CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83307754477
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 833 0775 4477
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Comcast Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Special Meeting 1 August 31, 2022
SPECIAL MEETING
August 31, 2022 (WEDNESDAY)
6:00 PM
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on August 31, 2022 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having City Council meetings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361), to conduct necessary business as an essential governmental function as a teleconference meeting with no meeting location open to the public. She also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Raymund Donguines, Sr. Civil Engineer; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Elizabeth Brooks, Mgmt.
Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgement.
City Council Special Meeting 2 August 31, 2022
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consideration of Adoption of the Sharp Park Specific Plan.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached Resolution to:
A. Find approval of the Sharp Park Specific Plan to be substantially consistent with the plan evaluated in the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2012022046, certified by the City Council on July 11, 2022, for purposes of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
B. Approve the Sharp Park Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission; and
C. Incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.
Planning Director Murdock stated he is joined by consultants, Alison Moore and Rajeev Bhatia of Dyett & Bhatia, and several staff members, and then began the staff report.
Consultant Alison Moore continued the staff report.
Planning Director Murdock completed the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Planning Director Murdock if staff got his email listing some corrections he made in the document, and asked if they needed corrections or just minor typographical errors.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they did receive them and they are quality assurance checks that staff will do when they have time following acceptance of the document, and will correct those minor non-substantiative typographical errors in the final document.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had some questions but didn’t know if this was the time to ask, and as the Mayor confirmed that they will go through it chapter by chapter, he will wait until after public comment.
Councilmember Vaterlaus sent some changes mentioned by the public regarding specifics of certain lots zoned on the map incorrectly and wanted to know if those changes were part of this also.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he did get them and staff reviewed them. He stated that the plan was consistent with the planning approach in Sharp Park Specific Plan, i.e., staff focused on Council’s directions to improve the vibrancy focused on north and south corridors but did not make changes to the east/west corridors. He stated that the land use designation in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, such as Salada Avenue cited in the comments, are reflected of the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan and that staff did not look to make changes in the east/west corridors presently so nothing will change in the status quo of the current Coastal Land Use Plan based on those land use designations.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the citizen was saying that one of the buildings was currently a six-unit building and is shown on the map as a single family.
City Council Special Meeting 3 August 31, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated there could possibly be an error in the existing land use diagram which is not a policy component of the document, just an informational component, but they can revisit that and, if there is a technical error, they can correct it before they finalize the document. He thought, more importantly looking forward, if any of the land use policies would be contrary to future redevelopment of the site. He added that there is a policy in the Sharp Park Specific Plan now that allows sites that exceed the allowable density to redevelop at that existing density even if the policy calls for lower density, thus, the owner would be allowed to continue with the six-unit apartment complex.
Mayor Bier stated she have questions but they can wait for deliberation. With no other questions or comments, she opened up public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, appreciated the efforts by staff and the Planning Commission and she appreciated the addition of the preservation policies. She wanted this plan to be successful for all the community to increase the vibrancy of the neighborhood, and wanted to make a few comments and asked questions and shared her thoughts and concerns, such as on parking sites, commercial spaces, fire safety, etc.
Tom Thompson, Pacifica, stated that he had submitted some comments by email, but is sharing his thoughts and suggestions on some of his concerns regarding the Sharp Park Specific Plan, including specifically the importance of the sea wall to ensure all investments are safe.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he wanted to correct one comment by Ms. Boles who referred to 55 stories high for buildings, and he corrected it to be 55 feet.
Kimberly Williams, San Mateo County Surfrider Foundation, acknowledged that sea rise was an important issue. She thought there were many good things in the plan, but she shared her thoughts and concerns on many issues that are not included in the plan, such as the sea wall, etc., and Surf Rider encouraged Council to engage in long term planning for sea level rise.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, expressed her thoughts regarding the Sharp Park Specific Plan changing the land use area of Sharp Park, mentioning some of her specific concerns regarding that issue and expressed her suggested changes including working with the Coastal Commission to maintain the character of the area.
David Beaumont, Pacifica, stated that he sent email with his thoughts to the Commissioners and city staff, and confirmed staff received it. He stated he was representing six owners and then shared their specific concerns with suggested several changes he and his neighbors have for Council’s consideration regarding specific areas in Sharp Park.
Robine Runneals, Pacifica, thanked city staff for all their work, and she didn’t think they missed anything. She did agree with Mr. Thompson regarding his comments on the sea wall and with Ms. Abbott regarding height limits. She hoped they adopt the plan and take into consideration what the Planning Commission addressed and include the public’s comments and suggested changes for what is best for the neighborhood.
Robert Hutchinson, Pacifica, stated he was speaking at Ms. Runneals’ request, and he agreed with her regarding her defense of Sharp Park and support for the sea wall and he City Council Special Meeting 4 August 31, 2022
thought the Council has done a good job on this plan.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing and then reopened for another speaker.
Bob Haxo, Pacifica, expressed his specific concerns regarding the changes in the Plan regarding his neighborhood, such as sidewalks and bike safety.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck welcomed Ms. Brooks back. He then followed up on the community’s questions. He referred to the sea wall, asking why they aren’t putting in stronger nomenclature in the plan as to the city’s commitment to a sea wall.
Planning Director Murdock began by reminding Council and the public of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update process including the sea level rise adaptation planning process which was very challenging for the community. Council ended up with policies that most of the Council supported in the Local Land Use Plan that was sent to the Coastal Commission for certification. It was staff’s desire not to be redundant and not mire the Sharp Park Specific Plan by relitigating the complicated conversations that were already resolved by Council in the LCLUP update process, so their approach to coastal resiliency issues was to defer to the applicable policies of the LCLUP and remain in effect as they harmonize the Sharp Park Specific Plan with the LCLUP.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he may have a question later related to amending the LCLUP once they have made changes to this document, but this may tie in to public comments, so he asked what it means if they amend the LCLUP later after they approve this document and if it ties into whether they emphasize that they support the Beach Boulevard Resiliency Infrastructure project.
Planning Director Murdock stated, for any of the land use regulations to apply within the coastal zone, the city needs to obtain Coastal Commission certification of those policies. The city currently has a 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan which was certified by the Coastal Commission and has had a number of amendments over the years since 1980 which still remains in effect and is the General Plan for the coastal zone which was consistent with the 1980 General Plan up to adoption of 2020 General Plan last month. The city approved the draft of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and directed staff to send it to the Coastal Commission for certification. They are still working on that process, and this month the Coastal Commission accepted our application as filed and the statutory timeline for their review has begun with 90- day requirement to take to a public hearing unless the Coastal Commission grants themselves a 12-month timeline and they are working through the process. The question of certification of an amendment is a moving target, i.e., when they started the Sharp Park Specific Plan process by adopting the 2020 LCLUP update, they assumed they would be further along and had the documented certified by the present time with minor additional amendments to incorporate the specific policies of the Sharp Park Specific Plan. He thought it still makes sense to pursue certification of the 2020 LCLUP first, as it is a major change to the 1980 LCLUP and provides a lot of baseline policies, including the coastal resiliency policies they discussed but there is no mandatory order for that and given it’s a narrower scope, the Sharp Park Specific Plan could potentially proceed more quickly through the LCLUP certification process with the Coastal Commission. He thought, if Council approves this document, they could have two LCLUPs running concurrently He stated that they will have to do the comprehensive amendment to the 1980 LCLUP to incorporate the 2020 LCLUP or a more tailored LCLUP to incorporate the Sharp City Council Special Meeting 5 August 31, 2022
Park Specific Plan. He stated that it is uncertain and out of the city’s control with respect to LCLUP amendment and certification.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he was bringing some level of comprehensibility to a complex problem, and he will add his thoughts to understand it to the best of his ability. He asked, if they pass this, will they have to conform it to the 1980 LCLUP or the updated LCLUP.
Planning Director Murdock stated that in a simple sense, yes. He stated that they will either be amending the 1980 LCLUP to say they have newer and more specific policies in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, and it may be more challenging of the two because there is a disconnect between broader policies in the 1980 LCLUP and the more modern focused policies in the Sharp Park Specific Plan. He stated that the alternative is that they will achieve certification of the 2020 LCLUP and making relatively minor amendments to that to incorporate the Sharp Park Specific Plan. He pointed out the difference between the 2020 and the Sharp Park Specific Plan are much smaller than the difference between the 1980 LCLUP and the Sharp Park Specific Plan.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if he is understanding him correctly, if they submitted the 1980 plan, got it certified and that’s the law, but now is the 2020 LCLUP considered an amendment to the 1980 or is the 1980 gone and 2020 is the new law.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was a bit of semantics, and he would use different terms.
They need Coastal Commission certification of our policies in order for them to take effect. He stated that people call them amendments when there are relatively small changes, such as changing one parcel’s land use designation. He didn’t know if amendment makes as much sense when they are talking about a comprehensive replacement, but in either case, it is a replacement and it needs certification from the Coastal Commission and that is the operative issue in order for it to take effect in the coastal zone.
Councilmember O’Neill assumed that they are just amending the 1980 plan with the 2020 plan and then submit this if Council approves.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they would be amending in its entirety the 1980 LCLUP as opposed to a narrower amendment that might implement a particular change in land use designation.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck returned to the question of putting more robust language about the sea wall in this document. He thought he heard him say that they were in the process of figuring out which document they are adapting this document to. He stated that they already have policies in the update that clearly and robustly state that this is the city’s direction and to incorporate such language in this document, being the STSD, might muddy the water when what they are trying to accomplish is very clearly state this is the approach we are taking to protect ourselves.
Planning Director Murdock thought he had that correctly.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he had other comments to follow up on and confirmed that, if no one else wanted to speak now, he would continue.
Mayor Bier stated she was depending on him to look at the public comments and ask the questions.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to parking garages and asked if they made any effort to City Council Special Meeting 6 August 31, 2022
identify a site where they might put a parking garage.
Planning Director Murdock didn’t think they had because staff’s intention is to try to seek joint use parking facilities, given the significant expense and scarce land area in Sharp Park, i.e., there has been consideration of opportunities to potentially have a joint use parking garage as part of the 2212 Beach Boulevard project or as part of the library redevelopment or both. He stated that there were other opportunities to seek other places to construct parking facilities, but those are the two most promising as they have project concepts, under the city’s control and make sense given their centralized location to provide common parking facilities and he thought that was likely where staff’s energy will be unless Council thinks a different direction makes more sense.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck commented that Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser has joined them, and he encouraged her to share any comments that might be helpful as he asks questions.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he didn’t want to butt in but wanted to ask a question about parking in lieu.
Mayor Bier stated he can go ahead and ask his questions.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they had talked about raising our in lieu parking fees, and he asked if they have raised them, and what is the amount. He asked if they need to do a separate parking in lieu fee just for this area as they did in Rockaway.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the Council has already adopted an in lieu parking fee for the Sharp Park Specific Plan area and it is in effect, and indexed to construction cost index and thus a mechanism to step it up which was missing from the original Rockaway Beach parking fee. He stated that he would have to pull up the resolution for the specific amount, but he thought it was around $40,000 per space. He stated that individual requests for payment of the fee in lieu of providing parking need to be approved by the city and Council can approve a lower amount and may want to for certain types of land uses as an incentive. They may want higher per space fees for other land uses as well. He stated that, while Council retains some discretion on the actual fee amount for a particular use as each reduction may run across purposes to accrue enough money to construct the improvements, which is a delicate balance for Council.
City Manager Woodhouse thought Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines might have the exact figure, but he thought the maximum amount in considering park in lieu fees was higher for Rockaway Beach and in Sharp Park, more in the $70,000 and Council did adopt more than average and in the $40,000 as mentioned by Planning Director Murdock. He stated that they can double check that.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted to be sure they don’t end up with the situation they had in Rockaway Beach and it was addressed for Council’s and the public’s knowledge. He asked confirmation that it is not spent on other issues.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed that it is intended for parking related improvements.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the adopted maximum per space fee at the time of adoption in 2020 was $40,260 per space. He didn’t have the figure available on what the maximum allowable justifiable fee would be, but the Council’s maximum adopted was that City Council Special Meeting 7 August 31, 2022
amount.
Mayor pro Term Bigstyck referred to the parking in lieu fees, and he read that there was an opportunity to tweak how they use the parking in lieu fees to bolster infrastructure such as bike infrastructure, such as for bike racks, etc. He asked if this is the time to start contemplating making those changes or are they putting it down the road.
Planning Director Murdock stated that a fee, other than the fee adopted for in lieu parking, would require a separate fee study and separate adoption by Council and that is something Council would direct staff to undertake, probably as part of the annual goal setting process. He stated that they would want to be sure they have sufficient policies in the document to make it clear what the requirement is and the action from developers as part of the project and implement an appropriate fee for that purpose.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck liked the comment about the notion of being commercial spaces not on the ground floor, and he asked if he could address that briefly as something that could come.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there is, but there is nothing in the Sharp Park Specific Plan today to prevent commercial uses above the ground floor. He stated that they have sought to require them along Palmetto Avenue on the ground floor to make those active commercial uses and allow residential use above the ground floor, but commercial uses could comprise some or all of stories above the ground floor such as to achieve ocean views.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they will spend some time talking about height and what it means for the area, but his next question was regarding serving fire needs up to 55 feet and he asked if they have checked in with the Fire Department and does Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh have any insights.
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated regarding the aerial ladder they have for Pacifica housed in Station 95 in Daly City on Edgemont is 107-foot aerial platform they have that is used for the entire JPA for North County Fire for Brisbane and Pacifica. He stated, regarding height, depending on commercial or residential is anywhere from 10-12 feet, and there are a lot of factors in play when they are talking about an aerial platform. They have setbacks from the street to the structure compared to the angles of inclination for the areal itself, thus, multiple factors that can take place when they look at the position of areal ladders and how far a ladder can reach. He stated that there is a formula and it would be hard to explain it but, if they have a street to put the truck with an offset of 50 feet to reach the building, that is a right angle that you look at as you have the distance from where the vehicle is to the distance to the structure off the setback to how high the story is. From that, you have to remember that, even though they are 107-foot ladder or whatever it is, you have angles you have to deal with. He stated that, if they are setback, they can’t get 107 feet all the way. He stated that it depends on the type of building, placement, parking, height of the stories, etc., that they have to look at, but they have a truck that services Pacifica.
Planning Director Murdock asked him to discuss the relationship of modern building materials and construction, as well as the inclusion and mandatory requirement for fire sprinklers in these buildings and how it weighs into consideration of availability of a ladder apparatus.
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that is something they deal with constantly when it comes to construction. They talk about the new alternative methods of materials that are more fire resistant, fireproof and they also look at what type of sprinkler systems they may want to put in.
City Council Special Meeting 8 August 31, 2022
He stated that, at times, people will come and look at the alternative methods that they can get away with those type of materials instead of having something fully sprinklered. They are all factors taken in with new construction almost every day.
City Manager Woodhouse added further clarification as it is important regarding fire response.
He thought the intent of the question was simply do we have the equipment to respond to this kind of building at that height, and the answer is yes, as that equipment serves buildings that high in Daly City. He added a related point was the approach of their boundaryless approach to fire response in San Mateo County, and if any special equipment is busy at any given time, they have a system that brings it from other communities as well as rapidly as possible, thus the answer to that question is yes to that question.
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated he was correct regarding the cooperative relationship they have in all the boundaries and responses they have throughout the entire county. If our ladder is busy on an incident and we have another need for one, they get from another department and vice versa, and that cooperative relationship is great in San Mateo County. He stated that they do have a ladder aerial platform available whenever it is needed in Pacifica.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that, on the one hand, anytime we build anything, especially something taller than is usual, they will make sure to clear it with the fire department to make sure we are in conformance.
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh responded affirmatively.
Mayo pro Tem Bigstyck asked, based on this plan, if there was anything he is seeing that makes him think that it might cause a problem down the road and they shouldn’t do that out of a sense of safety.
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated, for clarification, when you are talking heights on buildings, an aerial platform is only going to be good up to certain amount, and it doesn’t matter what city you are in, but they take into consideration some of the other means and ways to build to make sure the public in those buildings are safe including the fire responders.
Planning Director Murdock referred to Policy 6-I-4 which gets exactly to the heart of his question by ensuring that, before approval or construction of 4 or 5 story buildings, the city ensures the fire authority has the ability to properly service those buildings.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the question of east/west changes, i.e., Santa Maria, and the question regard single family zoning and multi-family residence that is there. He thought Councilmember Vaterlaus was asking this question and it was answered earlier, but he wanted to circle back as it was asked again. He wanted to get as much clarity on the point as possible.
He stated that a commenter also referred to the seven properties on Salada and density and consistency. He asked Planning Director Murdock to help him navigate these.
Planning Director Murdock thought his understanding of the comments may reflect a misreading of the diagrams in the plan, as one diagram referenced is titled existing land use. He thought they may be interpreting that to mean existing land use designation when it is actually meant to describe the existing built condition of those properties shown in the diagram which is not necessarily the same thing as the existing 1980 LCLUP land use designation and he thought that was the source of one point of confusion. He stated it is possible that land use diagram contains an error, and staff will certainly review the properties mentioned to ensure that they City Council Special Meeting 9 August 31, 2022
correct any factual errors, but he reiterated that it was a misinterpretation of the information being conveyed by the diagram. He mentioned earlier in the meeting that, when you compare the existing land use designation in the 1980 LCLUP, they have not undertaken any changes to those east/west residential streets from those land use designations that are in the 1980 LCLUP. If there may be dissatisfaction with what they are, they don’t reflect any change that is proposed in the Sharp Park Specific Plan and reflects the status quo that has been in place since 1980 and that is the best description and summation of the issue at hand and what might be able to be done about it.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the 8-foot sidewalks on San Jose and stated that the commenter had questions about addressing people going down the street the wrong way and does this plan address that.
Planning Director Murdock recalled when he was a planning commissioner and expressed the same observations and concerns from his past experience in the Sharp Park neighborhood. He didn’t know what a plan can do to address people failing to observe traffic directional signs that indicate one-way streets. He thought there may be additional ways to visualize that, but it was in the purview of the city engineer in accordance with the manual for uniform traffic control design, and he suggested Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines can talk about what options there are to make a more prominent visualization of the one way, so he will let him think about it and circle back. He then asked him to repeat the first part of his question.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was asking about 8-foot sidewalks down San Jose.
Planning Director Murdock asked Ms. Moore if she could bring up a diagram that shows that section on San Jose. He stated that the diagram was trying to emphasize the importance of those east/west pedestrian and bicycle connections which were emphasized in a variety of community engagement settings and the Planning Commission’s extensive deliberation. He thought it reflects a possible misreading of the plan.
Consultant Moore apologized for interrupting but asked if staff could bring up her screen to share.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they needed to reflect on one thing the commenter said that was true, i.e., there are a variety of encroachments by property owners into the public rightof-way that they may perceive as their front yards but are a right-of-way owned by the city and it is a point they want to raise for Council to consider and weigh that policy consideration as to whether they want to drive towards these improvements to serve the greater good in terms of safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation or are they concerned about removing encroachments by property owners into the right-of-way. He asked Ms. Moore to walk them through that.
Consultant Moore stated that the diagram shows the width of existing segments, as well as proposed segments along San Jose Avenue and an extension of the sidewalk to eight feet is proposed on the northern side to provide the connection to the pedestrian bridge, but there is no change proposed to the width on the southern side of San Jose.
Planning Director Murdock thought it might be vice versa, but in either case, it is eight feet on one side and six feet on the other, reflecting the improvements in that sense.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if that would be taking out what someone perceives their front yard.
City Council Special Meeting 10 August 31, 2022
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, explaining that the city right-of-way in many cases in Pacifica is wider than the built street and often wider than the improved sidewalk space. Over the years, owners may have unknowingly encroached into the public right-of-way with fences, walls, etc., and if these improvements were made, the city would need to remove those encroachments from the public right-of-way and go through a process with the property owners to do so.
Consultant Moore added that he was correct, and on the southern side that connects to the pedestrian overcrossing.
Mayor Bier asked if they know how many properties are affected which is a concern to her.
Planning Director Murdock didn’t think they had a specific number as they haven’t surveyed the area, and they made a preliminary assessment that multiple properties are likely to have encroachments and that would be part of a more refined engineering assessment if the city were to pursue a project like that in the future.
Mayor Bier asked if he could give her the Policy number in Chapter 4.
Planning Director Murdock asked Ms. Moore if she has the document up.
Consultant Moore stated that they specific east/west improvements are included in Table 4-3, packet page 71.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if there is a state regulation on how wide a street has to be in order to be passable by vehicles, parking and bicycle lane.
Planning Director Murdock asked Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines if he could speak to what those minimum engineering standards are as well as comment on the MUTCD considerations.
Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines referred to the one-way San Jose street, he knows that on some of the streets they have a do not enter sign along with a one-way sign. They will review the other streets that are one-way and add the one-way or do not enter signs to make sure that the public knows not to enter those streets the wrong way. He will get back to them regarding the minimum width for the travel lane. At this time, for passenger vehicles, it is between 10-12 feet for a regular one lane street.
Consultant Bhatia added that this issue was discussed extensively by the Planning Commission. When they went to the Planning Commission, they did not have the extra foot and a half on the southern side nor reclaiming the city right-of-way but they had narrower parking strips. He thought Planning Commission Vice Chair Hauser may be able to comment on that, i.e., they had 6-foot wide parking lanes which the Commissioners thought were not adequate and cars would be getting out into the right-of-way needed to safely travel on the street and that is when they ended up widening it a little bit which required on the southern side of the street to go into the places where the city right-of-way does exist. He stated that there are about ten properties, and he is not sure how many actually have any structures, like fences, etc., that will come up to the street.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that Mr. Bhatia is correct. When this came to the Planning Commission, the parking spaces were much narrower and they thought 8-foot wide parking City Council Special Meeting 11 August 31, 2022
spaces were appropriate but working with Public Works and talking through this, 7.5 feet was what they thought would be the minimum that would be safe, effective and feel comfortable to provide the extra breadth that Mr. Bhatia mentioned.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they can consider language for policy specific to one-way streets and improving signage and other safety measures if desirable to Council and is a specific recommendation in Chapter 4.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t know if he heard that there is a particular mechanism for addressing the one-way streets within the context of the document. He thanked Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines for pointing out that they would look at extra signage. He thought the Local Roadway Safety Plan they are currently working on might also be a good opportunity to bring that to the safety plan underway. His last question regarding community feedback was the issue of 55-feet structures and when he was on the Planning Commission, north of San Jose was where it seemed more appropriate for 35 feet and no higher than 45. Now, it seems there are potentials along that strip for 55 feet. He watched all the Planning Commission meetings, and he has a rough sense of how they arrived at that and thought either Vice Chair Hauser or Planning Director Murdock could chime in, but it was a concern because going straight to 55 feet does strike him as out of character with the neighborhood. He wasn’t sure what it looks like when it is stepped back or what further study would make him feel more comfortable. He wanted to hear how they arrived at that potential as he didn’t think they were considering that in the last consideration.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that the Planning Commission discussed this a lot, and one of the things they talked about was, looking at the land use diagram, Figure 3-3, there are a lot of MUC along Palmetto, the MUC designation at Eureka Square and MUC designation on Francisco. She stated that, if you look at the policies, such as 3-I-39, northern Palmetto density and height.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked her to give them a page number.
Vice Chair Hauser stated it is 3-24 and she always does it in the document instead of the packet and that is the closest she can give him. She stated that it says that, on Palmetto, heights up to 45 feet and only when you do affordable housing do you go above 45 feet. For Eureka Square, it also starts at a lower height which she thinks is 45 feet and only by doing additional commercial space do you end up being able to develop into 55 feet. They looked at the two things the city wants, affordable housing to help with the housing crisis and RHNA numbers and they want high quality commercial because that is what Pacifica needs for economic development. By using the 55 feet as an incentive, it provides more flexibility. She thought the land uses on Francisco are the only place where the 55 feet was for MUC.
Planning Director Murdock added that Palmetto south of San Jose was up to 55 feet and he didn’t think it was further conditioned on incentives. He added that, along the lines of what Vice Chair Hauser mentioned, Council’s guidance with respect to heights north of San Jose was clearly understood and it also received a lot of public input about the need for affordable housing. In recognition of the fact that the city does not have a significant funding source to support the production of affordable housing, using the incentive of additional height in very narrow circumstances to achieve sorely needed affordable housing, he thought the Commission thought that was one reasonable exception to the other important policy consideration which is neighborhood scale effectuated through the 45-foot height limit. He thought Council would ultimately find out where to come down on that issue, but it was from an affordable housing City Council Special Meeting 12 August 31, 2022
supportive standpoint that the Commission resulted in that recommendation which, for a project of seven units, which would not be subject to the city’s BMR ordinance, they got a 28% inclusionary housing requirement, nearly double the 15% they would get through the city’s otherwise applicable standards, thus, they might go from zero affordable units to two under this mechanism.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that there was one other thing she forgot to mention. In chapter 5, the plan requires setbacks as well as setbacks from single family residential zoning to create a buffer. It was not a zero lot line and all of a sudden it goes from a 15-foot height single family home to a 55-foot building. She stated that there are buffers and design controls that have been contemplated and put into this document.
Mayor Bier asked if they can see that. She stated that, when she watched the Planning Commission meeting, she thought there were some brought up on the screen and it would be helpful to see those again. She is very concerned about this as she thought their direction was clear. She would like to push back a little bit and see what it would look like in showing our cottages.
Planning Director Murdock stated that packet page 110 is one example of the visualization of the daylight plane and Ms. Moore can jump in if she can identify some others. He thought it reflects that the rear setback is showing a 55-foot mixed use center building near a 35-foot high building to the rear behind it. He thought it could be a single family residence in the configuration that Vice Chair Hauser mentioned. It is showing the requirements to step back with the daylight plane along the rear of that building to provide some separation and ensure reduced impacts to shadowing the daylight for the property to the rear as well as the minimizing of the imposing that might result in a box that went straight up to 55 feet along the whole facade and he pointed out more detailing in the diagram. He added that they may get to a different issue regarding the human scale or smaller scale desirable while trying to allow the achievement of density which is a critical element to the vibrancy they envision through the plan.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to state laws and exemptions that would allow the developer to build denser regardless of what they tell them they can do, and he doesn’t know how deeply that played into this conversation but he recalled it being there somewhere. He asked, if they allowed 55 feet if affordable housing, what it would look like if they did up to 35 and then allowed them up to 45 with affordable housing instead.
Planning Director Murdock thought he was referring to state density bonus law which has a variety of thresholds that a project needs to meet in terms of including affordable housing units.
He stated that, in some cases, it is as little as 10% affordable for certain types of projects, and applies to projects of 16 units or more, so very small projects are not subject to the state density bonus law. As mentioned in the policy that Planning Commission recommended, projects that invoke state density bonus law would not be able to avail themselves of those additional bonuses. He thought that, at the heart of local community fears about state density bonus law, on the one hand it is supportive of affordable housing development but on the other hand it eviscerates local land use control through the required incentives and concessions that the city has to grant in accordance with the state density bonus law which the legislature determined was necessary to allow additional housing density and monetary compensation in return for providing those affordable housing units. He stated that the Planning Commission took care, i.e., Eureka Square, to try to manage state density bonus law to try to fully achieve to the extent possible about commercial and residential site.
Mayor Bier stated she fully understands Eureka Square but she is having a hard time with this City Council Special Meeting 13 August 31, 2022
section, and she hoped other councilmembers chime in.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that, when the Planning Commission reviewed this, one thing they really looked at were the density ranges established in the General Plan that were matched in this Specific Plan for consistency. She stated one thing they thought was appropriate was the densities that are being contemplated, i.e., MUC 30-50 dwelling units per acre, in order to achieve that and have homes that are appropriate for families and not just micro-studio apartments, they need to allow for that additional height potentiality.
Councilmember Vaterlaus was concerned about Eureka Square because that location’s height limit doesn’t affect anyone else and brings more people who would walk and use the square, but she understands that they are incentivizing them so they can go higher if they build affordable housing. She stated that all of that is supposing that someone is going to build any of this. She stated that they can try and change height limits but they don’t build and people will have to come in and build them. She knows construction is difficult on a neighborhood but it isn’t going to happen all at one time so it will take a long time for this process to go through.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was going to jump in response to the Mayor’s comment and her request for hearing from councilmembers. She shares the mayor’s concerns as she looks at the plan and thinks about the neighborhood we currently see and looks at some of the designs in the plan and she can’t help but think about places they all see when they travel over the hill. She mentioned this to Planning Director Murdock’s attention multiple times. She stated that in areas that have different zoning and are on a very busy transportation corridor such as El Camino they are seeing boxes that go from street level to the fifth floor with very little attention given to setbacks, changing the look in terms of little decks, etc. She is concerned that they are inadvertently creating a condition where that could happen in this neighborhood. She doesn’t want to disrespect the work that the city, Planning Commission and consultants have done in terms of delivering what they asked for and she is not saying that the plan is terrible. She is not saying that, and thinks it is very good, but she thinks they need to be a bit more refined in certain parts of the corridors. She thought they did a good job in multiple public meetings when they discussed 45 feet north of the street and 55 south. When she looks at some of the renderings, she realizes these are not plans that anyone has put forward, but it still gives her pause. She referred to packet page 102, architectural features, and when she looks at a potential building, she doesn’t think it looks like the picture on page 103 and doesn’t look like the design elements at 1914, 1922 and 1926 Palmetto. When she looks at the building on page 101, she has a similar response and maybe what she needs to get over is that you can’t have a tiny cottage and affordable housing. She is trying to navigate and be respectful to our community who gave Council their impassioned feedback multiple times over the months they have been working on this. She is looking for a way for Council, that is committed to creating more housing in our community and vibrancy in this neighborhood, to honor that and continue forward with that while at the same time defining a way that our design can look more like the historic cottage neighborhood that she is hearing about from many commenters and they see.
She wants to hear from staff and consultants on how they do that.
City Manager Woodhouse didn’t know if his question will help or not on this discussion on tension between neighborhood character and affordable housing. He thought it might be a question for Vice Chair Hauser as to whether the Commission talked about this in the context of our RHNA allocation and the difficult work they have to do with the housing element coming up, particularly the large number of affordable housing that is required. He stated that this important discussion weighs on the capacity for in-fill development for housing versus the tough issues that will arise for potential housing sites elsewhere in Pacifica. He stated that he wanted to City Council Special Meeting 14 August 31, 2022
throw the RHNA and housing element variable into the conversation and apologized if that makes it more difficult.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that one thing that was added on 3-16, where it talks about Eureka Square redevelopment on a 5-acre parcel. It is MUC and allows for a lot of development, one of the biggest place available in Pacifica. She stated that it contemplated that a space that large gets 171 housing unit. She referred to the City Manager’s point that it will be very difficult to meet RHNA numbers close to 2,000 units when they don’t have a lot of spaces this large. The question the Commission looked at is how they do it and give a flexibility to the Planning Department to come up with a housing element draft that contemplates that. She stated that they took it into consideration and having that 171 units puts into perspective for them on what it takes to get to that large number.
Planning Director Murdock stated, in response to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s comments, he would go back to packet page 110 and explain that his opinion on the ground to sky 55-foot high boxes that she alluded to in other communities would not result from the Sharp Park Specific Plan, as staff and the Commission took great care to put objective design standards in place that would ensure building articulation and stepbacks along the front and rear of these buildings so they don’t get large, unwieldy boxes that are well out of character with the scale and design desired. He also referred to the Commission’s point of the character of the character of the buildings at Palmetto and San Jose, and they put in two specific policies that get to the heart of what’s desirable about those buildings, i.e., windows, sidings, detailing, to ensure that it is carried forward into the design of future buildings. He stated that none of the diagrams referenced are intended to be example buildings, but to depict different characteristics that would result in the policies but not to be a building design in and of themselves. He stated that, more to the point, those were created much earlier in the planning process and don’t reflect the refinements that they would get through the policies that were developed and the design guidelines and all comprehensive characteristics that come together in a particular building. He then pointed out that they are being asked to decide what the future character is of the neighborhood and there is a lot to like about what they have today but Council determined several years ago that they wanted something different, better, and what he said earlier in the process and will repeat, the 35 foot height limit intact for 40 plus years has not achieved what Council has said it wants through the Specific Plan. He stated that, as hard as it is to move beyond that, it may be a necessary element to achieve some of the other desired outcomes that Council has espoused and giving its guidance to staff. He then referred to the height issue, i.e. north of San Jose Avenue and Palmetto, and stated that is not a make or break component of this plan and wasn’t an earlier component of the plan. He thought the Planning Commission saw it as a unique opportunity to try, with the tools available to it, to provide for additional affordable housing. He didn’t think that was an essential element to the plan and didn’t think it was likely to get them along the way where they need to be in their RHNA in the housing element for affordable units, given the small size of the sites but it would be indicative of the city’s support in every instance for affordable housing because every unit counts for the families that live in those units. He concluded that was a policy issue that Council will have to weight and decide, but the plan can retain its integrity without that height of 45 feet north of San Jose, but just a rare opportunity to try to get additional affordable housing units without direct public financing.
Mayor Bier thanked him and appreciated what he said.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated his articulating it in such a way that he feels like there is a little bit more flexibility in his decision making within the context that he is feeling acutely every City Council Special Meeting 15 August 31, 2022
unit of what it will take to come to that 1800 number, and he suspect other councilmembers might feel the same as well. He wanted to address their full menu of options is. Instead of having it written that it is a 45 to 55 with the bonus, what if they looked at something of 35 to 45 instead. He asked what that would look like if they adjusted it, such as would it be helpful if they did that.
Planning Director Murdock thought they would need more time to think critically through the different variations of that approach, and his initial reaction is not to tether an incentive to get from 35 to 45, and probably better to allow 45 which Council has already supported earlier and hope to get more units in each project, up to eight units or more and try to trigger the city’s BMR ordinance. He thought that was a more useful way to crack that nut with respect to incentivizing affordable housing development, rather than tethering it to 35 to 45 which he wasn’t sure was enough density for economic benefit to get there.
Consultant Bhatia added that, if there were to be a qualified affordable housing project, they would keep a concession and the city would be compelled to grant concession for projects that are larger than six units. He thought they were talking about small projects, and allowing those projects have the same benefit that a larger project might have. He stated that it comes down to a handful of sites. He referred to page 48 of the packet, they have a map of opportunity sites and they can see many of those sites are larger sites and would have more than six units on them and it comes down to maybe no more than three or four sites. This is what they are talking about, those smaller sites, that may get some additional floors as a result.
Planning Director Murdock wasn’t sure he could put a number on it, but he does raise another important point, i.e., for projects of six or more units, they are more readily able to trigger state density bonus law which really takes the lid off of city control. He stated that the backstop in this location is the coastal zone and the CDP requirement and LCP and Coastal Act compliance, and density bonus isn’t quite the unlimited release of local zoning as it might be outside of the coastal zone, like in the Eureka Square context that the Commission worked hard to address.
He stated that the presumption is that it would apply and the city would be on the defensive to argue why a particular incentive or concession would be inconsistent with the LCP and the Coastal Act. The Commission was trying to incentivize projects not to invoke state density bonus law to get these other benefits available to them in terms of extra height and density and that is an additional wrinkle to this consideration.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, in theory, by keeping in place the 45 to 55, we might wind up with smaller projects than if they leave it to the developer invoking state density bonus law.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was one of the indirect incentives for this project.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that was the extent of the question he wrote down in terms of community feedback.
Mayor Bier stated that she would like to come back to it as she didn’t think it was fair to the community to not listen to the specifics, as this is one part and they are doing a lot of other changes in other areas, thus she would push to keep it at 45. She thought they should start going chapter to chapter and they can come back to that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked why there is no table of contents in this document.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there isn’t a good reason, but they did include a hyperlink City Council Special Meeting 16 August 31, 2022
table of contents in an earlier public review draft and they will add that into a future draft if Council directs that at a subsequent meeting or in a final approved version if that is where they get at this meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he would like to see a table of contents.
Mayor Bier called a 5-minute break before starting going chapter by chapter.
Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting and began with Chapter 1.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to Chapter 1-2 about natives using water for food, water and fuel and he asked what is meant by saying they use it for fuel.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he reads the sentence to mean that, from the creeks, they pull the three different resources of food, water and fuel in the form of wood, brush, etc.
Mayor Bier then stated everyone agreed to move on to Chapter 2.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they have addressed the question of amending the LCP depending on how they fall on this document. He referred to a similar question about the bike and pedestrian master plan and he heard the robust discussion in the Planning Commission and he took that to mean that, if they pass this, it was a good idea to go back to the bike and ped master plan as they might need to tweak it based on the adjustments they made in this document.
Planning Director Murdock agreed with him, and he didn’t think there was anything inconsistent with the bike and ped master plan that was recommended by the Commission. There are additional improvements and he thought it would be good practice to retroactively amend the bike and ped master plan to be consistent with these additional improvements and recommendations.
Mayor Bier agreed, then no other comments so she moved on to Chapter 3. She then referred to packet page 52, 3-G-4, where it talks about the Pacifica Resource Center, and it says for any future mixed use development of the current Pacifica Resource Center, allow the non-profit to use of PRC to continue and she wondered if they could possibly strengthen that language.
Planning Director Murdock thought they could as allowing expansions is one component of that.
He stated that the mixed use and land use designations proposed along Palmetto do not directly allow non-profit office type uses on the ground floor and he thought the Planning Commission was sensitive to the importance of the PRC and its uniqueness and ensured that there was a policy to support its ongoing use. He thought it could be interpreted to allow it at its current scale and range of uses and he is hearing that they are trying to allow it in all of its potential future forms.
Mayor Bier agreed.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to page 40, 3-2, types of commercial uses in Sharp Park where it says visitor serving, and he asked if they could add recreation as there is quite a bit of recreation between the golf course, fish and pier, archery range and, if they put in bike and walking.
City Council Special Meeting 17 August 31, 2022
Mayor Bier asked where he was.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to packet page 40, land use designations, table 3-2, stating it has community serving, neighborhood serving, visitor serving and he suggested they put something like visitor serving/recreational.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the visitor serving description currently includes commercial recreation and he asked if there was some other recreational component that he feels is not adequately addressed in that description.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that commercial sounds to him like a paid thing, such as money changing hands and a bowling alley and pee-wee golf, but there is a lot of free recreation there, such as the pier walking along Esplanade, the golf course which isn’t free but is a recreation, and he feels recreation is a component of Sharp Park.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed, adding that confusion or not, the constraints of changing it here is that the table title says types of commercial uses in Sharp Park. She asked if there was a place to put language that acknowledges the non-commercial recreational uses in the area or highlights that they exist and will continue to exist. She referred to the pier, which is free for fishing. She knows it is alluded to in the plan but what Councilmember O’Neill is getting to that we don’t want it to sound like we are going to commercialize all of the recreational opportunities in the area.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed, as he thought a major draw for out-of-town visitors is the pier, Esplanade and Mori Point. He didn’t know if any of those are really commercial, as commercial means to him that it is a private business, not a public recreational asset. He didn’t know if he had a different interpretation from everyone else.
Planning Director Murdock thought they may want to consider policies in Chapter 5 that talks about public gathering places and green space, and a variety of recreational uses mentioned and ways to support the physical development of spaces for recreation including public plazas and other public spaces. He stated that, when you think about land use that they are striving to and willing to focus on the north/south corridors, those are primarily recreation rather commercial oriented locations and that is why the policies they are reading are drafted as such.
He asked Ms. Moore if she wanted to add to that.
Consultant Moore added that, in chapter 7, packet page 140, there are more specific descriptions of what each of those unique coastal resources are.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if she stated 140.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she did.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if everyone is comfortable with the way it is, he was okay with it.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is a technical response, but when you look at the planning area for the Sharp Park Specific Plan, it does not specifically include the pier, golf course or archery range in east Sharp Park and this plan would not directly any of the land use policies that protect those existing recreational uses and they would be thinking about other internal uses to existing subdivision throughout Sharp Park.
City Council Special Meeting 18 August 31, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated it was fine, adding that next time he will call it the Herschell Harkins Pier.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked him for mentioning that. She thought they should be referring to it by that name. In the very beginning of the document, it is just referred to as the Pacifica Pier. She thought it was a technicality.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they do call it Rev. Herschell Harkins Pier in there.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has to find it as she noted the reference when she was reading it.
Councilmember O’Neill suggested she open up a pdf and do a search.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed she could do that.
Mayor Bier stated she can let them know when she finds it. She then referred to packet page 56, affordable housing 3.6, and it says in the footnote that the recent comprehensive data is not available, and she asked staff to explain why it is not available and where do they get it.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he can speak to his personal experience and Ms. Moore may be able to speak about specific data gathering conducted to prepare the plan. He stated in his previous experience it is very difficult to find comprehensive systematically updated rental data, particularly for narrow geographies such as Sharp Park. He found in the past that it is citywide or region wide rental data that is a more reliable data source. He asked Ms. Moore if she had any familiarity with sources of more data that might support the mayor’s desire.
Consultant Moore suggested they look at Zillow or Redfin or other similar sites to get more of a sense on what rents are, but she didn’t know how that would be representative of the whole Bay Area but only available for units that are available for rent, not non-existing.
Consultant Bhatia stated that the census collects more comprehensive data and, at the time they did this, the census data had not been published. He stated that they could look at that and some other sources, but he was sure the Housing Element is getting into that. He stated that it is background facts, not policies and won’t change any policy, even if they had more up to date data.
Mayor Bier thanked him as there is a policy 3-I-36 displacement indicators and it talks about monitoring indicators such as changing share of low-income household, average rent, sales price, and she was curious about how they monitor that and if that type of detail belongs here or in another policy discussion they will have some time in the future as she knows there are rental registries that they can talk about, but she was curious about what they hear and how they monitor it.
Planning Director Murdock stated his assessment of the policy 3-I-36 on packet page 57 does reflect a best-case scenario of data you would have to support ongoing assessment of housing related impacts. He stated that the Sharp Park neighborhood is viewed historically as one of the more affordable neighborhoods and it has a lot of rental housing units, such as smaller or multi-family properties in many cases and he thinks there is a sense of wanting to protect those and existing occupants. He stated that, as an existing matter of law, displacement that might City Council Special Meeting 19 August 31, 2022
occur as part of a redevelopment of the property has a number of legal protections in state law, including to the Mello Act which requires the city to determine whether low income persons occupy buildings that are affected by redevelopment and has certain provisions obligating the property owner to relocate those residents within three miles of the site in question or the coastal zone more generally. He stated that existing law already does contain a number of protections for displacement in the coastal zone.
Mayor Bier thought they could talk about that during the housing element. She then asked if anyone had something to say in Chapter 3, then moved on to Chapter 4. She stated that she didn’t see any discussion about micro-mobility and she didn’t see the term.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that on page 79, there is a reference on 4-I-15, shared bike, scooters, etc.,
Planning Director Murdock stated that the term was micro-transit, and the Planning Commission did spend some time talking about those kinds of issues and how to support a variety of mobility options, including electric scooters and bikes and types of regulations to balance the use of those implements with public safety and how to achieve that. He stated that Vice Chair Hauser might be able to share additional insights as they did discuss that.
Mayor Bier thought it would be great if Vice Chair Hauser would like to add comments.
Vice Chair Hauser thought Planning Director Murdock did a good job at answering that, and she wouldn’t add much. She stated that they spent a lot of time making sure that there were bike paths in appropriate places, how people get to the pedestrian bridge, adding the bike paths that gets them to the pedestrian bridge even though there is no direct site access. As they had that conversation, it came up that they needed to have a policy that provided for different types of mobility.
Planning Director Murdock added two more points that don’t immediately jump out from policy 4-I-15. One is that the Commission did explore whether it was appropriate to put policies that might regulate speed limits and other safety considerations and the consensus was that it was a question for Council on a citywide basis through a separate type of ordinance, if that was their desire to regulate safety of those types of transportation modes. In other policies related to the creation of public plazas, some of the required components of that to achieve some floor area ratio bonuses was the inclusion of electrical outlets and he thought that is supportive of those Escooters and E-bikes to allow people a convenient method of recharging those during their daily use.
Mayor Bier thanked him for that input.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked, in terms of encouraging private use of van pools, if there is an appropriate place to put that in the plan. In referring to Councilmember O’Neill telling them about the work that is done in staff housing at Jefferson Union High School District and linking that with existing resources, she was thinking about development in Eureka Square someday, and she asked if it is appropriate to mention that here, as they spoke a lot to existing public transportation through SamTrans and she was acknowledging that it is not adequate and it feels that, if they are going to encourage a number of housing units affordable, they will need to encourage, if not require, some kind of support to get people to transit hubs. She didn’t think SamTrans is it. She hoped it will change, as they are seeking to have that happen, looking for seamless transportation issues but she didn’t think it has gotten better over the last few years.
City Council Special Meeting 20 August 31, 2022
She asked if they need to insert something here or is it covered at another point in the process.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if that was related to this being a priority development area and there is increased population, whether they will get some extra funding for some things.
Planning Director Murdock thought there are a number of ways that the Sharp Park Specific Plan and the PDA and other elements of existing law come to bear on this issue. He stated that the priority development area is one tool, and it is less clear because all of the funding opportunities are not always known at this point in time. He stated that there are additional funding opportunities where they can get to a critical mass and improve transportation service and add ways for existing transit. He stated that those are very expensive and somewhat longer term solutions, to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s point. One element of existing law that applies through state law through the congestion management program requirements for each county are that CCAG administers the county’s transportation demand management program and it is a fancy word of saying implementing measures like bus passes, van pools, increased bicycle parking and other site specific design and operational components to give people convenient alternatives a to a single occupant vehicle for their transportation needs. He stated that, at the scale of the Sharp Park Specific Plan, supporting bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle parking, supporting micro-mobility and micro-transit modes, to the mayor’s comments, are where the most impact is likely to be made, given the smaller scale of projects.
Through that transportation demand management program administered through CCAG, any median to larger scale projects that trigger 100 average daily trips are going to trigger a requirement to incorporate those transportation demand management principles into their project and the ongoing monitoring. He stated that, in Chapter 8, Table 8-2, on packet page 152, there is an interesting opportunity that the plan would support, but not appropriate to get into all the implementations specifics in the specific plan. Note No. 1 in Table 8-2 says as an impactful policy statement sort of hidden, they may be able to repackage that if desired, as it talks about the parking in lieu fee that the Council has adopted potentially being recast as a transportation demand of management in lieu fee and broadening the purpose and utility of the fee. He stated that they are singularly focused with the fee on providing off street parking spaces in a common configuration, but all that does is incentivize and reinforce automobile oriented transportation. If the desire is to focus on alternatives to single occupant automobile trips using an in lieu fee of some sort to provide other types of transportation infrastructure and incentives could support those alternatives in a way that the city hasn’t previously done, and that may be something worth revisiting as the plan supports it. He thought there may be some further amplification of how the policy could support that.
Mayor Bier stated she would support that.
Vice Chair Hauser stated this was very important to the Planning Commission as well. She wanted to draw their attention to two different policies. On packet page 75, 4-I-4, curb management, it talks about creating opportunities for ride share spaces, Uber and autonomous vehicle spaces but that was on the public streets and that was something that was thought through, and then they got into private development. On Policy 4-I-16, on packet page 86, it requires new development to contribute to the mobility network options and service quality. The note there says options include provision of onsite bicycle parking dedication of space for car share, e-bike charging stations or electric vehicle charging beyond CalGreen requirements which is currently just a pre-wire for e-bike charging and the Commission felt that this would be a good vehicle to allow staff, when Planning Commission or Council looking at a development proposal, to require these things.
City Council Special Meeting 21 August 31, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked her for mentioning the e-bike charging as that was her other thought.
Mayor Bier concluded they were done with Chapter 4 and moved on to Chapter 5.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if this was where they talk about the height limits again.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they were getting there.
Councilmember O’Neill thought, in Chapter 5, two issues or concerns he had was wanting to encourage commercial establishments, restaurants, etc., on Palmetto and Francisco. He asked if this was the appropriate document for them to put in the law or ordinance that they will put in the venting or ability to remodel for venting for restaurants. He thought the biggest obstacle for someone to open a restaurant is the capital needed to remodel an old building, which can cost $100,000 to $150,000 just to do the venting. When you are building, it is a minimal cost, and he would like to see if it is appropriate for this document or something they cover later.
Planning Director Murdock thought this is an appropriate document if a particular emphasis is on restaurant land uses to provide a policy that indicates support for that. They would like to include that in some other type of ordinance to provide more specifics and impose the requirement, including buildings that don’t trigger a discretionary permit under whatever scenario that might occur. He thought it would be appropriate to include it at the will of Council.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is looking to see about flexibility in terms of the buildings being able to be adapted. He stated that there was something in there about buildings being built so they can handle a variety of businesses, he thought in Chapter 5. He was concerned that, if you want restaurants there, there are probably very few buildings there that are adaptable now for restaurants. He stated that, if that is what they want, this is where they put it.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was on page 100.
Councilmember O’Neill asked Planning Director Murdock if that was where they put it.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he would need more time to think about the best place in the document to place it and it would help to see if there is consensus from the Council on that policy and they can work on specific language and placement.
Councilmember Beckmeyer supports that as they need the area to be flexible and adaptable.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it depends on the size, as if they have a very small commercial, you aren’t going to want to put in all the elements to put in a restaurant in a little tiny space as it might be a coffee shop or bookstore, so it depends on size.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was appropriate to say for square footage above a certain size.
Planning Director Murdock thought there are restaurants of a variety of sizes from very small to very large and it is hard to say that they will only get a restaurant above a certain square footage. To the point about size, he thought it may be a proportionality question, i.e., is the cost too great to include those relative to a very small commercial area. He stated his response would be that, when they come through with zoning amendments to implement the General City Council Special Meeting 22 August 31, 2022
Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan, they will be talking about minimum commercial FARs and they are likely to ensure sufficient floor area for these commercial and mixed use properties that would be able to support that type of mandatory improvement.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that all they need to do at Rockaway Beach. They have the Holiday Inn, they did an addition, they have a commercial space downstairs. He stated that when you see a hotel, you think people have to eat breakfast but they didn’t outfit that space and it has been vacant for probably almost a year at this point and he talked to someone who had a tenant, a restaurant, and they were going to have to spend $150,00 to remodel it to get the venting, gas, bathrooms, etc., in there, and it seems frustrating that in our “visitor serving area” such as Rockaway, ground floor at the bottom of a restaurant at a prime corner, we did not encourage it to be a restaurant. He asked if they are going to end up with another real estate office, insurance company or something that brings in no revenue to the city, is not visitor serving and is a waste of valuable commercial space that brings in no revenue to Pacifica. He stated that, if you want a whole street of it, let’s not make Palmetto adaptable.
Mayor Bier stated that they want it to be adaptable.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he doesn’t know how to do it, and he asked, on Palmetto and Francisco, do they do it for both. He stated that restaurants do better if there is more than one restaurant, such as five or six, they do better.
Planning Director Murdock stated he was envisioning preparing the policy, if Council is supportive, to apply to all commercial and mixed use buildings in the Specific Plan area so there is a lot applicability unless Council feels it was appropriate to more narrowly target it to a specific street or streets.
Mayor Bier thought that was great.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed to have it apply to all this.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they all know what Manor Shopping Center is, and one of the issues at Manor Shopping Center is that every single one of those buildings is owned by a different owner. They tried to have a master sign ordinance which has fallen apart. If you go down to Solvang, they all look like they are from Denmark. If you go down to different places, they have a theme. He asked if we want to have some sort of sign design or sign standards so that it doesn’t look tacky or a free for all, etc. He stated that, if you are building mixed use, do you want the neon light to be on the building for the apartments above it.
Mayor Bier thanked him for bringing that up, as she was going to mention the florescent signs.
She stated that there are various sign designs and there is a lot of information about signage but she didn’t see anything about the florescent signs. She stated that there have been people complaining about them, such as the little new store on Palmetto.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the Rockaway Beach specific plan includes some basic sign criteria to help achieve a general consistency and there are guidelines and it is appropriate to support hopefully a policy that calls for development of either street wide or specific plan area wide sign criteria, perhaps as part of the zoning ordinance. He thought it would be difficult at this stage to go back and do that detailed design work now, but a policy to support consistency for corridors might be appropriate. Our current zoning requires multi-unit properties to have master sign programs but it is relatively burdensome for individual small property owners to City Council Special Meeting 23 August 31, 2022
develop that. He stated that it is a pain point for him and his team as they work through those requirements. He thought, if they could achieve something that was suitable from a neighborhood wide standpoint that would business friendly, staff friendly and may result in a better outcome as well, rather than a building-by-building approach. He would offer one counterpoint, that Eureka Square has a very recently adopted m aster sign program and maybe Palmetto has one, Francisco may have another and maybe that is the right balance to consider, given the unique characteristics of each of those and the signage needs of those areas.
Councilmember O’Neill wasn’t saying that Palmetto and Francisco have to have the same, but Councilmember Vaterlaus was telling him about a merchant that was going to put up a sign and it was going to cost them $20,000 and he didn’t think they need to put that burden on someone, but he didn’t want a bunch of little tacky neon signs up and down Palmetto.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in his professional judgment, signage is critically important and often overlooked as it can make or break the quality and character of an area.
He stated that high quality signs can be very expensive but they are a one-time investment that can last for many years if not decades, and make or break an area. He stated our code wouldn’t prescribe a cost, but with the higher quality of the sign, he thought it was a reasonable assumption it would be more expensive than those ticky-tacky signs they are describing that tend to be less expensive and often preferred by business owners on account of the cost. He stated that was a policy question for Council as it relates to the overall outcome and appearance of the area.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it is referenced very broadly on packet page 90 under guiding policies, 5-G-1, Unified Image, and it mentions signage. In a few places on lighting and illumination zone.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that was to be a way finding more than regarding commercial use which is now he reads it.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he will need to circle around to that policy. He referred to packet page 92, with respect to the glare question, there is policy 5-I-10 that talks about light pollution reduction and you don’t excessively brighten neon signs, for example, would likely be inconsistent with that and they would want to take the allowable type of lighting into consideration when crafting signage guidelines.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that was all he had for right now.
Mayor Bier asked if they want to address height limits. She thought it was better to leave it at 45 feet. She thought the extra 10 feet is causing our community pain and making them afraid.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed with her. He recalled a couple of years ago, they were angling for 35 and 45 and it was a painful conclusion to come to. He is acutely aware of our affordable housing issues to the tune of two of roommates he lives with currently, and while he is acutely aware of the regional housing allocation numbers that are going to be a tension point for at least the next few months,, it is important to our community and he will err on the side of Mayor Bier’s judgment in this instance.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the current height limit is 35, and if they are going to expand at all and try to put forward that that the city is willing to try to meet our numbers, how are we going to do it. She thought we will have to change density. She thinks that, by stepping City Council Special Meeting 24 August 31, 2022
back the properties and putting rooftop decks makes a huge difference. She thinks that those buildings that look like they are old but aren’t, she thinks buildings can be built that way. She stated that the Royal Bee has a facade and they could have a deck and step back residential on the top of that building. She stated that it won’t affect other people and that is her big thing with Eureka Square, as it doesn’t affect anybody. She understands the incentive of trying to give people incentive to build more affordable, because that will be an issue too of trying to get more affordable. If they leave it at the same height limit it is now, what have they accomplished. She stated that they are trying to get somewhere where they can get to our RHNA numbers plus, if you have housing where the commercial is, this was our downtown. If you have residential with the commercial, it is a natural incentive for people to walk, get out, not use their cars and walk to shops, restaurants and use the shops there so those businesses are doing better because they have people around them all the time. She thought it was really important as you don’t want people who are going to work and then go home like downtown San Francisco where everyone goes there during the day and then they all leave. If people are living in the same neighborhood, and on top of the businesses, they are going to use those businesses more.
Mayor Bier thanked her for saying that, and she clarified that they are talking about the north of San Jose Avenue to 45 feet and Palmetto Avenue south of San Jose Avenue is 55, and they are increasing density in that one area.
Planning Director Murdock stated that was the point he wanted to clarify so he was understanding the conversation in the right context and he can provide helpful support. If they are focused on the discussion of whether 45 or up to 55 with certain incentives is appropriate on Palmetto Avenue north of San Jose, they talked about some of those relevant considerations.
He is asking if that additional height worth the tradeoff for potentially creating two affordable housing units for instance on a property and that is a policy attention that Council will have to work through. He stated that the Planning Commission prepared a thoughtful policy option for Council and Council could scale that back in line with their previous guidance on the Specific Plan north of San Jose Avenue.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it would be helpful to her to go back to what Mr. Bhatia was saying about the density and affordable housing development and limiting too much could stimulate builders to invoke state bonus law.
Consultant Bhatia stated that this is a discussion that Vice Chair Hauser can chime in on that they had with the Planning Commission. Currently, the scope that Vice Chair Hauser stated is that the densities do go up to 50 units per acre, but those densities are not realizable at 35 or maybe in some instances at 45 feet. He stated that the question is, if an affordable housing developer does come about, depending on the level of affordability they provide, the state law gives them ability to ask for anywhere from 1-4 concessions. He stated that building height is a typical concession that they ask for and a parking reduction would be another concession they may ask for. He stated that the city is not in the position to say that they take the parking instead of the height concession because they believe it is better for them or more financially feasible and the developer would decide what concessions they want. He stated that it applies to developments that are more than six units in size. He stated, if someone has an affordable development that provides the right mix of affordable housing and they asked for the concession they are able to get. They can ask for two stories or for 65 feet for example. He stated that there is a process they need to go through to get it, not just get it tomorrow. He stated that what the Planning Director Murdock was alluding to is that they will provide an alternative path that, in case they do not want to go in that direction and spend the months to get the additional height, they have the 65 feet and, if you need it, it is an easier task than getting implemented for larger City Council Special Meeting 25 August 31, 2022
projects and for smaller projects that do not otherwise qualify for the state density bonus, that would still be a level of payment available to the small developments as well and, if it is a small lot, they are stepping back in the front and the side, and the lot is only so big, the perceptual mass of that building is not going be that big compared to a bigger lot where a bigger building may really come in. He stated that it is a balancing act across a variety of ideas.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the density bonuses overrule the Coastal Commission.
Consultant Bhatia stated that there are density bonuses and the development concessions. He stated that he will defer to the city attorney about the Coastal Commission issue.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have a de facto height limit of 35 feet because it is in the coastal zone, and if they want to make it 55 or 45, it is a battle either way. He is asking if he is saying that we limit it to 45 and, if they want to get the density bonus, will that raise it to 55 or 65 or whatever and overrule the Coastal Commission’s rule.
Consultant Bhatia thought he was asking is, if the concession they ask for is a height concession, are they compelled to grant it even though our height limits will be lower under the coastal plan. He wasn’t sure about that answer but thought the city attorney may have the answer.
Planning Director Murdock stated he would start first and the city attorney can add on as necessary. He stated that state density bonus law is in government code section 659135, and subdivision M is that it really gets to the core of what they are talking about. He read it and then said they need to reconcile those two important policy components of state law, density bonus and affordable housing on one hand and coastal resource protection through the Coastal Act and our LCP on the other hand. He mentioned earlier that, while the state density bonus law can still apply in the coastal zone, the city will be on the defensive where they have to justify why the density bonus would be inconsistent with the Coastal Act and our LCP and that puts them in a position of having to argue why that density bonus incentive or concession should not be granted. He would prefer that the city be in a place where, if the developer chooses not to invoke state density bonus law and they can negotiate what the appropriate outcome is up to and including 55 feet in height and 50 units per acre in the mixed use center. He stated that the tradeoff is that they invoke density bonus law and we have much less control to achieve the desired outcomes and we may get 55 feet or more in height as those people may be entitled to under the state density bonus law unless the city can conclude that it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
Consultant Bhatia stated that, prior to 2019, the coastal zone provisions prevailed over the density bonus regulations. The state law Planning Director Murdock is referring to for the density bonus about harmonizing that with the coastal zone, in effect, overturned a cold case out there that was the guiding one that said that the Coastal Act prevailed, but it still speaks to the notion of harmonizing, but he didn’t have the answer to the concession of the height issue.
He stated that on the density issue, he does know that state law asks us to harmonize the state’s affordability density provisions with the provisions of the Coastal Act. He states that it puts the city in an odd situation to harmonize it and be better off to the extent they can have more control over it with the alternative path that gives the developers some guidance as Director Murdock suggested.
Councilmember O’Neill wants to be sure he understands this correctly that the RHNA numbers of approximately 1,900 is requiring the city to identify 1,900 places that they can build some sort City Council Special Meeting 26 August 31, 2022
of housing and they have no control whether they will get it built because a developer has to come in. He stated that, if they go down from 55 to 45 feet, they would have to identify a specific amount of unites somewhere else in the city to build 1,900 units.
Planning Director Murdock stated that generally he is correct. He stated that part of the housing sites analysis that they have to go through to demonstrate their ability to accommodate the RHNA is demonstrating that their assumptions are reasonable. They start with the characteristics of the site, including size, maximum density allowed, and how developments have realistically developed in reliance on this. He stated that most aren’t developing at 100% density and there are assumptions that they didn’t include in the calculations that says realistically the density will be at a certain level, adding that when you take the height from 55 feet to 45 feet or 45 to 35, those reasonable assumptions the achievable density go down as it is harder to fit more units in a smaller building than a taller building. He stated that there could be impacts where they cannot assume as many units on sites that are limited to 35 or 45 feet and have to be made up at some other site in Pacifica.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he wanted to throw that out into the discussion as part of the recipe for this.
Mayor Bier wonders how many units would it be north of San Jose Avenue.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the answer is not many. He thought it was more illustrative of the city’s support and it would help them make the argument to the state in certifying our housing element that we are taking all reasonable measures to support housing production generally and affordable housing specifically. He concluded that, at the end of the day, it isn’t going to make or break their RHNA.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, in terms of going to the Coastal Commission, as they aren’t going to be happy with either 45 or 55 feet, whether it would be more prudent to go in there with 55 intending that they won’t go any lower than 45 from a negotiating point of view.
Planning Director Murdock stated that staff’s assessment is, whether 45 or 55, the visual resources impacts are not meaningfully different. He stated that you see what you see from public view’s advantage points along the rights of way in some minimum number of publicly owned property which are the key coastal views they are obligated to protect and preserve, and once you go above the current baseline of 35 feet, what will change in terms of the water views or mountain views in this particular neighborhood between 45 and 55. He thought not that much, but there are other considerations, like scale and neighborhood character which are relevant, but in terms of visual resource impacts, he wasn’t sure there is a meaningful difference.
Consultant Bhatia stated that many of the parcels are also corner parcels and we have such small blocks here so when stepping the buildings back, they are likely stepping it back on two streets in the front, not just Palmetto. He stated that, in many instances, there are only two parcels, one on either corner and the mass does get reduced effectively when you step back.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that something occurred to him in the discussion about the state density bonus laws that he wanted to see if this is an over-simplification or a potentially unintended consequence. If the current Planning Commission recommendation related to 55 feet height is scaled back to 45, he stated that an unintended consequence of that would be to incentivize more potential developers to utilize the state density bonus law and result in loss of City Council Special Meeting 27 August 31, 2022
control factors to the city and higher height than 45 anyways. He asked if that is an unintended consequence or a simplification of this.
Consultant Bhatia stated this was specifically discussed and it is not an unintended consequence as the Commission discussed that this is what will happen in this very issue if they were to not do that and try to get more control and try to provide that incentive from the city’s perspective as opposed to developers by default who want to go up in that direction and seek the state density bonus. He thought two of the commissioners were well versed in those state laws.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, whether or not it is likely or unlikely, the fact is that, without providing this mechanism as recommended by the Planning Commission, there would be no available alternative for a developer to use other than state density bonus law which, by default, makes it more likely to occur.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Vice Chair Hauser, in her experience, if they are doing themselves a favor by retaining more control if they were to go along with the 55 feet.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that this is something they talked about a lot and it is definitely preferable to not have the state density bonus, seeing what governs developers, as the state density bonus takes a sledgehammer to something that really requires a chisel. She stated that, if she is a developer and provides a housing development with 10% of the units being moderate, which is less than Pacifica’s municipal code currently requires. She would automatically qualify for a state density bonus which allows for one concession, i.e., do whatever she wants as long as she can prove that there is an economic benefit to her and unlimited waivers. She stated that unlimited waivers is the thing that is really scary. If there is any sort of objective development standard that the city has established, a developer using the state density bonus law could say that he doesn’t want to do a setback, glazing on the bottom, or commercial and they can get something that looks completely different than anything that was ever intended by this plan. She stated that, by using a Pacifica incentive, it is to hold the purse strings and hold that control so they do have the flexibility to do something that is aesthetically pleasing and respectful of the neighborhood, community, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought she also answered his next question, but he will ask so he can hear it again, i.e., if a developer were to apply for these height concessions, he thought he heard her say that, even though they asking for height concessions, they are simultaneously no longer constrained by our design standards.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that he is correct, as long as it is an objective design standard, they are not constrained by them.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked her to say the last part again.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that they can waive out of any objective design standards, any guidelines, any municipal code requirements for a setback, open space or parking. She stated that, in addition to the concession and waivers that are unlimited, there is subdivision P of the state density bonus law which already has a parking reduction baked into it. She stated that she can’t state enough that they really tried to do things in a way where developers would not be able to concede out of the commercial they were thinking of or provide minimal affordable housing and get all of the incentives that probably were not meant for them but for low and very low affordable deed restrictions.
City Council Special Meeting 28 August 31, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon stated, not to correct any of the information and legal analysis that they have gotten from staff and Vice Chair Hauser, she is there to provide color as she can tell them that this struggle that they are all having now with how they deal with the implications of the state density bonus law and what it practically means when an application comes in as Vice Chair Hauser eloquently articulated for them, that is a discussion that Councils are having everywhere because of what is happening with the RHNA numbers and the need to find those units. She stated that the balance between being specific in what they want versus anticipating what is going to come to them and how can they address that future development that they don’t have in front of them. She stated that it is a balancing test and what they are hearing from Vice Chair Hauser is that the Commission has spent hours on this in many meetings, discussing it and coming up with an approach that is not unusual and other communities have followed as well when dealing with this tough issue.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has spent hours watching the Planning Commission deliberate on this specific topic and Vice Chair Hauser speaking in such a way to bring them to this policy that it seemed to him that they were doing everything they could to protect us to the point where we could decide our own destiny through this methodology than the alternative.
He stated that it was painful for him to vote against one unit of affordable housing, but simultaneously, it is painful for him to vote against the community wanting their community to be at the scale and consistency they wanted. He thought 45 feet was going to a place that was uncomfortable for him north of San Jose on Palmetto within the context of the community. He wanted to say that they don’t have control over what the state says we have to do, but we do have control over saying that we support the community in what they would like to see and, from there, if the state wants to come and impose, they have the design standards in place and it is incumbent on the state to deal with it. He would be charmed if that oversimplification actually was something that he heard any evidence was true based on everything he just heard. He stated that makes an uncomfortable position for him to be in, even though it hurts to give up any affordable housing units. Since Planning Director Murdock stated that it wasn’t that much affordable housing, he could swallow that for the sake of his community but what is hard for him is hearing that, if he doesn’t do this thing which his community is looking at and saying that is not what they want but simultaneously hearing that it may be the same mechanism by which they can retain any control whatsoever. He stated that is what he is considering as he listen to others as he is in a place where he doesn’t know how he is going to fall.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, in keeping a 45 foot height limits, whether there is an incentive they can give a developer for keeping it at 45 that would not want to make them go for the density bonus. He asked, if they want to go for a bonus to go higher, whether there was some bonus they can think of to keep it at 45 and disincentivize them to go higher.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was hard for him to imagine, and they need to see if there are any direct economic financial gains and he thought an in lieu parking fee is one area to explore, such as a waiver in certain instances, but relative to the cost of potential income of an additional unit is a relatively small amount, even if Council were to waive the in lieu parking fee.
He was at a loss to think of additional base to incentivize the affordable housing production.
Consultant Bhatia stated that parking is the first thing that came to his mind as that the biggest cost of structured parking.
Vice Chair Hauser stated that the easy one for her is ground floor commercial space which is a loss later or a net neutral to most developers, and if you can use it for getting more housing, that City Council Special Meeting 29 August 31, 2022
is an obvious way to create an economic benefit. She stated that, via a state density bonus, that can already happen as they can concede or waiver out of the commercial. She thought the question was how you balance that against all these other policies that they tried to put forth, i.e., an active ground floor that is walkable and pedestrian friendly with strong street walks. She stated that is the well hanging fruit she sees but she doesn’t know if it undoes other things they care about.
Planning Director Murdock stated he would continue what Vice Chair Hauser was saying and put in context the existing challenges that exist for creation of a vibrant, dynamic Palmetto Avenue. He stated that they are not in a situation like many other downtowns where there are multiple streets and a nice grid configuration with multiple opportunities to wrap around commercial in a very continuous environment. He stated that, on Palmetto, they are talking about a long linear mixed use area that they are trying to create with enough critical mass of interesting uses and business, etc., that they do draw the types of investment and visitors that they are seeking with the plan to result in half of that available area by foregoing ground floor commercial use north of San Jose Avenue as a tradeoff to manage height walls to achieve affordable housing. He stated that they might drastically undercut the primary mission of the plan which is to create a vibrant mixed use commercial destination.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he doesn’t know if it will help Council or not, but it occurs to him to realize that the decision they make on this matter at this time is not necessarily a permanent decision for the next 20 years for Pacifica as plans and policies can be revised in the future with revisions to the plan. He stated that Planning Director Murdock or City Attorney Kenyon can chime in on that. He stated that there are so many variables related to development incentives and what is happening or might happen in Pacifica that they would learn from what does happen and adjust. He didn’t know if it would help, but he was reminding them that the decision on this is very important but not permanent for future decades.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if it would be possible that only the larger parcels can have a height limit of 55 and the rest remain at 45, or if a developer buys 4 or 5 parcels to build something.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it was possible, and what he think that incentivizes is potentially lot consolidation which is one of the goals of this plan to achieve better building design and site planning. He stated that, once they have the larger lot, even if a minimal density, you have a project that is going to trigger state density bonus law and achieve eight or more units which is going to be subject to the city’s below market rate inclusionary ordinance and would not be in this category of projects. He stated that they are really talking about projects that are in the vicinity of seven units or below and six and seven unit projects are in that sweet spot for the lot sizes that they are talking about in this area.
Mayor Bier asked Council where they go from here.
Councilmember O’Neill thought they should take a sense of the Council to see how many are 55 and how many are 45, but he didn’t know if any of them have made up their mind.
Mayor Bier stated, after hearing everything, she wanted to stand up for the community and say that north of San Jose should be 45, not 55. She asked where the rest stand.
Councilmember O’Neill was leaning toward risking 45.
City Council Special Meeting 30 August 31, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought it was hard as they are changing the neighborhood. She stated that it has been in process for a long time to make this a downtown which is difficult because people want things to stay the same. She thought, in order to go forward and get what the state wants, it is hard and it could come out beautiful which is hard to imagine it. She thought it was difficult to follow what the pictures are. She stated that they have to do something.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thinks 45 north of San Jose and 55 elsewhere. She thinks the risk of the invocation of a density bonus is a calculated risk. She is looking at the figures 3-2 on existing land use, and 3-3.
Councilmember O’Neill asked what page she was on.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it was packet pages 36 and 41. She stated that they received public comment on this issue. She wants to test his understanding is that, if it were 45, there is the risk that the developer could say no, he wants a density bonus and not have to abide by any of the other design considerations in that transaction. She stated that she was concerned earlier when she was hearing that they could even ask for 65, so she thought the rubber part for her is what the risk is of what they are going to do and not being able to control it.
She stated, considering the coastal zone we are in and the need to respect the view shed area and neighborhood character that they see consistently brought up by the Coastal Commission, those will be issues for us and for any projects that come forward. She stated that they are attempting to have their guidelines blend in with the neighborhood as much as possible while changing it and she feels that 45 is a good compromise.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he heard an active member of the community and this area specifically for a long time that this is a nightmare. He thinks that 45 feet probably isn’t making that nightmare any better, even though it sounds like consensus is leaning toward that being the least we can do to make it not quite as much of a nightmare. He acknowledged that as well as that she is not the only one feeling that way. He also appreciated that other community members feel different, but this may be minimizing it a little bit and he will vote with consensus and take the chance that they may not be losing the last bit of control they could have and are trying on any level to stand up for our community. He agreed with 45 north of San Jose.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated with no incentives, if they build affordable even on small projects as that was one of their items with possibly going up to 55 if they have the incentives, sort of like Eureka Square, to build affordable even on small projects.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated not necessarily.
Planning Director Murdock stated, depending where the majority of Council goes on this, one policy option to minimize the risk of projects invoking state density bonus law is to lower fee density that is allowable for those areas north of San Jose Avenue. He stated that Planning Commission had recommended, as part of policy 3-I-39, that to maintain compatible scale, density be allowed at 30-25 dwelling units per acre, and he thought limiting it to 30 units would reduce the number of lot sizes that could potentially achieve 60 units and thus trigger state density bonus law. That was one risk mitigation approach the Council could consider as a companion to limiting building heights to 45 feet north of San Jose Avenue. He stated that the flip side of that would limit the number of potential projects that might get to eight units and trigger the cities BMR ordinance and have adverse effects on affordable housing production, but he thought it sounded as though the Council may be leaning towards balancing this issue in City Council Special Meeting 31 August 31, 2022
favor of neighborhood scale and more modest height limits. He stated that, as a supplement to that, they may push down the density to 30 units per acre.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that made sense to her.
Mayor Bier agreed that it made sense to her.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded it was specifically north of San Jose, only along Palmetto.
Mayor Bier agreed.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that one of the biggest vacant lots in Sharp Park is on Palmetto between Salada and Santa Maria which is north of San Jose.
Mayor Bier thought it is getting harder and harder with every single sentence.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they are giving a consensus of 55 below south of San Jose, 45 above only on Palmetto. He stated he was okay with that.
Planning Director Murdock referred to Councilmember Vaterlaus’ point, and he thought the lot described at the southwest corner of Santa Maria and Palmetto Avenue, is designated mixed use center currently, and even pushing the density down to 30 units per acre, that project would trigger 11 units and would be eligible for state density bonus law and would be able to provide affordable housing and benefit from the variety of concessions and waivers and the Council would have limited options to prevent that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus concluded that it is regardless and it doesn’t make any difference.
Planning Director Murdock agreed unless a fundamental change in density of much lower than 30 units was considered which they would not recommend at this point.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they were lowering the density to 30.
Mayor Bier responded that they were.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, while they are on this page, she brought up and one member of the public brought up, and she knows that Planning Director Murdock explained it, but she asked if he could explain again why certain parcels are designated certain ways. She stated that the went through this with the property on Salada where they ended up parking their cars on the front yard because it was zoned R2 and it had to be R3 and, even though it wasn’t three units, it was a very complicated process and, if some of the lots are already designated incorrectly, what about lots that are in the process of approval now. What happens with those.
Planning Director Murdock stated he was referring to the lot of 37 Salada Avenue project which is now being constructed. It was a very typical process. He admits that the city didn’t have the best tools available at that time, and those that were available were to redesignate that property to high density residential which he thinks elicited some reaction from Council at that time and it didn’t feel like the right approach. He stated that, due to the mathematics of how the density ranges are calculated, the applicable zoning that corresponds and allows development at those densities and the very small lot size that generated a high “density” even for one single family residence. He stands behind the right approach to resolve that issue from the tools that were City Council Special Meeting 32 August 31, 2022
available at that time. He stated that the other considerations that made that project difficult were that the lots, as mentioned, were small but very narrow as well and the options to provide a nice economically desirable house while also providing a driveway and garage was hard to imagine how all of that could be provided. He stated that there are ways to do it, but there are tradeoffs in building design and they provided examples of that. At the end of the day, Council said they didn’t want to do this again so where he is hoping to address that is through zoning revisions that implement small lot size development standards which may allow development of lots to be constructed without changing the General Plan under certain strict development standards, perhaps smaller floor area and finding a way to accommodate parking that is acceptable to the neighborhood. He concluded that the reality is that there is no good way to make everybody happy when you have such small lots which is one of the factors in favor of encouraging lot consolidation by making development of individual very small lots undesirable and consolidation and development of larger lots that provide design flexibility that is more desirable. He stated that is the challenge that he has to try to put something together for Council to consider as part of the zoning ordinance update. He stated that, at this point, they tried to stick very close to direction not to tinker with the east/west streets in this Sharp Park Specific Plan and focus on the north/south commercial mixed use corridors, and that is why, for better or worse, they haven’t proposed a bunch of land use changes to maybe right size some of those densities or reflect existing built conditions. They kept the status quo from the 1980 Local Coastal Land Use Plan and it would require direction from Council to go back and revisit that at this time.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated, since they didn’t change anything, the properties that are in process are still the same as they were before.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that he isn’t familiar with the application that one of the public commenters referenced earlier, and if it came in late today, he was not aware of it.
He thinks the more relevant point is, whatever the Council may due at this meeting or in an upcoming meeting, this plan and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan are not going to be certified in a day, week or even month by the Coastal Commission and another instance of where status quo remains and they will have to use the tools in the tool box today, including those tools they had to use for Salada Avenue, Lot 37, and it may come back again and they will have to figure out if there is an incrementally better way to design a project on one of those sites.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked him for reclarifying that for her.
Mayor Bier suggested they move on to Chapter 6.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed, but before they do, he stated that, after watching the Planning Commission going through all this, especially Chapters 3, 4 and 5, they just got the smallest taste of that and he reiterated how grateful he is for the pains the Commission has taken to get them to this point as that may be the most difficulty they have at this meeting.
Mayor Bier thanked him for saying that as she thought the same thing. She asked if they had anything in Chapter 6.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to packet page 120, under electricity and natural gas, at the top of that paragraph, and he wondered about the relationship between Peninsula Clean Energy and PG&E and how accurate that narrative is, adding that he may be speaking from the bias of working with PCE, and this may be accurate but he wanted to ask.
City Council Special Meeting 33 August 31, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated he was not seeing any factual inaccuracies with the narrative as presented, but if there is something more specific you would like to have clarified, they can revisit that narrative ad make it a more explicit statement that they are separate utility providers or PCE provides electricity through PG&E’s distribution system, but sources through its own power contracts. He needs to understand about what clarification or distinction should be made.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he want PCE to get as much credit as possible, but at the end of the day, he didn’t think it was inaccurate. He wanted to have that conversation out loud in a public venue to make sure that is straight for him.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it is inaccurate to say PCE and PG&E currently provide gas and electric services to Pacifica homes, adding that PCE doesn’t provide gas. She stated that they aren’t mentioned until a little way down the paragraph.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed, as he was thinking that they should be leading with PCE but, even when it comes to electric services, the poles and wires are all PG&E and it is not an inaccurate statement. He stated, as he read it, he felt a momentary wounding of pride as he has been closely identifying with PCE.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, under Council’s direction, they don’t have to the words meet that language at this time, but they can augment it and clean it up to make PCE more prominent and describe the relationship between PCE and PG&E if they get direction from Council that is what they want for the final document.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed with that.
Mayor Bier also agreed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, on the same line, in the solid waste paragraph, they are leading with landfills.
Mayor Bier asked where she was.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it was page 121. She stated, while landfills a thing, Senate Bill 1383 and other regulations that are currently in place that may not have been when this was originally put together and not as strongly, but she added, as it says Recology emphasizes waste production and diversion, that she would like to see that up higher because the emphasis on landfill at the beginning of that sentence was stating the things they provide is troublesome.
She didn’t think most of Pacifica’s waste is going to landfills based on what she has heard from Chris Porter, as we are a super green waste producer and have been for quite a time, and she thought it was along the same line that everyone wants to see that emphasized.
City Manager Woodhouse thought they could do that same thing. He knows that the comma list mentions transfer stations and materials recovery facilities and they could move what is known as MRFs in the industry, material recovery facilities, before landfills and transfer stations and emphasize recycling and composting collection more in that paragraph.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that would be great.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, while in that section, he sent a list of typos to staff which he City Council Special Meeting 34 August 31, 2022
thought was included in that list but it says residential recyclable waste is collected every other week, but the residential recyclable waste is collected every week.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated he was correct.
Mayor Bier then moved on to Chapter 7.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to packet page 136, figure 7-8, and he was curious about the one stationary source exceeding what Bay Area Air Quality Management District threshold was.
He asked if that was Clay Creations.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is not. The figure is from a statewide data source using latitude and longitude that erroneously plots the dot and they need to fix it. It is a generator at the old wastewater treatment plant facility along Montecito Avenue. He stated that they will adjust that dot to correctly reflect the location.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that was what it was from the narrative. He then stated when he reads a narrative about the seawall north of the pier, he keeps thinking in his head that it is a retaining wall, not a sea wall and that harkens back to the earlier conversation about the community wanting Council to emphasize our commitment to preserving that area of town, and he reminded them that the conversation they had earlier is that they might be muddying the waters more if they try to emphasize it in this document, and he thought they were not doing so to the best of his understanding now.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was concerned about acknowledging the need that was raised by some who live in that community. She thinks there is an element of confidence and trust that the city is going to take care of the community of property owners, homeowners, etc.
She stated, if there was a way to impart that without triggering the concerns raised by staff, she would like to see them do that. She didn’t know where to do it, and she didn’t think creating a policy is the best thing to do but it is a fact that they have submitted this in our Local Coastal Land Use Plan Update.
Mayor Bier stated that they also have the Beach Boulevard infrastructure resiliency part.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed. She then stated she was looking at packet page 142.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he wanted to offer a slightly different perspective or restatement of what Planning Director Murdock said earlier. He stated that it reminds him of other city business, administrative and policy issues via labor MOUs or policies and city ordinances for administrative efficiency and not to inadvertently create additional administrative approvals or regulatory approvals. He stated that they try not to overlap too much stuff as Council’s direction and position on policies related to the BBIRP (Beach Blvd Infrastructure Resiliency Project) are clear and the policies in the LCLUP that Council approved. He stated that there can be inadvertent consequences of creating hoops to jump through if you intertwine certain things in multiple plans. He didn’t know if that helps, but that is part of the driver.
Mayor Bier thought that helps her.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, as she looks at the paragraph on page 142 that describes the resiliency project, it is very clear what is contemplated in that project and what it is aiming to do. She wondered if there was somewhere else in this section where they can have a City Council Special Meeting 35 August 31, 2022
more general statement.
Mayor Bier asked Councilmember Vaterlaus if she wanted to say something.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she saw it in there also, and she thought it explains what is going to happen in that process.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked her if she was talking about page 142.
Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively, adding in several of the areas on page 142.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it says to protect public infrastructure, recreational, homes, businesses, and the community at large from impacts due to continued coastal erosion.
She thinks that statement is what was asked for.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she also sees on page 124, in the very place that she was suggesting that they consider, i.e., this chapter establishes goals and policies that, in combination with General Plan and local Coastal Program policies and other local, state and federal regulations mitigate the potential negative effects of natural and man-made environmental hazards and coastal resiliency issues. She asked if they think that covers it.
Mayor Bier thought it covers it more on page 146, and she is okay with that. She then moved on to Chapter 8.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated there are a couple different paragraphs, one about updating the parkland in lieu fees and a couple of different things about impact fees, and what occurred to him when he was reading it was that it was talking about those impact fees as though we’re going to have the conversation. It occurred to him that they already had the conversation and he wondered if it would not be appropriate to change it to the past tense rather than the future tense.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, as given the drafting date of this language relative to when the Council updated those fees. They need to update the narrative and they will do that.
Mayor Bier asked if they could have a motion.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wasn’t ready to make a motion. He wanted to make sure staff presented these changes to 3-11, 3-20 and 5-9 and regarding the recommendation of Planning Commission, he thought they all gave early consensus that they are including those in the motion and he wanted to remind them of that before a motion is made.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to make sure Planning Director Murdock was ready with policy language. He stated that there were a couple of suggested additions or policy revisions that they want to make sure they show that they captured them. He asked if Planning Director Murdock will show or read language.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he would need a bit more time to repackage it in a visual manner. He thought he could start by reading it. He stated that he would like to run down the list of Council’s directed revisions, with some involving more extensive policy language and they City Council Special Meeting 36 August 31, 2022
can pause there and take it as the Council needs. He stated that Council moved around the document but not entirely consecutively and they may be jumping around from chapter to chapter. He stated that the first on the list is adding a policy to Chapter 4 to install extra signage and other engineering measures to reduce wrong way travel on one-way streets, add a table of contents, amend the bicycle and pedestrian master plan to incorporate the additional improvements recommended by the Planning Commission, Policy 3-G-4 to be revised to also allow expansions of size and range of services provided by the Pacific Resource Center consistent with the development standards for the underlying land use designation. He stated there is one where he has a question mark for confirmation by Council is ensuring that there is a description at the first reference in the narrative to the Pacifica Pier indicating that its formal name is Rev. Hershel Harkins Pier but what is less clear is if Council wanted all references to Pacifica Pier to be to the Rev. Herschell Harkins Pier which would require a number of figure updates or if mentioned in the narrative is sufficient.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he was okay with just Pacifica Pier as that is the common vernacular.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated once is fine.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it is fine as long as it is named once somewhere.
Councilmember O’Neill stated it is on page 21.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought she saw it on page 18, but it is somewhere.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they will make sure that the first mention of the pier in the narrative is inclusive of Rev. Herschell Harkins Pier. He stated that the next item is Table 8-2 in note No. 1, wanting a policy to amplify that City Council is interested at some point in determines recasting the parking in lieu fee to a transportation demand management in lieu fee.
The policy that they would add would be explore opportunities to replace or supplement the parking in lieu fee with a transportation demand management fee to support transportation modes other than personal automobiles.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed.
Planning Director Murdock stated the next item was to add a policy to require the inclusion of venting and other improvements necessary for restaurants at the time of building construction and that policy language would be, ensure that commercial and mixed use buildings are designed and constructed to include venting and other required mechanical improvements to allow restaurant uses.
Councilmember O’Neill added that he didn’t know if it has to include the venting but allow the easy installation of the venting. He stated that, if you go in there, you don’t know where the stove is going to be then it would be fairly easy to install and not get into structural modifications.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Planning Director Murdock if that means that they will presumably discussing an ordinance associated with that policy when it comes to goal setting time.
Planning Director Murdock stated it was possible, and they will need to further assess the best City Council Special Meeting 37 August 31, 2022
way to effectuate that. He stated that he mentioned earlier that there may be instances where a project does not need discretionary review and nearly all projects subject to this policy will and they can insert that in the Planning Commission level review and an ordinance may end up ultimately not being necessary, but they will need to consider if that should be a supplement to this. He stated that, based on Councilmember O’Neill’s feedback, he would suggest a revision to ensure that commercial and mixed use buildings are designed and constructed to allow ready installation of venting and other required mechanical improvements to allow restaurant uses.
He would like to consult with the building official should the Council make the motion to approve at this meeting to see if there is more specific technical wording that they can use to be more specific, but within the intent of Council.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that was fine.
Planning Director Murdock stated another policy that could be added is to develop signage guidelines for distinct commercial and mixed use corridors to ensure consistency and sign design. He stated that the next item on packet page 57, Policy 3-I-39, is to revise that policy to maintain a compatible scale, development on northern Palmetto Avenue north of San Jose Avenue, shall be allowed at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre and at heights up to 45 feet and they would delete the italicized text in Policy 3-I-11 which makes a reference to the affordable housing policies in the revised 3-I-39. He stated that there may be a need to make some corresponding edits to certain tables describing land use densities, and do they want that direction as well. He stated that, on page 6-9, packet page 120, they are going to rework the electricity and gas narrative to make Peninsula Clean Energy more prominent and more clearly describe what PCE is and its purpose and relevance in Pacifica and on page 6-10, similarly with the solid waste section, as City Manager Woodhouse described, they will reorder the list of Recology services to emphasize its recycling, waste reduction and diversion services including composting to de-emphasize the landfill services. On page 6-10, they will correct the misstatement by indicating that residential recyclable waste is collected every week as opposed to every other week. On Figure 7-8, they will correct the misplaced stationary source that exceeds background thresholds to its correct location on Montecito Avenue at the old wastewater treatment plant. On page 8-6, they will revise language regarding the park in lieu fee adoption to indicate that it has been adopted, not that it needs to be or should be adopted and updated, and lastly, as mentioned by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck, the additional revisions presented in the slides to fully incorporate the Planning Commission’s recommendations.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if he included the building height decision in his list.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, stating that it was mention of Policy 3-I-39 related to Palmetto Avenue north of San Jose Avenue.
Mayor Bier thanked him for all that work he just did. She asked if they have a motion.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to adopt the attached Resolution to a) Find approval of the Sharp Park Specific Plan to be substantially consistent with the plan evaluated in the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2012022046, certified by the City Council on July 11, 2022, for purposes of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and b) Approve the Sharp Park Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission as amended; and c) Incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she would second it with the indications that Planning City Council Special Meeting 38 August 31, 2022
Director Murdock gave them.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he said as amended.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that this has been at least a three-year long process and he thanked the consultants, Planning Commission for all they did and staff that never get enough credit for the work they do and he thanked them for the work they do to keep our city running as smoothly as possible within the context of the direction they are trying to give them.
Other councilmembers echoed that.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (as Amended)
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 9/26/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor