysis of the project location relative to scenic highways; – Analysis of the project location relative to lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; and
– Analysis of potential impacts on historical resources.
If the project is found not to qualify for an exemption based on any one of the above exceptions, GHD can prepare an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Deliverables
– Draft Notice of Exemption and supporting memorandum.
– Final Notice of Exemption and supporting memorandum.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.5. Executive Summary and Understanding of Required Services | 8
5.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Plans, Specification & Estimates (PS&E)
GHD will prepare three (3) independent, bid‑ready PS&E
packages, each representing a distinct construction
phase. Phasing will prioritize life safety, structural reliability, constructability, permitting constraints, and funding flexibility.
Each phase will be developed to the 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% levels.
Deliverables (per phase)
– Construction drawings and repair details
– Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
– Technical specifications
– Construction sequencing and access notes
– Staging and access concepts
– Environmental BMP notes
– NOAA signage details
– BABA‑compliant material inventory
Bid & Construction Phase Support
GHD will provide technical support during bidding and
construction, subject to authorization and funding availability.
Deliverables
– Responses to bidder RFIs
– Addenda
– Pre‑bid and pre‑construction meeting support
– Submittal and RFI reviews
– Technical clarification memoranda
– Record drawings (PDF and CAD)
– Construction closeout memorandum
Optional: Grant Funding Opportunities
Research
GHD can provide targeted technical support to help the City position the Project for successful construction funding and implementation. This optional task is designed to support the City’s ability to secure, retain, and efficiently deploy federal and state grant funds, including the NOAA Community Project Award and potential future funding sources, by directly aligning technical decisions, permitting strategies, and phased PS&E development with grant eligibility and compliance requirements.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.5. Executive Summary and Understanding of Required Services | 9
5.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Description of Proposer
→ Company Information,
Background, Size, and Relevant
History
GHD Inc. (GHD) is a global professional services firm providing engineering, environmental, and construction advisory services to public‑ and private‑sector clients. Founded in 1928, GHD is wholly employee‑owned and employs more than 12,000
professionals worldwide, with over 450 staff in California supporting municipal, regional, state, and federal agencies.
GHD has maintained a strong presence in Northern California for more than 70 years, with a local San Francisco office established in 1982.
Our firm is widely recognized for its leadership in coastal and marine engineering, including the planning, assessment, design, rehabilitation, and construction support of piers, wharves, seawalls, shoreline protection systems, and other over‑water and coastal infrastructure. GHD’s multidisciplinary teams integrate engineering, environmental, permitting, and implementation services to support the full project lifecycle while maintaining continuity, accountability, and quality control.
Marine and Waterfront Structure Design: GHD has
specialized expertise in the assessment, design, and
rehabilitation of marine and waterfront structures
exposed to aggressive coastal environments. Our services include structural condition assessments, structural and seismic analysis, rehabilitation design, and preparation of construction‑ready PS&E packages. Designs are informed by site‑specific performance data, constructability considerations, and long‑term durability, with a focus on extending service life, improving public safety, and supporting phased implementation.
GHD has an established and trusted working relationship with the City, having successfully delivered multiple high‑profile and technically complex projects that support the City’s coastal resilience, public safety, and capital improvement goals. These include the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency
Project, condition assessments of the City’s seawall, and the 2023 and 2024 structural condition assessments of the Pacifica Municipal Pier. Through this work, GHD has developed a deep understanding of the City's coastal environment, regulatory context, infrastructure priorities, and community values.
This direct, first‑hand experience with the Pacifica Municipal Pier uniquely positions GHD to advance seamlessly from
assessment into rehabilitation design, minimizing risk, avoiding duplication of effort, and ensuring that design decisions are informed by site‑specific performance data and observed deterioration mechanisms.
Environmental Review (CEQA/NEPA): GHD provides
comprehensive CEQA and NEPA services for public
infrastructure projects throughout California. Our environmental professionals support agencies from early project definition through document preparation and approval, helping identify the appropriate level of environmental review, anticipate potential impacts, and prepare defensible documentation that withstands regulatory and public scrutiny.
Our team has prepared Environmental Impact Reports,
addenda, and supporting technical studies for municipalities across California, enabling projects to advance under tight schedules and evolving project scopes. By closely coordinating environmental review with engineering design, GHD helps reduce the risk of late‑stage revisions, permitting conflicts, or schedule delays.
2.6 Legal Company Name: GHD, Inc.
Type of Business: C Corporation
Contact Person: Satish Chilka, PE, Project Manager;
925.849.1019; [email protected]
Affirmative Statement: GHD affirms that it is independent of the City as required by generally accepted auditing
standards and specifically defined by the U.S. General
Accounting Office's Government Auditing Standards (1994).
Disclosure: GHD Inc. has reviewed its records and confirms that it has no known past or current personal relationships with any current Pacifica elected official, appointed official, City employee, or family member of any current Pacifica elected official, appointed official, or City employee.
Bankruptcy: GHD does not have any bankruptcy history to disclose.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.6. Description of Proposer | 10
5.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Environmental Permitting and Agency Coordination:
GHD regularly leads environmental permitting and regulatory coordination for infrastructure projects in sensitive coastal and marine environments. Our services include permit
strategy development, preparation of permit applications, and coordination with applicable federal, state, and regional agencies. We emphasize early agency engagement, clear
documentation, and proactive issue resolution to support efficient approvals and regulatory compliance.
For coastal projects, GHD integrates permitting
considerations into design development from the outset, ensuring that engineering solutions are compatible with environmental constraints, construction sequencing, and long‑term operational requirements.
Project Management, Phasing, and Implementation Support:
GHD’s project management approach is centered on clarity, accountability, and risk management. We support public
agencies with project planning, schedule and budget control, quality assurance, and coordination among technical disciplines and stakeholders. Our teams are experienced in developing phased implementation strategies that allow projects to advance incrementally as funding becomes available while maintaining alignment with long‑term program goals.
For city projects with operational, funding, or schedule constraints, GHD focuses on delivering clear, defensible documents that support bidding, construction, and grant or funding compliance. This disciplined approach enables informed decision‑making and predictable project delivery.
Integrated Services Supporting Project Success: Across
all services, GHD emphasizes responsiveness, transparency, and collaboration. We understand that city projects must balance technical rigor with public accountability, regulatory compliance, and community expectations. By combining
specialized coastal engineering and stakeholder engagement expertise with integrated environmental and permitting services, GHD offers the City a partner uniquely qualified to support successful project outcomes from planning through
implementation.
Litigation, Mediation, and Arbitration for the past Five Years: Due to the commercial sensitivity and confidentiality of any litigation in which GHD may have been involved, GHD is not at liberty to disclose the information sought. However, we point out that as a component of its prudent risk management practices, GHD obtains high quality professional liability insurance in the world market, and domestically in the U.S., to provide cover in the industries in which it operates.
As a consequence of engaging in business, there are sometimes claims asserted that may or may not give rise to litigation.
The details and progress of any such claims are by necessity commercially sensitive and remain in confidence. We are able to inform you that there have been claims notified in the normal course of business, none of which we believe are material to the services which are the subject of your RFP. There are however presently no significant ongoing contract failures, no criminal matters, and there have been no judgments against GHD Inc. within the last 10 years.
Litigation Claims:
Bay Cities Paving & Grading v. City of Santa Rosa v. GHD Inc. (2022)
This matter arose from a contract with the City of Santa Rosa for design and construction support services. The City sought indemnity related to alleged excess construction costs.
Status/Outcome: Settled. GHD was dismissed from the matter.
City of Healdsburg v. GHD Inc. (2022)
This matter involved a contract for design and construction management services, under which the City of Healdsburg sought damages related to additional construction costs.
Status/Outcome: Settled. GHD was dismissed from the matter.
Government of Guam v. Black Construction Corporation, et al. (2024)
This matter relates to issues arising from the closure of the ORDOT landfill in Guam. GHD disputes the assertions made against it in the lawsuit.
Status/Outcome: Pending.
→ Office Location and Project
Delivery Office
The proposed services for the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project (the Project) will be provided primarily by GHD’s San Francisco office, located at:
655 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
This office is located approximately 14 miles from the City of Pacifica, allowing GHD to respond quickly to City needs, attend meetings and site visits efficiently, and provide timely support during post-storm events or urgent coordination efforts.
Additional technical support will be provided, as needed, from other Northern California offices, including Oakland, Santa Rosa, and Concord, ensuring depth of expertise and staffing flexibility throughout the project duration.
GHD California
450+
GHD Americas
5,000+
GHD Global
12,000+
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.6. Description of Proposer | 11
5.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Pacifica Beach Blvd Infrastructure Resiliency and Pacifica Pier Repairs Pacifica, California
GHD has partnered with the City of Pacifica since May 2020 to advance the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, a complex coastal protection effort for a 2,600‑foot seawall along a highly erosive, high‑energy shoreline. Beach Boulevard is a critical transportation and utility corridor serving the Sharp Park community, carrying water, wastewater, gas, and electric infrastructure that is increasingly vulnerable to wave overtopping, scour, and undermining. Existing seawalls constructed in 1984 have experienced multiple failures, demonstrating that shallow foundation systems are not performing under current coastal conditions and may become increasingly unreliable within the coming decade. GHD’s work has focused on helping the City make defensible, risk‑based decisions that protect essential infrastructure, maintain public use and access, and strengthen long‑term coastal resilience in the face of erosion and sea level rise.
GHD led Phase 1 through a detailed feasibility study that integrated existing conditions, a multi‑hazard risk assessment, alternatives development, economic assessment, and robust public outreach. A broad set of strategies—including beach nourishment, sand retention structures (groins/reefs/breakwaters), revetments, and seawall concepts—were evaluated and scored using a multi‑criteria framework balancing technical performance, environmental resources, and lifecycle considerations. This process culminated in selection of a preferred, hybrid coastal protection system combining seawall improvements, rock scour protection, and beach nourishment. GHD is now supporting Phase 2 with preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, permitting, and final design development, including preparation of 35% drawings, an updated cost estimate, and a basis of design package suitable for environmental scoping. In parallel, GHD has also supported the City on other time‑sensitive coastal efforts, including emergency repairs to the Pacifica Municipal Pier and emergency bluff protection work— projects funded in part through CalOES using federal disaster relief funding from FEMA—demonstrating GHD’s ability to deliver under urgent conditions while navigating funding and implementation constraints.
California State Universitiy Maritime Academy, Boat Basin and Pier Extension Vallejo, California
California State University (CSU) Maritime Academy is undertaking a collaborative design‑build program to upgrade its waterfront facilities to berth a new, larger National Security Multi‑Mission Vessel (NSMV), replacing the long‑serving Training Ship Golden Bear. The effort is schedule‑critical and must be completed by October 2026, requiring coordinated engineering decisions that balance constructability, durability, and environmental constraints in an active marine setting. As part of this work, the team is delivering a comprehensive package of improvements—including marine structural upgrades and offshore elements—to confirm the campus can safely and reliably support the next generation of training operations.
As the Engineer-of-Record on the design‑build team, GHD is managing the design process and providing integrated coastal and marine structural/seismic engineering, corrosion protection, and permitting support—along with civil and building systems disciplines—so the owner receives a complete, constructible solution without fragmented interfaces. The program includes six major components: expansion and strengthening (or replacement) of the existing causeway and pier; upgrades to the small vessel boat basin; new mooring dolphins and dredging; expansion of the marine logistics yard; utility upgrades; and demolition/ replacement of the breakwater and associated site elements. Throughout design, GHD’s focus is on minimizing in‑water work duration and disturbance, applying value engineering to reduce avoidable cost, and delivering a high‑performance, resilient berthing facility on a fast‑paced schedule—capabilities directly transferable to any high‑visibility waterfront rehabilitation requiring phased constructability planning, tight permitting coordination, and durable marine detailing. → Experience with Public Agencies and Relevant Projects GHD has extensive experience providing professional engineering and environmental services to California cities, counties, special districts, ports, and state agencies, as well as supporting federally-funded infrastructure projects subject to complex regulatory and grant compliance requirements.
The following pages include relevant projects and success stories that highlight the GHD team's ability and experience completing projects with similar scopes of work as this Project.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.6. Description of Proposer | 12
5.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Waterfront Restoration Engineering and Construction Management Services Crockett, California
GHD has supported C&H Sugar (ASR Group) since 2012 with comprehensive waterfront restoration engineering, environmental services, and construction management for a historic bulk unloading terminal and associated over‑water infrastructure originally constructed in 1906. Work began with detailed condition assessments and structural evaluations of the existing concrete wharf and timber waterfront systems along the Carquinez Strait, including above‑water surveys and Level I/II underwater diving inspections of precast concrete piles. Using field data and record drawings, GHD performed capacity evaluations and advanced structural analyses—including 3D finite element modeling and code‑based load combinations—to quantify vertical and lateral load capacity and to define prioritized, performance‑based repair recommendations that supported continued safe operations and long‑term serviceability.
Building on the assessment findings, GHD developed repair and restoration designs for both concrete and timber elements and delivered phased construction plans that addressed marine constructability, sequencing, and durability under harsh exposure conditions. In parallel, GHD led resource agency permitting and environmental compliance, including a biological assessment for a fender repair effort and negotiation of a 5‑year permitting program that provided flexibility to implement repairs annually based on need and available funding. That program included coverage through USACE (Nationwide Permit), SF Bay RWQCB (Water Quality Certification), and BCDC (permit), along with Section 106 coordination due to historic resources, eelgrass survey coordination, and pre‑construction nesting bird surveys. GHD continues to provide construction management and construction‑phase services—coordinating special inspections and environmental monitoring, managing submittals/RFIs, supporting QA/QC and safety, and administering contract compliance—helping the owner execute repairs efficiently while adapting to evolving priorities over multiple phases.
Oceanside Harbor Fishing Pier & Non-Motorized Launch
Oceanside, California
The Oceanside Harbor Pier and Launch Dock program restored and enhanced a heavily used waterfront recreation asset after the existing public fishing pier was closed in 2021 due to extensive corrosion of steel connections in the wood pier framing. Working for the City of Oceanside from August 2021 through December 2024, GHD helped secure a California Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) grant to replace the deteriorated pier with a new, larger reinforced concrete pier, sized to meet regional demand and improve long-term durability. In addition to restoring fishing access, the City expanded community benefit by including a new ADAaccessible kayak launch dock and additional ADA parking under the same funding package—ensuring the improvements served a broader range of users.
GHD provided end-to-end support spanning grant assistance, design, permitting, stakeholder engagement, and construction documents, and then won the public bid to continue into delivery. Stakeholder coordination was central to shaping the preferred concept, with GHD presenting alternatives to the Oceanside Harbor & Beaches Advisory Committee (HBAC) and incorporating public input, while also performing targeted value engineering (including restroom and ADA access considerations) to refine scope and improve cost effectiveness. The project advanced through schematic design into construction document development while CEQA documentation was prepared (initial studies and an Administrative Draft IS/MND) in coordination with City planning staff to support agency permitting. For added flexibility and cost efficiency, the work also incorporated design-build elements for the kayak launch dock and ADA gangway within the bid package approach.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.6. Description of Proposer | 13
5.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Port of San Francisco Pier 50 Structural Condition Assessment and Repair Design
San Francisco, California
The Port of San Francisco Pier 50 Structural Condition and Seismic Risk Assessment was delivered under an as‑needed engineering services task order to evaluate and prioritize rehabilitation for a major, historic waterfront facility originally constructed in the 1920s. GHD performed comprehensive above‑ and below‑water structural condition surveys of Pier 50’s substructure framing and piling, including topside deck observations and inspections from a boat beneath the pier, supported by a complete underwater pile inspection. Findings were documented in a condition survey report with photographic records and tables identifying damage locations and severity, along with prioritized recommendations for immediate, short‑range, medium‑range, and long‑range actions to support safe, reliable ongoing operations.
Building on the inspection data and material testing, GHD developed conceptual structural repair alternatives and evaluated the need for seismic upgrades in accordance with applicable building code requirements, reflecting the Port’s need for post‑event operability. Three conceptual repair/rehabilitation and seismic retrofit alternatives were prepared with budgetary probable construction cost estimates to support decision‑making and capital planning. In 2023, GHD was retained again to update the assessment—confirming prior findings and expanding the technical basis through a geotechnical site investigation and topographic survey, followed by a geotechnical seismic hazard assessment and a pier substructure seismic evaluation at four earthquake ground‑motion levels to quantify vulnerability and refine retrofit concepts for the facility’s operational requirements.
Huntington Beach Channel and Talbert Channel Repair
Orange County, California
The Huntington Beach Channel and Talbert Channel Repair project is a high‑stakes flood protection effort delivered for the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) to restore long‑term performance of deteriorated steel sheet pile channel walls that were constructed around 1990 and have corroded faster than anticipated.
The reduced service life and diminished structural capacity of the existing walls created an urgent need to restore levee stability and channel reliability to meet FEMA levee certification requirements and achieve a minimum 50‑year design life, while working in a constrained urban corridor bordered by fully developed residential neighborhoods. GHD served as the designer for approximately 16,955 LF of repairs (design fee $1.8M, construction cost approximately $65M), supporting a program that required careful sequencing, rigorous engineering, and sustained stakeholder coordination.
GHD developed an innovative, constructible repair strategy to accelerate delivery and reduce impacts by installing new AZ44‑700/ AZ52‑700 steel sheet piles directly behind the existing walls—as close as 4 inches—thereby avoiding extensive in‑channel demolition and minimizing in‑water work. The repair package also included stormwater improvements behind the new walls, temporary removal of an approximately 150‑foot pedestrian bridge to enable installation, and soil improvements to the levee system to meet USACE standards. Because construction access was limited to 15–18‑foot‑wide maintenance roads atop the levees, GHD coordinated design and construction considerations with the contractor and supported public outreach measures, including use of a silent piler press‑in system to reduce noise and vibration impacts to adjacent residents. This combination of constrained-access constructability planning, durability‑focused design, and delivery under schedule pressure demonstrates GHD’s ability to execute complex, safety‑critical infrastructure improvements while maintaining community and stakeholder confidence.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.6. Description of Proposer | 14
5.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) San Francisco Municipal Pier at Aquatic Park
San Francisco, California
The Municipal Pier at Aquatic Park is a highly visible, historically significant public waterfront structure serving both recreational users and a critical functional role in protecting the Aquatic Park shoreline, Fisherman’s Wharf, and adjacent waterfront facilities from wave and tidal current effects. GHD was engaged by the City and County of San Francisco Public Works and the National Park Service to perform a comprehensive structural condition assessment and to develop rehabilitation and retrofit concepts to support long‑term planning for this aging marine asset. GHD completed detailed above‑ and below‑water inspections of the pier structure, including Level I, II, and III underwater inspections of piles and fixed breakwater elements, performed in accordance with MOTEMS and ASCE standards. The assessment documented widespread marine deterioration—such as spalled concrete and exposed reinforcing steel at piles, pile caps, beams, and deck elements—damage mechanisms typical of long‑term exposure to harsh coastal conditions.
Using the inspection findings, GHD developed conceptual repair and strengthening alternatives supported by a robust structural and seismic evaluation program. This included linear elastic dynamic analysis, three‑dimensional nonlinear static pushover analysis, and demand‑capacity assessments to estimate structural performance during seismic events, as well as evaluation of environmental loads from waves and currents to confirm marine exposure conditions were appropriately reflected. GHD prepared budgetary‑level construction cost estimates for corrosion repair, rehabilitation, and seismic retrofit options, while carefully balancing structural needs with the pier’s historic preservation requirements. Recommendations were developed to allow continued safe public access to portions of the pier during rehabilitation planning, maintain the structure’s original appearance, and support phased implementation.
GHD also assisted the owner with researching grant funding opportunities to advance rehabilitation of this landmark waterfront structure.
East Bay Point Pinole Fishing Pier Structural Inspection and Repair Project Richmond, California
The Point Pinole Fishing Pier is a long, pile‑supported concrete pier serving as a heavily used public recreational fishing facility, making it programmatically and operationally comparable to municipal fishing piers along California’s coastline. The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) retained GHD to perform a comprehensive structural inspection and evaluation to support rehabilitation planning and extend the pier’s service life while maintaining safe public access. GHD conducted a full above‑ and below‑water condition survey, including deck‑level inspections on foot, below‑deck inspections from a boat, and underwater diving inspections performed at high tide. All field investigations were completed in accordance with MOTEMS (CBC Chapter 31F) and the ASCE Underwater Investigations Standard Practice Manual, ensuring a rigorous, defensible assessment of structural condition in a marine environment.
Using record information and as‑built drawings provided by EBRPD, GHD performed a detailed structural evaluation of the deck and substructure, assessing load‑carrying capacity under dead, live, and seismic demands. The evaluation identified concrete piles, deck beams, deck panels, and above‑deck elements requiring repair or replacement. GHD developed conceptual repair alternatives to address observed deficiencies, improve structural performance, and extend the pier’s usable life, while recognizing the importance of keeping the facility open and safe for recreational use. The final condition assessment report included Condition Assessment Ratings (CARs) for individual pier components, a service‑life evaluation, and recommended repair strategies, along with quantified damage and repair quantities. These deliverables were subsequently used by the District to prepare construction bid documents, demonstrating GHD’s ability to translate inspection data directly into implementable, construction‑ready rehabilitation actions.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.6. Description of Proposer | 15
5.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) NAB Repair Bulkheads 1, 2, and 3, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, California
The Repair Bulkheads 1, 2, and 3 project at Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Coronado addressed urgent shoreline infrastructure needs for an active waterfront facility where failing structural elements and subsurface voids posed escalating operational and asset‑protection risk. Retained by NAVFAC Southwest, GHD in a Joint Venture prepared a complete design‑build procurement package to replace failing steel sheet piles along Bulkhead 3 (originally constructed in 1953) and to prevent continued deterioration of the existing concrete bulkheads. The effort began with a comprehensive site investigation and structural assessment, including inspection of 5,600 linear feet of quay wall, followed by a condition assessment report documenting spalls, cracks, and voids in both plan/table formats to clearly define repair limits and priorities.
To translate assessment findings into executable repairs, the JV coordinated ground‑penetrating radar to locate pavement voids caused by soil migration through failed wall segments and completed topographic survey support for design development. The team then delivered integrated structural, civil, and geotechnical design for 285 linear feet of new steel sheet pile wall, a new concrete cap, and pavement repairs, supported by soil parameter review for LPILE analysis and seismic design to UFC 4‑152‑01, plus coastal engineering analysis for wave loading and scour protection requirements. In addition, the JV developed repair details for approximately 4,000 linear feet of Bulkheads 1 and 2, including concrete spall repairs, epoxy crack injection, reinforcement replacement, and sinkhole infill, and prepared the Basis of Design, construction schedule recommendations, and a detailed cost estimate (including DD Form 1391). By applying waterfront constructability expertise and value discipline, the team corrected inefficiencies in earlier concepts and produced a solution that reduced the projected cost from over $10M to under $4M, which ultimately aligned with the final construction cost. Design was also refined to minimize environmental impacts (including avoiding eelgrass and limiting bay fill), and construction was successfully completed in May 2016 after award in Fall 2015.
City of Berkeley Municipal Fishing Pier Structural Assessment Berkeley, California
In July 2015, the Berkeley Municipal Fishing Pier was closed for public safety after significant concrete deck spalling and severe corrosion of reinforcing steel raised concerns that the structure could no longer safely support pedestrian loading.
GHD was retained by the City of Berkeley to rapidly establish a clear, defensible understanding of condition and risk and to develop practical paths forward.
Our team completed a comprehensive above‑ and below‑water visual survey, documenting damage type, extent, and location through photographs and annotated drawings, and collected core samples through existing pile jackets to confirm the integrity of underlying timber piles. To confirm findings were communicated clearly and could be acted upon quickly, we applied ASCE Manual of Practice 130 and MOTEMS inspection/assessment guidance and used the ASCE 130 rating system to present results in tabular summaries and color‑coded exhibits that highlighted priority areas and the overall extent of deterioration.
Using inspection data and design‑basis loads consistent with California Building Code/ASCE 7, GHD performed a structural evaluation of both vertical (gravity) and lateral (seismic and wave) load‑resisting systems, tabulating demand‑to‑capacity results for key pier components and identifying deficiencies that drove decisions on retrofit versus replacement. The assessment confirmed that damaged deck panels were not providing required live‑load resistance for a public recreational pier and that the structure did not meet current seismic performance expectations, leading to recommendations for either retrofit or replacement. To support implementable planning, GHD also evaluated utilities beneath the pier and topside assets (restrooms, railings, lighting, and appurtenances), reviewed CEQA/permitting pathways, and assessed deck elevation relative to projected water levels, incorporating concepts to accommodate higher deck elevations while maintaining ADA‑accessible connections from landside. We developed comparative cost estimates for rehabilitation and replacement alternatives—including contingencies, escalation, City costs, and allowances for design/permitting/environmental requirements—and supported informed decision‑making and community engagement by preparing project materials for public meetings.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.6. Description of Proposer | 16
5.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Port of Alaska Cargo Terminal 1 (T1) Replacement
Anchorage, Alaska
The Cargo Terminal 1 (T1) Replacement program at the Port of Alaska replaced the existing terminal with a new seismically capable wharf constructed approximately 140 feet seaward of the current dock to reduce sedimentation impacts, improve berthing safety, and enable construction while existing terminal operations remained active. The new terminal supports lift‑on/lift‑off and general cargo operations and includes access trestles, ship‑to‑shore gantry crane accommodations, mooring appurtenances, servicing utilities, landside deep soil mixing ground improvements, and adjacent site development such as paved areas, a stevedores building, and supporting utilities. GHD and a joint venture partner prepared preliminary and final design documents, supported by subsurface investigations, soil strengthening, and new electrical infrastructure required for modern crane and cargo operations in an extreme seismic environment with challenging soil conditions.
Because the Port serves as a critical logistics hub, construction phasing and sequencing were central to delivery: T1 and adjacent terminals were planned to remain fully operational throughout the multi‑year construction period, requiring carefully staged construction during each summer work season to maintain continuous vessel berthing and cargo throughput. Design also accounted for severe marine and environmental demands—waves, winds, currents, tidal range, ice, accelerated corrosion, and marine mammal considerations that can affect pile installation and in‑water work. To support practical implementation, phasing figures were developed using a 3D model to clearly illustrate construction stages for the new terminal wharf and access trestles and to coordinate operations, safety, and constructability in a constrained, active marine facility.
What clients say
GHD has been a pleasure to work with. In my position, I provide oversight and guidance to numerous contractors. GHD has consistently been professional, pleasant and self-managing...I have had contact with many of their employees and each individual has demonstrated competence, courtesy and professionalism. I strongly support and recommend GHD as an excellent service provider. – Michael Bell, NPS, San Francisco Maritime NHP
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.6. Description of Proposer | 17
5.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) → Referenced Work
GHD is proud of our reputation for providing quality
design, planning, and construction management expertise in all facets of Maritime and Coastal Engineering. We
encourage you to talk with some of our clients about our performance on recent similar projects.
There is no better proof of our work than direct
testimonials from our clients. A full 90 percent of our clients are municipal agencies or government entities,
and approximately 75 percent of our work comes
from repeat clients. This track record illustrates our indepth knowledge of specialized engineering services and speaks to our clients’ confidence in our ability to deliver a project from planning and implementation, through to
completion.
97%
Overall Performance
GHD’s success at exceeding our clients’ needs is
evidenced by the high percentage of repeat business
that GHD has experienced and the results of more than
7,000 client responses received since February 1999
under our ISO 9001:2015
Excellent or Good
Responsiveness
Excellent or Good
Client Expectations
Meets or Exceeds
97% 98%
Project Name Project Dates Client Reference
Pacifica Beach Blvd Infrastructure Resiliency
and Pacifica Pier Repairs
(see page 12 for project information)
2020–Present
Ronald Yip, PE, Deputy Director; City of Pacifica; 155
Milagra Dr, Pacifica, CA 94044; 650.738.7300;
[email protected]
CSU Maritime Academy, Boat Basin and Pier
Extension
(see page 12 for project information)
2023–Present
Gavin McAleese, DBIA, Senior Project Manager; Otto
Construction; 1717 2nd St, Sacramento, CA 95811;
916.805.4961; [email protected]
Waterfront Restoration Engineering and
Construction Management Services
(see page 13 for project information)
2012–Present
Emma Darlington, Project Engineering Manager;
American Sugar Refining, Inc.; 2075 East 65th St,
Crockett, CA 94525; 510.210.8863;
[email protected]
City of Oceanside Harbor Fishing Pier & NonMotorized Launch (see page 13 for project information)
2022–2025
Joseph Ravitch, Harbor Division Manager; City of
Oceanside; 300 N. Coast Hwy, Oceanside, CA 92054;
760.435.4029; [email protected]
City of Berkeley Municipal Fishing Pier
Structural Assessment
(see page 16 for project information)
2016–2022
Nelson Lam, Supervising Civil Engineer; City of
Berkeley; 2180 Milvia St, Berkeley, CA 94704;
510.981.635; [email protected]
Port of Alaska Cargo Terminal 1 (T1)
Replacement
(see page 17 for project information)
2023–Present
John Daley, PAMP Engineering Manager; Port of
Alaska; 1871 Anchorage Port Road, Anchorage, AK
99501; 907.643.6203; [email protected]
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.6. Description of Proposer | 18
5.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) GHD’s senior‑led project team combines marine
rehabilitation, permitting, cost estimating, stakeholder engagement, and QA/QC expertise with direct
familiarity with Pacifica’s coastal infrastructure.
Structured for accountability, continuity, and
accessibility, the team supports efficient delivery
from condition validation through PS&E, permitting,
and construction support—reducing risk, improving
constructability, and protecting schedule, funding, and public safety.
→ Project Team Organization and
Roles
The proposed project team is structured to support efficient decision‑making, technical excellence, and responsive
communication. The organization chart for the Project outlines reporting relationships, key personnel, team responsibilities, and coordination among team members.
Project Director Craig Lewis, PE, SE, will provide executive oversight, strategic guidance, and quality leadership to drive consistency with GHD standards and alignment with the City’s objectives. Day‑to‑day execution will be led by Project Manager Satish Chilka, PE, who will serve as the City’s primary point of contact and manage scope, schedule, budget, and coordination with City staff and regulatory agencies.
Technical delivery will be led by Lead Design Engineer
Andrew Cronin, PE, supported by specialists in permitting, environmental compliance, marine biology, and cost estimating.
Independent QA/QC oversight will be provided by Adam
Bogage, PE, who will review key milestones to confirm
technical, regulatory, and constructability requirements are met prior to submittal. Senior staff will remain hands-on while junior engineers support analysis, design, material take-off and project deliverables under direct supervision.
This integrated structure enables GHD to maintain staffing continuity, respond efficiently to City needs, and effectively manage the phased PS&E development for the project. All key professional staff are properly licensed to practice in California.
Proposer's Team
Plans & Specifications
🔑 Andrew Cronin, PE
🔑 Satish Chilka, PE
Madeline Mueller
Russo Hernandez
Cost Estimating
🔑 Steve Ferrero, PE
Bill Cooke u
Surveying/Drones
Dave McCreary p
Stakeholder Engagement
Yosef Yip
Environmental Documentation
and Permitting
🔑 Kristine Gaspar
Miles Hartnett
Kimberly Butt, AIA, DBIA
🔑 Craig Lewis, PE, SE
Project Director
🔑Adam Bogage, PE
QA/QC
Technical Support
🔑 Satish Chilka, PE
Project Manager
🔑 Stephanie Gould, PE
Deputy Project Manager
City of Pacifica
🔑Key Team Member p New Age Aerials u Cooke Construction Services
Treanor
2.7 GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.7. Proposer's Team | 19
5.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Responsibility Matrix
The table below includes brief descriptions of the role and responsibilities of each of the dedicated personnel of the GHD team who will see this project to completion. Junior design staff and technical support personnel are shown on the organization chart to demonstrate depth and delivery capacity. Responsibility and accountability for all deliverables remain with the core project team identified in the Responsibility Matrix. Professional biographies for core GHD team, including resumes for key personnel can be found in the Appendix.
Name/Role/Contact Number Responsibilities
Craig Lewis, PE, SE
Project Director
415.350.8337
Provides executive oversight, senior technical leadership, and strategic guidance throughout all phases of the project. Confirms overall alignment with City objectives, federal funding requirements, and GHD quality standards. Provides escalation support for technical, regulatory, and risk‑management issues; participates in key milestone reviews; and confirms continuity with prior Pacifica waterfront projects.
Satish Chilka, PE
Project Manager/
Plans & Specifications
925.849.1019
Serves as the City’s primary point of contact and is responsible for overall project execution.
Leads project management, scope control, schedule and budget management, and coordination with City staff, NOAA representatives, regulatory agencies, and subconsultants.
Oversees compliance with NOAA Community Project Award requirements, NEPA coordination, and BABA considerations. Leads development of the PMP, manages phased PS&E delivery, and supports bidding and construction‑phase services.
Stephanie Gould, PE
Deputy Project
Manager
707.267.2276
Supports day‑to‑day project coordination, task management, and deliverable tracking. Assists with internal team coordination, agency interactions, meeting facilitation, and preparation of schedules, progress reports, and comment‑response logs. Supports integration of engineering, environmental, and permitting tasks to confirm timely, well‑organized submittals at each design milestone.
Adam Bogage, PE
QA/QC
858.430.1506
Provides independent quality assurance and quality control oversight at the 30%, 60%, 90%, and final design milestones. Reviews design documents for technical accuracy, code compliance, constructability, and consistency with City standards, federal grant requirements, and permitting commitments. Supports risk reduction prior to bidding and construction.
Andrew Cronin, PE
Plans & Specifications
808.466.2419
Leads structural rehabilitation design and development of three (3) phased, construction‑ready PS&E packages. Responsible for validating existing condition data, coordinating supplemental field verification, developing repair details and design calculations, and ensuring constructability in a high‑energy marine environment. Coordinates integration of durability measures, BABA‑compliant material selections, NOAA signage requirements, and environmental construction constraints into plans and specifications.
Steve Ferrero, PE
Cost Estimating
415.296.2043
Prepares and updates Engineer’s Opinions of Probable Construction Cost (EOPC) at each design milestone for all phases. Supports phasing decisions, evaluates constructability and cost risk, and assists the City in aligning scope with available funding. Coordinates cost inputs for grant documentation and bid readiness.
Bill Cooke
Cost Estimating
Provides independent constructability review and supplemental cost estimating support.
Advises on marine access, staging, sequencing, temporary works, and bid packaging to improve constructability, reduce contractor risk, and enhance price certainty for phased construction.
David McReary
Surveying/Drones
Provides aerial drone inspections, photogrammetry, and survey support to safely document existing conditions, support supplemental field verification, and inform design development.
Supports post‑storm assessments and documentation of hard‑to‑access or hazardous areas in compliance with NOAA UAS requirements.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.7. Proposer's Team | 20
5.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Subconsultants
Cooke Construction Services: Cooke Construction
Services is a California‑based general engineering contractor headquartered in San Carlos, California, providing
constructability review, cost estimating, value engineering, and construction support services for public‑sector and infrastructure projects. Founded in 1993 and owned by
William Camlin Cooke, the firm brings over three decades of construction experience and maintains an active
California General Engineering Contractor license. Cooke Construction Services supports design teams with practical, field‑informed insight that improves biddability, phasing, and overall constructability. GHD has partnered with Cooke
Construction Services for over five years including on the Pacifica Pier Condition Assessment & Post‑Storm Assessments (2023–2025) and the Pacifica Municipal Pier – 2023 Baseline Condition Assessment.
New Age Aerial: New Age Aerial is a
specialized unmanned aerial systems
(UAS) services firm providing aerial
imaging, inspection support, and data
capture for infrastructure, marine, and
coastal environments. The firm supports engineering and owner teams by delivering high‑resolution aerial photography, video, and site data that enhance condition assessments, safety, and access to hard‑to‑reach structures while minimizing field risk and disruption. New Age Aerial has supported GHD on recent pursuits and projects by providing aerial data collection to inform inspections, design development, and documentation, contributing efficient, technology‑enabled insight to support accurate and defensible engineering decisions.
GHD has partnered with New Age Aerial for over four
years including on the Pacifica Pier Condition Assessment & Post‑Storm Assessments (2023–2025) and the Pacifica
Municipal Pier – 2023 Baseline Condition Assessment.
Treanor: Treanor is a nationally
recognized architecture, planning,
and design firm providing integrated
architectural, interior design, and civil
engineering services for complex
public‑sector and institutional projects. Founded in 1981, Treanor operates through specialized design studios that focus on justice, higher education, healthcare, historic preservation, K‑12 education, housing and mixed‑use, and advanced
industries, allowing the firm to bring deep sector expertise to each assignment. With offices across the United States, Treanor delivers innovative, sustainable, and purpose‑driven design solutions that bridge gaps in access, quality, services, and resources while responding to regulatory, operational, and community‑focused project requirements. GHD has
an established working relationship with Treanor and has collaborated with the firm on multiple pursuits and proposal efforts, aligning GHD’s multidisciplinary engineering capabilities with Treanor’s studio‑based architectural expertise to support coordinated, constructible, and client‑focused project delivery.
GHD has been partnering with Treanor for over 25 years
including on projects like the City of Healdsburg PowellJohnson Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project and City of Petaluma Trestle Rehabilitation Project.
Name/Role/Contact Number Responsibilities
Yosef Yip
Stakeholder
Engagement
Supports City‑led stakeholder and public engagement by preparing outreach materials, facilitating meetings as requested, and assisting with regulatory and community coordination.
Confirms technical information is communicated clearly and consistently with engineering, environmental, and funding considerations.
Kristine Gasper
Environmental
Documentation and
Permitting
707.236.1539
Leads CEQA documentation and permitting support, including preparation of Categorical Exemption or IS/MND, coordination with resource agencies, and integration of permit conditions into design documents. Supports NOAA NEPA coordination by preparing NEPA‑ready technical inputs, tracking agency correspondence, and ensuring environmental compliance is aligned with phased design and construction sequencing.
Miles Hartnett
Environmental
Documentation and
Permitting
Supports biological resources assessments, focused field surveys (as needed), and preparation of technical memoranda to support CEQA, NEPA, and permitting. Coordinates with regulatory agencies to identify sensitive resources and develop avoidance, minimization, and construction compliance measures consistent with NOAA requirements and best management practices.
Kimberly Butt, AIA,
DBIA
Environmental
Documentation and
Permitting
Provides cultural and historic resources support, including records review, screening, and preparation of Historic Resource Evaluation documentation as needed to support CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106 consultation. Coordinates with the Project Manager and Environmental Lead to confirm findings are incorporated into environmental documentation and permitting materials.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.7. Proposer's Team | 21
5.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) → Meet your Project Manager, Lead Consultant, and Primary Contact Satish Chilka, PE, will serve as the Lead Consultant and Project Manager for this engagement and will be the City’s primary point of contact throughout the duration of the project. Mr. Chilka will be identified as a key person in the Agreement and will maintain consistent involvement from project initiation through completion.
Satish Chilka, PE – Project Manager
Phone Number: 925.849.1019
Location: 655 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111 Satish Chilka, PE, will serve as Project Manager and Lead Consultant for the Project, providing day‑to‑day leadership for scope, schedule, budget, and coordination with City staff, subconsultants, and regulatory stakeholders.
Satish has 17 years of structural engineering, design, and project management experience with specialized expertise in waterfront structures—including piers and wharves, seawalls/bulkheads, structural assessments and rehabilitation, and construction document preparation and support. His technical strengths include structural engineering and seismic design (ASCE 61) and the assessment and rehabilitation of existing marine structures using industry standards such as ASCE Manual of Practice 130.
Satish brings direct, highly relevant experience with the Pacifica Municipal Pier, having served as Project Manager for the City’s 2023 condition assessment of the pier and shoreside abutment (including coordination of drilling to map potential voids, diving inspections of piles, and drone inspection of inaccessible deck areas) and 2024 post‑storm condition assessments using drone imagery to expedite safe, comprehensive evaluation. He also led the Pacifica Municipal Pier handrail repairs effort, recommending targeted replacement using precast concrete handrails to reduce on‑site construction time and minimize pier closures—an approach consistent with the RFP’s emphasis on constructability and maintaining access where feasible. Beyond Pacifica, Satish has managed and led design for complex marine infrastructure, including the WETA Alameda Main Street Ferry Terminal design‑build (seismically resilient “essential facility” components) and the C&H Sugar waterfront facility repairs (pier deck and pile repairs with coordinated environmental assessment and permit applications), reinforcing his ability to deliver phased, permit‑aware, construction‑ready PS&E supported through construction.
Why Satish is the PM for this Job?
Deep, direct Pacifica Pier experience + continuity: Satish has been the Project Manager for the Pacifica Municipal Pier across multiple efforts (2023 condition assessment of the pier and shoreside abutment; 2024 post‑storm assessment), giving him immediate familiarity with priority deterioration areas and City expectations—exactly what the RFP values under project understanding and staffing continuity.
Proven leader of complex marine rehabilitation design + phased delivery: He has led multidisciplinary design for major waterfront projects (e.g., CSU Maritime Academy upgrades including pier replacement and associated marine elements) and understands how to drive milestone deliverables—well aligned with Pacifica’s requirement to produce three standalone PS&E packages with 30/60/90/100% submittals.
Strong field verification + “right tools” mindset (safer, faster decisions): Satish routinely coordinates specialized investigations (ASCE MOP 130 for condition assessment of marine infrastructure, diver aided assessment, drone inspections) and proficient with rapid and hands-on condition assessments—directly supporting the RFP’s emphasis on data verification, supplemental field work, and safety in a coastal environment.
Marine structural specialist who designs for durability in harsh environments: With 17 years focused on waterfront structures—piers/wharves, seawalls/bulkheads, structural assessment and rehabilitation—Satish brings the technical grounding needed to deliver durable “restore in kind” repairs that address corrosion and storm exposure, aligning with the RFP’s objective to extend service life and maintain safe access.
Grant/agency coordination readiness and disciplined delivery: Satish’s PM background on public‑facing, multi‑stakeholder waterfront programs and design‑build delivery supports the RFP’s need for tight coordination, documentation, and responsiveness—key to managing NOAA/NEPA/BABA‑driven constraints, permitting interfaces, and construction‑phase support without avoidable schedule or scope risk.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.7. Proposer's Team | 22
5.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Staffing Commitment and Continuity
GHD recognizes that the Project is a high‑visibility, time‑sensitive coastal asset and that successful delivery depends on consistent, reliable access to the Project Manager and key technical staff. Satish Chilka, PE, will serve as the City’s dedicated Project Manager and primary point of contact and will remain actively engaged and readily accessible throughout the duration of the project for meetings, coordination, site visits, and timely communication. GHD is committed to providing consistent staffing, with the key personnel identified remaining actively involved from project kickoff through PS&E and construction support to confirm continuity, institutional knowledge retention, and responsive communication.
To support the City’s accessibility requirements, Mr. Chilka and designated key staff will be available for urgent needs—including post‑storm coordination and time‑critical safety or schedule issues—with routine inquiries responded to promptly through established communication channels. Additional technical specialists from GHD’s coastal, structural, and environmental teams will be available as needed to support specific tasks while maintaining clear accountability through the core project team. Predictable responsiveness will be maintained through a structured project management approach, including a Project Management Plan defining roles, responsibilities, and QA/QC procedures; a detailed project schedule with monthly updates; and a consistent meeting cadence supported by advance agendas and action‑oriented meeting minutes. Clear and accessible communication tools—such as monthly progress reports with budget tracking, City and regulatory comment‑response logs, and coordination logs (including NOAA coordination, as applicable)—will drive continuous visibility into project status and reliable access to informed decision‑makers throughout the project lifecycle.
2.8 Exceptions to the RFP
Modification to Agreement/Acceptance: GHD Inc. has reviewed the City's Sample Professional Services Agreement and takes no exceptions. GHD accepts the Agreement in substantially the same form as provided, subject only to minor, non‑material modifications as may be mutually agreed upon with the City.
2.9 Project Cost, Fees, and Charges
As requested in the Q&A, please find our project cost, fees, and charges submitted separately. The cost proposal includes a not-toexceed fee, task-level breakdown, and fully burdened hourly rates in compliance with RFP requirements.
Regarding travel costs, GHD will not charge for travel for GHD staff. However, specialized subconsultants traveling more than 50 miles from the project site will charge in accordance with IRS rates. No markup will be added to expenses.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.9. Project Cost, Fees, and Charges | 23
5.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project)
2.10 Project Timeline and Initial Draft Results # Activity ID Activity Name Current Duration
Start Finish
1 Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation 432.0d 05-01-26 12-27-27 2 Project Management & Coordination 416.5d 05-01-26 12-06-27 3 A-1000 NTP 1.0d 05-01-26* 05-01-26 4 A-1010 Project Management & Coordination 583.5d 05-02-26 12-06-27 5 B-1000 Project Management Plan 14.0d 05-02-26 05-15-26 6 B-1020 Bi-weekly Meetings 16.3d 05-25-26 11-09-26 7 B-1030 Monthly Meetings 15.6d 12-07-26 12-06-27 8 Stakeholder & Public Engagement 192.0d 08-31-26 03-10-27 9 B-1500 Stakeholder & Public Engagement 192.0d 08-31-26 03-10-27 10 Technical Studies 311.0d 05-22-26 03-28-27
11 C-1000 Existing Conditions Tech Memo 27.0d 05-22-26 06-17-26 12 C-1010 Biological Resources Tech Memo 60.0d 05-31-26 07-29-26 13 C-1020 Cultural Resources Screening Letter 60.0d 05-31-26 07-29-26 14 C-1030 Geotechnical Review Memo 60.0d 07-01-26 08-29-26 15 C-1040 Water Quality & Construction Impact Memo 60.0d 07-01-26 08-29-26 16 C-1050 CEQA-ready Technical Appendices (Formatting) 30.0d 01-28-27 02-26-27 17 C-1060 NEPA-ready Summaries 30.0d 02-27-27 03-28-27
18 C-1070 Permit Support Exhibits 60.0d 08-29-26 10-27-26 19 C-1080 Permit Requirements Summary Matrix 30.0d 09-27-26 10-26-26 20 Field Assessment & Data Verification 47.0d 05-02-26 06-17-26 21 D-1000 Field Investigation Plan 21.0d 05-02-26 05-22-26 22 D-1020 Photo Documentation 14.0d 05-22-26 06-04-26
23 D-1030 Update Repair Quantity Table 14.0d 05-22-26 06-04-26 24 D-1040 Supplement Assessment Memo 14.0d 06-04-26 06-17-26 25 Rehabilitation Design Development 53.0d 06-04-26 07-26-26 26 E-1000 Draft Repair Alternatives 14.0d 06-04-26 06-17-26 27 E-1010 Coordination with City 14.0d 06-17-26 06-30-26 28 E-1020 Final Repair Alternatives 14.0d 06-30-26 07-13-26 29 E-1030 Repair Phasing Plan 14.0d 07-13-26 07-26-26
30 Permitting Support 119.0d 09-13-26 01-09-27
31 F-1000 Application technical sections 60.0d 09-13-26 11-11-26 32 F-1010 Supplemental data 40.0d 10-12-26 11-20-26
33 F-1020 Response to Agency Comments 21.0d 12-20-26 01-09-27 34 Environmental Clearance 48.0d 01-24-27 03-12-27
35 G-1000 Draft CEQA (CatEX or IS-MND) 35.0d 01-24-27 02-27-27 36 G-1010 Final CEQA (CatEX or IS-MND) after Review 7.0d 03-06-27 03-12-27 37 PS&E 221.0d 07-01-26 02-06-27
38 H-1000 30% Design 60.0d 07-01-26 08-29-26
39 H-1010 30% Design Review 14.0d 08-30-26 09-12-26
40 H-1020 60% Design 60.0d 09-13-26 11-11-26
41 H-1030 60% Design Review 14.0d 11-12-26 11-25-26
42 H-1040 90% Design 45.0d 11-26-26 01-09-27
43 H-1050 90% Design Review 14.0d 01-10-27 01-23-27
44 H-1060 100% Design 14.0d 01-24-27 02-06-27
45 Bid Support 21.0d 03-23-27 04-12-27
46 I-1000 Field Visit & RFI Response 7.0d 03-23-27 03-29-27 47 I-1010 IFC Drawings 14.0d 03-30-27 04-12-27
48 Contractor Selection by City 45.0d 04-12-27 05-26-27 49 J-1000 Contractor Selection by City 45.0d 04-12-27 05-26-27 50 Construction Support (7 months) 210.0d 06-01-27 12-27-27 51 K-1000 Construction Support (7 months) 210.0d 06-01-27 12-27-27 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 2026 2027 2028
12-27-27, Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation
12-06-27, Project Management & Coordination
05-01-26
12-06-27
05-15-26
11-09-26
12-06-27
03-10-27, Stakeholder & Public Engagement
03-10-27
03-28-27, Technical Studies
06-17-26
07-29-26
07-29-26
08-29-26
08-29-26
02-26-27
03-28-27
10-27-26
10-26-26
06-17-26, Field Assessment & Data Verification
05-22-26
06-04-26
06-04-26
06-17-26
07-26-26, Rehabilitation Design Development
06-17-26
06-30-26
07-13-26
07-26-26
01-09-27, Permitting Support
11-11-26
11-20-26
01-09-27
03-12-27, Environmental Clearance
02-27-27
03-12-27
02-06-27, PS&E
08-29-26
09-12-26
11-11-26
11-25-26
01-09-27
01-23-27
02-06-27
04-12-27, Bid Support
03-29-27
04-12-27
05-26-27, Contractor Selection by City
05-26-27
12-27-27, Construction Support (7 months)
12-27-27
Our proposed schedule
is structured to advance
critical path activities early—
such as environmental
clearance, permitting
support, and phased PS&E—
so individual construction
packages can proceed as
funding becomes available.
This approach maximizes the
value of the proposed cost
by supporting grant‑aligned
implementation, minimizing
idle time between phases,
and enabling the City to
move efficiently from design
into construction without
unnecessary redesign or
schedule extensions.
The proposed schedule is
subject to change pending
coordination with the City.
GHD| Proposal| Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project 2.10. Project Timeline and Initial Draft Results| 24
5.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) → Professional Biographies
and Key Personnel
Resumes
Appendix
5.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Team Biographies
Below we have included professional biographies highlighting our proposed core team's qualifications. Resumes for key staff follow.
Additional resumes for our team can be provided upon request.
Craig Lewis, PE, SE, Project Director
Craig will provide executive oversight, senior technical guidance, and quality leadership throughout the project.
He has more than 33 years of experience in the inspection, assessment, rehabilitation, and design of waterfront and marine infrastructure, including public piers, wharves, seawalls, and ferry terminals in complex coastal and seismic environments. His expertise includes performance‑based seismic design (ASCE 61), marine structural assessment, and constructability.
Craig has led major public pier and waterfront rehabilitation projects, including the Berkeley Municipal Pier, Aquatic Park Municipal Pier, and numerous efforts for the Port of San Francisco, U.S. Navy, and California coastal cities. His experience includes above‑ and below‑water inspections, repair and retrofit strategies, phased PS&E delivery, cost estimating, and regulatory coordination. As Project Director, he will provide technical rigor, QA/QC compliance, and alignment with the City’s goals for safety, durability, and long‑term serviceability.
Satish Chilka, PE, Project Manager/Plans & Specifications Satish will lead the day‑to‑day execution of scope, schedule, budget, and coordination with the City, subconsultants, and regulators. He has 17 years of experience in structural engineering and waterfront project delivery, with expertise in piers and wharves, seawalls, marine structural assessment and rehabilitation, and seismic design (ASCE 61; ASCE MOP 130).
Satish brings direct experience with the Pacifica Municipal Pier, having managed the City’s 2023 condition assessment and 2024 post‑storm evaluations, as well as the pier handrail repair effort using precast elements to reduce construction duration and closures. His broader experience includes managing complex marine infrastructure such as the WETA Alameda Main Street Ferry Terminal and C&H Sugar waterfront repairs, supporting phased, permit‑aware, construction‑ready PS&E through construction.
Stephanie Gould, PE, Deputy Project Manager
Stephanie will support the day‑to‑day coordination, schedule and deliverable tracking, and development of construction‑ready documents. She has 15 years of experience delivering structural and civil infrastructure projects for public agencies, with a strong background in project management and PS&E development. Her technical experience includes reinforced concrete, retaining walls, bridges and culverts, hydraulics, and civil site design, supported by strong AutoCAD/Civil 3D production skills.
Stephanie has managed projects such as the Trinity Street Rehabilitation (City of Trinidad) and City accessibility improvements (City of Fortuna), supporting scope, budget, schedule, and PS&E delivery. She also brings experience coordinating designs with environmental and permitting requirements, including stormwater compliance and multi‑agency coordination. In this role, she will strengthen team responsiveness and document quality across all PS&E phases.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project Appendix | I
5.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Adam Bogage, PE, QA/QC
Adam will provide independent technical review and quality oversight at key milestones to confirm compliance with applicable codes, standards, constructability requirements, and City expectations. He has more than 26 years of experience in marine and waterfront structural engineering, specializing in the inspection, assessment, seismic evaluation, rehabilitation, and design of piers, wharves, bulkheads, and marinas.
Adam’s experience includes leading and reviewing condition assessments and rehabilitation designs for public piers and waterfront facilities, including the Ocean Beach Pier (City of San Diego), CSU Maritime, and numerous U.S. Navy and port facilities. His background spans structural inspections, repair design, construction documents, and construction‑phase support, with a strong focus on seismic performance and durability. As QA/QC Lead, he will provide focused reviews at the 30%, 60%, 90%, and final design stages, supporting delivery of consistent, bid‑ready PS&E for phased rehabilitation of the Pacifica Pier.
Andrew Cronin, PE, Plans & Specifications
Andrew will provide technical leadership for development of phased, construction‑ready PS&E packages.
He has 15 years of experience in structural and marine engineering, specializing in the design, inspection, and rehabilitation of waterfront infrastructure, including piers, wharves, bulkheads, seawalls, and pile‑supported marine structures in challenging coastal environments. He is a California‑registered Civil Engineer and an ADCI‑certified diver, allowing direct support of underwater inspections and interpretation of findings.
Andrew has led structural design and rehabilitation for complex marine projects involving aging concrete and timber structures, demolition and replacement planning, constructability sequencing, and coordination of drawings, specifications, and cost estimates. His background in underwater inspection, structural evaluation, and rehabilitation design supports validation of existing conditions, refinement of repair details, and coordination with permitting, environmental, and cost disciplines. In this role, Andrew will deliver durable, constructible, and code‑compliant designs supporting the City of Pacifica’s goals for safety, long‑term serviceability, and efficient phased implementation.
Steve Ferrero, PE, Cost Estimating
Steve will be responsible for developing and updating the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (EOPC) at each design milestone and supporting the City’s three‑phase PS&E strategy with cost, risk, and constructability insight. Steve has 30 years of experience in construction planning and management and specializes in cost engineering, estimation, cost management, and scheduling for major infrastructure programs.
Steve’s recent experience includes cost leadership for coastal resilience and waterfront infrastructure such as the Port of Hueneme coastal/hydrologic improvements ($40M), the SFPUC Ocean Beach climate adaptation/seawall program ($130M), and large port wharf and terminal efforts including Port of San Francisco Pier 50 retrofit/ replacement ($100M) and the Port of Alaska Terminal 1 replacement ($530M). For Pacifica, Steve will provide phase‑specific estimating that aligns scope to bid packages, identifies key cost drivers (marine access, staging, temporary works, and repair quantities), and supports value/constructability reviews to reduce bid risk and improve price certainty—helping the City confidently advance each phase as a standalone, bid‑ready package.
William (Bill) Cooke, PE, Cost Estimating
Bill will support cost estimating for the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project, providing independent estimating insight to inform phasing, budgeting, and bid‑ready PS&E development. Bill is a Professional Civil Engineer with more than five decades of experience in construction cost estimating, project planning, and construction support for complex waterfront and marine infrastructure, including piers, wharves, seawalls, bulkheads, ferry terminals, floating structures, and offshore facilities.
Bill has prepared engineer’s cost estimates for major marine and waterfront projects throughout California, including work for the Port of San Francisco, multiple Bay Area ferry terminals, and the Pacifica Municipal Pier. His experience includes visual condition assessments, development of repair quantities, constructability analysis, and preparation of detailed cost estimates to support rehabilitation planning and funding decisions.
For Pacifica, Bill will bring deep familiarity with marine construction methods to help identify key cost drivers, validate quantities, and support constructability and phasing reviews—providing the City with added confidence in cost reliability and bid responsiveness for each standalone rehabilitation phase.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project Appendix | II
5.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) David McCreary, Surveying and Drone Services Lead
Dave will serve as Surveying and Drone Services Lead, providing aerial data collection, drone‑based inspections, and advanced surveying to support condition verification and design development for hard‑to‑access areas. He is a nationally recognized UAS specialist with more than 30 years of experience in aerial imaging and infrastructure inspection, and is Founder and Director of UAS Operations for New Age Aerial.
Dave has led drone‑based inspections, photogrammetry, and 3D modeling for piers, dams, coastal infrastructure, and utilities for clients including GHD and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He is FAA Part 107 certified with over 4,000 flight hours and a perfect safety record. For Pacifica, he will deliver safe, efficient aerial inspection and survey data that improves documentation quality, accuracy, and rehabilitation planning while reducing the need for risky access methods.
Yosef Yip, Stakeholder Engagement
Yosef Yip will lead stakeholder engagement for the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project, supporting City‑led outreach and coordination with residents, businesses, and other affected stakeholders during design and construction. Yosef is a Senior Strategic Communications Advisor with GHD’s Engagement and Communication practice and brings extensive experience supporting public agencies on high‑visibility infrastructure projects that require clear, timely, and coordinated communication to manage public access, construction impacts, and community expectations.
Yosef’s experience includes developing construction outreach strategies, preparing public notification materials, facilitating issue escalation and resolution, and maintaining outreach records. For Pacifica, he will work closely with the City to align technical information, construction phasing, and schedule updates with stakeholder communications—helping minimize disruption, maintain transparency, and support informed public understanding as the Pier rehabilitation advances through phased implementation.
Kristine Gaspar, Environmental Documentation and Permitting Kristine Gaspar will lead environmental documentation and permitting for the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project, overseeing CEQA documentation, NEPA coordination support, and regulatory consistency throughout design and phased implementation. Kristine is a Technical Director – Environmental Planning with nearly 30 years of experience in environmental planning, CEQA compliance, and resource agency permitting for public infrastructure projects across California.
Kristine brings extensive experience coordinating with federal, state, and regional agencies and preparing defensible environmental documentation for complex, permit‑constrained projects. For Pacifica, she will confirm environmental documentation and permitting support are tightly integrated with phased PS&E development—supporting grant requirements, minimizing schedule risk, and enabling the City to advance rehabilitation work efficiently while maintaining regulatory compliance.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project Appendix | III
5.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Miles Hartnett, Environmental Documentation and Permitting Miles will lead biological assessments, support CEQA and NEPA documentation, and coordinate with regulatory agencies throughout design and construction. He has approximately 10 years of experience in biological resources assessment, environmental permitting, and construction compliance for public infrastructure projects across California, with expertise in aquatic biology, wetlands, restoration ecology, and sensitive species.
Miles has prepared Biological Resources Reports and Assessments, wetland delineations, and mitigation and monitoring plans, and has supported permitting under ESA Section 7, Clean Water Act Sections 401/404, CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, and Coastal Development Permits. For Pacifica, he will provide early, design‑integrated biological support to identify sensitive resources, define avoidance and minimization measures, and support phased permitting and construction sequencing to reduce environmental risk.
Kimberly Butt, AIA, DBIA, Environmental Documentation and Permitting Kimberly J. Butt, AIA, DBIA will lead architectural history and historic resources support for the Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project, working under the direction of Kristine Gaspar to support CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106 compliance as applicable. Kimberly is a preservation architect and architectural historian with more than 25 years of experience evaluating, documenting, and rehabilitating historic and cultural resources for public infrastructure and civic projects throughout California and the Pacific Northwest.
Kimberly brings extensive experience preparing historic resource evaluations, determinations of eligibility, and Section 106 consultation materials for complex, permit‑driven projects involving federal, state, and local agencies. Her background includes work on waterfront, transportation, and public facilities subject to USACE, SHPO, and CEQA/NEPA review. For Pacifica, Kimberly will provide focused historic resources expertise to support regulatory coordination and confirm that rehabilitation design and construction activities are informed by defensible architectural history analysis—helping the City advance the project efficiently while meeting applicable preservation and compliance requirements.
GHD | Proposal | Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project Appendix | IV
5.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Craig Lewis | Project Director
www.ghd.com
Craig Lewis PE, SE
Project Director
Location
San Francisco, CA
Experience
33 years
Qualifications/Accreditations
– BS, Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA – Civil Engineer, CA #58706, WA #42655, AK #197742
– Structural Engineer, CA #4765, WA #42655
Key technical skills
– Seismic Evaluation and Design of Transportation
Facilities and Waterfront Structures
– Structural Inspection and Assessment of Facilities
– Design of Facilities with Liquefiable Soils Subject to Lateral Spreading
Memberships
– American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
– American Concrete Institute (ACI)
Relevant experience summary
Craig Lewis has more than 33 years of experience with the inspection, assessment, design and analysis of structural elements for waterfront infrastructure, coastal and utility systems. He has extensive experience leading large, multi-discipline teams and past projects have included inspection and rehabilitation of existing waterfront facilities in addition to design of new transportation infrastructure. He has broad knowledge of waterfront and heavy civil construction and environmental regulatory permitting requirements. Craig’s experience includes planning and design of berthing piers and wharves and vessel mooring and berthing facilities, all in a wide variety of loading conditions including ice, wave and seismic, large tidal and water level variations, vessel wake and strong current conditions. He combines his 30 years of complex structural engineering experience with a site-based knowledge of constructability and seismic adaptability. He has conducted many extensive inspections and assessments to determine the above and below water condition and service life of port and maritime structures, in addition to condition assessments and seismic retrofit of non-building structures using performance-based methods. He has performed static analysis for load capacity studies and vertical loading of waterfront facilities, dynamic analyses with seismic analysis/design using non-linear pushover methods per ASCE 61 and non-linear soil-structure interaction analysis. Craig is very experienced with waterfront design codes and standards, including Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), American Institute of Steel Construction, ACI, ASCE, Application Programming Interface, and California Building Code. In addition to being an experienced contract manager, Craig specializes in seismic evaluation, retrofit and design of marine terminals and facilities. He has conducted several extensive site inspections and field surveys to determine the above and below water condition of marine structures. He is an excellent communicator with an ability to present technical information in a manner that the public and non-technical listeners can understand. He has also managed local government projects that have required extensive public meetings and presentations to local commissions, councils and boards. Chris’ success on these projects stems from an organized and comprehensive startup of the projects including project controls that includes thorough concept development and communicating project information to the team in a timely manner as design progresses to construction bid documents.
California State University Maritime Academy –
Pier Replacement & Boat Basin Expansion
Design Manager
Dutra Construction | Vallejo, CA | 2023 - Ongoing
T 415.350.8337 | E [email protected]
California State University Maritime Academy is
replacing its 37-year-old campus centerpiece, the
Golden Bear Training Ship, with a new National Security Multi-Mission Vessel. This project will enable mooring of the larger National Security Multi-Mission Vessel at the
5.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Craig Lewis | Project Director
T 415.350.8337 | E [email protected] www.ghd.com
campus pier and must be completed by October 2026,
when the new vessel is delivered. The project has six
main components: expansion of the facility,
strengthening of the existing causeway trestle, complete replacement of the pier, addition of new mooring
dolphins, upgrades to the small vessel boat basin,
dredging, expansion of the marine logistics yard; utility upgrades; demolition and replacement of the existing
breakwater; and demolition of two modular buildings.
Serving as Design Manager along with leading the multidisciplinary design team through schematic and detailed design phase of the project.
Port of San Francisco As-Needed Engineering
Services Contract
Marine Structural Engineer
Port of San Francisco | San Francisco, CA | 2006 -
Ongoing
Served as Marine Structural Engineer for several asneeded task orders, including Structural Assessment of Port Mooring Bollards, Pier 50 Valley Substructure
Repair, and Pier 43.5 Promenade Conceptual Design.
Repair Bulkheads 1, 2, and 3
Project Manager, Structural Lead
Naval Amphibious Base Coronado | San Diego, CA
Served as Project Manager and Structural Engineer for
investigation and design of replacement of the failing
Bulkhead 1 and repairs to existing concrete Bulkheads 2 and 3 to prevent additional deterioration. As Structural Lead, developed designs for the new steel sheet pile
bulkhead and concrete cap including solution for portion of Bulkhead 1 that passes under existing travel lift piers.
Provided input for cost estimating and construction
phasing.
Structural Condition Assessment, Municipal
Pier at Aquatic Park
Project Manager
San Francisco Department of Public Works | San
Francisco, CA
Served as Project Manager for the work which consisted
of a visual above and below water observations, material testing, structural condition assessment and preparation of conceptual repair and seismic retrofit designs as part of a conditional evaluation of historical Municipal Pier in San Francisco. The existing deteriorating condition of
the pier structure was addressed along with an
investigation of the potential cause of the damage.
Conceptual damage repairs were developed, and a
seismic assessment was performed. Directed the
production of the budgetary-level estimates of the
construction cost for the damage repairs required were
developed along with the seismic retrofit alternatives.
Berkeley Municipal Pier and Ferry Terminal
Feasibility Study
Project Manager
City of Berkeley | Berkeley, CA | 2016-2022
Served as Project Manager for inspection, condition
assessment and structural evaluation of a 3,000 LF
public pier located at the Berkeley shoreline. The work included seismic assessment and development of repair,
retrofit and replacement alternatives. A feasibility study was completed for a conceptual passenger ferry facility as part of the pier replacement project. Concept designs were developed using various pier alignment and ferry
float configurations in addition to a wave protection
structure.
Cargo Terminal 1 Replacement
Project Manager/Engineer of Record
Port of Alaska | Anchorage, AK | 2023 - Ongoing
Served as Project Manager for the design team of the
$650 million Cargo Terminal 1 Replacement at the Port
of Alaska. The terminal is located in an extreme seismic region with poor subsurface conditions and represents a critical infrastructure component for goods movement
into the state of Alaska. The Terminal 1 Replacement
project consists of an 850 LF pile-supported wharf with two access trestles. The project is extremely complex,
requiring coordination of multi-discipline teams. As
Project Manager, led the design team with all project
controls, staff and budget management, and client and
subconsultant management.
Brannan Street Wharf Project
Project Manager
Port of San Francisco | San Francisco, CA | 6/2012-
10/2015 | $1,830,000
As Project Manager, led the structural assessment and
visual condition surveys of existing Pier 36 and marginal wharf structures, along with conceptual engineering
design of structural alternatives for new and retrofitted wharf and seawall. Led development of seismic design
criteria for new structures and performance based
seismic analysis and design of new wharf pile and deck
structure. Project included structural analysis and
conceptual design of wharf structure components for
operational and code prescribed seismic loads, quantity take offs and cost estimates, and design drawings and
specifications.
5.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Satish Chilka | Project Manager/Plans & Specifications
T 925.849.1019 | E [email protected] www.ghd.com
Satish Chilka PE
Project Manager/Plans & Specifications
Location
Concord, CA
Experience
17 years
Qualifications/Accreditations
– MS, Civil Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA – BS, Civil Engineering, University of Mumbai, India
– Civil Engineer, CA #80047
– Structural Engineer, TX #145120
Key technical skills
– Structural Engineering, Seismic Design (ASCE 61),
Piers & Wharves, Floating Structures, Structural
Assessment (ASCE Manual of Practice 130)
Memberships
– American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Relevant experience summary
With 17 years of structural engineering, design and project management experience, Satish Chilka has specialized knowledge in planning, design, analysis, construction document preparation, quality control review, and construction support services for waterfront structures. His experience includes design and analysis of piers & wharves, seawalls, bulkheads, assessment and rehabilitating existing structures, design of floating access ramps and. gangways. Other project experience includes multiple ferry terminals including the landing float and ferry vessels, mooring and berthing analyses, design of floating steel gates for dry docks, and offshore wind energy projects.
Pacifica Municipal Pier Condition Assessment
Project Manager
City of Pacifica | Pacifica, CA | 2023
The Municipal Pier is a widely popular landmark in the
City of Pacifica. The pier is a pile supported prestressed concrete box girder structure originally designed to
support an outfall extending from Beach Boulevard to
the ocean. Currently the pier is used as a fishing pier by the local community and visitors. In the past, the
concrete facing and backfill in the abutment were
undermined, allowing seawater on Beach Boulevard
during high tides and storm conditions.
Assisting the City with condition assessment of the pier and the shoreside abutment which includes engaging
drilling contractors to strategically drill through the abutment to map potential voids, diving subcontractor to perform a Level 1 inspection of all the piles and a drone inspection of the pier deck that is not accessible from top-side.
Port of San Francisco Multiple Task Orders
Project Manager
Port of San Francisco | San Francisco, CA | 2022-
2025
GHD as the leading consultant on a Joint Venture (JV)
team holds one of the multi-disciplinary As-Needing
Engineering Service On-call contract with Port of San
Francisco. Serving as Project Manager overseeing
multiple task orders issued by the Port covering a range of work from condition assessment of dry docks,
foundation of shed buildings, retrofit of roof structures, construction management etc. Leading regular
coordination with the Port Project Manager, coordination with various disciplines. Subconsultants and providing
oversight of the deliverables.
Pacifica Municipal Pier Condition Assessment
Project Manager
City of Pacifica | Pacifica, CA | 2024
The Municipal Pier is a widely popular landmark in the
City of Pacifica. The pier is a pile supported prestressed
5.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Satish Chilka | Project Manager/Plans & Specifications
T 925.849.1019 | E [email protected] www.ghd.com
concrete box girder structure originally designed to
support an outfall extending from Beach Boulevard to
the ocean. Currently the pier is used as a fishing pier by the local community and visitors. In the past, the
concrete facing and backfill in the abutment were
undermined, allowing seawater on Beach Boulevard
during high tides and storm conditions. Assisting the City with post-storm event condition assessment of the pier
which includes visual observation of the pier deck,
handrails, and piles. Images were captured using a
drone for the entire structure to expedite the condition assessment and ensure safety of the personnel.
California State University Maritime Academy –
Design-Build
Project Manager, Lead Design Engineer
Dutra Construction | Vallejo, CA | 2024-2025
California State University Maritime Academy is
replacing it’s 37-year-old campus centerpiece, the
Golden Bear Training Ship, with a new National Security Multi-Mission Vessel (NSMV). This project will enable
mooring of the larger NSMV vessel at the campus pier
and must be completed by October 2026, when the new
vessel is delivered. The project has six main
components: expansion of the facility, strengthening of the existing causeway trestle, complete replacement of
the pier, addition of new mooring dolphins, upgrades to the small vessel boat basin, dredging, expansion of the marine logistics yard; utility upgrades; demolition and replacement of the existing breakwater; and demolition
of two modular buildings. Serving as Project Manager
and leading the multi-disciplinary design team through
schematic and detailed design phase of the project.
C&H Waterfront Facility Repairs
Project Manager, Lead Structural Engineer
C&H Sugar Refinery | Crockett, CA | 2020-2023
The C&H Sugar facility is a historically significant wharf structure near San Francisco that has continued
operations since 1906. Under current ownership, the
facility processes around 700,000 tons of sugar
annually. The facility consists of a mixed-use dock that allows for berthing of large vessels, hopper system for loading/unloading products and several buildings that
are part of the processing operations. The site structural assessment performed in 2018 determined that several
piles and under-deck improvements were needed.
The scope of work includes design of in-place repairs for the pier structure – deck, steel/concrete/timber piles, mooring bollard connections to deck, and coordinated
the environmental assessment, and permit applications
in-house. Several piles were repaired using grouted
fiberglass reinforced plastic jackets in lieu of
replacement to avoid interruption of operations and
impacting the sugar supply chain. Also leading
construction management & support services for the
ongoing repairs at the facility.
Port of Alaska Modernization Program
Lead Structural Engineer
Municipality of Anchorage
| Anchorage, AK | 2023-2024
As part of the Port Modernization Program, Port of
Alaska contracted GHD-WSP JV to develop the detailed
design and phasing plans to replace the existing pier.
The new pier will be located further offshore than the
existing pier to take advantage of the deeper water. Led GHD's structural team in designing a complex fender
and large diameter monopile mooring dolphin.
Implemented strategies to ensure structures could
withstand the energy from large vessel berthing,
extreme weather conditions, including ice floes and
account for appropriate construction tolerances to build in narrow work windows.
Rapid Structural Assessments
Project Manager, Lead Engineer
Port of San Francisco | San Francisco, CA | 2023-
2024
The scope of a typical Rapid Structural Assessment is a limited visual assessment of a pier and/or wharf
substructure, performed to observe general structural
conditions and identify major structural damage that
could lead to collapse or another threat to safety.
Generally, no destructive investigation, structural
analysis, or calculations to be performed. Served as
Lead Engineer for a group of four engineers to perform
condition assessment from a work boat to review the
condition and damages on several piers assigned to
GHD-Structus JV team as part of the As-Needed
Engineering Services Contract.
Pier 22.5 North Apron Strengthening and
Repairs
Lead Structural Engineer
San Francisco Department of Public Works | San
Francisco, CA | 2019-2020
Pier 22.5 is being strengthened and repaired as part of the larger project that will house the first floating Fire Station building in San Francisco. As Lead Structural
Engineer, evaluated the existing condition of the pier
structure – timber deck frame supported by concrete
piles and provided design improvements to strengthen
the deck to be utilized for parking fire trucks. Also
responsible for engineering support during construction – reviewing shop drawings, responding to RFIs.
5.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Stephanie Gould | Deputy Project Manager
T 707.267.2276 | E [email protected] www.ghd.com
Stephanie Gould PE
Deputy Project Manager
Location
Eureka, CA
Experience
17 years
Qualifications/Accreditations
– BS, Civil Engineering, California State University, Chico, CA – Civil Engineer, CA #86103
Key technical skills
– Project Management, Bridge/Culvert Design, Fish
Passage Structures, Retaining Walls, Reinforced
Concrete Structures, and Transportation Infrastructure
Relevant experience summary
Stephanie Gould is a structural engineer and project manager with 17 years of experience in structural design, transportation infrastructure, and water resources engineering. She specializes in bridges, retaining walls, culverts, and fish passage structures, serving as Engineer of Record and Project Manager on complex transportation and site development projects. Stephanie also brings experience in ports and marine infrastructure. Her work integrates geotechnical, grading, and hydraulic design to support resilient infrastructure. She has led multidisciplinary teams through design, budgeting, and coordination while ensuring regulatory compliance. Stephanie collaborates with municipalities, agencies, and private stakeholders to deliver sustainable, long-lasting solutions. Her ability to manage large-scale bridge and wall projects, navigate permitting, and coordinate diverse teams makes her a trusted leader in civil infrastructure delivery.
Butte Creek Fish Barrier Removal Project
Project Manager
Wiyot Tribe | Dinsmore, CA
Project Manager for a new vehicular bridge crossing
over Butte Creek, replacing undersized culverts to
restore natural fish passage and improve ecological
connectivity. Led a multidisciplinary team of bridge, civil, environmental, and hydraulic engineers through all
phases. Oversaw technical deliverables, stakeholder
engagement, and regulatory compliance. Ongoing.
Repair of Basilone Road
Lead Structural Engineer
NAVFAC | Oceanside, CA
EOR for the structural design of a 2,500-foot-long, 35- foot-tall anchored secant pile retaining wall and
associated drainage headwalls. Delivered structural
calculations, drawings, a basis of design report, and
specifications. Led a multidisciplinary team to produce high-quality deliverables aligned with client expectations.
Port of Alaska Terminal 1 Improvements
Structural Engineer
Port of Alaska | Anchorage, AK
Led the engineering design of two abutments and
approach slabs for a port vehicular trestle system.
Worked closely with Joint Venture partners and other
disciplines to develop plans/specs for this large-scale project.
Port of Palau and Port of Yap
Design Manager
NAVAFC | Palau and Yap Islands
Coordinated large-scale port improvement projects for
NAVFAC. Worked closely with the Project Manager,
joint-venture partner COWI, and discipline leads to
deliver complete plans and specifications. Tracked
budgets, schedules, deliverables, and client
communications to keep a large, multidisciplinary project team aligned and on track.
5.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Stephanie Gould | Deputy Project Manager
T 707.267.2276 | E [email protected] www.ghd.com
Willits Rail-to-Trail
Lead Structural Engineer
City of Willits | Willits, CA
Served as EOR for the structural design of three
pedestrian bridge abutments supported on precast
concrete piles, along with wingwalls and several earth
retaining structures. Managed a team of engineers led
drafting plans, writing specifications, and performing
structural calculations.
River Oaks Regional Stormwater Project
Lead Structural Engineer
City of San Jose Department of Public Works | San
Jose, CA
Served as EOR for the structural design of a cast-inplace concrete forebay, retaining walls, an elevated boardwalk supported on precast piles, and concrete well retrofits. Responsibilities included performing structural calculations, drafting plans, and preparing related
specifications.
College of the Redwoods PE Complex
Lead Structural Engineer
College of the Redwoods | Eureka, CA
Provided structural design for a 26-foot-tall soldier pile retaining wall with ground anchors and a CMU cantilever wall. Performed structural calculations using Shoring
Suite and Enercalc, drafted in AutoCAD/Civil 3D, and
wrote specs.
30th Street Commons Improvement Plan
Project Engineer
City of Arcata | Arcata, CA
Provided structural design for cast-in-place reinforced concrete abutments and wingwalls for a new pedestrian
bridge over Janes Creek in Arcata, CA. Specified the
bridge superstructure type and coordinated with
suppliers to design appropriate footings. Drafted plans in AutoCAD/Civil 3D, calculated, and prepared technical
specifications.
Storm Damage Repairs Briceland Thorne Road
at PM 3.08
Project Engineer
County of Humboldt Department of Public Works |
Eureka, CA
Provided structural design of 22-foot-tall soldier pile retaining wall with ground anchors. Performed structural calculations using Shoring Suite and Enercalc software, drafted using AutoCAD/Civil 3D, and wrote
specifications.
Storm Damage Repairs Mattole Road at PM
13.67 Project Engineer
County of Humboldt Department of Public Works |
Eureka, CA
Provided structural design for a soldier pile retaining wall with anchor piles and precast concrete lagging.
Performed structural calculations using Shoring Suite
and Enercalc, drafted in AutoCAD/Civil 3D, and
prepared specifications.
Storm Damage Repairs Mattole Road at PM
42.76 Project Engineer
County of Humboldt Department of Public Works |
Eureka, CA
Provided structural design for a 20-foot-tall welded wire MSE retaining wall used as a permanent, trafficsupporting structure for a county road. Performed external stability, internal pullout, and rupture
calculations using MSEW software. Drafted plans in
AutoCAD/Civil 3D and prepared technical specifications.
Kernen Construction Bridges
Project Engineer/Manager
County of Humboldt | Humboldt County, CA
Provided structural design and construction observation for several single-lane bridges using steel wide-flange girders and precast concrete decks fabricated by Kernen Construction. Several projects included stream
crossings with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Eureka Waterfront Trail Project, Phases A and C
Project Engineer
City of Eureka | Eureka, CA
Designed premanufactured aluminium bridge abutments
and wingwalls for several bridges and boardwalks
spanning 20 to 120 feet. The boardwalk was supported
on helical piles. Designed reinforced concrete footings, wingwalls, and steel pile caps. Developed structural
plans, specifications, and cost estimates.
5.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Adam Bogage | QA/QC
www.ghd.com
Adam Bogage PE
QA/QC
Location
San Diego, CA
Experience
26 years
Qualifications/Accreditations
– MS, Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, CA – BS, Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, CA – Civil Engineer, CA #76760
– ADCI Commercial Diver, SSA Air Diver #58723
Key technical skills
– Project Management, Waterfront Structural
Engineering
– Seismic Design, Structural Inspections
Memberships
– American Society of Civil Engineers
– Structural Engineers Association of California
Relevant experience summary
Adam Bogage is a project manager specializing in seismic and marine engineering. He is experienced in inspection and rehabilitation of waterfront structures, including piers, wharves, bulkheads, and marinas. He also holds experience with structural analysis, new design, design of repairs; field investigations; report preparation; and development of construction documents, as well as follow-on construction support services for various structural systems and projects.
Ocean Beach Pier Investigation
Project Manager
City of San Diego | San Diego, CA | 2018
Served as Project Manager responsible for the condition assessment and report of the cast-in-place and
prestressed concrete pier. Responsible for inspection,
condition assessment reports, development of design
alternatives for repair versus replacement, report writing, cost estimates, public outreach, and coordinating with
subconsultants.
Cal Poly Pier Inspection and Structural
Assessment
Engineer/Diver
Cal Poly State University | San Luis Obispo, CA |
2023
Built in 1984 by Unocal Corporation to facilitate oil
transport on the US West Coast, the Cal Poly Pier now
operates as a marine research facility. Since 2001, Cal Poly has been converting the pier from a former
industrial facility into a functioning research station.
Services included above and below water inspections,
structural analysis, and repair design.
T 619.888.3871 | E [email protected]
Replace Pier 12
Project Engineer/Diver
NAVFAC | Naval Base San Diego, CA | 2015
Construction of a new 1,500-foot concrete pile supported concrete berthing/maintenance pier after demolition of
existing pier, including the removal of 567 concrete piles and fender system. Served as Project Engineer/Diver
conducting underwater and above water construction
inspections.
Berth Lima Conversion
Engineer
NAVFAC | Naval Base Coronado, San Diego, CA |
2008
Served as an engineer involved in the design of a
structural steel guard tower and concrete foundation for Berth Lima. Prepared the Engineering Assessment
Report for the conversion of Berth Lima at the quay wall at North Island to a homeport for a nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier. In addition to preparing the concept
design for the fendering and structural modifications, the firm had several support buildings in the project scope.
5.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Adam Bogage | QA/QC
T 619.888.3871 | E [email protected] www.ghd.com
Military Ocean Terminal (Motco Pier 2)
Project Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers | Concord, CA | 2012
Performed seismic analysis for a new concrete pile
supported pier structure. The munitions loading pier is designed to carry container transport vehicles as well as munitions vehicles. Responsible for analysis using SAP
for kinematic and inertia forces and design of piles, pile hinges, and pile connections. The pier is located in a
high seismic region with poor soils and conforms to
Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-152-01 and Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards
(MOTEMS) Chapter 31F.
B Street Pier Bulkhead Alternatives
Project Manager
Port of San Diego | San Diego, CA | 2020
Served as Project Manager for bulkhead alternative
study for the installation of a bulkhead in front of existing marginal wharf, followed by demolition and removal of
the wharf piling and deck. Three configurations of the
bulkhead alternative were identified and investigated for the Port of San Diego.
Emergency Wharf Repair at North Embarcadero
Engineer/Diver
Port of San Diego | San Diego, CA | 2016
After a cruise ship impacted the bulkhead, the project
retained a repair construction contractor, performed
rapid above/below water inspection, developed repair
plans/specifications, and provided construction services.
The inspection and repair plans/specifications were
done in conjunction with demolition of the structure
damage.
Port Pavilion and Broadway Pier
Marine Engineer
Port of San Diego | San Diego, CA | 2012
Participated in a variety of projects ranging from
underwater inspection and testing; structural load
capacity studies; pier rehabilitation; reconfiguration of mooring hardware for cold iron berthing; and structural design of the terminal building. As a marine engineer,
participated in the structural engineering services related to the project including an above-water inspection for the purpose of documenting the existing structure prior to
seismic retrofit. The Broadway Pier is a reinforced
concrete pile-supported structure built in 1913. The
seismic retrofit consists of isolation bearings at four separate locations.
MOTEMS Audit for Chevron Richmond Long
Wharf
Engineer Diver
Chevron | Richmond, CA
Performed above and below water inspection to assist
with MOTEMS audit. The work involved inspecting
concrete and steel piles, and concrete deck.
Pier 5 at Commander, Fleet Activities Yokosuka
Deputy Project Manager
NAVFAC | Yokosuka, Japan | 2020
Design of a fixed, single-deck pile-supported pier to
replace an existing floating pier which could no longer support crane operations or ship repair functions. The
design of the 672-foot pier included a concrete deck,
utility trenches, steel pile foundations, fender system, mooring hardware, access ramp, utility support crossing, cathodic protection system, and grounding system.
Fuel Pier Replacement
Lead Structural Designer
NAVFAC | Naval Base Point Loma | 2010
Served as Lead Structural Designer for the double deck
T-shaped fuel pier with cast-in-place decks and steel
pipe piles. Responsible for structural analysis,
development of details, plans and specifications. Project (P-151) included coordinating plans, specifications,
inspections, and construction services. Coordinated dive team quality assurance underwater inspections for the
new pier.
– Structural Testing and Analysis of a Non-Traditional
Pier
– Seismic Improvements and Upgrade of Uniform and
Tango Wharves Located on US Naval Base Guam
– Double-Decked Piers: A New Reality for West Coast
Marine Oil Terminals
5.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Andrew Cronin | Plans & Specifications
www.ghd.com
Andrew Cronin PE, SSAD
Plans & Specifications
Location
Honolulu, HI
Experience
15 years
Qualifications/Accreditations
– MS, Civil Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY – BS, Civil Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY – Civil Engineer, CA #97104, NY #089647, TX #139493, OR #99151, SC #38095 – Certified Surface-Supplied Air Diver #46510, Association of Diving Contractors International Key technical skills
– Project Management
– Structural Engineering
– Underwater Inspection
Relevant experience summary
Andrew Cronin is a seasoned engineering professional with over 15 years of experience in structural engineering, project management, and underwater inspection. He excels in delivering comprehensive solutions for waterfront facilities, including design, inspection, and rehabilitation. His expertise encompasses a wide range of structures, such as piers, wharves, bulkheads, seawalls, jetties, dolphins, bridges, and other marine infrastructures. As an Association of Diving Contractors International-Certified Surface-Supplied Air Diver, he possesses the technical proficiency and physical fitness to conduct rigorous underwater inspections.
Pier 1 Routine Inspection
Team Leader, Structural Engineer
NYCEDC | Staten Island, NY
Conducted a condition assessment for the New York
Economic Development Commission, performing
underwater, deck underside, and topside inspections.
Performed load limit verification for the entire pier.
Produced a thorough report detailing identified
deficiencies, repair priorities, and structural load
capacity. Inspected over 748 timber piles, pile caps,
concrete deck, and a granite block wall.
Condition Survey of Howland Hook Wharf
Assistant Project Manager, Team Leader
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey | New
York
Routine-level condition survey of a 3,000-ft-long wharf including all piles, underdeck, and topside inspections.
Generated a condition survey report upon completion
of the inspection which documented the type and
severity of deficiencies identified and prioritized the need for repairs. The inspection included over 800 prestressed T 808.466.2419 | E [email protected]
concrete piles, over 600 steel pipe piles, concrete caps, and concrete deck.
Brooklyn Navy Yard Pier J and Brooklyn 25th
Street Pier Technical Due Diligence Engineering
Assessment
Project Manager, Team Leader
(Confidential) | Brooklyn, NY
Tactile inspection of two waterfront facilities specializing in the storage and transfer of fine and coarse aggregate.
Inspection of Brooklyn Navy Yard Pier J included the
above water and underwater inspection of portions of
the 800-foot-long by 150-foot-wide pier constructed of
reinforced concrete deck and 4’-6”-diameter concretefilled steel caissons. Inspection of the 25th Street pier included the above water and underwater inspection of
portions of a 700-foot-long timber-pile-supported lowlevel relieving platform. Information gathered at each site included basic structural configuration and dimensions, the overall condition of the structures, any priority
deficiencies limiting the load rating or tenant operation and observed aggregate stockpile loading. Also assisted in compiling the Technical Due Diligence Assessment
5.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Andrew Cronin | Plans & Specifications
T 808.466.2419 | E [email protected] www.ghd.com
Report, which included observed conditions, a structural condition assessment, quantifying aggregate storage
capacity, and repair cost estimates.
USCG Waterfront Facilities Inspection
Project Manager, Team Leader
USCG | Southeast, USA
Condition Assessment and Structural Analysis for USCG
CEU Miami including the performance of structural
above and underwater inspections and assessments at
19 USCG shore facilities across seven states, Puerto
Rico, and the USVI. Inspections included 111 separate
structures, including fixed and floating piers, wharves, bulkheads, seawalls, jetties, dolphins, travel lift piers, and tramways, consisting of steel, concrete, and timber elements. In addition to the inspections, a Basic
Structural Analysis (BSA) was performed on 18
structures for load limit verification or to establish load limits where load limits were previously unknown. An
assessment report was prepared for each waterfront
facility inspected, including a summary narrative of the inspection, that identified discrepancies and deficiencies of each asset and the recommended timetable for repair, remaining service life, and budgetary construction cost estimates.
Holland Tunnel Piers 9 and 204 Reconstruction
Structural Engineer
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey | Jersey
City, NJ
Structural engineering services were provided for the
planning and phasing of the demolition of an
approximately 160,000‑square‑foot, 80‑year‑old pier
constructed of concrete and timber. The scope included
development of construction documents consisting of
design drawings and technical specifications to support demolition activities. Cost estimates were prepared for the pier demolition, as well as for multiple replacement pier alternatives. Structural analyses were also
performed to evaluate potential vessel collision
scenarios for use in the future design of protective
systems for Pier 9. Existing pier conditions were verified through a comprehensive site investigation to confirm
structural configuration and material conditions.
Port Newark Berth 14 Wharf Reconstruction
Project Structural Engineer
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey | Port
Newark, NJ
Project structural engineer for the design and
construction of a new wharf structure that consisted of a 45-foot-wide, 600-foot-long steel-pipe-pile-supported,
concrete deck, high-level platform. Prepared
construction documents including design drawings and
specifications. Provided design of the foundation for an isolated 125-ton mooring bollard that facilitated shipping operations during the wharf’s demolition and
reconstruction. The mooring bollard was founded on a
5’-6” reinforced concrete pile cap supported by four (4) drilled-in steel pipe piles with rock sockets. Additional involvement with the project included construction
administration services such as submittal reviews and
responding to RFIs as well as attending construction
meetings and site visits.
30th Street Pier Recycling Facility
Project Structural Engineer
SIMS | Brooklyn, NY
Project structural engineer for design and analysis of
wharf structure involving evaluation of crane outrigger loads imposed on the concrete deck, mooring/berthing
loads from the construction barge, and environmental
forces (wind, wave, current, seismic, and ice). Primary resident engineer for construction support services
during development of the materials recovery facility at Sims Metal Management’s 30th Street Pier Facility.
Provided daily oversight of construction of this four-berth barge facility to determine compliance with contract
documents and that construction proceeded in a safe
manner. Oversaw activities such as pipe pile driving;
steel sheet pile driving; the use of vibratory hammers
and impact hammers; the performance of Static Load
Tests and Dynamic Load Tests (PDA); precast concrete
construction; and CIP concrete pours.
Port Newark Berth 14 Wharf Reconstruction
Project Structural Engineer
NYCEDC | Manhattan, NY
Project structural engineer and inspection team member
for the completion of an engineering investigation to
determine the stability of a dilapidated transfer bridge in Slip 5 of the Battery Maritime Building. The investigation included a document review, above and below water
inspection, and an engineering analysis. The objective
was to determine if the transfer bridge could be salvaged or if it had to be demolished before collapsing and
causing further facility damage. All findings, conclusions, and recommendations were compiled in a report which
documented site observations, analyses, and
photographs.
5.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Kristine Gaspar | Environmental Documentation and Permitting T 707.236.1539 | E [email protected] www.ghd.com
Kristine Gaspar
Environmental Documentation and Permitting
Location
Santa Rosa, CA
Experience
30 years
Qualifications/Accreditations
– MPA, Public Administration, California State University, Sonoma, CA – BA, Environmental Studies and Planning, California State University, Sonoma, CA Key technical skills
– California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Compliance
– Resource Agency Permitting
Memberships
– California American Planning Association
– Association of Environmental Professionals
Relevant experience summary
Kristine Gaspar’s experience includes 30 years of environmental planning, CEQA compliance, resource agency permitting, data research and analysis, and grant writing. Kristine has been involved in environmental analysis on a wide variety of projects from private development to infrastructure projects, including residential, schools, recycled water, and park facilities. She is currently the project manager for the Kelly Farm Mitigation Bank Project, and the contract manager for the San Jose Department of Public Works On-Call Environmental Services. Kristine’s projects are often complex, requiring out-side-the-box problem solving, with multiple deadlines.
North Bay Ferry Maintenance Facility IS/MND
and Permitting
Project Planner
Water Emergency Transportation Authority | Vallejo,
CA
Oversaw preparation of the IS/MND and was
responsible for coordinating and securing the resource
agency permitting. The project included the construction of a new docking and maintenance facility within Mare
Island Strait for the WETA. The permitting agencies
involved include Bay Conservation Development
Commission (Major Permit), USACE (Section 10 Permit
and Waiver to build within Federal Channel), San
Francisco RWQCB (Water Quality Certification),
National Marine Fisheries Service (Formal Consultation), California Department of Fish & Game (Streambed
Alteration Agreement and Incidental Take Permit), and
US Coast Guard (approval to build within Federal
Channel). The project also involved coordination with
Navy Base Realignment and Closure.
Richmond Ferry Terminal Permitting
Project Planner
San Francisco Bay Ferry
Richmond, CA
Oversaw the resource agency permitting process and
supporting technical studies for this new Water
Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) ferry
terminal located at the terminus of Harbour Way S, in
Richmond. Approvals included Dredged Material
Management Office (sediment quality sampling plan and
disposal plan), USACE (Nationwide Permit), San
Francisco RWQCB (401 Certification), and Bay
Conservation Development Commission (Administrative
Permit).
Petaluma Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility
and River Access Improvements EIR, Addenda
and Permitting
Assistant Project Manager
City of Petaluma | Petaluma, CA
Served as Assistant Project Manager for preparation of
four EIR addenda, an individual USACE 404 permit,
Section 7 consultation for seven endangered species
including California clapper rail, California red-legged
5.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Kristine Gaspar | Environmental Documentation and Permitting T 707.236.1539 | E [email protected] www.ghd.com
frog, and salt marsh harvest mouse, State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) submittal, SF RWQCB 401
Certification, State Lands Commission Lease, Fish &
Game Streambed Alteration Agreement, and Bay
Conservation and Development Commission
Regionwide 2 permit. An important part of the scope of
work included incorporation of EIR mitigation measures
and resource agency permit requirements into the
construction specifications to ensure compliance.
Ellis Creek WRF Outfall Demolition and
Relocation
CEQA and Permitting Lead
City of Petaluma | Petaluma, CA
The City’s existing wastewater pipeline and outfall
structure within the marsh and Petaluma River was
aging and in need of replacement. The City decided to
remove the existing outfall and relocate to an adjacent slough. Ms. Gaspar assisted the City with CEQA
coverage and resource agency permitting including US
Army Corps of Engineers, SF Bay RWQCB, CDFW, and
BCDC. Concerns included salinity changes in the slough
and marsh at the new outfall location, and potential
impacts to marsh habitat, salmonids, clapper rail, black rail, and salt marsh harvest mouse.
Multiple Subsea Fiber Optic Cable Projects
Project Manager
Private Client, Multiple Regions in the Pacific
Serving as Project Manager for four subsea cable
projects landing in a variety of geographic areas within the United States and its territories. Two have landed
and two are pending. To-date, all permits have been
obtained on time and within budget. Permits obtained
include US Army Corps of Engineers NWP 57; Section 7
and Essential Fish Habitat Consultations with US
National Marine Fisheries Service; Section 7
Consultation with US Fish & Wildlife Service; Section
401 Water Quality Certification or Pre-authorization from applicable local agencies implementing the US EPA
regulations; various local approvals; and coordination on behalf of Purchaser for submerged land leases, right of ways, and crossing US Department of Defense
regulated waters.
County of Marin Department of Public Works
Environmental On-Call
Project Manager, Contract Manager
County of Marin | Marin County, CA
GHD has had an environmental services on-call with
County of Marin since 2018. To-date we have executed
9 individual projects for environmental review of various road maintenance projects funded through Caltrans and
FEMA. Documentation has included preparation of
Minimal Impact NES Reports, and we are currently
assisting with cultural review in support of Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding for 9
emergency road-repair projects where damage resulted
from the 2023 storm events.
County of Marin Department of Public Works
On-Call Environmental Emergency Bio Review
Project Manager, Contract Manager
County of Marin | Marin County, CA
GHD assisted with permitting and biological review for 6 emergency road projects funded through FEMA, after
the 2022/2023 winter storms. Repairs consisted of
shoring slip outs, installation of pier walls and rip rap, and repair to stormwater facilities. Some project sites were adjacent to waterbodies, which required additional care through design and avoidance measures.
Mendocino Unified School District Water
System Reconstruction
Quality Control Reviewer
Mendocino Unified School District | Mendocino
County, CA
Served as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and CEQA Project Manager for the review for this water
system reconstruction project in unincorporated
Mendocino County. The project includes demolition of
existing District water storage tanks and construction of replacement tanks, new potable groundwater wells,
construction of new water treatment facilities, and
reconstruction of existing on-site utilities, access roads, and drainages. The GHD team prepared the NEPA and
CEQA documentation for the project, including biological and cultural resources studies, a CEQA IS/MND, and
State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving
Fund CEQA-plus documentation.
East D Street Improvements Permitting Memo
Project Planner
City of Petaluma | Petaluma, CA
Served as Project Planner responsible for preparing a
technical memorandum on the resource permitting
requirements for the project which included USACE
Section 404 Permit, San Francisco Bay RWQCB Section
401 Water Quality Certification, California Department of Fish & Game Section 1602 Lake and Streambed
Alteration Agreement, and California State Lands
Commission lease application. The project included
extending utilities beneath the Petaluma River.
5.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Steve Ferrero | Cost Estimating
T 415.296.2043 | E [email protected] www.ghd.com
Steve Ferrero PE
Cost Estimating
Location
San Francisco, CA
Experience
30 years
Qualifications/Accreditations
– BS, Civil Engineering, California State University, Chico, CA – Certificate, Advanced Project Management, Stanford University (SCPM) – Civil Engineer, CA #52267
Key technical skills
– Construction Cost Engineering
– Team Leadership
– Constructability Reviews
– Project Management
Memberships
– Community Member, San Francisco Vision Zero Task
Force
Relevant experience summary
Steve Ferrero has more than 30 years of broad experience in all in construction planning and management, project management and design. He has considerable expertise in cost engineering, estimation and cost management, project delivery and scheduling of infrastructure projects. Project types include heavy civil, such as roads, airports and bridges and buildings including California hospitals, schools, and colleges. Steve also specializes in condition assessment or building and properties in the private sector.
Port Of San Francisco Pier 50 Retrofit &
Replacement Building
Senior Cost Consultant
Port of San Francisco | San Francisco, CA | $100
million
Served as Senior Cost Consultant responsible for cost
engineering. The retrofitted wharf will accommodate
both vessels and warehouses.
Port Of Oakland Wharves 24-26 Modernization
Senior Cost Consultant
Port of Oakland | Oakland, CA | $100 million
Lead Cost Engineer for substantial proposed
improvement alternatives including seismic upgrades.
Port of Alaska Terminal 1 Replacement
Senior Cost Consultant
Port of Alaska | Anchorage, AK | $530 million
Cost reviewer and drawing reviewer for replacement
Terminal 1 concrete wharf. The new wharf will
accommodate large commercial and military vessels.
NAVFAC Yap & Palau Wharf Modernizations
Senior Cost Consultant
NAVFAC | Yap & Palau Islands | $530 million
Served as a cost and design reviewer for schematic
stage designs of wharf replacements and additions,
dredging and roadwork. The new wharf will
accommodate large commercial and military vessels.
The project includes constructability planning for
substantial remote work.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC) Climate Change Adaptation-Seawall
Lead Cost Estimator
SFPUC | San Francisco, CA | $130 million
This project improves a 3,000-foot stretch of Ocean
Beach in San Francisco from erosion. The project
includes a substantial Seawall structure intended to
protect large adjacent wastewater infrastructure. The
5.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Steve Ferrero | Cost Estimating
T 415.296.2043 | E [email protected] www.ghd.com
project includes new roadways, bikeway and sidewalks,
stormwater collection-retention, a new public plaza and replacement restrooms.
Port of Hueneme Coastal and Hydrologic
Infrastructure
Lead Cost Estimator
Port of Hueneme | Oxnard, CA | $40 million
This project improves a Coastal Resilience and
upgrades to stormwater infrastructure. The proposed
works include a 3,000-foot ocean-facing seawall, flood
barriers, building relocation, new pump station raising utilities, and raising port areas.
SFPUC West Side Pump Station
Cost Estimator
SFPUC | San Francisco, CA | $45 million
Civil and structural estimates for generational upgrade of San Francisco Westside Pump Station. Project includes
deep shaft and secant pile construction, new knife gate in deep shaft, new concrete electrical building, large and lengthy new duct banks, underground piping, new
structural concrete improvements in existing building,
replacement mechanical trash racks and replacement
pumps. Protection of existing large wastewater trunk line under the road and considerable street and sidewalk
work.
Shoreline Levee Upgrades, Storm Drain and
Pump Station Replacement
Lead Cost Estimator
City of Mountain View | Mountain View, CA | $25
million
Construction estimates for multiple projects including
levees, shoreline culverts, large diameter storm drains, bike trail and bio-basins.
Coyote Creek Flood Control Projects
Lead Cost Engineer
Valley Water | Santa Clara County, CA | $120 million
The projects include multiple stages of sheet pile and
concrete flood walls at Coyote Creek.
Shoreline Protection and Storm Drainage
Senior Cost Consultant
City of Mountain View | Mountain View, CA | $20
million
Cost engineering for schematic stage through
construction drawings for upgraded levees, large
culverts, shoreline trail upgrade and large diameter
drainage and pump station upgrades at Ponds A1 and
A2W.
San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge East Span
Lead Cost Estimator
Bay Area Toll Authority | San Francisco, CA;
Oakland, CA | $7 billion
Managed multiple teams of cost engineers to prepare
detailed estimates and summaries of planned and
under-construction projects which together formed the
new east span. Designs ranged from conceptual phase
to 100% designed and under construction.
5.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Prepared by:
Satish Chilka, PE
Project Manager
925.849.1019
[email protected]
Jeremy Svehla, PE
Business Group Leader
707.267.2246
[email protected]
5.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project)
EXHIBIT B
COMPENSATION
5.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Pacifica Pier
Rehabilitation
Project
Price Proposal
City of Pacifica March 6, 2026
GHD Reference: 12690772
5.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project) Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project
12690772
Using FAR rates for Federal Grant compliance
Description Project
Director QA/QC Project Manager
Deputy Project
Manager
Lead
Structural
Engineer
Lead Env /
Permits Env / Permit Wildlife Biologist
Project
Engineer CAD Stakeholder Engagement
Exhibits /
Rendering
Federal
Financial
Reporting
Scheduler Cost QC GIS Total Hours Labor Total
Cooke
Construction
Services
New Age
Aerial
Treanor Subs Markup
Total
Subcontractors
Estimated
Project Total
Craig
Lewis Adam Bogage Satish Chilka Stephanie Gould
Andrew
Cronin
Kristine
Gaspar
Sarah
Bender
Miles
Hartnett
Russo
Hernandez/
Madeline
Mueller
Amanda
Martinez Yosef Yip Kristopher Stith
Victoria
Landry
Chesbro
Doug
Guidry
Steve
Ferrero
Evan
Thompson
$366 $321 $308 $202 $301 $247 $201 $141 $137 $105 $258 $158 $161 $147 $264 $107 Task1 Project Management & Coordination 16 0 92 80 0 32 16 0 0 0 0 0 80 40 0 0 356 $80,293 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,293 Task2 Stakeholder & Public Engagement 0 0 4 32 8 16 12 0 0 16 40 40 0 0 0 0 168 $34,814 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,814 Task3 Technical Studies & Supporting Analyses 0 0 14 0 24 22 32 56 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 180 $34,742 $0 $0 $20,000 $2,000 $22,000 $56,742 Task4 Field Assessment & Data Verification 0 0 24 0 40 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 $28,221 $0 $63,000 $0 $6,300 $69,300 $97,521 Task5 Rehabilitation Design Development 0 0 6 0 56 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 $26,941 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,941 Task6 Permitting Support 0 0 2 0 0 24 28 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 $14,711 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,711 Task7 Environmental Clearance 0 0 0 0 0 32 72 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 130 $25,853 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,853 Task8 Plans, Specification, and Cost Estimate (PS&E) 0 88 80 0 156 16 0 0 320 336 0 0 0 0 72 0 1068 $202,111 $39,035 $0 $0 $3,904 $42,939 $245,049 Task9 Bid Phase Support 0 4 20 0 32 0 0 0 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 $22,066 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,066 Task10 Construction Phase Support 0 4 16 32 64 0 0 0 104 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 280 $52,543 0 0 0 $0 $0 $52,543 Total Labor Hours 16 96 258 144 380 142 160 76 572 468 40 40 80 40 72 22 2606 $522,295 $39,035 $63,000 $20,000 $12,204 $134,239 $656,533 x Estimated Project Total $5,853 $30,780 $79,580 $29,128 $114,479 $35,144 $32,136 $10,745 $78,358 $49,337 $10,329 $6,312 $12,850 $5,896 $19,005 $2,362 2606 $522,295 $39,035 $63,000 $20,000 $12,204 $134,239 $656,533
5.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment 1: GHD Consultant Services Agreement (6194 : Award Pacifica Pier Rehabilitation Project)