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 April 25, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
April 25, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on April 25, 2022 at 5:30 PM 5:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session. Mayor Bier announced the business to be discussed.
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation- Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One potential case) 6:00 PM - STUDY SESSION
Pacifica Police Department Annual Report
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive the Pacifica Police Department Annual Report Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting to open study session at 6:02 p.m.
Chief Steidle stated that, for the annual report, he brought his command staff, Capt. Chris Clements and Capt. Bill Glasgo, as they felt it was important enough to address Council as a command staff. He started with a background on the last annual report on April 12, 2021, when staff presented the Police Department’s annual report, and this annual report will have updates on the long term goals discussed previously with new information and then began the presentation.
Capt. Glasgo continued the staff report.
Chief Steidle continued the staff report.
Capt. Clements completed the staff report.
Mayor Bier thanked them for the presentation, and asked if there were any questions by Councilmembers. Seeing none, she opened public comment and asked if there were any callins.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 April 25, 2022
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were no callers.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor Bier stated that they answered every question she had, such as concern about the perceived bias and they explained it so she understood it. She referred to their digging deeper into the data and she appreciated it and looked forward to it. She thought the Social Unity Project should be inspirational for everyone and everyone, including other groups, should be looking to that model for an example to talk together, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked them for being present. He thought this was everything he wants to hear. He had hoped there would be more audience participation as a lot of what they discussed was in response to a robust outpouring in the past. He knows they haven’t evaporated and still have interests and concerns, and this was an opportunity for that conversation. He referred to a similar discussion previously and he thought it might be his personal bias as he thought that was a false start in discussing some of the bits of community interaction with law enforcement and he looked forward to this opportunity. He felt they presented them with all the opportunities the community will have going forward to get into those discussions. He thanked them for all the work they did to get the city to this point. He thought the awareness in and of itself was about learning about bias and focusing on how police in our community are working on that awareness to remind ourselves of what and why we are doing it and he thought it lends itself to actually making a difference in someone’s life who is being affected by these conversations.
Councilmember O’Neill thanked them for the report and moving forward with recent state laws to get things done. He asked how they will communicate this, such as twice a year in a Council meeting or statistics put on the web and updated regularly.
Chief Steidle stated that they envision putting the statistics up and building them into the charts quarterly on the police department website, and when they do that, they will use social media to advertise that. He thought he could ask the City Manager to bring it up during Staff Communications as well as Connect with Pacifica, etc. He stated that, if you don’t remind people, it will just sit there and they want the community to know they are being transparent.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if there will be any coordination by the Sheriff, as he knows he has to report to someone, i.e., the sheriff or state in comparing our statistics with other statistics.
Chief Steidle stated that they won’t find that at the county level as this data will be reported to the Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General. He stated that, if it works like it usually has, it will be some time before the data is put up there. They won’t be looking at our data in terms of putting the data on the website and reporting on us until after April 2023 when it is due.
He stated that, while we are submitting now, it is just to make sure they have the information and we have our systems down and not making errors in the submissions. He didn’t have an exact date when it will occur but probably well after the first reporting date before they see that out there at the state level.
Councilmember O’Neill understood, adding that he was just curious about how we report, etc.
He thought it would be interesting if they added a column to the one with the 2020 census has a breakdown so people could compare that and know they aren’t picking on one particular group.
He stated that he was trying to figure out how to phrase his question, and he referred to an armed robbery, and the suspect is described by the victim as Hispanic. Then, an officer pulls City Council Regular Meeting 3 April 25, 2022
someone over and sees a gun, and he is black, could that be used differently in the prosecution of the case.
Chief Steidle asked if he was saying that, if a witness misidentifies the race, will that affect the prosecution.
Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively.
Chief Steidle stated that it is extremely common and usually won’t affect the prosecution, as they find cases in crimes where there some adrenalin going by a violent crime or robbery and people are scared, they can have 3-4 people witness the crime and you will get 3-4 different descriptions, and if they see the car drive away, they will all have a different description of the car. He stated that is taken into account as part of the human factor.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked them for doing this and she wished that there were members of the public present or calling in because this was a huge issue and there is no one present to witness, but maybe they are watching on TV as it is important, and she thanked them for doing it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, since they have gone along quickly, they have the option to reopen public comment as he thought they might have a caller and they don’t know if they want to raise their hand to speak on this issue, but they have the discretion to reopen both in the chambers and on the phone call.
Mayor Bier agreed, and reopened public comment.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that they have one person on the line but their hand isn’t raised and he will give them a brief moment if they are listening.
Carolyn Jaramillo, Pacifica, stated that she wanted to speak to Chief Steidle’s report.
Mayor Bier stated that she will have to turn off one of her devices as she was getting a bad echo.
Ms. Jaramillo asked if it was better.
Mayor Bier agreed it was.
Ms. Jaramillo asked several questions about the long-term goals mentioned, what organization is providing the anti-bias training, a project that involved the police department and the community with a facilitator, if there will be public access to the curriculum for the police academy and the chief’s upcoming advisory panel selection and their authority. She referred to the Stanford University project and questioned how citizens can participate.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated there were no more callers.
Mayor Bier stated that it is the Social Unity Project. She stated that she had some questions and she asked if the Chief can comment.
Chief Steidle stated that he can speak to a few of them, and if he misses anything, they can speak up. Regarding curriculum for the Community Academy, that is something they will City Council Regular Meeting 4 April 25, 2022
advertise and they are wavering between an 8-9 week program, and that will be part of the information they put out on their website to solicit applicants for that and they will see the type of material. He stated that it won’t be outlined in depth, but the type of topics they will discuss. In terms of a facilitator, they are still working on that, and they aren’t to the point to identify that and the criteria. They are looking for a professional with the background and ability to facilitate and expertise on the subject. He stated that the chief’s advisory panel will not have any authority, just an advisory panel to help the command staff with decision in terms of giving them community feedback and input in terms of important topics where they want input. He stated there was one more question.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was about ten people.
Chief Steidle stated that they are looking at ten people once a month and in terms of their public presentations, the police envision that, at some point, once a year, the chief and/or command staff, along with at least a representative from that panel, if willing, and he thought they will be people who will stand up for this and they will be willing to talk together with community and Council about what they have been discussing, accomplished, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that if they didn’t answer any of Ms. Jaramillo’s questions, he asked that she email them and he was interested in the answers to those questions, even those he didn’t hear well enough that he can ask in follow up. He stated that, of all those participating, he was hopeful that they will be participating in the various programs and can establish relationships with law enforcement and make this a culture created by our community through that engagement.
Mayor thanked them for everything. She then called a break before the regular meeting.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the regular meeting at 7:00 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 Absent
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call, with Councilmember Beckmeyer absent.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Dan Steidle, Police Chief; City Council Regular Meeting 5 April 25, 2022
Bill Glasgo, Police Capt.; Christopher Clements, Police Capt.; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; 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 Councilmember Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there was no reportable action.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
00a. Open Space Preservation Award 2022
Mayor Bier stated that they have the presentation of the 2022 Open Space Preservation Award by Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC) Chair Arlene Patton.
OSPAC Chair Patton read the presentation to the winner for this year’s Preservation Award, Kathy Kellerman.
Ms. Kellerman thanked OSPAC and Council and stated she was thrilled and honored to receive the award, and join past recipients, many who have been guiding lights and friends over the past decades. She stated that Pacifica has preserved its open space beauty in the middle of the Bay Area and a testimony to the far-sighted people in the city with an active community of environmentalists. She also appreciated that Council recognized the first people who cared for this land as well as those following in their footsteps. She accepted the award for the many people with whom she has enjoyed working together and she thanked the city for implementing projects and keeping things running. She also thanked the Pacifica Land Trust program that made Pedro Point Headlands restoration project a success and all the volunteers and going native for fostering habitat restoration and plant propagation. She stated that, as a biologist, she will also thank the red-legged frog, steelhead, etc, that make Pacifica the most biologically diverse and beautiful place. She thanked them and hoped to see them on the trails.
Mayor Bier thanked her for being here, and stated that OSPAC was excited about this because there are so many present. They then took a picture.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmembers wanted to pull anything from the consent calendar and, seeing no one, she opened public comment, and seeing no one, asked if they had any callins for public comment.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that they didn’t have any callers.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 April 25, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus
ABSENT: Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for 3/01/22 through 3/15/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 3/01/22 through 3/15/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on April 11, 2022.
3. Agreement with TPx for Managed Internet Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the Amendment to the Agreement for Managed Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN) Internet Services between the City of Pacifica and TPx Communications., to extend the term of the agreement by three years to September 10, 2025, for and to authorize compensation not to exceed $141,228 in Fiscal Year 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and through March 2025 in Fiscal Year 2024-2025, as reflected in the adopted City-wide budget, and to authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment.
4. Approval of Second Amendment with Bartle Wells Associates for the City of Pacifica Sewer Rate Study FY2022-2027
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the Following Actions for the City of Pacifica Sewer Rate Study FY 2022-2027 (“Study”):
1. Approve Second Amendment (Attachment 1) in an Amount Not to Exceed $27,786 and Increase the Total Compensation to $93,151 to the Consultant Original Agreement for Bartle Wells Associates; and
2. Establish a new Budget Authority of $98,000, which includes 5% contingency, for the Sewer Rate Study FY2022-2027; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to this project.
5. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 4-7.1901, “Removal or towing of vehicles” of Article 19 within Chapter 7, “Traffic” of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code Related to the Removal of Vehicles Illegally Parked on City Streets in Spaces Designated for Preferential Parking (Status: CEQA Exempt)
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Section 4-7.1901, “Removal or towing of vehicles” of Article 19 within Chapter 7, “Traffic” of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code Related to the Removal of Vehicles Illegally Parked on City Streets in Spaces Designated for Preferential Parking and finding the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
6. Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City Of Pacifica Adding Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 City Council Regular Meeting 7 April 25, 2022
“Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code, Approving the Pacifica Police Department Military Equipment Policy; and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jennifer Bates, Pacifica, stated that her daughter attends the Boys & Girls Club on Yosemite.
She stated that her autistic daughter was thriving on the programs and she expressed her concerns if the club closes.
Tom O’Toole, Pacifica, stated he was Ms. Bates’ father and expressed his thoughts on this issue of possible closure of the Boys & Girls Club, referring to it as a corporate takeover.
Judith Besburk, Pacifica, stated she grew up in Pacifica and attended the facility that Boys & Girls Club is in currently in and her son currently attends the Boys & Girls Club. She stated that she understood Council’s position, and expressed her thoughts on the issue as well as how Council could help them communicate with the Boys & Girls Club.
Erin Pickett, Pacifica, stated that she has two sons at the Boys & Girls Club and she expressed her concerns about the closure and lack of communication as well as possible help from Council.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the callers.
Carolyn Jaramillo, Pacifica, stated the system is difficult to call in and, by the time she gets the number in, they had closed public comments, and she was grateful that it was reopened, and mentioned some of her concerns about the process.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her background which included a period of homelessness, and shared her thoughts on this problem as well as what she has heard about the impacts of homelessness on others.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were no more callers.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there was a card from the audience.
Marvin Artobern, Pacifica, expressed his concerns about health endangerment regarding harmful transmissions and victims of violence.
Mayor Bier closed Oral Communications.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember O’Neill referred to the Boys & Girls Club issue, and was on the board previously and knows all about the programs and how beneficial they are. He stated that he has personally been talking to the board members on both sides of the aisle. He stated that things are moving along and there are non-disclosure agreements which is why the board has not been talking to the parents as they are legally bound not to be able to talk to them. He has been told that there are things in the works and there should be something settled by the end of the week. He stated that, if someone wishes more information, he suggested they send an City Council Regular Meeting 8 April 25, 2022
email to the city website and when the press release comes out, he will be happy to forward the press release to them. He knows that it is 10% of the enrollment of the Pacifica School District and this community, as a whole, they have a major stake in the success of the Boys & Girls Club to continue to be operating. He attended the Pacifica Democrats and listened to the candidate debates for the Third District supervisor promotion. He attended the Senior Volunteer dinner and was supposed to be a server, but could not serve because he got there too late because he was at a meeting for LAFCO. He stated that the LAFCO meeting was an interesting meeting, with issues regarding the independent water district and East Palo Alto which was having issues. He attended the Commute.org Board meeting and it looks like that board is supporting the application for a grant for the employee housing at Serramonte Del Rey which will be called 705 Serramonte. He stated that, depending on the size of vans, it could eliminate up to 15 cars driving to Terra Nova and Oceana for the foreseeable future. He stated that it was a pilot project, and about 4-5 school districts in the county exploring teacher/staff housing and will use this project as the site to do a pilot and, if adjustments are needed, that will happen. He stated that the ribbon cutting for the staff housing, paid by a taxpayer bond measure passed by the citizens of the Jefferson High School District, of which Pacifica is a part of that district with Daly City, Brisbane and Colma. The ribbon cutting is on May 13 and they will have tours of the building and will be moving employees of the school district into the building on Saturday morning, which is about 100 staff members of the high school district that have a big incentive to stay here.
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended a meeting on Friday called Smart Coast California and they talked about the different cities working on their local coastal plans with sea level rise and some are pushing back with the Coastal Commission and with some the Coastal Commission is pushing back. She stated that she is on a statewide electrification task force to look into benefits or not of electrification, either in new housing or in existing homes. She attended the CCAG Legislative meeting. She stated that CCAG’s Regular meeting is progressing along with the Highway 1 managed lanes. She heard the debate at the Democrats and went to Councilmember O’Neill’s home to listen to one of the people running, Ray Mueller. She served at the Senior Services Volunteer Dinner which was nice to see everyone in person and delivered dinners to people. She attended the San Mateo County Emergency Services Council and encourages people to do the SMC alert, and they are going through a new company soon and it will be an advanced San Mateo County alert. They will target certain areas by Zone Haven, which is another county program. She stated that there was a fire on San Bruno mountain and Zone Haven alerts people where they should go. She mentioned an example of a fire in Rockaway and the fire hoses went across Fassler. The people who live here were upset as they weren’t allowed to drive down Fassler, but when you drive over a fire hose, there is no water. She stated this program would direct people to drive around and go down Crespi and go out at Linda Mar instead of trying to go down Fassler. She stated that it was a great program for evacuations. She stated that, if everyone looked into it, they can find out what your zone is.
She stated that they sent each individual person on the committee an SMC Alert to them individually. She stated that it was very fine tuned now. She stated she went to the Redwood City Council of Cities and went into a senior housing project, which is a senior citizen very low income housing project with a child care center below. She stated that it was beautiful and wonderful to see the combination between the senior and child care facility. She stated that they discussed Habitat for Humanity, 5000 square foot lot with 20 units on it. She wants to see that as she can’t imagine that in her head. She stated that it was an informative meeting, and when she goes to those meetings, she is jealous.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the first event he attended after the last meeting was the Friday night informational session with a bunch of parents at the Boys & Girls Club on Yosemite City Council Regular Meeting 9 April 25, 2022
and CBS News showed up to do some interviews and ran a short news story that night. He stated that he has been reaching out to anyone he knows on that Board and he has the same story of the non-disclosure agreements, due to the discussions going on between North San Mateo County and Peninsula and can’t say anything for legal reasons while still interacting. He felt it was frustrating for him as a representative and thought it would be frustrating for those on the Board themselves who would love to give information one way or the other. He agreed with Councilmember O’Neill that information will be coming this week as they will hopefully have information on that. He attended the Democrat forum where the various supervisor candidates were on display and he enjoyed Ray Mueller’s event afterward and found it interesting. He stated that most of his week was spent doing an Infocast master class on protecting your city from wildfire. He stated that it was a deep dive on wildfire preparedness. He has a long list of things, such as defensible space, fuel brakes, land use planning, evacuation route, etc. He stated that May 7 is California’s wildfire preparedness day, and Pacifica has an event coming up in June that he will tell them shortly. He stated that fuel treatments, environmental justice, climate change, regional strategies, community, wildfire preparedness plans, power shutoff, safety procedures, micro-grids, aligning insurance with home community hardening efforts, state laws, land use planning, forest management, aircraft and flight fire, air quality management, landslides, rebuilding and other post fire concerns, and he had two days of this from 8:00 in the morning to 5:00 at night. He stated that some takeaways are that, prior to now, they spoke about defensible space in terms of 30 and 100 feet. Buffer zones around the house are starting to speak of it in terms of a 5-foot ember zone as when the winds bring embers to your home, the amber will bounce off of the side of the house approximately five feet away and, if you have anything flammable in that 5-foot radius that will catch fire and spread back to the house. He stated that they hammered home that regional strategies rather than necessarily local strategies which are the best way to get funding to make our community safer. He stated that they stressed the importance of explaining maps and what they mean and that what sometimes happens when the maps are released to the community, they will mistake hazards for imminent threats versus various other designations and how important it is that when a map gets rolled out, they spend time explaining to the community what that means. There was a bit about aligning insurance with home and community hardening efforts. He stated that there are companies working with insurance companies in that, for certain homes, of you harden the home in certain ways, vis a vis one of these programs, then insurance companies that are disinclined to insure at a good rate or might drop your insurance altogether, they will look at the hardening efforts and say that, in that case they can keep the insurance going for them. He stated that this was a program that looks like they are just about to start rolling out and that was very interesting. He stated that there was one organization called United Policy Holders, uphelp.com, and they were there if it looks like they’re going to drop your coverage or shifting your rates and you call them and they will help you navigate and avoid that or how to get insured somewhere else. He stated that another helpful website was readyforwildfire.org which was a website that gives you a list of various ways to harden your home. He stated that, after that, he went to the emergency preparedness meeting in Pacifica. They had a representative from North County Fire to tell them about the Ready-Set-Go program which is about being prepared if a wildfire should happen and they reminded them about Zone Haven and how it is tied into the SMC Alerts as they don’t alert you directly but the SMC alerts do, and it was a good idea to have the SMC Alerts to get those alerts about your zone if there is a wildfire risk or a tsunami risk, a new feature of Zone Haven. On June 11, they are having a wildfire preparedness at the community center and that is a great time to find out more about wildfire risk prevention and meet some of the heroes keeping us safe. He stated that the chipper program has been extended through mid-May where you bring your flammable materials growing around your house to the chipper that they bring in front, and mentioned the neighborhoods being addressed on April 27, April 29, May 4 and May 6. He asked them to City Council Regular Meeting 10 April 25, 2022
reach out to the city website to find out more specifics. He stated that they have Covid testing on 1900 Francisco Blvd and have expanded the service from Sundays as well as Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, as the new variants are causing us to test more frequently. He was in the audience of the Emergency Services Council which Councilmember Vaterlaus mentioned and the Council of Cities meeting on the 22nd which was great to see the setup of the child care underneath with senior housing on top and make Pacificans be envious. He stated that Safeway is voting on their new contract by the beginning of May and he was hoping that he will report that they have a new contract.
Mayor Bier stated that she wanted to touch on the Boys & Girls Club as well, as stated by other Councilmembers, they have all been speaking to the community and working hard to do what they can. She stated that she had children who went to the Boys & Girls Club and it is an important part of our community. She attended the Skyline College President’s Breakfast where they learned all about the Promised Scholars Program and she suggested that the community look into that if they have young people that are going to go to Skyline College as it is a beautiful program. She attended the Joint Articulation Committee meeting between the City, Jefferson Union High School District, Pacifica School District and the water district. She referred to Councilmember O’Neill talking about the ribbon cutting for the JUHSD staff housing. She stated that it was great and some of her friends and colleagues are moving in this weekend and they are excited. She thought it was a great model and she was proud of them. She attended the Pacifica School Volunteers and they were still looking for a coordinator for the volunteers and will be having Think Bridge Camp this summer and they will need more volunteers with the group and she asked that anyone interested reach out. She attended the Democrats meeting and listened to Supervisor candidates’ panel. She attended Easter Sunrise service with Pastor Tom Nibbe and a lot of different people from Pacifica were there at the top of Sweeney Ridge and it was beautiful as they saw the moon set and the sunrise with singing, etc. She stated that everyone lined up at Eureka Square with their cars and everyone drove up together. She thanked the pastor. She attended the League of Women Voters general meeting where they spoke about the intersection of homeless and mental health and social equity. She attended the Senior Services Volunteer Appreciation meal which was great and it was always good to appreciate all the volunteers that make everything work in our community. She attended the Open Space meeting, with all of them present at this meeting. She also attended Don Horsley’s event with San Mateo County working to end homelessness, referring to Ms. Moore talking about that in her oral communication, adding that it was to educate everyone on all the different programs out there for homeless services. She stated that they will be talking about collaboration between agencies and the community at the next meeting. She attended Earth Day and thanked the Pacific Beach Coalition for that event every year. She thought it was 2006 when she first participated it. She stated she was working with mayors across the county to bring awareness to mental health services and resources, and in May, as mental health month, they will be having training. She stated that she didn’t have her flyer and if PB&R Perez could talk about the training, it would be helpful. She stated that they will be having training in the Community Center, the library and they will be lighting up the building in green. She stated that there will be a press conference, and stated the County got the funding to have the training for free and asked Director Perez to share the information.
PB&R Director Perez stated that they have the mental health coming up at the Community Center and a lot of the information was sent with Connect with Pacifica and they can sign up online as they have room for up to 30 people on Saturday, May 14, and snacks and lunch will be provided. He stated that they can always call Sophia Mahoney-Rohrl of PB&R Department if they have any questions
City Council Regular Meeting 11 April 25, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that they can look at the library’s calendar as they will also be having a free training at the library.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the mayor reminded her that he attended Earth Day and he referred to her mentioning that there was going to be a follow up meeting from Don Horsley’s homeless meeting, and he asked if she knew when it was going to be.
Mayor Bier stated that she didn’t have the date.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he was working for this one, and he would love advance notice.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse confirmed that Director Perez was correct that May 14 is the Saturday when the mental health first aid event will be at the Community Center. He stated that, under the leadership of City Clerk Coffey and the PW Department and County Elections office, they will notice that the ballot drop box has been moved to the front of the Council Chambers from the previous location at City Hall on Santa Maria while it undergoes its renovation. He stated that they were pleased to release the Heritage Tree ordinance benchmarking and community input report on Friday, a month in advance of Council’s study session which will occur on May 23, and will lay out the work and input and recommendations related to the Heritage Tree update. They will get direction from Council and come back with the ordinance recommendations. He stated that the city with the mayor’s signature did send a support letter for the Pacifica Land Trust application for maintenance dollars at the headlands, and they will keep their fingers crossed that they will get the money to continue their stewardship at the Pedro Point Headlands. He had the honor to act as a server for the senior volunteers dinner which he thought was a fantastic event as the senior services group and Director Perez put on a great event. He stated that the Council Ad Hoc subcommittee related to improvements to the Council Chamber met last week and discussed some of the improvements and PW is going to get some bids and they will bring it back to Council for further direction and approval to move ahead with the cosmetic improvement to the Chamber.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. Update to the Park Development Impact Fee
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to:
1. Adopt resolution to update the Park Facilities Impact Fee and the Quimby Act Parkland In Lieu Fee within the City of Pacifica; and
2. Move to Introduce by title only and waive first reading of an “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California repealing Chapter 19 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Chapter 19 (Park Facilities Impact Fee); repealing Section 10-
1.803 (Park Land Dedication) of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) to establish updated Impact Fees and Quimby Act dedication requirements and in lieu fees imposed on New Development in the City of Pacifica”; and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
PW Dep. Director Bautista began the staff report.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 April 25, 2022
Willdan Financial Services Consultant Carlos Villarreal continued the staff report.
PW Dep. Director Bautista completed the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to the slide on deed restrictions, and asked, if the deed restriction was for ten years, 20 years or in perpetuity, asking how is it structured.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he would point him to the existing Municipal Code provisions related to deed restricted affordable housing in Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 47 and the term of affordability required by the Municipal Code differs by whether it is for sale or for rent below market rate housing unit. He stated that for sale units are obligated to have a minimal affordability period of 45 years whereas rental units are required to have a minimum affordability period of 55 years.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they are 45 and 55 years.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that was what the Municipal Code provides now for required inclusionary housing units, but Council could consider a different period with minimum required under the fee if there was some desire to have a different date.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, in other cities for deed restricted houses, if the fees were charged the same or are deed restrictions there regarding the number of bedrooms.
Consultant Villarreal stated that, to get a discount, the home would have to be deed restricted, but different cities assess the fees in different ways. He stated that Pacifica is fairly unique in charging the fees for bedroom, which is a more recent approach to charging impact fees; however, he thought more cities will be adopting fees by bedroom or for square foot residential based on some of the new requirements from AB 602. He stated that most of the jurisdictions he is aware of in California charge fees by dwelling unit type, such as single family or multifamily, with single family being single family homes, including townhomes and multi-family being condos and apartments and that is how most cities assess fees at this time.
Councilmember O’Neill thought Palo Alto was 100%. He asked the City Manager, if we don’t hit the RHNA numbers, if he has heard of any concrete penalties from the state as they have been kicking stuff around.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he hasn’t heard of concrete penalties, but he has heard that they are threatening more concrete penalties and he would ask Acting Planning Director Murdock if he has heard anything specifically.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he has not heard of any adopted penalties.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that it was something they keep kicking around, but have not adopted any rules.
Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed that he was not aware of any.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he hadn’t and was double-checking to be sure he understood. He referred to city-owned and non-city-owned land and a slide on how it was handled, and he asked for an explanation of how in lieu park and fields are handled on non-cityowned land.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 April 25, 2022
Consultant Villarreal thought city-owned land was in reference to making trail improvements and the city could use the park impact fee revenue to make trail improvements on land it doesn’t own, but it would have to ensure that there would be an easement for the use in perpetuity so the use of the fee revenue would be available for those who paid the fee in the foreseeable future.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that he was talking about an easement such as they have in the Quarry for Calera Creek.
Consultant Villarreal responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speaker.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, thought they should approve the item and shared his thoughts on higher fee costs such as for affordable housing, etc.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano wanted to clarify Councilmember O’Neill’s question about penalties for non-compliance, stating that HPD does have authority given to them recently to ensure compliance with some of the state’s housing laws to enforce the penalties and could seek other authority to enforce a city to comply with the state housing laws related to either the housing element or RHNA obligations.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, in the scenario of the budget discussed, if we don’t hit it, the penalties will be less, but he was trying to figure out what the penalty is if we don’t hit the RHNA numbers, and wanted to know which penalty was worse, not hitting the numbers or the hit we take on not building affordable housing.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we don’t have a specific number that can be imposed in terms of a penalty from HCD but she thought it could be up to $100,000 for penalties.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if that was per unit not created.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, on looking at her cheat sheet from ABAG, it looks like it could be incremental charges until the jurisdiction comes into compliance.
Acting Planning Director Murdock asked her to clarify that it is for a jurisdiction through no fault of its own applications were not submitted or is it a consequence of failing to plan for the required RHNA.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it could be for both, as the penalty authority is broad and doesn’t specify exactly what the issue is, but she just wanted to clarify that there are methods where HCD can impose penalties for non-compliance with state laws.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if she means that HCD is the Housing Community Development state.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 April 25, 2022
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated he was correct.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have a choice, and they all want to hit their RHNA numbers which he thought was a 5-0 vote as they don’t have any choice, but they are facing the choice of a penalty if they don’t hit it through possibly no fault of their own if they don’t get applications or authorize the fees as stated. He thought they should look at the fees presented to them and accept them as stated, but they review it in two years to see what is the budgetary impact of the fees.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, from his perspective, the reason they were talking about the lowered fees for various income levels was to incentivize the development of those. He asked if he was talking about the incentivized schedule or without the incentives.
Councilmember O’Neill explained that they adopt the incentivized schedule and, in two years, they look to revise the fees if they need to up the market rate schedule to make up the budget shortfall in the park fund.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he followed him and would restated it and he can let him know if it aligns with what he was saying. He thought that there were 538 very low units that they need and should they hit that number they take away that incentive, and asked if that was what he was saying.
Councilmember O’Neill stated it was not, and he asked if the acres per resident they have are only city parks or does it include Pedro Valley Park, GGNRA, etc.
Consultant Villarreal thought it was all city-owned parkland, and in Table 3 the fee study report, it includes district parks, neighborhood parks, pocket parks, and joint use facilities, such as the Terra Nova High School where the city has a joint use agreement, which is owned by the school not the city, and beyond all that, all special use facilities, including open space and various other facilities.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it was packet page 165.
Councilmember O’Neill was proposing that they adopt the fees which include the incentivization and they know they will hopefully take a loss, as if they take a loss, they are building lower income housing and in two years they review it. He thought that they said the city could raise those fees anytime they want or revise them up or down.
Acting Planning Director Murdock thought they need to clarify what the Council’s policy options are with respect to adjusting the fee. Staff was indicating that, if significant amount of affordable housing ultimately was constructed and the loss revenue was higher than they think is likely, Council could revisit and reduce the amount of reduction by increasing the fee for the affordable housing to say they need more revenue as they are losing too much revenue to accomplish the park improvements required under the fee study. He stated that an alternative would be to conduct a new fee study and determine if there is a different per bedroom rate. He stated that, what is not readily in Council’s policy tool box is to simply increase the above market rate fee to subsidize the fee for the reductions that were granted, concluding that they can’t just ratchet one up because they ratcheted one down and you can’t have them freeload. He stated that the fee loss revenue that may occur needs to be backfilled with some other non-park fee revenue such as grants, general fund or other funding sources as you can’t subsidize the reduction by the above market rate units.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 April 25, 2022
Mayor Bier thought they would have to have a fee study in order to do that.
Consultant Villarreal agreed, adding that the fee study they have now justifies the maximum justified fees based on the facts on the ground, and two years from now those facts on the ground may be different, as the city could have acquired more parkland, and there is chance that the cost of the land and improvements will have increased at that time and they can then revisit the fees and look at a fee study, as the fees are likely to have increased at that time, but they can’t say it for certain. He stated that they could do that, and there is no minimum time period that has to elapse before they can conduct another fee study. He stated what you cannot do is increase the rate above the maximum affordable rate to subsidize the lowering of the rates for some other particular land use.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he thought they were all in agreement to go with scenarios 1 or 2 so we have subsidized lower income fee schedule, and he was suggesting that they give direction that staff monitor it and if the low income bracket of the 310 units they are looking for get filled, then they could put that to the maximum justified while they leave the very low as exempt so hopefully the very low starts getting filled. He stated that they can come back in two years, but he thought they can leave it to staff to monitor and let Council know when they get close to meeting that bracket.
Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that in reality housing development occurs slowly and there are very few low income units in the pipeline currently and they aren’t likely to see them get from nothing to building permit in a year or two in most cases, and the deluge that might cause a significant loss of fee revenue probably won’t materialize for several more years in a best case scenario for housing production.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, if a miracle happens, that staff alerts Council, but he feels like the discussion is more around whether they want to go with scenario 1 or 2. He personally favored scenario 1, with the same justification previously as he favors incentivizing the very low bracket, under 50%, as much as possible, and why he favors leaving it at 50% for the 310 units.
He shared his notes, i.e., the moderate had 300 and 291 in the low, and the very low units had the lion’s share of the need from this angle.
Mayor Bier understood that the very low needs to be fully exempt. She stated that they were in a building on Friday that had very low and extremely low, and while she stated they don’t have that language in the document, she thought it was assumed that it was very low and below.
She thought, if they could add that, it might put an idea in someone’s head that they should do extremely low which is 30% and under, she would appreciate that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she was going to say scenario 2 because it is 25% for the low income units which she thought was a good incentive.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed, and the only reason he likes the 50% is because his bias is for the very low units, the under 50% income bracket.
Councilmember O’Neill thought the building they visited on Friday was on city-owned land and in Pacifica there is not a lot of city-owned land that could justify the reduction. He stated that they don’t have any land to donate for affordable housing and he thought 50% was a greater incentive if someone is actually doing inclusions. He asked if this would include inclusionary ordinance housing as well.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 April 25, 2022
Acting Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, adding that it is whether it is required or not in terms of inclusionary or beyond the minimum requirements of the inclusionary ordinance.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if a developer is building ten units and one and a half units is inclusionary because of 15%, that one and a half units would get this scenario.
Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed, clarifying that it would likely round to two units and they would be eligible for the fee reductions. He stated that they could see, given the incentive for the reduced fees, is maybe more of those developers will be inclined to make both of the units lower income, but currently our ordinance only requires that half of the units to be affordable to low income or lower, and the other half can be affordable to moderate income or lower. He stated that they can hope the fee reduction may incentivize both units to be lower income or lower.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that based on the fact that most of the projects they saw on Friday were on city-owned land, donated by the city, and Pacifica doesn’t have that option, and he thinks scenario 1 is probably the better choice.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that was fine, as she thought 25% for the lower one.
Mayor Bier stated that was her thought as well and she likes scenario 2 better.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are in a 2-2 impact.
Mayor Bier stated that she thinks they need to incentivize scenario 2 as they need all of those things.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding that point, he wanted to reiterate that annually they report out on the housing element progress and RHNA numbers and what is being built.
He stated, whether Council chooses scenario 1 or 2, in any given future year, this ordinance could be revisited and look at the structure of the fee to adjust. He stated that, when they report on the units built, they could add in the data points on what that gap of the park in lieu they are looking at, and it is probably not a complicated calculation. They can keep that in mind and, whatever Council decides now, in four years, if there is a dramatic gap or the incentive isn’t there sufficiently, i.e., if they chose scenario 1, the less incentive to go for affordable housing and a lot of the very low and extremely low is being built, then maybe the incentive is not necessary or, if not being built, maybe more of an incentive will help and Council could decide at that point and move into scenario 2.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Acting Planning Director Murdock, since the last Housing Element, if they have built any very low income housing.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that they have not issued any building permits as of the preparation of the estimates in this study and, as of 2021, they have two low income units and two moderate income units that were permitted, and no very low income.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that was her point.
Mayor Bier agreed.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 April 25, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought, if there is no very low income, let them incentivize people and make it 25% so people are building.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the very low for both of them is exempt.
Councilmember Vaterlaus clarified that it was the low income units.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated his is exactly the opposite, suggesting that they make the low income higher so that they will be more inclined to do the very low.
Mayor Bier thought they would be inclined anyway if there is a full exemption for very low but if there isn’t an exemption for low income, they are not going to get any of those either.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that this was a scenario where more is less. He stated that 25% of maximum justified for low income units is a higher incentive than 50%. He agreed that he was for scenario 2. He liked the City Manager’s idea that, when they do the report, they will have a running total of those fees and the gap that would be there. He asked if he was clear.
Acting Planning Director Murdock agreed that he was looking for a total of the incentive provided to these or the loss of revenue that has occurred for the production of those units.
Mayor Bier asked if they have a motion.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano recommended that they take the resolutions separately from the ordinance.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to adopt the resolution to update the Park Facilities Impact Fee and the Quimby Act Parkland In Lieu Fee within the City of Pacifica using Scenario 2; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, for clarification, there is a proposed resolution in the package for Scenario 2.
Item 7-1: Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer)
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to introduce by title only and waive first reading of an “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California repealing Chapter 19 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Chapter 19 (Park Facilities Impact Fee); repealing Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) to establish updated Impact Fees and Quimby Act dedication requirements and in lieu fees imposed on New Development in the City of Pacifica”; and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Item 7-2: Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer)
City Council Regular Meeting 18 April 25, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus
ABSENT: Beckmeyer
Mayor Bier called a break, then reconvened the meeting.
CONSIDERATION
8. Vision 2025 & Beyond – Economic Opportunities Study – Award Contract, Appropriate Funds, Appoint Council Ad Hoc Committee on Public Engagement PROPOSED ACTION: (1) Authorize the City Manager to Award a Contract to Kosmont Companies to conduct an Economic Opportunities Study for the City of Pacifica as part of the Vision 2025 & Beyond Strategic Financial Sustainability Study; (2) Appropriate an additional $50,000 for the study; and (3) Appoint a two-member City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Public Engagement for the Economic Opportunities Study.
City Manager Woodhouse introduced the staff report.
RGS Consultant Brian Moura continued the staff report.
Kosmont Consultant Ken Hira continued the staff report.
RGS Consultant Moura completed the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he attended some of their seminars with League of Cities, and he attended one by his competitor that had an interesting item with cell phones that they could tell where people driving through where they are from and he asked if they have that capability.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that they do, and it is listed as one of their technology, a platform called Placer AI which does use mobile data analytics and have presently used it in the majority of their assignments as they tell them the patterns of the consumer, where they shop, how often they shop, background demographics, community patterns and staying in location for seven minutes is considered a trip and if you are at home and you don’t go to a place of work, or if you go to shopping center, those trips get logged in so they can check their patterns to understand where people are going or coming from which is through mobile data analytics. He stated that the broader description would be artificial intelligence which is real time information and data that helps them understand those patterns.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he could say that he leaves his house, drives to San Bruno to see a movie and they would see that.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that they couldn’t track him specifically but those exact patterns he mentioned.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they track that someone in Pacifica went there.
Kosmont Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 April 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if someone comes to Pacifica and goes to Frontierland Park, would they be able to say that someone from Daly City went to Frontierland Park.
Kosmont Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill asked how available that information is, such as 24/7, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that it was real time.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can track where someone went for everyday everywhere in Pacifica.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated not a particular person but the broad trend of the travel patterns that are collected through the mobile analytics can track those patterns.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that that we have some proposals coming into town and asked if they will be able to track how many different trips there are to that different site no matter where it is in Pacifica.
Kosmont Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill asks with that data, if someone drives from their office in San Francisco, stops at Linda Mar Safeway and go down to El Granada, will they will be able to see that they stopped in El Granada and are part of that.
Kosmont Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill asked his definition of the market area of Pacifica.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated they define it and his example of an exercise they did was that there was a vacant grocery building in a city in Southern California and, through Placer, they analyzed the potential of another specific grocer potentially occupying that vacant space and they said there is one of those grocers but it was about four or five miles away. Through Placer, they analyzed the way they tracked the customers or visitors to that particular grocer and defined the trade area. He stated that it identified where they were coming from through census tracks and they found there wasn’t a lot of overlap where the vacant building was and the argument should be that their patrons aren’t coming from a place that, if you located in that vacant building and had two stores in that market, you potentially wouldn’t cannibalize your store that is 4-5 miles away in a different city. He stated there was more to the analysis, but that true trade area definition resulted in a positive decision by that grocer to then revisit the data analytics on their own and affirmatively approved the location. He stated that they are not open yet, but because of data analytics and revisiting the information that is real and in real time, it allowed them to understand the opportunity and lack of cannibalization and a good example that one might argue as a success story.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that the reason he is asking that is that retailers used an old compass, i.e., put the thing down and do a circle of a two mile radius. He stated that, when the slide was closed because of the landslide, the Linda Mar Safeway lost 30% of their sales and he concluded 30% of the market is south of the slide so is our market area. He asked if he will be able to produce a report that demonstrates the 10,000 down there, their per capita income, City Council Regular Meeting 20 April 25, 2022
family size, etc., to prove that they should look at Pacifica. He stated that our population isn’t 40,000 but 47,000.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that the answer is yes, adding that the notion of a radius of 1, 3 or 5 mile is fine, but if you draw a circle around Pacifica, half of the occupants are fish, and they dealt with that in Redondo Beach, and he has been in the retail real estate business during his earlier career. He stated that circles are fine and the reality of a trade area is what is called a polygon, a shape that isn’t just a circle, but might be a circle in a very dense 360-degree trade area but the odds are that there are barriers to travel patterns, such as water, freeways, mountains, storm drains that people don’t generally cross over even if there is a road, and the way retailers generally look at their worlds is through polygons.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he almost sounded like the guy who talked about district elections, i.e., there is natural constituencies.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated he knows less about that. He appreciated the questions as his point is well taken about how patterns work. He stated in a community like Pacifica, that is exactly how they work. He stated that it is the same as he mentioned in that other circumstance, even though it wasn’t a coastal community, but was in the middle of two very strong concentrations of retail and that tells you what you are losing in the middle of what he called a bar bell and where they were pulling from. He stated that the competitor was at one end of it, and could they locate in the middle of that barbell and not cannibalize but still get enough market share. He stated that there are similarities to what he is saying based on patterns.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that is what he is getting at. He stated that the competitor whose seminar he attended also offered the ability, once they sell the sizzle pamphlet to the retailers, to help the city to find someone to come in. He stated that he didn’t see that in the scope this work. He asked if that was an addition to the contract they make with him.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that it would be additional, but clarified that their objective when they do analyses, if that is what they are tasked to do, is for that analysis to be implementable, specifically it could lead to form a district, create an economic development tool, a zoning strategy, help with a specific plan, with business attraction, with marketing of opportunity sites.
He stated that, by virtue of how long they work for certain cities, it is pretty clear that they haven’t just written reports for them but implementable strategies and they said it made sense.
He stated that they don’t have to hire his company to do that, but it tends to be an area that they can assist communities, called execution or implementation. He stated that there are conferences where there is a big business attraction opportunity and they will be going to that next month and working with a lot of cities to do exactly what he just described.
Councilmember O’Neill asked how they decide to push Pacifica over Daly City.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that, if there is a conflict circumstance in which they find themselves, it is either disclose, clear or avoid it, as they are not going to get themselves into a conflict.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he noticed he had Manor, Eureka, Rockaway, Linda Mar and Pedro Point, but they didn’t have Fairmont which is the shopping center that could draw most from Daly City, South San Francisco and San Bruno, and they didn’t have Park Mall which is probably more of a mixed use potential but we have a lot of empty space as the city owns the lot City Council Regular Meeting 21 April 25, 2022
where the library is. He asked why they didn’t include Fairmont or Park Mall.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the economic districts, adding that Mr. Moura can speak specifically to it, were designed earlier and recommended and discussed with Council. He stated that they used to have 12 or 17 economic districts, and the HDL sales tax data is now also reporting down on those districts, and they refined them to the five major ones.
RGS Consultant Moura thought the reason they reduced the number, which he thought was 27 or so, was that usually, when designing the business districts, is that you want them to be large enough to provide data to the public and to firms like Kosmont to analyze. He stated that the state has specific rules about confidentiality of sales tax data, as you can’t say how much each of the businesses generate publicly, even though the city has the data, but if there are four or more businesses in a certain segment, such as grocery, and none of those businesses generate 80% or more of the total revenue, you can present a summarized version of that data and that is why they use these five districts and they didn’t use some of the others he mentioned because they didn’t meet the criteria of being able to publicly report the sales.
City Manager Woodhouse added that, regarding his specific mention of Fairmont and Park Mall, he believed those are considered as Fairmont is part of Pacific Manor and Park Mall is part of Linda Mar.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, when they say Linda Mar, they are not talking about Linda Mar Shopping Center but Linda Mar, Adobe Plaza and Park Mall.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Crespi would be part of Linda Mar as well.
Councilmember O’Neill thought Fairmont would include Ramallah Plaza and Fairmont.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought Pacifica often works more implicitly than explicitly when it comes to diversity, equity, access and inclusion work and was delighted to see that Kosmont is a certified minority business enterprise. He asked if he could give more information as to what that means.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that the chairman/CEO/founder Larry Kosmont has a background that is an ethnicity that allows their company to be considered as a certified minority business owner as he is the sole owner of the company. He stated that they have a diverse crew and many have worked for the company for a long time.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if he had any further information.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated he didn’t unless he had another question.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he didn’t but just wanted to fully understand what it means while he had the opportunity.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are familiar with the tax incremental districts and he saw he was municipal finance and some of the same licenses as Mr. Moura has. He asked if he will be producing a report that recommends they need to do a special assessment district for incremental financing for specific areas.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated, if warranted, and added that part of the point is that tax City Council Regular Meeting 22 April 25, 2022
incremental financing (TIF) districts, or what they are called today and is enhanced infrastructure financing districts (EIFD). He stated that they were a very powerful tool to help capture tax increment like redevelopment did to pay for infrastructure and the other part of that strategy is to be a TIF district based on the city’s proportion of tax increment which is a certain layer. He stated that that layer may or may not be enough, “scale”, to create a district that makes sense to capture enough over time. He stated that they often look at what the county’s share is and whether there is an opportunity to do a partnering or co-investing. They worked on those in LA County with several cities, Orange County with a city and, as they are working on these up and down the state, each analysis of a EIFD is going to be unique. He stated that, if it makes sense here, they will have it as a potential tool that they will identify, and while it is a tool for a lot of communities, it just has to make sense.
Councilmember O’Neill assumed that those will be from the businesses in the community not homeowners.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated it was a property tax increment tool and it may or may not have a land use that is residential or commercial underneath it, but is about growth and new assessed value and that is how they capture tax increments.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if it could be a way for the city to address some of the infrastructure issues they have in different areas of town.
Kosmont Consultant Hira responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speakers.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, echoed a previous speaker commenting on the difficulty of calling in, adding that the slides on the video are very blurry and hard to follow. She thanked them and was excited about the tools they are bringing to help our city to understand our financial challenges and opportunities, expressed her concerns on some areas of this issue and asked several questions for clarification.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, commented on the pie chart on transit occupancy taxes, expressing his thoughts and options to the city to increase transit occupancy tax and general sales tax related to visitor-serving businesses.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to data they can collect from mobile phones, and he thought they will be using that for the term of their contract. He then referred to the dog surfing contest in Linda Mar Beach and Fog Fest, and he asked if the city can request and they can pull of the data of where people came for those events.
Kosmont Consultant Hira thought they should be able to do that, as it will just be a function of where they are in the process to make sure they get the deliverable that they are obligated to get, but the Placer information isn’t as if every time they evaluate an event, pattern, trip, it doesn’t cost them more money. He stated that there is probably an opportunity to look at some of those things, and he thought it was probably smart for the city to look at those on an annual basis where they can monitor the patterns even as a dashboard. He stated that they are doing City Council Regular Meeting 23 April 25, 2022
a little bit of that for other cities where they get a feel for one of those patterns on a monthly or quarterly basis, and that may be something that is a recommendation for the city to continue checking those special events or ongoing events.
Councilmember O’Neill thought, when the city starts their partnership with CDA to increase hotel revenue, they can contract or find out where the people staying in the hotels are coming from, such as if coming from Fresno, they can advertise there.
Kosmont Consultant Hira agreed with that concept.
Mayor Bier stated that she didn’t know if they were able to hear the questions from the caller but one was asking if their firm would be reviewing any of our planning documents.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that the answer was yes, as they will look at the General Plan and if there are existing specific plans relevant to those districts, he thought they needed to look at those as well.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to chime in on the timeline.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that the analyst who made all the commitments to Placer is probably rolling over in his office at home if he is listening.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to be clear, stating that the caller was requesting review and comment on the General Plan update and the Sharp Park Specific Plan before those are going to be adopted, and the answer to that is no because Kosmont will just be beginning in May and those final documents and response to comments on the DEIR, as Mr. Hira is not fully in tune with the timeline for the General Plan update and Sharp Park Specific Plan. He stated that the results of those plans will inform the work that Kosmont is doing, as well as looking at what are recommendations that might relate to the zoning ordinance updates, housing element update and that data will inform those future significant planning endeavors.
Kosmont Consultant Hira stated that the second question is the notion of rezoning certain commercial districts, and he found it interesting that, while the sales tax is on the lower end on a relative scale, he would argue that the good news is that much of the retail in the city is community serving with basic necessities, such as Safeway, pharmacies, restaurants, and the city doesn’t have a big mall. He stated that every community that has a mall should be worried.
If they are oversubscribed, it is not disparaging to that city but the reality of where department stores are trending, but that is not what Pacifica has and, while it is low at 10% of sales tax, it should be grateful that it isn’t 45%. He stated that the zoning and the review of whether it makes sense to put residential on certain sites, to a degree, it is partly market driven as we have an incredible housing shortage and it creates higher residual land values for residential development which is why the developers of the world want to build housing because there is a financial feasibility to it but not a financial feasibility, generally speaking, to building new retail.
He stated that the trick to that is what they are giving up when you potentially rezone the property. He thought it was a fair debate and question and, as to an analysis as to whether you should put retail on the bottom of every residential project, he would say the answer is no, but there might be a demand for that retail on the bottom floor. Then, they will want a right size and design that is appropriate for that retail in a way that they can survive and sustainable. He stated that they are in a middle of many of those analyses where specific plans required that.
He stated that they had to discern, debate and analyze how much of it makes sense, if it makes sense, if it doesn’t make sense, based on the market.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 April 25, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked about the opposite, i.e., they take the existing retail and add housing on top of that.
Kosmont Consultant Hira agreed that there was much of that which gets analyzed as well as to how you create the overlay to add residential on top of certain commercial. He stated that, if the market is there for it from a pure supply and demand perspective, there will be more demand or lack of housing and there should be a feasibility to it. He questioned if it will always work and how many stories and how much density and what is the community, Council leadership willing to accept from a design and land use perspective and from a zoning perspective.
Mayor Bier appreciated the detailed conversations they had, as well as the presentation where she learned a lot more than by just reading the report, as well as getting answers to questions.
She stated that they have some decisions to make.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if he should make a motion.
Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to authorize the City Manager to Award a Contract to Kosmont Companies to conduct an Economic Opportunities Study for the City of Pacifica as part of the Vision 2025 & Beyond Strategic Financial Sustainability Study; and appropriate an additional $50,000 for the study. He stated that they haven’t discussed the subcommittee.
Seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Item 8-1 and 8-2: Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer)
Mayor Bier asked them to talk about the subcommittee.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought Councilmember Beckmeyer should be on it.
Mayor Bier agreed. She asked if they can do that as she thought she should.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that she and Councilmember Beckmeyer were on the Sharp Park Specific Plan.
Mayor Bier added also the Economic Development.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was thinking more that they are already on a subcommittee and he didn’t know if that was winding down now or finished.
City Manager Woodhouse asked which one he was asking about.
Councilmember O’Neill stated whatever one Mayor Bier and Councilmember Beckmeyer are on.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if there was an ad hoc subcommittee for Sharp Park as well as Beach Blvd. Infrastructure.
Mayor Bier stated it was just Beach Blvd.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 April 25, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the Beach Blvd. Infrastructure Resiliency Project is continuing, but that project is in its second phase and not intense right now. He stated that there wasn’t one for Sharp Park and the Council Chambers one which will continue for a bit.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted to clarify that they only have a couple of subcommittees and they were on one, and if it is winding down, they are open game again.
City Manager Woodhouse thought it was true that, if one of them motions to have Councilmember Beckmeyer on the ad hoc subcommittee and it is voted in, she is not here to say no.
Mayor Bier asked about Mayor pro Tem.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the public engagement part fits with him well, but the economic opportunity component is not as intuitive but if it is merely a discussion about ultimately community engagement, he was happy to oblige.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the scope of the ad hoc subcommittee is really focused on identification of stakeholders and the public engagement process and typically how it is structured, and not the substantive economic opportunities as that was for the whole Council.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, when it comes to stakeholders, he thought Councilmember O’Neill is the one who immediately comes to his mind because of the time he spent with the Economic Development Committee and he thought Councilmember O’Neill could rattle off stakeholders quicker than he can.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if he was nominating him for the subcommittee.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, unless there is robust disagreement, with that one caveat, he would be happy to do it.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was okay either way.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he is nominating Councilmember O’Neill.
Mayor Bier stated that they need to make a motion.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to appoint Councilmembers Beckmeyer and O’Neill to the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on public engagement for the Economic Opportunities Study; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Item 8-3: Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus
ABSENT: Beckmeyer
9. Award Civic Center Campus Facilities Project Construction Services Agreement PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for Civic Center Campus Facilities City Council Regular Meeting 26 April 25, 2022
Improvement Project (Project Number PW#2021-23):
A. Adopt Resolution next in order for a Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 the total project budget to $11,651,397 by appropriating additional Returned ERAF revenues (Disaster Accounting Fund) of $900,000 and appropriating General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance (Fund 1) of $751,397 to the project budget; and B. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Construction Services Agreement with W.E. Lyons Construction Company (Attachment "A") in an amount not to exceed $9,222,972.00 and authorize a budget authority for construction in the amount of $9,960,810.00, which includes alternates A2, A4, A5a ($747,665), and contingencies in an amount not to exceed eight percent (8%) of the Construction Contract amount; and C. Authorize staff to execute future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount.
PW Dep. Director Bautista introduced all the team members for this project, and turned it over to Carolyn Carlberg of Group 4 to begin the staff report.
Carolyn Carlberg presented the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse completed the staff report.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked what the cost was to have the photovoltaic structure set up, not the panels themselves, while building it.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that it would be alternative A8 which is the PV infrastructure and it would install the stanchions on the P&P roof and the cost is $68,290.
Councilmember Vaterlaus assumed it does not include the photovoltaics.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that it would not include the panels, just the stanchions.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if there was an alternatives cost slide.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that there is.
City Manager Woodhouse thought it might be a hidden slide. He asked, with just the stanchions versus the panels, whether they can do that, i.e., industry standard as opposed to having to know what panels they are going to install.
Carolyn Carlberg stated that they haven’t done it both ways where they have installed the stanchions first at regular intervals. The best strategy is to have the stanchions ready as they also know the manufacturer and they have it placed exactly on top at generally regular interval and there is a standard that they can use.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were two callers but they haven’t raised their hands yet.
Mayor Bier stated that they can wait for a few minutes.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor then introduced the call-in speakers.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 April 25, 2022
Christine Boles, Pacifica, began her comments; however, there was audio interference on the line.
Mayor Bier stated that they can’t hear her very well and she didn’t want her to waste her minutes. She stated that they can try to fix it and start over.
Ms. Boles stated that she can wait but she was talking with her microphone.
Mayor Bier suggested she hang up and call back and they will wait for her.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated it was exciting to see this project coming, commenting that he suggested putting in the PV infrastructure as it would be more expensive to add in later, look for less expensive ways to do the accents, that EV charging stations may not have additional costs if working with one of the providers as well as for the solar panels through power purchase agreements.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated she sent a letter over the weekend regarding solar panels and EV chargers into the project, and she expressed her thoughts and suggestions on this project, including suggestions regarding the exterior finishes.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that he was worried that they have a blind spot for strategies for reach codes and electrification, and expressed his thoughts and suggestions on this project.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, with the process they have had, it was refreshing that the commenters want them to add to the cost. He stated that they heard quite a few comments about electrification and he thought everyone was in favor of that, but it comes down to cost and they are trying to manage those costs. He thought it has been presented in such a way that, if they want to put it on, the three added alternatives are more essential for getting it done now because doing it later would be a major pain. He stated that, to add the electrification and PV charging stations and stanchions for the photovoltaics was easy to do after the fact and then they can discuss costs. He thought it was nice to hear the public coming out for it now and he suggested that they talk about it a little, such as pros and cons, now or later, especially the stanchions as it sounds like some are of the mind that it will be easier if they do it now rather than later, and he questions if it would cost more if they do it later.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, putting in the PV infrastructure, since they are ready, as part of the project will be on the roof and when they install the stanchion, they have to install it onto the roof and the TPO vehicles on top of the feet of the stanchion and doing it at a later time would mean that they would have to cut holes in the roof membrane, attach it to the roof, then create a waterproof sock around the base so water doesn’t infiltrate into the building.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it was if they do it later.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that it was if they do it later, and if now, it goes right on and the roofer will put the new roof around the feet.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked what additional costs are accrued if they do it later, even though it sounds more painful to do it later.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 April 25, 2022
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that there was an added cost with the added labor of having to cut through the roof membrane and attach it and make it a socket that fits the hole and you have to have an inspector to make sure that the welds are water tight so the water does not infiltrate physically.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, for those listening at home, he wasn’t quite as concerned about the EV charging stations, specifically because he definitely wants to talk to Peninsula Clean Energy about it before bringing it as an add alternative now. He didn’t think they have done that yet.
PW Dep. Director Bautista asked if he means having talked to PCE.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they have talked to PCE specifically about bringing the electrical vehicle charging stations to this project.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they have had initial discussions with PCE regarding that, especially as they are always looking for grants.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked what they are telling staff so far.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they are telling him that grants are probably possible but they have one project with them now for installation of EV stations down in the Rockaway area.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they were talking about the Civic Center project, then realized he was talking about EV charging stations. He stated that he also has that project in mind as, when it comes time to actually put the PVs on this roof, hopefully there is a second round and they can talk to PCE then. He referred to a question asked about making the roof of the current town hall building ready for photovoltaics.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that he and Ms. Carlberg discussed this issue earlier. He explained that although it has south facing roof, there is not enough surface area to put panels up there and the return of investment becomes very long as, if they were generating a lot of energy, the return of investment would be lower but, because there is not enough surface area on the roof, the return on investment for that would be very low.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to discussion of the budget regarding $69,000 for the stanchions to make it ready, stating it sounds like it will be less of a concern down the road if they incorporated add alternative A8 into this at this meeting. He stated that, based on the numbers staff has given so far, it doesn’t sound like it’s too painful to add that add alternative, but he would like professional advice on this.
City Manager Woodhouse thought they can afford that, and he would ask that Council make a decision about whether it comes out of Fund 38, i.e., the returned ERAF or out of the General Fund Unassigned Balance.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he would favor adding A8 at this time, as he has faith that PCE will have our back when it’s time to revisit for the EV charging stations.
Mayor Bier stated that her initial thought was, if they are going to do it, they should do it all now as later it will cost more. She stated that having the EV charging stations and the PV City Council Regular Meeting 29 April 25, 2022
infrastructure is super important, and the generator was very important for our community and she asks why they don’t do it all now instead of piecemealing it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was a question of spending the money and, when this project was put out to bid and the add alternates were structured, they had not done the midyear budget analysis at that time. He stated that all of the extra add alternates that are not part of the basis of award add up to about $837,000 and it is a question of that one-time funding that can be applied to other capital projects and he stated that it was a tradeoff.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to that number, asking if they were incorporating add alternative A5B into that number, as he wasn’t sure of 5B and 5A was an either/or or both.
PW Dep. Director Bautista clarified that, regarding 5B, if during construction they find rotten redwood siding, 5B is the allowance they will be taking advantage of, and is not included in that $837,000.
City Manager Woodhouse added that $837,000 does not include the duplicative 5B which is duplicative to 5A, and 5A is in the basis of award. He concluded that it comes down to priority use of funds and what does $800,000 in one-time capital funding provide towards Council’s priorities.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck apologized, stating that, as he did some calculations now, it came closer to $0.5 million than $800,000, and he asked if he was adding the other alternative as well.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they will double-check the numbers, as they may have calculated it incorrectly.
Mayor Bier stated there were some questions on why they were using redwood instead of stucco and she wasn’t clear on that and asked if they could share any thoughts on that.
Ms. Carlberg stated that, for the existing City Hall building, they have a historical architect on board and one of the priorities that was identified early on in the feasibility study was that, if they were to renovate the exterior of City Hall, it would be advantageous and ideal to do it the secretary of engineer’s standards for rehabilitation and it could go onto the historic register for the state or perhaps nationally. She stated that, in doing so, they need to rehabilitate the exterior as close as they can to its original state and they have photographs of the original structure which included the redwood siding and, in order to comply with the main historic features of the building, the character defining features which include the windows, doors and most notably, the look of the exterior and they would remove the stucco and either rehabilitate the existing redwood underneath or, if not feasible, they would employ option 5A, 5B which is replacing the redwood with new material.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked for an explanation, as she thought, if they use the existing, it is more expensive than putting new redwood.
Ms. Carlberg stated that they aren’t sure what the condition of it and often times, their historic architect has seen is that, when you take off the existing stucco, the redwood is preserved pretty well, but it does need to be rehabilitated as it has holes in it from the nails of the stucco, there might be parts where it is damaged and they need to patch and repair with existing redwood you’re taking off other parts of the building into it and it is a very careful process of rehabilitating the existing redwood. She stated that, because of that careful nature of the rehabilitation, City Council Regular Meeting 30 April 25, 2022
maybe one reason why that may be more costly than the new siding would be. From the historical perspective, she stated they must try to preserve as much of the original material as possible before they say it is not feasible to do so, and then do all new. She stated that it is an order of how you must do it with the historical standards.
Mayor Bier stated that they needed a time check, 10:45, and she asked for a motion.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer) (extending meeting to 11:30 p.m.) Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked her for the explanation.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they have the recalculation.
PW Dep. Director Bautista apologized, stating that it was actually $527,000.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there was also a question about plastic resin material being used, specifically a concern that it was made from fossil fuels, which was the finish proposed on the P&P building phenolic composite panels.
Ms. Carlberg stated that one of the accent materials for the P&P building as well as the addition to the City Hall building’s new entrance and elevator where they are proposing accenting with phenolic composite panel and, while there is resin that makes it adhere together, this panel is actually composed of 70% of natural wood fibers sourced from sustainable forest as FSC certified forest in accordance with the PE FSC program for endorsement of board certification.
She stated that the companies they have used for this have performed a life cycle cost analysis to map their overall environmental footprint and are one of the first companies to do so back in 1994 and they have integrated all their sustainable priorities into their rolling business planning, and in the future, while there are some fossil fuels used to create the material embedded in the panels themselves, one of their goals is to reduce this by 20% in the next 5-10 years. She stated that one other component of it is that this composite panel is extremely durable and hardwearing and resistant to corrosion and is very durable and long-lasting, very good for a civic center project like this where they may not want to replace it for a long time.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there was a concern about metal components of the building that may not stand up well to the ocean air, and he asked if she could speak to that.
Ms. Carlberg stated that was one of the other accent materials for the P&P building, the vertical elements that are at the corner of Francisco and Santa Maria and also on the south side near the entrance. She stated that this accent material is not a raw metal finish but has a factory finish, powder coat paint to it that is extremely hardwearing, long-lasting, scratch resistant, and in addition, they are proposing putting a graffiti coating on top of it for additional durability and longevity. Because of the measures taken, she stated that it is appropriate for the Pacifica memory environment.
Mayor Bier stated that we have a lot of problem of rust and that is a concern and we have a history of it, so it would be good to be sure that it’s not going to rust.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was on the school board and they did IBL and he thought City Council Regular Meeting 31 April 25, 2022
their architect read the same brochure she did on the metal, and it was a challenge for the maintenance of the school district to keep the metal up, and tried every paint known to keep that metal going at IBL, and it is probably about the same distance from the beach as City Hall. He would be reluctant to have metal there, as it will be a constant drain on maintenance.
Mayor Bier asked what would be an option if they don’t have the metal.
Ms. Carlberg stated that they spoke with the product manufacturer, in addition to the literature, and if it is proposed and the metal is not something that the city would prefer, they could go with a composite resin panel in those locations with a different color or finish to it.
Councilmember O’Neill asked what kind of guarantee would the manufacturer give for this metal, such as come out and replace it every three years.
Ms. Carlberg stated that there is a warrantee period, but they would have to look at the literature as to what is in the specifications.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that was her question, as to whether they would warrantee the material.
Mayor Bier thought they might want to think about changing that material if that is an option for them, adding that she would not know how to go about that such as would they ask for a new bid.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would turn it over to the Public Works experts, Ms.
Carlberg, but he didn’t know if Dawn Merkes with Group 4 is on the line but if she is, he would ask if she has anything to offer in addition to what Ms. Carlberg offered, and PW Director Petersen could chime in, as it might be an item they have to discuss and negotiate with the contractor if they were to change it.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they have the contractors here.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, if the contractors are here and they have some insight to offer on that. He stated that, in our marine environment, metal is going to rust. If it is wellsealed and protected metal, that will obviously be better than non-wood and pain as everything gets harshly impacted and there will be maintenance requirements on every aspect of the building.
Dawn Merkes stated that maybe she could join.
Mayor Bier welcomed her.
Ms. Merkes of Group 4 stated that there are a couple of things they can do, such as metal panels are baked enamel panels, similar to your car finish. She stated that, with panels like this, they can check the warrantee and make sure the manufacturer is going to back and they can also look at alternative materials and come back and present that to Council to make sure it is consistent with what the Planning Commission has approved and make sure it is a similar budget to the metal panel so there will hopefully not be any implications on the cost with the contractor. She stated that they will definitely work with him to find an alternative material that is within a comfortable budget. She reiterated that there were things they could do without having to take the whole shift and go back and rebid anything at this time.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 April 25, 2022
Mayor Bier welcomed the contractor.
Contractor Vinson Heine of W. E. Lyons thanked Council for considering them for the general contractor for the project. He stated that he is the Senior Vice President and partner within the company which has been in business for 96 years. He stated that he has done a lot of projects like this and a lot of renovation projects. He stated that the city has done some really good things thus far, such as they hired an amazing design team and he has heard a lot of good things about Group 4 and was excited to work with them on the project. He thought that doing the pre-qualification was a very smart move to get a qualified contractor to do the work. He stated that there are a lot of general contractors trying to find work and quite a few of them wouldn’t be qualified for this specific job. He stated that they want to compete with those people who know how to do the job. He stated that there are a lot of good alternates there and pricing is not going to get any cheaper as mentioned earlier. He stated that material availability continue to get worse and more and more difficult before it gets better. He was present because he wants to hear Council agree to go forward and he has subcontracts ready and he will have to lock in those subcontractors right away and get them to procure that material now as tomorrow it will be a different price as the pricing is continuing to go up. He referred to the alternates they mentioned to be able to do the infrastructure for the photovoltaic on the roof. He stated that the stations are one thing, and something they need to consider as well is the conduit from the electrical room up to the roof which is a big deal as it gets hidden in the walls when they do that work now versus later when it has to be in a separate chaise and they have to do it and drilling holes in creating a space for that, whereas now they can put that in the wall and get it up into the infrastructure. He stated that it makes sense to do that now. He thought about adding photovoltaic panels in the bid now, and they might have some other different grants and opportunities to get that infrastructure installed with a different procurement process.
He stated that they might look into that as there are a lot of different grants coming up for that.
He stated that, if they included it, he didn’t know if they would necessarily be able to apply for that type of grant and that might be something they can install at a later date but get funding for a different way. He stated that the EV charging stations is another one that they can do later on, as the infrastructure would be there and they would just need to install them. He didn’t know if later on will be more or less expensive than doing it now, as they don’t know where things are going with the materials. He thought they figured out the calculation, as 5B and 5A is an either/or option. He stated that they are excited to get started and move forward in providing them with a beautiful building.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked about the metal.
Mr. Heine stated that there were options as they could go to aluminum, a baked enamel of an aluminum panel that doesn’t rust and get the same kind of look. He stated that there are other materials, as the design team mentioned, that they can use. He stated that the baked on enamel that is on the metal panels is like their car and it does last a long time. He understood that they are close to the salt and things rust and they don’t want that either to come back with a warrantee issue and have to deal with that down the road. He was glad they are thinking outside the box in looking at that and helping them prevent that warrantee issue and that cost.
Mayor Bier thanked him for stepping up to speak.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to the statement that the finish is as good as a car, and he remembered that they had a guy win a contest for the rustiest in California who lived on Esplanade. He drove it in the Fog Fest parade and when the CHP finally condemned the car, City Council Regular Meeting 33 April 25, 2022
as he had holes the size of his fist on the side of the car, so he thought saying it is as good as a car finish doesn’t cut it. He suggested they look at the vehicles in our corporation yard.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano wanted to confirm they closed public comment but she reopened it to allow the general contractor, but at this point she suggested she close it.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought Ms. Merkes’ point was well taken that they can figure out what the material is going to be, and he thought it doesn’t have to be this exact time as they will incorporate an option that is not going to rust on the city. He was also intrigued by the notion of adding the alternates in.
Mayor Bier asked what Councilmember Vaterlaus thought about adding them now instead of doing them later.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if she meant all the alternates. She didn’t think so, and thought regarding the PV infrastructure that they can add the generator later. She didn’t know about window coverings, as it is an office, and she felt there were certain things they didn’t need to spend the money on now, but obviously not the EV charging stations, and for split cooling, open a window. She thought they should add the PV infrastructure now for sure.
Mayor Bier thought, if they end up doing them later, it will cost more, and that is the only reason why she thinks they should add them in, the EV charging station and add the PV infrastructure, add in the generator, and the rest can wait.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, for the charging stations, we will have the infrastructure there to add them. She can see the PCE is going to want to do those for us and she didn’t want to pay for them now or add them in now when she thinks they will pay for it later.
Mayor Bier heard her on that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated she wants them, but she thinks they can add them later.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was hearing yes on 8, no on 1, and that leaves 3, 6, 7 and 9. He stated that, when they were discussing it, No. 9 seemed really important to the community specifically because of the noise issue and he didn’t know the effect it has on the building itself. He favors guidance there.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he appreciated that the generator is in a neighborhood but, if he remembers correctly, it is turned on once a month to test. He asked how often they have actually used the generator.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it does have to periodically be tested, which he believes that means running it for an hour or so, and it used to be on Friday afternoon when he was alone in the office and it was outside his window and it worked out okay and was very loud. He referred to the question of how they used it, and he stated that there was a time when one of the feeds from PG&E had been shut off for some work on Salada and they learned something about the outdated electrical system at the civic center and that accidentally shut off the power to the civic center and they had to run the generator power at that time.
City Council Regular Meeting 34 April 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill thought the generator is something that can be added on later.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that he didn’t know about the wiring infrastructure piece to that but they were saying it could be added on later. He stated that another component which Ms. Merkes mentioned is that technology for back up battery storage from solar has not advanced yet to the stage of powering the civic center for a couple of days in an emergency but in coming years, that could be the case.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if this would be another gas generator.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed that they would be talking about a gas generator but in future years, if there was battery technology, then that would make the gas generator investment obsolete.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated the end game is electrification and presumably it would be a slightly cleaner burning gas generator.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if this estimate was for a gas generator.
PW Dep. Director Bautista agreed that it was.
Mayor Bier thought they could knock that one out.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it leaves 3, 6 and 7.
Mayor Bier asked, with 6, can they just let staff have everything in place and get them all the things they need.
Councilmember O’Neill thought, if you want a modern office, you have to have equipment and technology.
Mayor Bier agreed that was the point, so they have everything they need.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they don’t want the first principal of the school to recognize the building.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they were okay with 6.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.
Mayor Bier stated that they have 6 and 8.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they have 3 and 7 to go.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he had no idea what a split cooling system was.
Ms. Carlberg stated that the split cooling system would provide cooling to the larger conference rooms in the P& P building that have a higher occupancy and might get warmer than the other spaces of the building, and this is something that was pulled out as an added alternate as it is something that could be easily added in the future and that is why it is broken out for the flexibility of either doing it now or in the future.
City Council Regular Meeting 35 April 25, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that they know how hot it gets at the community center so she thought they might want to have this in place if they are going to be having community meetings in those rooms.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck suggested they leave the windows open.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to ask a clarifying question.
Mayor Bier agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse asked, when they say split cooling system, does that also mean heat, and in the winter, if they had a heating problem in rooms.
Ms. Carlberg stated that there is heating in all of the P&P building and the City Hall and part of the basis that there is heating everywhere.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that often, in office buildings, when you set the heat for the open air office space, then the conference room gets too hot, and he asked if this add alternate is a system that addresses that flexibility or is the heating system built into the base bid supposed to be flexible per room.
Ms. Carlberg stated that the heating system that is built in will have some control over the zones of the building and purely to add cooling to the conference rooms.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Councilmember O’Neill what his thoughts are.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is thinking he won’t vote yes for 11:30.
Mayor Bier thought it was logical that, if there is heating, there should be cooling.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Councilmember O’Neill because it sounds like Councilmember Vaterlaus is a no vote on No. 3 and he was trying to get consensus at this point.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was okay with it.
Mayor Bier stated that they can do No. 7 later.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that consensus is that they would like to add Items 3, 6 and
8. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she would make a motion.
Mayor Bier thought the city attorney was saying something.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought City Manager Woodhouse had indicated at the beginning that he would ask Council to make a decision on where the add alternates are going to come from in terms of funding, and whether there needs to be a distinction between 3 and 6 as to whether it comes from the General Fund unassigned fund balance or the returned ERAF revenues.
City Council Regular Meeting 36 April 25, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, if they were talking about $183,000, he was thinking unassigned General Fund.
Councilmember O’Neill stated or disaster fund as it is the one-time money ERAF goes into for one time expenditure.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed.
Councilmember Vaterlaus made a motion that they award the Civic Center Campus Facilities Project Construction Services Agreement and approve the following actions for the Civic Center Campus Facilities Improvement Project, PW2021-23, adopt the resolution next in order for a budget amendment for Fiscal Year 2021-22 with the total project budget of $11,651,397 plus Items 3, 6 and 8 for a total of...
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated $182,425.
Councilmember Vaterlaus added what he said and using by appropriating additional returned ERAF revenues (Disaster Fund Accounting) of ...
City Manager Woodhouse asked what PW Dep. Director Bautista said.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated A3, A6 and A8 is $182,425.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was $1,082,485 and appropriating General Fund Unassigned Fund balance of $751,397 to the project budget and authorizing the City Manager to award and execute a Construction Services Agreement with W. E. Lyons Construction Company (Attachment “A”) in the amount not to exceed $9,222,972, adding additional items and authorize a budget authority for construction in the amount of $9,960,810 which includes alternates A2, A4, A5a, A3, A6 and A8 and contingencies in an amount not to exceed eight percent of the Construction Contract amount; and Authorize staff to execute future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the $9,960,810 will need to increase by the additional add alternates that they added.
Mayor Bier asked Councilmember O’Neill if he had a question.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he had a question for discussion.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that the W. E. Lyons Construction Service Agreement would be in an amount not to exceed $9,405,397 and with contingency it would be $10,157,828.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed to that amendment.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if he said the contingencies are $10 million.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, with the contingency, it is $10,157,829. He stated that the first figure is $9,405,397.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if the motion include Item C.
City Council Regular Meeting 37 April 25, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that she did say Item C.
Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill asked that they explain Item C, authorize staff to execute future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount. He asked how much they said the contingency amount was.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that the contingency would be approximately $750,000.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that roughly $750,000, and he asked if they basically did their first change orders for this contract, as they put out a bid, they are looking at a contract and now they have changed the parameters of that contract and they have done their first change orders.
He asked if the stuff they authorize or vote on at this meeting is not part of the $720,000 but an additional $720,00 change order.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the definition of change order is that they just expanded the scope of the alternates and he was not sure what the engineers would say, but those aren’t actual change orders as the way he views change orders is there are things that happen in the field during the project and they negotiate about the additional costs that the materials costs, but there are always going to be those and the authority would be that 8% amount and they are able to negotiate those through their construction management and keep them down as much as possible but they have the authority to keep things moving because those are like weekly decisions that need to be made during construction.
Councilmember O’Neill understood, and he stated that the max after the change orders reach $750,000 approximately then he asked if they would have to come back to Council for authorization to go over those.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed that, if they started to exceed that 8% contingency allowed for the change orders, they would have to come back to Council.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, when they remodeled all the schools, they had a list of the change orders that were authorized so they actually kept track of the change orders.
Mayor Bier stated that they have a motion and a second.
Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Beckmeyer)
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus
ABSENT: Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 11:21 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
City Council Regular Meeting 38 April 25, 2022
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 5/9/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor