CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 March 28, 2022
March 28, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on March 28, 2022 at 7:01 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Tina Wehrmeister, Asst. City Manager/Planning Director; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Chief Finan. Sustainability Officer; Christian Murdock, Dep. Planning Director; Christopher Clements, Police Capt.; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Nelson Schlater, Sr. Engineer; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Anthony Schriver, Acting Rec.
Asst. Supvr.; Tommy Yu, IT Manager; Josh Montemayor, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - National Poetry Month - April 2022
City Council Regular Meeting 2 March 28, 2022
Mayor Bier mentioned this year’s San Mateo County Poet Laureate, Aileen Cassinetto, was present, then read the proclamation acknowledging National Poetry Month in April 2022.
Aileen Cassinetto stated it was an honor to be present in this beautiful and historic city where there are poets, artists and lovers of nature and peace, mentioning that poetry is a great community builder to understand the world. She stated that, on behalf of poets of Pacifica, she was honored to accept Pacifica’s National Poetry Month proclamation and share a poem that was commissioned by San Mateo County Health to honor all first responders and families of loved ones lost to Covid-19. She then read the poem, "Take Heart." Then Council took a photo with her.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmember wanted to pull any item off the consent calendar, and seeing no one, opened up for public comments. She didn’t see anyone and asked Mgmt.
Analyst Montemayor if there were all call-ins for comment.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were none.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for 2/01/22 through 2/15/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 2/01/22 through 2/15/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on March 14, 2022.
3. FY 2022-23 Pavement Resurfacing Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the FY 2022-23 Pavement Resurfacing Project:
A. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Construction Services Agreement with DRYCO Construction Inc. (Attachment "A") in an amount not to exceed $1,084,188.10 and authorize a budget authority for construction in the amount of $1,246,816.10, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Services Agreement amount; and B. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. (Attachment "B") to provide Construction Management Services in the amount not exceed of $116,684.00 and authorize a budget authority for construction management in an amount not to exceed $128,352.00, which includes contingencies in the amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of Task Order No. 1; and
C. Authorize staff to execute future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amounts.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 March 28, 2022
4. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Title 2, Chapter 9, “District Elections” to Repeal and Replace Section 2-9.02 “City Council Districts Established” of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code to Adopt City Council District Boundaries Based on 2020 Census Data
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Title 2, Chapter 9, “District Elections” by Repealing and Replacing Section 2-9.02, “City Council Districts Established” of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code to Adopt City Council District Boundaries Based on 2020 Census Data; and finding ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he wanted to make a correction to his comments at the Study Session on Saturday, specifically, regarding HPD’s expiry status, and stated that the Growth Control Ordinance has a termination date of June 30th of this year and hopes it is addressed on the calendar of work.
Therese Dyer, Pacifica, had comments regarding several issues; i.e., against any increases to sewer tax, questions on city’s budget, art work process, cost of consultants for seven years, the ADA representative and legal process for hiring Tina Wehrmeister’s replacement.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated she was in agreement with Clif Lawrence, and added her concerns regarding the Growth Control Ordinance and request for public discussion on that subject, availability of General Plan draft and lack of fire maps, issues of projects in high landslide/hazard areas, and stated that April is Earth Month and she and her husband will be organizing tours of their all-electric, net-zero house that won the water wise design contest in April and May.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated there were no call-ins.
Mayor Bier saw no further speakers in person and closed Oral Communications.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended the Flood / Sea Level Rise meeting where they discussed a project in Burlingame and Millbrae being started by the state and finished by the cities. A local government forum to talk about state issues, mainly on redistricting. She mentioned a Special Council meeting to interview applicants for commissions/committees. She attended a business social at Longboard Margarita and Green Enchilada brought dinner. She thanked Vicki from Pacifica Locals for putting that together with 30 local business people present. She stated that the Goal Setting Sessions over the weekend was a great event, and she thanked all those who attended the in person meetings, which she enjoyed.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he attended the Council applicant interviews and the Goal Setting Session, He attended county LAFCO meeting and the BID (Business Improvement District) meeting for the hotels to talk with them. He attended the congestion management meeting and they are having a grant coming out in June or July and they are thinking of tying it to the housing production, and cities that meet a higher percentage of their RHNA numbers will get more points to get grants. He referred to a slide he will be forwarding to the City Manager about grants for storm water and flood controls that may be coming out, mentioning possibly City Council Regular Meeting 4 March 28, 2022
110 points and will get bonus points for housing production. He stated that for the high school district’s May 1st is the date for teachers to move into the housing project and they passed a bond. He stated that he has been working on starting van pools to minimize the traffic to and from the schools, mentioning that they were not originally eligible for the bond as the criteria is lowering greenhouse gas emissions. He was soliciting his board of Commute.org regarding some projects needing to be looked at through a different lens as teacher housing are not going to be far away to reduce a lot of greenhouse gas but will reduce cars. He then mentioned the Jefferson Elementary School District building a half mile away from the other housing project for Jefferson Union High School District and Pacifica is hoping to turn the first shovel this year and Half Moon Bay has just signed a contract to see where they can put employee housing. He stated that Crestmoor was recently sold in San Bruno and there will be a teacher housing contingent there. He stated that the one going at Jefferson High School District may have a shot at being the model for the 26 school districts in San Mateo County. He stated that the airplanes have changed their routes slightly, adding that the City Manager may be able to update them. He mentioned that Fog Fest is back.
Councilmember Beckmeyer attended the Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee meeting which was informative, such as details about laundry to landscape project with more details when funded and it will be a program to reroute your washing machine water to underground garden, mentioning a member in the community who plans tours in April who might doing something already, and she will keep them updated. She attended the Coastal Cities group meeting, stating that the League of California Cities has an attorney to work with that group with upcoming sticky issues within the Coastal Act, and they met and had a beneficial meeting. She mentioned an issue going on at Fort Bragg, north of her zone, then mentioned the Skunk Train which is a railroad but under federal railway laws, it does not have to their projects reviewed by the Coastal Commission. She stated that Fort Bragg is trying to develop a visitors’ serving economy and the parcel of land they have plans for is off the table because the skunk train acquired it, she will update them with any interesting evolution. She attended the Pacifica Democrats meeting which had Assemblymember Marc Berman present, and he spoke about a bill from last year on a source called S.O.R.E. (small off road engines) which is replacing gas powered small powered machines in landscaping, etc., with electric ones. She stated that there was a $30 million allocation set aside that California Air Resources Board is developing a rebate program for those operators to be able to replace their equipment with new equipment as it is challenging to have enough batteries to carry them through the day such as with fossil fuels carry them through the day and there is a lot to be worked out and won’t take effect until January 2024, but they will keep an eye on the grant program as there may be some local businesses that would like to apply. She attended the committee/commission applicant interviews and Council’s Goal Setting on Friday afternoon and all day Saturday the past weekend. She had the opportunity to participate in an art class in Sharp Park at 731 Designs Art Gallery the day after it rained which was so wonderful.
Mayor Bier stated that she was part of the Mayors Mental Health Initiative and reported that they are collaborating with mayors across the county to bring resources into our communities to address mental health and they will be having Mental Health First Aid training in May which is Mental Health Awareness Month, and the county has offered to pay for that as well as the trainers and encouraged the public to join them. She attended the Open Space meeting and she thanked them for coming to the Goal Setting. She attended the Pacifica Hot Rodz monthly meet up, which was fun. She attended the committee/commission interviews. She was on the C/CAG Bike and Pedestrian Committee and they approved a project for Pacifica for Palmetto and Esplanade bike and pedestrian improvements and Assoc. Civil Engr. Marquez put the project together and the city was awarded $335,160 to do all that work, adding that the City Council Regular Meeting 5 March 28, 2022
residents in Manor and along Esplanade will be happy to know that. She attended the Pacifica Coastside Museum’s history of the Pacifica Tribune. She stated that there was a panel discussion with Horace Hinshaw and Clay Lambert, the current editor of the Tribune. She stated that it was wonderful and brought her back to her childhood experiences, and pointed out that the museum at the Little Brown Church, had boxes of old copies of the Tribune from the beginning to the present that you can go and look at them. She thanked the Pacifica Historical Society for making sure we don’t forget our history. She attended the Goal Setting Study sessions, stating that it was a beautiful experience, and on Friday they did retreat style team building and facilitator who came in and it carried over to Saturday morning then discussed their goal priorities in the afternoon. She stated that they had the opportunity to dig deep and share their feelings over the past few years and how they deal with it. She stated she would hand it over to City Manager Woodhouse for Staff Communications.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to what is going on overseas with some heartbreak there and he is with them to the extent that he can. He attended the Emergency Preparedness meeting and they were reminded by one of the commissioners that the chipping program will be returning where you can bring flammable growing material around their house to the outside of the house when a chipper comes through and chips it for them. He stated that they came off of tsunami preparedness week, mentioning that our zone haven system has been recently updated so that, not only is it a great way to know how to get away in case of fire danger, but also to alert you if there is a tsunami. He stated to visit Zone Haven and be prepared for the worst case scenario. He referred to the San Mateo County Alerts (SMCAlerts), stating it is easy to sign up for those as it was great to have information such as if a mountain lion has been sighted in your neighborhood, etc. He then stated that it was exciting that Fog Fest will be back in September, and the committee members were excited about hosting a booth. He stated that the Emergency Preparedness meeting will be on April 20. At the Pacifica Democrats meeting, he enjoyed the presence of our future Assemblyman Marc Berman who was the least pretentious human beings he never met, he was enthusiastic about his job and he looked forward to working with him. He attended the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting and they added what is known as the second imperial geothermal company project, which adds about 5.5% of the energy needs towards the 19 megawatts they are trying to establish to be 24/7 clean and that project will start in the beginning of the next year coming out of Imperial County. It was a $275 million allocation over 15 years and a zero emission project. They discussed the local government solar and storage program, approving it on the Board level and discussed that in Council in relation to a solar project for the Community Center and staff was bringing all of those projects together to the board so they could sign off on it and the next step is to get the rates involved for the project so the project can come back to Council to give the final okay on it and then install it, with the next PCE meeting in April. He was on the call for the OneShoreline meeting with Councilmember Vaterlaus, stating he was struck by the Millbrae - Burlingame shoreline protection project being the largest sea level rise project in the state, aside from Highway 37. He was impressed watching them begin to get the plans prepared for what will be protecting them on the bayside. He stated that Lucky’s nearly averted a strike, and he would have more information. Safeway has a new negotiator and the union tells him that negotiations are looking hopeful. He stated that there have been murmurs that Safeway and our community might be authorizing a strike vote soon, but they may not. He enjoyed the Goal Setting session with councilmembers and staff on Friday and Saturday. He stated that there was no sound bite he can offer to tell them how healing it was to spend time doing development work with his cocouncilmembers and reestablishing the fullness of what he thinks their strength is, i.e., how much respect and admiration they have for each other. He stated that they did soul work, which is apparently unusual for cities. On Saturday they brought staff in to remind them how much love, admiration and respect they have for city staff, they then went on to assign the one thing City Council Regular Meeting 6 March 28, 2022
they are adding on to the mound of work staff has. He felt it was a healing exercise and they also got to hear from the community to factor that into their approach to various community concerns. He stated that they were sad to see asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister leaving, mentioning the extraordinary work she has done over at least seven years with the city and thanked her for her efforts in bringing our community to a place that, before she came, they didn’t think was necessarily possible.
Mayor Bier stated that they were told that Sidney Lorvan passed away who was a former mayor in 1977-78 and they lived in Vallemar. She stated that our hearts are with his family and she will be adjourning the meeting in his honor.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to begin by thanking Council for all their hard work during the annual goal setting process, as well as the community that provided comments. He stated that the first half of the goal setting development process is priceless and was very productive. He stated that half about setting priorities is extremely valuable, productive and instructive which kicks off the budget development process for the next fiscal year. He stated that they will be processing the information coming out of goal setting, bring it to Council in April for adoption of the Council’s goals. He thought it was likely going to be April 11, but it could be on April 25.
They will kick off the budget process with their narrative budget and budget strategies and information about preexisting baseline budgets which guides them towards adoption by the end of the year and planning for the next fiscal year. He stated that it was a lot of work with preparation, thought, sharing, etc. He stated that Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister is leaving the city for the private sector. She also serves as the Planning Director and they are in the midst of some significant planning endeavors, and Dep. Planning Director Murdock will be Acting Planning Director during this time. He stated that they are extending an existing contract with the Good City with a specific commitment from the owner and principal Aaron Aknin, from the Good City to come in as sort of a third set of eyes and resource to focus on the General Plan update and the Specific Plan in process. He stated that Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister was going to be turning the bulk of her attention to that process and now they are going to bring this third party expertise. The Good City is a company that has extreme expertise in General Plans and Specific Plans, and they will try to fill the big gap that Ms.
Wehrmeister will be leaving and have the Good City assist during this transition period. Then he is assessing the necessary steps for recruitment and filling that gap in the future, and he will make announcements about that in the future as they determine those. He announced, in the introduction to the Connect with Pacifica newsletter, about additional small business grant opportunities that have been announced. He stated that, health wise, they may be coming out of Covid depending on new variants, but at goal setting on Saturday, he was trying to be optimistic about that. He stated that the organizations would like to see that there is not going be a new variant, but the economy is not, and grant opportunities are still being created to assist businesses. He stated that this particular round of grants through the SMC Strong Program through the county is really focused on micro food business grants and microbusinesses which are small net earner businesses. He encouraged everyone to go to the SMC Strong county website to look at what the qualifications for those grants are, and to all the members of the public, let their favorite small businesses in Pacifica know about these grant opportunities that exist. He stated that the deadlines are April 10 and 11 for those two grant programs.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he wanted to mention the April 11 deadline. He stated that the qualifications are, if they have less than five employees and revenue less than $50,000 in 2019, and for more than $1,000 in one of those years, as you suffered a decline. He stated that non- City Council Regular Meeting 7 March 28, 2022
profits are also eligible to apply. He spoke to the overseer for this and they have 305 grants available, and they only had 100 applications about a week ago. She thought only half of those would even qualify, and he wanted to pass that information on. He also wanted to put a plug in for local restaurants, as the City Manager said they were hurting, and he was told over the weekend that there are two restaurants that are really hurting and they have both been in business in Pacifica for over 30 years. He encouraged patronizing the local small guy because, if your kids are on a sports team, how many donations have they gotten from McDonald’s or Panda Express as they get donations from their local pizza store, etc., and they are part of the quilt we call Pacifica. He didn’t want to name the two actual businesses but encouraged everyone to go to the small businesses that are really hurting. He stated that 70% of the money you spend at a small business is recycled back into Pacifica but if you spend it at Safeway or McDonald’s, it is only 30%.
Mayor Bier asked the City Attorney if they can move an item up, stating that there are a lot of young people in the audience who have been sitting quietly for 50 minutes which she thinks is amazing. She has never done this before.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they just need a motion and a second and Council can vote on whether or not to move one item into another position.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to move Item #7 up next on the agenda; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Vote: 5-0 (move Item #7 to next on the agenda)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Adoption of a Resolution to approve General Plan Amendment GPA-100-21 to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential, and introduction of an Ordinance to approve Rezoning RZ-201-18 and Development Plan DP-79-18 to rezone from the R-1/B-4/HPD zoning district to the P-D/HPD zoning district and to authorize a single-family residential use, filed by Matthew and Margaret Murphy, at the eastern terminus of Talbot Avenue (APN 016-270-110) in Pacifica (File No. 2018-057). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Class 3 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Resolution and Ordinance, and approved Specific Plan SP-169-18, Variance PV-526-18, and Parking Exception PE191-21 for construction of a 2,406-square foot (sf) single-family residence with a two-car garage on the 24,149-sf undeveloped parcel, by a vote of 7-0 on January 18, 2022.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution to approve General Plan Amendment GPA-100-21 and to introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ-201-18 and Development Plan DP-79-18 to establish a Planned Development (P-D) zoning district with development plan at TBD Talbot Avenue (APN 016-270-110).”
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she needs to recuse herself because she manages a property that comes right up to Talbot.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 March 28, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they usually have a liaison from the Planning Commission when they hear these things, and he asked what Dep. Planning Director Murdock can tell him.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock reminded Council that this item was scheduled for the March 14 Council meeting and the liaison was able to commit to attending, but unfortunately with the continuance, the liaison was unavailable.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he watched both Planning Commission meeting and he spoke with him earlier and he feels that, even though he got satisfaction, he had a question regarding the planned development district, and he asked if he could give them a slightly mechanical look on how it looks that they have to change the zoning to a planned development district and is it only for that house or the adjacent lots as well. While not being an expert, it struck him as a lot of acrobatics to do a planned development district, or is it the name alone that sets him down that path and he asked for more in depth information.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that there are two sets of procedures and requirements at play here, one is the base provisions of the PD zoning district and the other is the Hillside Preservation District (HPD) overlay. He stated that the base planned development or PD zoning regulations require a minimum site area of five acres or more in order to rezone to PD.
His opinion on that is that the advantage of the Planned Development and deviations from standard zoning requirements are best effectuated with a site that is large enough to cluster and shift development in a concentrated area while preserving open space and hillside, etc. He stated that the HPD overlay provision actually has a specific carveout for sites that are within the HPD overlay and they are exempted from the five acre minimum site area and the requirement to rezone to PD can take place and is required by the HPD zoning standards, thus that five acre minimum size is not applicable. It is applicable to any project size, large or small, in the HPD overlay that they are required to rezone to the PD zoning district.
Mayor Bier referred to his mention of a public access to a foot path that is not possible to have, and she asked if he could explain that.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock referenced the slide and explained that there was an existing path that has been used for years and is a continuation of Talbot Avenue, going up a very deep slope with somewhat unstable conditions in some places, going all the way up to Sharp Park Road, roughly midway between the entrance to the Milagra Ridge Park and to the Grace McCarthy overlook. He stated that the minor portion of that path is on this project site, and the majority portion of it is on land that is part of the federal government owned GGNRA, and to whatever extent the city could obtain an easement, it wouldn’t necessarily be a full continuation until that was agreed with GGNRA. He stated that, specific to the project site, there is no nexus for this particular project to be required to provide a public trail easement and staff didn’t provide the Planning Commission that such an opportunity existed which they understood and it was put to rest at the Planning Commission. He stated that the property owner has mentioned previously, if liabilities could be worked out, he would be open to that at some point in the future, but it is not part of the project.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she couldn’t find anything in the packet about fencing, and asked if he can indicate where, if any, fencing is in the plan put forward to the Planning Commission.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that the site plan indicates no fencing around the City Council Regular Meeting 9 March 28, 2022
perimeter of the project site and they focused their development activity on the southern portion they talked about with construction of the driveway, single family residence and some of the drainage features.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked, with the zoning being proposed, what the fence limitations be that is attached to that.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that the zoning provisions applicable to fencing in single family residential areas are generally permissive with the only limitations on height. He stated that it is generally within the first 15 feet, heights are typically limited to between 3 and 4 feet, depending on the fence type and elsewhere on the property limited to six feet, such as a scenario where a 6-foot fence varied under the zoning could be constructed around the entirety of the property line, baring the first 15 feet from the property line within the front setback.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to one her questions and thought he might be inspired by an email they received with concerns about animals being able to roam freely in that area. He stated that the idea was brought up that, as they are legislating the matter, they could limit the amount of fencing that could be presented on the property if they chose to, and if that is correct, what are their options.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated he was correct, explaining that one action being asked of Council is to introduce and ultimately adopt an ordinance setting the specific zoning for this property, in the PD, which is called the development plan. He stated that the provisions in it have a number of zoning related provisions in terms of setbacks, height, maximum coverage, etc. He stated that, within that bundle of zoning characteristics that can be regulated in that ordinance with the Development Plan, fencing can fit in there if Council wants to add it. He stated that it wasn’t something that they frequently are specific about in a development plan but this is a unique site with important interface with Milagra Ridge and open spaces beyond and if Council wants to, they can add specific provisions for fencing, a restriction on the fencing type, height, where it can be placed, such as in proximity to approved structures, so they don’t get the perimeter fencing effect, concluding that there are a number of options depending on Council’s desire and staff can help them explore how to write it into the Development Plan if desired.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, when they get to deliberations, he favors going over those options.
Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock asked the City Attorney if there was an opportunity for the applicant to make their presentation in relation to their petition for these zoning changes.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that this is not an appeal and they will be able to speak at the same opportunity as any other member of the public.
Robert Boles, Pacifica, stated that he visited Canyon Drive which is down the slope from the project site, and described the visuals and the past history of landslides which was not presented to the Planning Commission, and asked that the geotechnical report properly analyzes the site and sends report to Council before the project is approved due to future concerns.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, referenced concerns of a resident from Canyon Drive at a previous City Council Regular Meeting 10 March 28, 2022
meeting, and then voiced his thoughts on the effect on homeowners below this project and liability and policy issues.
Paul Giordano, Pacifica, stated he is a contractor and builder including some projects in Pacifica, and expressed his thoughts on this project and advocated support of this project adding to available housing.
Terrence Kero, Pacifica, stated his house was the first one built at the end of Talbot in 1990, and he supported this development, and mentioned a history of requested variances and positive aspects of this project.
Curt Keist, Pacifica, stated he was in support of this project and he represents the majority of the neighbors on upper Talbot, also mentioning the long-term process for this modest project.
Debbie Keist, Pacifica, stated she agreed with everything Mr. Keist said, and she felt the applicant needed to hear all the residents showing their delight in this project as an emotional YIMBY and supported less restrictions, including fencing.
Brendan Murphy, Pacifica, stated that, as the applicant, he wants this approved as they look forward to being a part of a great supportive community and they have worked diligently with Planning.
Javier Chavarria, Pacifica, stated that his firm designed the house, the property is unique, and described some specifics of limitations on what they can do and mentioned their positive processes regarding soil instability, etc. He stated that it is a good project and they have mitigated all the areas of concern.
Annette O’Neill, Pacifica, stated she was related to the applicant and wanted to correct a statement made at an earlier meeting by a speaker complaining about the possibility of water invading to his property. She lives at 570 Talbot and she and the applicant visited the speaker over the weekend and had a very productive conversation and he was satisfied.
Teresa Sulcer, Pacifica, stated she was an advocate for creating housing in this crisis, and felt this was another family supporting the community, school system, etc., and we need to support that.
Brian O’Flynn, Pacifica, expressed his pleasure to be present in support of the applicant’s family whom he has known for decades and knows they are quality people who do quality work, adding that he is an architect and builder and attests to the quality of the work.
Farlan Dowell, Pacifica, expressed his thoughts on why he was in favor of the project.
Mayor Bier asked if there were any call-ins.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated he is an architect and commented on the positive aspects of the project and felt it was important to approve the project, commenting on specific requirements needed to ensure things are done properly and safely.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, understood that no one wants to stop this home from being built, but City Council Regular Meeting 11 March 28, 2022
she was asking them to consider allowing an HPD variance and expressed her specific thoughts on that issue.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock wanted to address some comments about the project’s geotechnical review. He stated that, procedurally, the permits for the project are not at issue for Council, and those findings related to public health and safety for the permits and they were thoroughly vetted by Planning Commission and the permits are final, pending Council’s action on the legislative items. He stated that the Planning Commission also thoroughly considered geotechnical safety issues that they felt were relevant and important to the project. He referred to the question about updates to the geotechnical report, and in his experience, those updates are relatively common and they can’t predict when a project will move forward through the city’s process and are done at a point in time, in 2018 when the project was submitted to the city, and it reflected the key purposes of a preliminary geotechnical report which was prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer and identified major hazards that could affect the project, insure that there are engineering interventions to allow it to be constructed safely. He stated that they concluded that the project could meet applicable geotechnical safety standards and be constructed safely.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his only concern is that, should the applicant decide to move and someone else move in, that new owner not be allowed to create a very tall fence around the entirety of the perimeter of the lot. He mentioned a commenter referring to a gentleman who came to the last meeting to speak and he had also sent Council an email about his concerns and he noticed he is not at this meeting, and he stated that, when he spoke to Dep. Planning Director Murdock earlier, it sounded that he had also spoken to him and he asked if he could report to them on that conversation.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that the date following the March 14 Council meeting, he met with Mr. King at the Planning Department and printed him information that showed the drainage design for the project to demonstrate how no water would be drained towards Moana Way, and he also explained the city’s stormwater system and referred him to the Engineering division If he had further questions of the design of stormwater collection and disposal system beyond the project which is the applicant’s responsibility to design. He also confirmed his and the city’s understanding of the project stormwater design with the project engineer and verified with city’s PW staff that the stormwater design for the project would discharge to the north side of Talbot and the crown that exists within the cul-de-sac and the street would drain all the water to the north side of that area and not towards Moana Way.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they are asked to update the zoning to a planned development district and it falls into their purview to address the fence question, he will defer to his fellow councilmembers as to how far they want to take that. He stated that, after watching two Planning Commission meetings and watching this project being thoroughly vetted and hearing that the applicant has spent the last four years doing everything they can to make this the best project for all parties involved, he thought they can. He referred to the hearing about the development on Pedro Point and it wasn’t as friendly from the neighbors and this is very rare to hear that many people in thoroughly supporting this project. Since he rarely hears that support in Pacifica, he is substantially in favor of making the proper changes to the designations and voting this through.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that at the start of the meeting she had questions about City Council Regular Meeting 12 March 28, 2022
fencing and she appreciated Acting Planning Director Murdock’s answers and she didn’t think fencing was a concern for her and she supports the project.
Councilmember O’Neill also supports the project, sees no need for fencing, and was happy to hear that the foundations were going to be piered instead of a standard foundation. He has no problem amending all the appropriate rules they have to allow the building of this project.
Mayor Bier stated that she knew they talked about fire issues and fire code requirements, and asked if Dep. Planning Director Murdock can update her on that, acknowledging that there is a sprinkler system in the house.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that there will be if the house is approved and constructed. He stated that there were two areas where the Planning Commission touched on regarding fire related standards, one related to the wildland urban interface as it is at the end of an existing subdivision and has an interface with open space areas and steep slopes and the city flagged that early and considered, particularly the building official and fire marshal consulted on the city’s review of the project and concluded, based on relevant standards and building code, that it would not be required to apply the wild land urban interface construction standards and weren’t concerned about a heightened threat of wild land urban interface fire risks from this project, and the Planning Commission briefly discussed that. The second issue that he thought had more discussion was related to some of the applicable site planning codes, such as distance to a fire hydrant, hose pull from the fire engine where it can get closest to the structure and how long it is from that point to around the proposed structure. He stated that the baseline standard is 150 feet and it was discussed at their meeting. He stated that the project had a typo in the plans and the post pole is greater than 150 feet, something like 160 or so feet. That is the standard, but there are exceptions in the fire code upon approval of the fire code official to allow a greater distance when it is a single family residence or the structure will have a fire sprinkler system, this has both of those. He stated that the fire code official, Dep. Fire Chief Sean Kavanaugh, considered this issue and explained at the Planning Commission meeting that he had no concerns related to that post pole distance for this project.
Mayor Bier appreciated the level of communication from those who are concerned about this development, but also appreciated all those who came to support it, and she agreed with Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck that it is unusual and says a lot about what their neighborhood desires. She stated that, most of the time, when they are looking at a development, the desires are for them not to build, and they do listen to people in the neighborhoods. She was ready to vote.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to adopt a Resolution to approve General Plan Amendment GPA-100-21 and to introduce, waive the first reading and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ-201-18 and Development Plan DP-79-18 to establish a Planned Development (PD) zoning district with development plan at TBD Talbot Avenue (APN 016-270-110; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
Mayor Bier welcomed Councilmember Vaterlaus back to the dais.
Councilmember O’Neill thanked the applicant for their patience in working through the plans and their interaction with all the neighbors.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 March 28, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 0]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Beckmeyer
RECUSED: Vaterlaus
CONSIDERATION
6. Discussion Regarding Updates to the Park Development Impact Fee PROPOSED ACTION: Receive Report Regarding Park Development Facilities Impact Fee and the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication Requirements and In Lieu Fees within the City of Pacifica and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Potential Fee Reductions for Affordable Housing Units and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU).
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that Carlos Villareal of Willdan will be assisting in the presentation and Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister will be assisting in answering questions and then began the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can ask questions during the presentation or wait until after they complete the report.
PW Dep. Director Bautista requested that he wait until they finish the report and continued the staff report, then turned the presentation over to Carlos Villareal.
PW Dep. Director Bautista continued the staff report.
Carlos Villareal, with Willdan, continued the staff report.
PW Dep. Director Bautista continued the staff report.
Mr. Villareal continued the staff report.
PW Dep. Director Bautista completed the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to mention of subdivisions, and he asked the state’s definition of a subdivision and if Linda Mar is considered a subdivision, i.e., is it existing or only new subdivisions.
Mr. Villareal thought that might be a better question for the planners, but he understood that the Quimby Act is a portion of the subdivision map act and whenever a land subdivision occurs, properties within that subdivision would fall under the Quimby Act, but again he thought a planner might give a better definition.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that, typically, the Quimby Act fees are paid at the time of the actual subdivision, i.e., when a property is subdivided with the map.
She agreed that Linda Mar is a subdivision or various tracts of Linda Mar are a subdivision, but new homes or additions built within those would not be considered needing to pay the Quimby Act fee and just the impact fee.
Councilmember O’Neill asked clarification that a Linda Mar rancher that is now 3-bedroom, one City Council Regular Meeting 14 March 28, 2022
bathroom and adds a second story with two more bedrooms will not be paying the impact fees.
Mr. Villareal stated that they would be paying the additional impact fee per bedroom.
Councilmember O’Neill understood, and just wanted to clarify that. He then referred to SB9 and SB10 fees and asked if there were any restrictions in regard to these fees, park in lieu fees, etc., as he didn’t know what this one means. He asked if the 830 right to build law has any impact on Quimby fees.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she was not aware that it has, as she didn’t know anything in that legislation that deals with the ability to impose impact fees. She stated that legislation is aimed towards encouraging approval of housing units and not related to the fees or the costs associated with those approvals.
Councilmember O’Neill understood she would know, but he thought fees are one of the things that could be onerous if someone wants to build something.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that the legislation that they get from legislators is usually not all encompassing. She stated the legislation is not one only attempt but an attempt to address housing construction and building and was not an attempt to fix all of the issues associated with the lack of housing.
Councilmember O’Neill appreciated that, and then stated that, regarding SB9 and 10, he thought bedrooms are total per unit, and if a person is building an apartment building with two bedrooms in each unit, it is four units with eight bedrooms.
Mr. Villareal stated that you would pay the two-bedroom fee for two separate units.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that each unit would have its own separate fee.
Mr. Villareal responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to mention of proportional impact for units greater than 750 feet, and he asked for an explanation of how that would be assessed.
Mr. Villareal explained that the state will mandate how ADUs need to be charged, and anything less than 750 square feet is not charged a fee, and for anything greater than 750 square feet, you take the square footage of the ADU and you compare it to the square footage of the primary unit. If the ADU is 800 square feet and the primary unit on the lot was 1600 square feet, then the fee would be 50% of what the fee for the primary unit would have been. He stated that it is calculated on a case-by-case basis via the individual square footages of the particular property.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the first 750 feet was free or included in the fee.
Mr. Villareal stated that they are not a fee, but just a proportion of the total ADU square footage compared to the primary unit and, in that example, it would not be 50 square feet relative to 1600 square feet, but the 800 square feet relative to the 1600 square feet.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to a slide that stated $1,350,000 for building or improvements in the park land.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 March 28, 2022
Mr. Villareal agreed.
Councilmember O’Neill asked what $1,350,000 an acre buys you. He stated that the park land cost’s purchase is $1.5 million and the improvement is another $1.3 million, he asked if it is lawn or playground equipment, exercise equipment.
Mr. Villareal stated that is the standard to improve a park acre and is based on data then got from some of the neighbors which includes thinks like site preparation, grading, landscaping, curb, gutter, trails, playground equipment, basic park structures but not things like recreation centers or aquatic centers, just typical amenities found at typical parks.
Councilmember O’Neill thought it was almost like a pocket park, such as on Arguello.
Mr. Villareal agreed.
Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to Councilmember O’Neill asking about SB9, but she didn’t hear what the answer is as that is an actual subdivision of two lots, and now you have a vacant lot that wasn’t a vacant lot previously.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that her understanding of SB9 is that it does not prohibit a local agency from charging their local fees as adopted by Council and she thought that may have been how they justify that this not an unfunded mandate as they can still charge their fees.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that, if less than 750 square feet, they are prohibited from charging.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that was only for an ADU which is different than an SB9 unit.
Councilmember Vaterlaus concluded that it was a big difference and you would have to consider what you are doing ahead and whether you wanted to just put in an ADU or do the SB9 and split it.
Councilmember O’Neill asked what the maximum size they are allowed for an ADU.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that she would have to look it up.
City Attorney Kenyon thought it was important to remember that the ADU legislature action is unrelated to SB9, SB330 and out of all the legislation they have talked about at this time, the ADU legislation is the only legislation that really impacts what they can charge in terms of fees.
She stated that the other land use construction type legislative action, SB9, SB330, do not impact a local agency’s ability to charge fees or costs.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that a detached ADU is 1200 square feet.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
There were no public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 March 28, 2022
Mayor Bier closed public comment.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can summarize exactly what they are going to talk about at this meeting, which he thought is mostly in regard to the fees charged to affordable housing.
City Attorney Kenyon added that ADUs as well, and how they want to handle ADU over 750 square feet.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister thought the intent was that there are many different questions that came out of the last session and they wanted to answer those questions and they needed more direction from Council on the affordable housing question of ADUs in order to bring back a complete ordinance for Council’s consideration.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if Council was open to waving the Quimby fees for affordable housing.
Mayor Bier stated that she was.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed as well.
Councilmember O’Neil stated that he is for that as well.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated deeded affordable housing.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if that was for some period of time or forever.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that deed restricted can go for 10, 20, 30 years.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that one suggestion that she had, if they are drafting the ordinance to bring to Council, is to reference their inclusionary housing ordinance provision which does require deed restriction for 55 years on an affordable level.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he would like to keep things consistent.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck recalled that moderate is 80% of median and low is 60% and very low is 30%, and asked if he is on the mark or needs help on basic facts.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister clarified that ADU is low and moderate is up to 120 and then very low would probably be at 60.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if 60 was as low as they go on that.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister thought there is even lower.
Mayor Bier stated very low, extremely low.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated extremely low.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that extremely low is 30.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated what confuses him is very and extremely mean the same thing City Council Regular Meeting 17 March 28, 2022
to him, but he appreciated the nuance. He would prefer to focus on very low and extremely low, as moderate doesn’t impress him. If low is 80%, he didn’t know if they need to make any adjustments for low but, with very low and extremely low, he was happy to toss out the fees altogether for extremely low and for very low he was thinking to chop it in half, which he felt is an initial proposal. He stated 80% as low is not low for him.
Councilmember O’Neill thought an issue would need to deal with that. He stated that during the study session, the school district’s project came up and they committed to the ball fields going to stay there. He stated that, as that land will stay a soccer field, in addition, the financing has changed. He confirmed with someone that it was 70 units, but because of the financing, they will have to have some market rate units that will subsidize the lower cost for the teachers as a lot of them are AMI, especially first year teachers.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if he was talking about very low.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed, but he asked, if they have 100% affordable housing, whether they will qualify for that Quimby discount. He didn’t know if the school district wants to deed the rest of Oddstad that is not being built on or in their project plans to the city.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that, for the part that is market rate, they will need to pay for that part in lieu.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that the only reason they are doing market rate is to subsidize, explaining that when they talked about it being 100% affordable they were looking at a park fee of somewhere around $1 million.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought they talked about land dedication also, as there is a land dedication that you can do in lieu of the fees.
Councilmember O’Neill thought staff may have to come back with more information for them.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that staff may be able to provide more direction on exactly what they are looking for from Council in terms of what they need to bring back a resolution and an ordinance for them to adopt, and what is there recommendation. She stated that, in terms of dealing with specific projects, this is not the appropriate venue to do that, because they are adopting rules that apply globally. She stated that, when you are talking about specific projects, there are a lot of steps that Council and developers go through to determine what those fees will actually be. She stated that another area of negotiations is going to be that the developer will come back and say that they are providing soccer fields in perpetuity and this is more than what a normal developer would do. She stated that staff will go through an analysis to determine how much of that is really parkland so it eliminates the need for park in lieu fees as they are providing parkland. She stated that those types of discussion will happen, but not appropriate for this global discussion on fees, and she thought staff’s direction was looking to Council for a general nature, i.e., do they want to allow for waiver or reduction in fees for certain types of housing.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the definition of park any sort of recreational thing or parks.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it could include soccer fields as, ultimately, it will be up to staff’s interpretation of the code to determine what is considered parkland, then their interpretation will be taken to the Planning Commission and they will put their interpretation of our statutes and City Council Regular Meeting 18 March 28, 2022
codes and ultimately it will come to Council. She stated that there are many levels, such as potential development agreement negotiations that will talk about these type of fees, thus there are a lot of steps. She suggests that Council not get into talking about specific projects but keep this on more of a global discussion.
Mayor Bier thought they should exempt all fees for 100% affordable housing. She wasn’t sure what is meant about not including the 80% but would want to include that, as we all fall in different levels.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he also thought maybe they do a 75-50-0 kind of percentages, and if it is low at 80%, they could say 75% of the fee, whereas very low, they would say 50% and extremely low can be made zero. He felt there was room to play.
Councilmember Beckmeyer was in agreement with the mayor that they need to have a significant discount for affordable housing as a housing incentive. She thought, for staff’s purposes, it would make sense to have a percentage, but she asked if that would be something they leave to staff’s discretion or do they want to designate it or say 100% for everything.
Mayor Bier stated that is what she would lean toward.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister thought there were a lot of different percentages going on. She stated that there is the percentage of the fee that they may or may not want to reduce and then there is the percentage of medium income that they want to consider eligible for the reduction. She stated that there was one more percentage they were talking about, and she thought they need to go through them. She stated that there was also the possible difference between an ADU and an affordable unit.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding the real policy balance, they are talking about real fee money for parks maintenance that the city doesn’t otherwise have. He stated that they want to incentivize affordable housing, want the most incentive be towards very low affordable housing, maybe consider medium incentive for the moderate affordable housing, and he reminded them that they are talking about maintenance dollars to purchase land and create parks that the city doesn’t otherwise have. He stated that, ideally, in the future, the percentage rate of building affordable housing is going to go up rather than just 6%, but they don’t know and that is part of the goal. He wasn’t sure what their RHNA allocation percentage was for affordable goals. He referred to the report chart mentioning 25%-50%-75%-100% gives them the relative dollar amount, based on that low 6% goal of affordable housing, and he was clarifying that policy balance for which Council was striving.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was trying to capture some of those dollars by making it tiered.
Mr. Villareal stated, on looking at that chart, it was assuming that all moderate and below gets 100% of whatever reduction or exemption shown there, and there is no gradation in the different area of medium income tiers within that chart.
Councilmember O’Neill asked him to repeat that.
Mr. Villareal stated, regarding the lots and fee revenue on the table, that assumes that all moderate and below income units being built would receive whatever discount is shown there, and no difference between very low and moderate as is proposed.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 March 28, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon asked if he was able to make that calculation at this time for Council, should they want to differentiate between different types of low and moderate housing or is that not possible as she is trying to manage expectations in terms of what they are going to be able to figure out at this time.
Mr. Villareal thought it was beyond what they can do at this time. He thought they would need to make an assumption about the number of units in each of those income categories, and he didn’t know if they have the data to back that up.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated, for information, their RHNA allocation is just under 1900 units and the two biggest categories where their units are assigned is above moderate income at about 750 and very low income which is 538 units, and that may be instructive as how they want to incentivize. She stated that the way ABAG has presented this is that very low income is less than 50% of median and low income is 50-80% of median and moderate is 80-120%.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked confirmation that low is between 50-80%.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thoughts on having the moderate category. He was saying moderate to pay full fees.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that was his initial thought, but if they want to see a reduction, he would recommend going to 75%.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she was going to suggest.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was trying to accomplish is to incentivize the very low and he can also see incentivizing the low also, which is why he put that at 50%.
Mayor Bier wrote that amount down as well, 0% for very low and extremely low, 50% for low and 75% for moderate.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he would be okay with 75% for moderate.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she was doing numbers and looking up what the variables were, and she agreed with 0%-50%-75%.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Councilmember O’Neill if he was okay with that.
Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier stated that exempting the inclusionary units.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed and accessory dwelling units.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that ADU’s obviously 750 and below is already exempt.
Councilmember Vaterlaus suggested 50% for ADUs above 750 because she sees that is where City Council Regular Meeting 20 March 28, 2022
the greatest number of our housing units are being built, and they are not always low income but because they are smaller, they are generally naturally lower cost.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the nomenclature used in the staff report is for restricted ADUs. He was totally in favor of cutting it to 50% for restricted ADUs.
Councilmember Vaterlaus clarified deed restricted affordable ADUs.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that was a suggestion by staff but not a requirement should Council want to provide the reduction to any ADUs, as that could be done as well.
Councilmember O’Neill asked how that would be enforced.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it would be enforced, as they can enforce it.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated it would be deed restricted.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed that it would be a deed restriction and would be a condition of approval and would be enforced so that is not an issue.
Councilmember O’Neill asked what you do to the landlord who violates it, such as can they throw a lien on the house. He stated that was what he meant by enforcement, i.e., what is the “fist” to make them do it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is a legal obligation and condition of approval, and they would be violating their permits just as any other homeowner who violated the condition of approval, and it would be up to staff to enforce it.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can throw the fee on their property taxes the next year to make up.
City Attorney Kenyon stated they could not.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if you’ve deed restricted, saying they have to do this and they don’t, whether you will all of a sudden see it advertised on Airbnb.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they would be prohibited from doing that, and they would have to locate them and tell them that it is not allowed. She stated that it would not be allowed because it would be on the deed.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was okay with the idea and concept, but was trying to figure out how it would be enforced and how would they collect their money.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that you would collect your money before it was constructed in the fees.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that he is saying they would collect more if it was a full market, not deed restricted so it was affordable.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 March 28, 2022
Mayor Bier thought the deed restricted ADU should have 0% fee, and the ones that aren’t and are above 750 should be 50%. She stated that they still need to have an incentive. She stated that the deed restricted should be full incentive.
Councilmember Vaterlaus added regardless of the size.
Mayor Bier agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse reminded them that under 750 sq. ft. no impact fee can be charged.
Above 750 sq. ft. the same tiered question applies for those that are deed restricted.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that was his next question, i.e., when talking about deed restricted, are they deed restricting them to the same tiers of medium, low, very low.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that it was at Council’s discretion. If it is deed restricted, they are already saying any ADU would have a 50% reduction, and she asked if they want to say moderate, low, very low gets zero or do they want to say only low and very low gets zero.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his introductory offer would be to do the exact same thing they did with the other where, if there is no deed restriction, make it 100% and moderate 75%, low 50%, very low 0%.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it would make things easier if it was consistent across the board.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that there is a very large shortage in San Mateo County Section 8 housing. He stated that the waiting list for Section 8 housing is something like three years, and he asked if it was possible to give some sort of incentive for Section 8.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if he means legally.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister thought the incentive was built into the program, and while not an expert, she thought if they accept the Section 8 voucher, it is allowing someone who could not have paid the rent to come in and the County program makes the rent the landlord holds.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought you could go in and out of that also.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that Section 8 housing has nothing to do with whether it is low, moderate, etc.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was trying to think of another category of low income housing.
City Attorney Kenyon thought they have given direction to staff, and the questions they have in their mind about that distinction or tiering concept raises questions in her mind, and probably staff’s minds as well, and she thought staff has gotten enough direction, and she hasn’t heard anything from staff otherwise, asking them to speak up if they need more direction.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister wanted to clarify.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 March 28, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon suggested that they give the general parameters, as they are not asking Council to adopt anything at this time but give direction so they can draft something for Council’s review and adoption. She stated that they may come back based on this direction and say that they heard Council, but in actually drafting these exemptions, waivers, reductions, they noticed other things and they may want consider something else. She stated that this is a fluid discussion that is not going to be completed at this time, and she thought they just need to hear from staff what more direction they need in order to bring back a final staff report for approval.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, regarding Section 8, essentially it was up to the landlord whether or not they are accepting the voucher, and their unit could be market rate and then someone has the voucher and they are getting money from an agency and only paying the very low rate, but the landlord is getting a full deal, and it is up to the landlord whether or not they are accepting it. He didn’t know if there was anything they can do to incentivize the landlord more than what already is being incentivized by the government saying, if they accept the voucher, they will get the full amount that they otherwise would not have gotten because the person can’t afford it.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was looking at it severely impacted our seniors and in Section 8 there is very little housing for them. He wondered if there was something they could do to incentivize it.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, before Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister clarifies the question, she wanted to check with Mayor Bier about the ADU fee. She stated heard all of them from her and from Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck she heard tier it the way they tiered the other things. She asked Councilmembers’ feelings.
Mayor Bier felt the deed restricted should have full incentive, 0%. She also thought any other ADU should have 50%, but she is willing to talk about what she said as it makes sense to her to have it across the board. She added that she would like to exempt the inclusionary units.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister asked if she meant the BMRs that are created, because they are by definition affordable units and these reductions would apply. She stated that she was still not sure if she heard a consensus on what they are doing with the ADUs over 750 sq. ft.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought it was deed restricted 0, 50 and 75.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister asked at what level as there are three different levels that could be deed restricted, and was it any level, moderate and under.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they were going to keep it consistent with the other one which he thinks is what Councilmember Vaterlaus just said.
Councilmember Vaterlaus clarified 0% for very low, 50% for low and 75% for moderate.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister understood.
Councilmember Vaterlaus added in the larger ADUs.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they had two head nods and asked if there were any more head nods. He asked Councilmembers Beckmeyer and O’Neill and Mayor Bier if they were City Council Regular Meeting 23 March 28, 2022
good with that.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was going down another road. He stated that the way the fees are structured, they are almost creating a disincentive for family affordable housing because it is based on bedrooms.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if she remembers, the big fee came at two bedrooms, and she asked if the big fee was $12,000 at two bedrooms.
Mr. Villareal responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it is not at the higher numbers, as it is already at two.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is concerned because they have four senior housing projects in Pacifica, but zero for family affordable.
Mayor Bier agrees with that.
Councilmember O’Neill didn’t know how they would structure it to try to correct that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that was why the lower the affordability, the lower the fee, is what he is proposing.
Mayor Bier stated that 50% at low is a lot, and suggested that maybe it could be 25% at low and 50%. She stated that they have to include the low in there as we need it.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was not arguing about that, but was concerned about the lack of family housing in the city and that affects the school district funding and he was concerned about gentrification in the community.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was okay going down to 25% for low but he would want to keep 75 for the 80%.
Councilmember O’Neill added that this is also park maintenance.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed, stating that they are cutting off their nose.
Councilmember O’Neill stated they should let staff come back to that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed that they should let them come back.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they have enough to figure out what they all want.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that she is looking for consensus, so three to say that those tiers previously discussed or altering those tiers if they don’t have at least three.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they have three.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that the latest direction is that, for low it would be 25%, for moderate it would be 50% and to apply that both to a standard affordable unit but also ADUs over 750 square feet.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 March 28, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his original was 75-50-0, and he asked if that is what they want or go down to 25.
Mayor Bier asked if he was saying 75% for moderate.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was saying 75% for moderate, low being 50 and 80 and he would say it is okay to cut it in half, but if they want to go down to 25%, he can go down that far, but if he has interest for 50%, he would like to keep it there as he is trying to incentivize very low where he is proposing 0. He appreciated that it is a big umbrella of all the different forms of low cost housing, but he is trying to do the push for the very low. He is negotiating on the low but for moderate and above, if you are at 80%, he thinks you can pay 75%.
Councilmember Beckmeyer acknowledged his suggestion. She referred to moderate and asked if the next was low.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated it was low.
Mayor Bier thought low should be 25%.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed not 50.
Mayor Bier stated that the other two are full incentive.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked about that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has a proposal, as they don’t have the numbers in front of them, and asked if they can come back with what the two versions would be, specifically the low, between 50 and 80, and what it would look like at 25% low and what it would look like at 50%.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if he was talking about the ADUs or all of them.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they were talking about all of them.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they were talking about keeping them the same.
City Attorney Kenyon understood.
Mr. Villareal stated that he can estimate what the loss in revenue would be under those two scenarios with the caveat that they would have to make some assumptions but they can be explicit about what those assumptions are.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they are going 0 for very low, moderate and above of 80%, they are doing 75, and between 50 and 80, they want to see the difference between the numbers of 25% and 50%.
Mr. Villareal agreed that they can do that.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister wanted to make one clarification on the ADUs because it was mentioned that these would be conditions of approval and the ADUs are City Council Regular Meeting 25 March 28, 2022
not discretionary and they would be bringing back an ordinance that would allow staff to implement this deed restriction process before building permit is issued for the ADU.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they needed a time check as it was 10:35.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed that they do.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to extend the time to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
Vote: 5-0 (extend meeting time to 11:30 p.m.)
Mayor Bier stated that they are done with that item.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
7. Consider Approval of a Preliminary Concept of a Bike Park at Lower Frontierland Park PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the preliminary concept of a Bike Park in Pacifica at the lower Frontierland Park site.
[Agenda Item #7 was discussed prior to Agenda Item #5 pursuant to Council's vote to amend the order of the agenda following Staff Communications.] PB&R Director Perez mentioned Acting Rec. Asst. Supvr. Anthony Schriver and PB&R Chair pro Tem Nick Lusson were present who have been involved in in supporting the bike park, and also joined Amir Mendel, Bike Park Committee member, who will be giving the bulk of the presentation after he begins with an introduction of the staff report.
Amir Mendel, member of Bike Park Committee, completed the staff report.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Peter Milich, Pacifica, stated his reason for being present was to ask them to approve the bike park was that he wants a new and better place to ride.
Lizzie Milich, Pacifica, stated she loves biking and wanted them to approve the bike park so she can learn there and ride on bigger trails.
Aaron Reif, Pacifica, thought bikes are super important for exercising in a safe place, and he felt this was a great opportunity and he supported approving the bike park.
Lucas Macaulay, Pacifica, stated a bike park was a great opportunity for kids who love biking and so they can get exercise.
Mayor Bier asked if they had call-ins.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speaker, but there was no response.
Mayor Bier thought it was a faster connection if they turn off all their screens.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that listening through the phone would be real time versus City Council Regular Meeting 26 March 28, 2022
listening on television.
Mayor Bier asked if they should wait longer, as she did have some more cards.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor suggested that they move forward with the in person speakers.
Lucas Provence, Pacifica, stated that he wants a bike park, adding that he is in second grade.
Max Provence, Pacifica, stated that he wants a bike park.
Ryan Durling, Pacifica, stated that he is five and he wants a bike park.
Cole Durling, Pacifica, stated that he wants a bike park.
Aaron Lee, Pacifica, stated that a bike park would be a good addition to the city and a safe and easy way to develop skills in riding.
William Macaulay, Pacifica, stated that he wants a bike park and don’t have to drive four hours away to Truckee where good bike parks are.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speakers.
Sadie McKenna, Pacifica, stated she and her friends like to ride bikes and a lot of bike parks are far away and she thought that it would be easier to go there if the bike park was at Frontierland.
Catherine Wachtler, Pacifica, thanked Council and staff for hearing her regarding approval of a bike park at lower Frontierland and she gave her thoughts on this location as not being a good selection for a bike park. She encouraged studying and developing a well-planned response to the question of what is the best use of lower Frontierland Park. She stated that the demographic that uses it the most is dog owners, who outnumber bike park participants. She commends the grass roots effort of the Bike Park Committee.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember Vaterlaus liked the idea of the rifle range as it was ideal and in the middle of town. She gets the cons as the city doesn’t own it and that makes things difficult and she saw this as the next best alternative.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked staff and the committee members if they might want to go over the rifle range one more time, since they said it would have been their preferred choice, and he thought they agree with that, but he would appreciate going over it one more time to explain why they think it is not an option for the city.
PB&R Director Perez stated that it will take millions to clean up the rifle range area and that millions quote is a quote from the San Francisco Rec and Park staff real estate division. He stated that they have had contact with them regarding this which is the rifle range part, and the archery range area goes off the rest of the open areas there. He stated that they didn’t remediate it in the sense that they cleaned it up but they capped it, but makes it unused and they have been told that it is unusable. He added that we don’t own it and he thought one con not mentioned as much was that it was pretty remote. It is great that you’re not near neighbors City Council Regular Meeting 27 March 28, 2022
but if you are young and going there, it may not be so great if it is not close to other things. He stated that is the main reason that they aren’t considering that location, but location in terms of being in the middle of town was nice and not being right next to neighbors was great also.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted to make some jokes about being thrilled to see all the young children, but he won’t as he doesn’t want to be cavalier with the neighborhood and the person who expressed her concerns. He was impressed by how many young children had the bravery to come and tell them what they should do with a town they will all be inheriting from those who would pretend to have power at this moment. He thanked them for coming and speaking. He stated the one speaker who articulated the safety element of having the bike park was important as they are listening to the children who are very excited to have a bike park if Council votes yes, they want to make sure they have a safe place. He stated that he has visited Boy Scout [trail] and, compared to what they are presented at this time, this was a safer option for the young. He stated that their articulation is appreciated as well as the voices who spoke. He was in support of this.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she was happy to support this project even though she hasn’t given up on the rifle range, as it is 264 acres and she thought there has to be a few acres in there that can be used. She looks forward to having two bike parks in Pacifica, and this is a great place to start. She stated that she was going to say to the young people in the audience and those listening over the airways that they stay engaged. This is something they care about but they have to stay focused on what Council does as they do everything that affects the town.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was a recreation major and would support recreation and he is for the bike park. He admitted that his only concern is that it is so far back in the valley.
He asked if they thought about looking on Imperial which is owned by the North Coast Water District and Linda Mar School has a big field there beyond the 4-H and community garden, and it is not agricultural, so he wondered if they had approached other public entities that have land holdings.
PB&R Director Perez that they haven’t looked at those particular locations. He stated he grew up down the street from the one on Imperial and he thought it was stuck between a couple of housing developments and might be the opposite problem of being on the other end of town.
He asked about the second location he mentioned.
Councilmember O’Neill stated Linda Mar School.
PB&R Director Perez stated that he is only thinking of the soccer field which is now mostly the garden project. He stated that he mentioned there was other land the, but they haven’t looked at that.
Councilmember O’Neill didn’t think there was any sports fields there.
PB&R Director Perez stated it was what used to be the sports field, and the garden project is there.
Councilmember O’Neill wondered if they had as it was closer to Highway 1 and more out.
PB&R Director Perez understood.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has no problem with the project.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 March 28, 2022
Mayor Bier commended them on all the work they have been putting in for so many years and for being here. She asked, if this is passed and they approve the preliminary concept of a bike park, whether it will give them a foundation to do fundraising.
Mr. Mendel stated that, without solidifying the location, it is challenging to do a couple of things, and they can’t move forward with designing and putting the concept together without solidifying the location and they also cannot start to partner and work with other non-profits to fundraise as well as get grants. He stated that it is an abstract idea without a location and a design, and they know they can fundraise, get grants and money for the project once they have a location as it is similar to what Pacifica did with the Pacifica Skate Park.
Mayor Bier thanked him for that information, and she cannot wait to vote.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to approve the preliminary concept of a Bike Park in Pacifica at the lower Frontierland Park site; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Mayor Bier called a break then reconvened the meeting.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
8. Construction of Anza Pump Station Repair Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project (C036):
A. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Services Agreement with DW Nicholson Corporation (Attachment “A”) in an amount not to exceed $2,326,000.00 and authorize a budget authority for construction in the amount of $2,791,200.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed Twenty Percent (20%) of the Construction Contract amount; and
B. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Construction Services Agreement with Pump Repair Service Co. (Attachment “B”) to furnish and install a new third stormwater pump in an amount not to exceed $207,394.22 and authorize a budget authority for pump furnishing and installation in the amount of $228,133.64, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed Ten Percent (10%) of the Construction Contract amount; and
C. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Purchase Agreement with Peterson Power Systems Inc. (Attachment “C”) to furnish and support installation of a new third natural gas engine in an amount not to exceed $326,087.93 and authorize a budget authority for engine furnishing and installation support in the amount of $358,696.72, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed Ten Percent (10%) of the Purchase Agreement amount; and
D. Authorize the City Manager to approve and execute Task Order No. 2 (Attachment “D”) with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. for Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC) in an amount not to exceed $105,630; and E. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Master Services Agreement (Attachment ‘E”) and Task Order No. 1 (Attachment “F”) with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 March 28, 2022
to provide Construction Management Services in an amount not to exceed $220,600.00 and authorize a budget authority for Construction Management in an amount not to exceed $242,660.00 which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed Ten Percent (10%) of the of Task Order No. 1; and
F. Authorize City Staff to execute future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amounts specified above.
PW Director Petersen presented the staff report, stating that Sr. Engineer Schlater is also available to answer any questions.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck reiterated that, of the $3,726,320.36 they were talking about, they were authorizing a payment of approximately $235,000 because insurance is picking up the rest. He asked if that was correct.
PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier opened public comments with no one in the chamber and asked if they had any callins.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speaker.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, urged Council to approve this measure which is important as it helps the emergency flooding in Linda Mar but asked why the deductible is so high. He wanted to add a comment to the previous item as he tried but was not called and he urged the city to approve all the park fee improvements.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was going to make a motion.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that he does not need to list all of the items.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was going to ask that question, then asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck if he had a question.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, regarding the speaker who asked about the $235,000, it was the city’s deductible for the insurance policy.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the following actions for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project (CO36), authorize the city manager to award and execute various contracts.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that he can say Items A through F as reflected in the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill stated approve the following actions with Items A through F as in the staff report; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 March 28, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
9. Appointments to the Planning Commission; Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission; Beautification Advisory Committee; Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission; and Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee
PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Move to appoint three (3) applicants to the Planning Commission: for one partial term to expire March 2025 and two full terms to expire March 2026; 2) Move to appoint one (1) applicant to the Beautification Advisory Committee for a full term to expire March 2026, and seek to fill a second full term during a future recruitment; 3) Move to appoint one (1) applicant to the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission for a partial term to expire October 2023; and 4) Move to appoint one (1) applicant to the Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee for a partial term to expire May 2024.
City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report.
There were no public comments.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to appoint Alex Ferguson and James Godwin to full 4-year terms on Planning Commission expiring March 2026 and Greg Wright to a partial term expiring March 2025; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
Vote: 5-0
Councilmember O’Neill asked if he can name everyone else because there are the same number of applicants as there are openings.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they need to do each committee and commission as a separate motion.
City Clerk Coffey stated that it can be by a single motion, just naming the applicant to the committee.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to appoint Peter Balestreri to EPSC partial term expiring October 2023, Sarah Cardona to OSPAC partial term expiring May 2024 and Ryann Hoffman to BAC full term expiring March 2026; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Vote: 5-0
City Council Regular Meeting 31 March 28, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 10:49 p.m. in honor of former Pacifica Mayor Sidney Lorvan.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 4/11/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor