CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 October 24, 2022
October 24, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on October 24, 2022 at 7:04 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 7:04 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.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Ryan Marquez, Project Manager.; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
City Manager Woodhouse introduced Emily La as the Dep. City Clerk.
City Clerk Coffey gave background information on Dep. City Clerk La.
Mayor Bier welcomed her. Mayor Bier referred to the upgrade of the Council Chambers and turned it over to the City Manager.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to recognize all the work on remodeling the Council Chambers, i.e., new carpeting, painting, etc. He stated that they will also have new windows, framed pictures, etc. He acknowledged all the employees who worked on the upgrading, as well as PCTV staff. He then had all of them take a picture with Council.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 October 24, 2022
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Arbor Day 2022
Mayor Bier read a proclamation honoring Arbor Day 2022.
Paul Totah, Pacifica, thanked Council and staff for the Arbor Day proclamation. He referred to a resolution on the consent calendar to commit to holding an annual Arbor Day event to ensure we are always a Tree City USA. He stated that this is the 4th annual Arbor Day tree planting at Oceana High School: The event will start at 10 a.m. on November 12 in the school’s little theater, and will include Mayor Bier announcing the tree art contest and the student video on how to plant a tree. Pacifica’s Poet Laureate will read a special poem for the occasion, and he encouraged anyone wanting to plant a tree on that day to contact [email protected].
He shared his thoughts on continuing collaboration with the city on their goals.
The Council extended their thanks and appreciation to Tree City Pacifica for their collaborations and positive impact on the community.
B. Proclamation - Pacificans Care 40th Anniversary
Mayor Bier read the proclamation on behalf of Pacificans Care 40th Anniversary.
Bruce Banco, Pacifica, thanked Council for this honor. He gave a brief report of what they have accomplished over the 40 years that they have been in operation. He thanked everyone for acknowledging Pacificans Care and stated that they are always happy to accept donations and invited everyone to their 40th anniversary meeting at the Community Center on November 5, 3-5 pm., with snacks available, and they will thank everyone for what they have done for Pacificans Care.
The Council extended their thanks and appreciation to Pacificans Care for their remarkable work and positive impact on the community.
Mayor Bier stated that she should have reminded the public before the proclamations that, if they wanted to comment, and she would like to give them a chance by opening up public comments for either proclamation. She asked City Clerk Coffey to explain the process.
City Clerk Coffey explained the process for any call ins.
Mayor Bier stated that they will wait a few minutes to see if there are anyone bringing up cards or calling in, and since there was no one, she closed public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier stated that she will open public comments on the consent calendar.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 October 24, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before they consider the consent calendar, he had two changes. He wanted to remove Item #7 from the calendar. On Item #3, there are three administrative edits he would like to point out for an amendment to the item.
Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmembers would like to pull anything from the consent calendar, and seeing none, she opened up public comments and seeing no one, closed public comments.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the consent agenda as amended for item #3 and dropped Item #7 from the consent calendar; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
CONSENT CALENDAR INCL. ITEM #3 AS AMENDED, EXCL. ITEM #7 RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 9/01/22 through 9/15/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 9/01/22 through 9/15/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on September 27, 2022 and the City Council Regular Meeting held on October 10, 2022.
3. Resolution In Recognition and Observation of Arbor Day PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution in Recognition and Observation of Arbor Day on the Second Saturday in November and State Pacifica’s Intent to Maintain Membership in the Tree City USA Program and Show Appreciation to Tree City Pacifica for Holding an Arbor Day Celebration Each Year in Partnership with the City
4. Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled "A Delicate Balance Between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public's Right to Know"
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled "A Delicate Balance Between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public's Right to Know".
5. Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography for the premises located at 1220-C Linda Mar Boulevard (located in the Pacifica Center for the Arts) and finding the lease categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography for the premises located at 1220-C Linda Mar Boulevard (located in the Pacifica Center for the Arts); authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Lease Agreement and finding the lease categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
City Council Regular Meeting 4 October 24, 2022
6. Resolution in support of the SMCTA Cycle 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution next in order, “A Resolution Supporting the Palmetto & Esplanade Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project and Submitting an Application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Cycle 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding” for the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project; Adopt the resolution next in order “A Resolution Supporting the Pacifica Mid-Block Crosswalk Safety Project and Submitting an Application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Cycle 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding” for the Pacifica Mid-Block Crosswalk Project; and authorizing the City Manager to execute any documents required for the grant.
AGENDA ITEM #7:
RESULT: WITHDRAWN
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
7. Resolution authorizing a Side letter agreement between the City of Pacifica and Teamsters Management 350 regarding labor representation and compensation for Deputy Fire Chief and Paramedic Coordinator classifications.
PROPOSED ACTION:
1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a side letter between the City of Pacifica and Teamsters Local 350 to move the Deputy Fire Chief and Paramedic Coordinator classifications to the Unrepresented Management and Confidential Employees Group.
2. Amend the benefit structure for these positions to include holiday pay compensation consistent with other fire classifications to make total compensation for these positions closer to market and make the positions more attractive for future recruitment.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, informed everyone that they will be hosting the first annual PacificaCoastside Electric Vehicle Expo on October 29 from 10 am to 1 pm, and everyone was invited to attend this outdoor event in the front parking lot at the Pacifica Community Center on Crespi.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, complimented the Council Chambers but noted some audio issues.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that IT has identified that and suggested that they be very deliberate and speak closely into the microphone.
Dep. City Clerk La introduced the call-in speaker.
Jeremy Stafford, Pacifica, stated he was with the Pacifica Fire Fighters Union and he wanted to call and say hello, and he thought the chamber looked great. He then stated that, regarding Measure Y, they have 8,000 printouts and they are doing their part.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 October 24, 2022
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was out of town at conferences all last week. He gave an update on the high school employee housing and their grant from the MTC for the van pools.
He also facilitated a tour of meeting sites in Pacifica and drove the staff of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau (which has changed their name to the Peninsula) around last year, and because of the outreach, they are bringing a group of meeting planners to Pacifica to look at places where they can host conferences. He reminded everyone that, before the next Council meeting, there will be a vote and he urged everyone to mail in or drop their ballots in the collection box before November 8.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated she was out of town too, and she went to an electrification meeting again and they heard from a gas company. She stated Smart Coast California is a group which monitors LCPs and all of the differences happening on the coast to all the cities.
She attended the Democrats meeting and Anna Eshoo was supposed to have a debate but the opposition did not show up as he called stating he did not want to debate. She attended a party for candidates and they did Council interviews for commissions and committees. She stated that there were a lot of events this weekend, and went to Brews and Blues, Trunk or Treat, the Haunted House, an escape room and the carnival.
Councilmember Beckmeyer attended the Democrats meeting which she found interesting and beneficial to hear more from Congresswoman Eshoo. On October 13, she attended CCAG meeting as the alternate for Councilmember Vaterlaus. She stated that there is a presentation every month on the express lanes on Highway 101 and the new feature is that there is going to be a JPA board with two seats available and any letters of interest should go to Sean Carpentia by November 2. She shared her enthusiasm about Pacifica’s potential participation in the shared micro mobility planned draft. She stated that the timeline is a spring start to the program and it is a preliminary draft plan and they will be spending a whole year implementing and having it ready to launch in spring 2024. She stated that there will be a plan coming out next month and they will have opportunities to comment on the draft plan.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he will begin remembering that there is a horrible war going on in Ukraine and his heart continues to be with them and makes the envelope in his hand that he will deposit downstairs after the meeting into the voting box more important. He referred to the election on November 8, and there is a voting box at 2112 Beach Boulevard and another one at 540 Crespi or they can go to any mailbox and stick the envelope in after they cast their vote and if they don’t want to wait until November 8, please do so. He attended the Boys and Girls Club parent meeting on the 11
th. He enjoyed the Democrat meeting where
Anna Eshoo spoke and he enjoyed the Meet and Greet held for Anna Eshoo and Mark Berman afterwards. He stated that there was a Peninsula Cal Cities lunch on the 19th and they enjoyed some updates from Peninsula Clean Energy and Silicon Valley Clean Energy, the PCE equivalent in Santa Clara County. They heard from the sustainability coordinator from San Mateo speaking about their approach to existing REACH codes. He attended the Emergency Preparedness meeting and they spoke about the wood chipper program, the Loma Prieta anniversary, and World Tsunami Awareness Day. He stated that they debriefed about Fog Fest and they spoke about how little people seem to be aware of Zone Haven and he was urging everyone to go to zonehaven.com as those alerts really come in handy.
Mayor Bier attended a virtual meeting of Fixin’ San Mateo County (FxSMC), a local grassroots organization working to enact citizens oversight of San Mateo County Sheriff, where Congresswoman Speier spoke. She stated that our Economic Development Committee City Council Regular Meeting 6 October 24, 2022
meeting and OSPAC meeting both canceled. She attended the YIMBY prom (Yes in my Backyard) which is a housing leadership fundraiser and attended it with Jefferson Union High School District trustee, Andy Lee. She also attended the Pacifica Democrats meeting and did outreach with the North County outreach collaborative and coast pride at the Half Moon Bay pumpkin fest. She attended the committee and commission interviews and the Rotary Breakfast meeting. She attended the planning meeting for the working to end homelessness summit. She attended Blues and Brews and thanked the Economic Development Committee and Asst. City Manager Carter for working so hard and getting that event out. She also went to trunk or Treat also and attended the Terra Nova football game.
Councilmember O’Neill shared information about a grand program that he learned of last week when he went to his conference, in which virtually the entire Linda Mar neighborhood is eligible.
Councilmember Vaterlaus added one more thing about voting, praising the ability to receive notifications about their ballots being counted, and encouraged everyone to vote.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to follow up on Mayor Bier’s comments on the Brews and Blues event and Saturday’s Economic Development program and Economic Development committees proof of concept event, and as an initial event it was a great success. He thanked Sean Thompson and Robert Foster from the Economic Development Committee as they were the subcommittee that worked closely with management analysts, the Finance Dept. and Asst.
City Manager Yulia Carter to bring this together, along with the Bike Park, local vendors, etc.
He mentioned that the following night is the next phase of community workshops for the housing element, 6 pm to 8:30 pm at Cabrillo School, and the second meeting will be later at Sunset Ridge on November 1 from 6 pm to 8:30 pm. He then announced that they completed compiling the details of citywide accomplishments as they do annually for the previous fiscal year.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
8. Discussion of 2022 California Building Code triennial update and proposed local amendments including building electrification requirements (i.e., Reach Codes), geotechnical hazard analysis requirements, and utility undergrounding.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation and provide direction to confirm local amendments to be included in an ordinance to be introduced on 11/14/2022.
Mayor Bier stated that Planning Director Murdock would be making the presentation.
Consultant Rafael Reyes was also present via phone.
Planning Director Murdock stated he was joined by Asst. Fire Marshal Craig Whitner from the North County Fire Authority. He then presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked about wood-burning fireplaces.
Planning Director Murdock stated that this local amendment does not seek to address woodburning fireplaces. He stated that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD, a regional air quality jurisdiction, already has regulations which prohibit the installation of wood- City Council Regular Meeting 7 October 24, 2022
burning fireplaces in newly constructed residential buildings. While Council could consider such a local amendment, it is unnecessary under current law as it is already prohibited in new residential buildings.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they spoke at the last meeting about the reach codes regarding prohibition on converting an all-electric building into a mixed field building after the fact. He asked where they were on incorporating that prohibition into their new codes.
Planning Director Murdock thought there were “two flavors” that issue could take: first option, which he recalls discussing at the study session, was a prohibition on the extension of gas infrastructure; and the other option is part and parcel to the all-electric building requirement so there is not a loophole to prohibit conversions back to mixed fuel buildings. That would be part of the regulations in the ordinance brought back for introduction and potential adoption by Council.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that both of those items are going to be incorporated as they currently understand it.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the second is but the first is not. He thought the first is a broader potential issue of the policy which he thought Council did not provide direction to explore. He stated that the second one, prohibiting conversion back to mixed fuel buildings is a simpler policy question and one that can be put into the ordinance prepared by staff.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if he was saying that the first option is more difficult to implement and requested further clarification.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he didn’t mean to say they could not explore, but he thought it was the more complicated of the two options and there are potentially a number of other unintended consequences that are more difficult to grapple with. He thought that, regarding prohibition on extending gas infrastructure, they provided examples where there may have been a previous building on the site that was demolished and may have had a gas meter, and they didn’t allow the gas meter to have an extended and plumping extended to put gas into the new building and not allowing new connections to extend existing gas appliances within an existing building, but the Council’s direction was not to venture into existing building reach code.
That is an example of where it quickly becomes a more complicated policy question and staff’s opinion was that it was better explored and considered as part of a later process.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought marking that for discussion they have during goal setting about existing structures sounded like the recommendation.
Planning Director Murdock stated it would be his recommendation, given the variety of unknowns and the various different circumstances that could affect.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck inquired about nomenclature of no entry onto adjacent properties.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the real key issue is that Council, by ordinance, cannot authorize one private individual to enter the property of another private individual, and that example makes sense, but when thinking about a geotechnical hazard assessment, Council cannot authorize or direct a geotechnical engineer for one person’s project to go onto their neighbor’s property to perform evaluations, soil borings, etc., without that owner’s authorization.
He stated that, to keep it within the realm of what the Council can mandate, staff’s City Council Regular Meeting 8 October 24, 2022
recommendation is to restrict the analysis to publicly available information or observations that can be made from publicly available spaces, such as the right-of-way, public areas, public property, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the California building codes and, before it comes back to Council the next time, he asked if there was any thought of sending it to the Planning Commission to look at.
Planning Director Murdock thought that is a possibility, but not one that they have identified or recommended yet as workable, given where they are in the timeline of required adoption.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, for starters, the geotechnical stuff would be great to have their feedback. He referred to the undergrounding of utilities and electric lines, and he thought he has heard many impassioned conversations on the Planning Commission regarding undergrounding, and a question he has asked is about undergrounding poles along frontages, not necessarily in front of single family homes on single lots but in terms of business buildings and subdivisions. He thought, if a subdivision is going in, it should be a simple matter of making sure our law says that they underground the poles in that instance, and it is something they do in other cities. He wondered if it would be a relatively simple matter to incorporate it here.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there are various forms that the undergrounding can take.
He stated that this local amendment as conceived by staff at this point in time addresses the installation of the new connections to existing utility poles and ensuring that those new connections are installed underground so as not to expand the above ground utility network, and that is different from undergrounding existing utility poles which service a neighborhood or potentially more than one property. He stated that process is much more complex and more costly, and the level of coordination is correspondingly much greater, given the need to coordinate with PG&E for the undergrounding with multiple other property owners, etc., and it would go beyond the scope of this particular grounding requirement proposed in this local amendment to a broader policy question and there are also relevant considerations about the cost of the undergrounding and whether it is proportionate to the project being undertaken. That is a more complex policy question to look beyond undergrounding the new connections to utilities and undergrounding existing utility poles.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that Margo sent him an invite to some sort of Webinar a while back about what a city can do, and one thing they mentioned was rainwater. He asked, if they do gray water retention base in some sort, could they not also make a requirement that the rainwater runoff from the roof go into that basin also.
Planning Director Murdock supposed it was possible, but the issue is that they are quite different issues in terms of the source and potential volumes and a policy requirement in the systems involved might be quite different even though they seem similar issues of trapping “wastewater” that might otherwise run off the site or go into the sewer and using some other intentional purpose. He would need to further study potential options that could be included in the building code process and that is not something he is prepared to speak about in depth at this meeting.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that North Coast has rain barrels you can get and hook up to your spout, and he wondered if it would be possible to do something underneath as part of every home remodel.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 October 24, 2022
Planning Director Murdock thought there were different options, a continuum of simple to complicated, and not knowing exactly what the Council’s intent is, he would need to look carefully at want the potential options are for that as it could be as simple as mandating a rain barrel for full interception and retention of all storm water runoff which would be a much more complicated regulatory approach.
Councilmember O’Neill stated, for new construction, he has seen some really major remodels going on in Pacifica now. He knows there is a rule as the school district had to follow this when the remodeled the schools, i.e., in order to qualify as a remodel they had to keep one wall up so they kept Prop. 13, and that was for state bond money in regard to the school district, and he asked if they need to put a trigger in there as to what is a remodel to electrify a home and convert a home whether 80% or 50%.
Planning Director Murdock stated that what he is touching on is a million-dollar question of building code application to existing buildings and whether it is the reach code context or undergrounding of utilities or sidewalk improvement, and staff has discussed this point and they think a unified, comprehensive approach is appropriate. He stated that, to grapple with the question of what defines a remodel, if Council undertakes an existing building reach code work item next year, that is probably the recommended opportunity because there is a lot of complexity, similar to the gas infrastructure extension, with a number of potential unanticipated consequences. Council discussed at the study session on September 27, with income issues, hardship questions with respect to lower income, existing property owners, and there are a range of policy questions that are complex on simply words and numbers to define a particular threshold. He stated that, for a variety of reasons, they want to put it together but it needs time and careful thought, in staff’s opinion.
Councilmember O’Neill thought it was more appropriate as a work plan thing than reach code inclusion.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is, in his opinion, as it quickly merges into triggering these for existing buildings and that is something that Council felt was much more complex and potentially more controversial and could sidetrack this critical process to get the new codes adopted by January, as it needs proper time and thought to do it right, if that is what Council wants to undertake next year.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to packet page 188, new reach codes to adopt applicable to new buildings having to do with EV parking. In the second box, the last paragraph states, “to minimize costs associated with affordable housing development, the local amendment would give a developer the discretion to exclude any dwelling unit that is a deed-restricted affordable housing unit from EV parking requirements”, and she asked about what she mentioned in Council communications about equity.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he will offer some initial thoughts and it is probably something that warrants further discussion and consideration by the Council. He thought Mayor Bier was the champion of this component of the provision which was to reduce the cost of construction of new affordable housing, as to construct such projects is already challenging before leveling on additional local requirements, i.e., EV charging requirements. This, along with potential exceptions for park in lieu fees and other financial assistance, direct and indirect, all help make construction of affordable housing units feasible, and as discussed at the study session, to come in after the fact and install electric vehicle infrastructure is considerably more expensive and one can imagine a time in the next 10, 20 or 30 years where the high cost of City Council Regular Meeting 10 October 24, 2022
electrical vehicles now moderates and become more accessible to people with low and moderate incomes and they may be at a disadvantage at that time by having to bear the cost of installing their own electric vehicle infrastructure. He stated that is a policy attention and there is no technical answer to help resolve that and he thinks, if anything, should Council require EV charging infrastructure for affordable housing developments, at least it is a clear requirement and affordable housing developers can try to adapt to it and work through it. He stated that there is a good policy reason to exclude affordable housing units from the requirement, and in this instance, it is at the developer’s option and they could choose to include them or not and it gives them the convenience and ability to take advantage of that cost reduction if that is needed to make the project pencil out and that is a question for Council as a policy consideration.
Consultant Reyes wanted to offer one point of information on this item.
Mayor Bier welcomed his contribution.
Consultant Reyes stated that it certainly the case that a number of cities have, in the prior code cycle, included exclusions for affordable housing and that is understandable. He stated that, subsequent to those steps by prior cities, Peninsula Clean Energy has since and continues to offer incentives to cover most or all of the cost of EV charging for 100% affordable housing developments with the intention of ensuring that affordable housing developers have the support they need to deploy this kind of infrastructure.
Mayor Bier appreciated that he spoke up on that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they are discussing the gray water issue now.
Mayor Bier asked if she has a question.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she does. She was talking to someone about gray water and there are various types of gray water issues. She stated you can take a hose and connect it to your laundry and let the gray water out and there are also plans where you have to filter everything and then you need electrical. She asked what they are actually talking about, additional plumping pipe for gray water or just a simple gray water system.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the direction from Council was to evaluate the ordinance in effect in the town of Portola Valley. He stated he is far from an expert on gray water systems, but it is his opinion, on looking at their ordinance, was that it was a relatively complex and sophisticated side.
Mayor Bier clarified that they were talking about new development.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that it would apply as a reach code to new development.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, the Webinar he went to that was talking about the reach codes, when they mentioned gray water, it was quite extensive and the lot sizes in Woodside or Portola Valley are substantially bigger than our 5,000 square foot lots. He just wanted to give more information.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 October 24, 2022
Margo Meiman, Pacifica, stated she has been volunteering for the Pacific Beach Coalition and more recently working with the Climate Reality Project and acknowledged that climate change must be addressed at all levels of government, and encouraged them to include language that no existing all electric buildings may be converted into a mixed fuel building, sharing her thoughts on the importance of that language.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked Council for taking this up and look for ways to fight climate change. She referred to a letter she sent to Council and shared a few items and also had questions, i.e., on how they identify what properties need to go to this extra level, etc., and suggested some options to consider, including her willingness to help on the subject of gray water as she has a lot of knowledge on that issue.
Dep. City Clerk La introduced the call-in speakers.
Samantha Hauser, Pacifica, stated that she was speaking as an individual, adding that she appreciated the city updating reach codes and sustainability. She shared her insight and suggestions regarding the utility undergrounding recommendations in the staff report which she thought was a little confusing and needed clarification.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, thanked staff and Council for expanding the reach codes to address our climate change issues, and shared his thoughts, suggestions and questions on the subject.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted to follow up on some of the questions from the public regarding geotechnical. The first question he heard was how properties are identified.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he conceived of it the same way the commenter did, i.e., they will use the technical term of seismic induced landslide hazard zones mapped by the Department of Conservation as well as in our General Plan and those areas with potential seismic induced landslide hazards are a good proxy for areas that warrant this type of geotechnical investigation but they could make it a different qualifier, i.e., sites greater than 15 or 20% slope.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the point is well-taken that there are legal implications for what they can’t do such as authorizing going into a neighbor’s property. He stated the question was regarding incorporating if the neighbor agrees or something similar to that, and he asked if it legally jives.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he would need to consult with the city attorney’s office as it seems workable to include some permissive language where a property owner agreement can be obtained, etc.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she didn’t have anything to add, and she thought that opportunity already exists so the language would not prevent but might encourage, but it isn’t necessarily required. She didn’t know what the effectiveness of that would be but they could consider looking into what kind of language would be possible.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it would be aspirational language to encourage, even though there is no enforcement mechanism attached to it. He then referred to the question which is at what point would they be doing this analysis, such as during the planning review process.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 October 24, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated, to be clear as shown on the slide, he would restate it, i.e., this local amendment, if enacted by Council, would supplement existing geotechnical hazard review processes required in the General Plan for discretionary review projects such as those that go to the Planning Commission.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to a commenter’s question regarding not allowing an electrified building to incorporate gas and there should be very specific clear nomenclature of no existing all electric buildings can be converted into a mixed fuel building, and he heard Planning Director Murdock saying that, depending on how they go about it, they could start crossing the line into existing structures and what does it mean legally. He asked if there was a place where they can have the clear nomenclature inserted for the sake of what they are trying to effectuate.
Planning Director Murdock thought there was. He stated that they will need to consider the pros and cons of different approaches, but he thought they could come up with language that is clear that buildings constructed after a particular date in time become mixed fuel buildings, and that provides a clear distinction between no other existing buildings and a more complicated policy discussion.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they know they all have reach codes and if they are limited to geography, they are going to require mixed use buildings. He fully supported the concept of not allowing an electric building to go to mixed fuel use. He thought that the commercial part in the bottom, if they want to be a restaurant that gets that barbecue joint, that should be allowed for the restaurant first floor, only for cooking, not for heating, etc. He asked if they wanted to discuss that as that was a point he wanted to bring up.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it was a good point.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that a thought that occurs to him is that one of the clarification points they need at this meeting relates to new cooking facilities and whether they’re allowed to install gas. If the direction was to not allow new cooking facilities to use gas then the point he is talking about then becomes a discussion related to what happens to existing facilities converting to gas.
Councilmember O’Neill understood, and stated that, if they want to have a downtown in Palmetto, he had mentioned previously that he would like to see the buildings there built to allow restaurant for the duck work, fans, and stuff like that which need to be done. He stated that, if it converts from a store to a new restaurant, that is a conversion for a commercial property and they don’t end up with what they have at Rockaway, a commercial space in prime view from the highway that cannot be rented because there is nothing there and that is the concern he is bringing up.
Mayor Bier thought it goes back to information that was shared to them from Ms. Meiman from bayareareachcodes.org which talks about the non-residential buildings that contain kitchens located in the place of public accommodations where it says they may apply to the local enforcing agency for modification to install commercial food heating processing equipment served by fuel gas. She stated that they can ask for the exception. She stated that was the language sent to them and she thought it was important language to add.
Councilmember O’Neill thought that was good, but he stated that the requirement they are discussing, new building that will be all electric and there is a new restaurant going in for City Council Regular Meeting 13 October 24, 2022
conversion and an existing building where the first floor might be converted to gas for barbecue grill, etc., and there is a difference between a new restaurant being built. He wanted to be sure they are clear on it.
City Attorney Kenyon wanted to clarify for Council where she thinks the discussion point that Councilmember O’Neill is bringing up really does need to be a deliberation by Council to address that issue which she says is for new construction that is built all electric, and it is commercial, but it does not anticipate restaurant use, and does a restaurant use that goes in after the fact have an exception applied to that new restaurant use to allow mixed fuel. She thinks that is the question as now the issue is whether the Council want to have, as the speaker pointed out, a requirement that, if a new building was constructed all electric, they could not move to mixed fuel, and Councilmember O’Neill is bringing up about the instance where an allelectric building has been constructed and didn’t include a restaurant, and it was commercial but now a restaurant wants to go in and is prohibited from doing so because they cannot use mixed use fuel in that building. She thought Council should deliberate on that. If they allow that exception in a new building, if there is a restaurant, as she would assume that would be the only business that would need kitchen facilities that included mixed fuel and would that be an exception. She stated that is really the discussion that they need to have.
Councilmember O’Neill reminded them that they have a restaurant in an old train station, in a caboose, in a box car and he recalls the Pacifica Brewery at one time was a guarded rock place. He stated that they have these instances happening.
Mayor Bier appreciated the language presented to them and asked if they could use some of that language in that exception as well.
Planning Director Murdock wanted to add another complicating factor. He stated that there is the tension between the immediate business needs of these particular restaurant owners that Council is struggling to accommodate but they may recall from the study session that there is the longer term question for business owners and property owners as to what many people, including the expert from Peninsula Clean Energy believes is a long term phase out of the existing past infrastructure network. He stated that, if they think over the horizon that these buildings may be constructed and they are talking about new buildings 30, 50, 70, 100 years, not placing your bet on one side or the other, but chances are that it potentially exists that the gas infrastructure network will be phased out and they may just be accelerating that to some degree as it may be occurring in 20 years. He asked that they keep that in mind when thinking about the question about restaurant gas exception.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, if they allow for the restaurant exception, they allow for that exception within that context specifically and he thought, if there was consensus on Council that they aren’t interested in the restaurant exception, he could vote in that direction of making it simple and under any circumstances they won’t allow this to become a mixed fuel. He stated that, if they are allowing for the exception for restaurants anyway and the only exception in a building that they allow a mixed fuel exception is if they are making it as a restaurant, he was okay with that exception in that context as long as they are very tight about how they word that in terms of that one and only exception.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it doesn’t address the specific question about, if the new construction doesn’t put that in, and five years later a different business goes in and wants to have a restaurant, she thought the question Councilmember O’Neill was posing is whether they could invoke the exception at that point, even though it is not a new construction at that point.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 October 24, 2022
She asked what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s feeling was on that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he agrees if they are allowing the exceptions for restaurants because right now, he can easily go either way, but if they are allowing the exception for restaurants, they allow that exception for restaurants.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that there is a difference between residential and mixed use and commercial. She suggested that they eliminate the conversion in residential and not in the commercial mixed use.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was okay with that.
Mayor Bier didn’t think that was tight enough. She thought they needed to talk about restaurants only.
Consultant Reyes wanted to add a comment.
Mayor Bier stated she would appreciate that.
Consultant Reyes thought staff may confirm it, but it was his understanding that what is before the Council at this time is strictly a new construction code and, with a new construction code, Council could provide for an exception for restaurants, as some cities have done so. He stated that there is all electric equipment that is available and some restaurants are being built with all electric equipment but some cities are opting for an exception there. He stated that this would not speak to an existing building once it is built, and his understanding from staff’s presentation was that anything related to an existing building, whether new or not and it could be five years down the road, would need to fall under an existing building code which he believes staff’s intention is to explore that at a later point. In other words, a conversion where a restaurant comes to a building that was all electric, whether allowed or not, would need to be addressed in an existing building code and, if allowed, then the restaurant would need to install the gas system to allow that to happen.
Planning Director Murdock suggested thinking of existing buildings as those not constructed as new buildings under this code. He thought it was technically true that a new building, once constructed and altered, is an existing building but he didn’t think that was the right construct.
He thought that was the loophole that one of the commenters is asking Council to close. He stated that, similar to his answer to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck earlier, he thought they can craft language, and he will check with the City Attorney and her team, but perhaps something along the lines of any building constructed after the date of this ordinance, January 1, 2023, shall not be converted to a mixed fuel building. He stated, whether Council wants to provide some other exception to that is a different policy question, but he didn’t think it was the right construct for this meeting to think of such a building constructed after January 1, 2023 as the same building, and he thinks they need to close that loophole and talk about existing buildings as those that exist as of today, already constructed under some prior building code to that in effect on January 1, 2023.
Mayor Bier appreciated that, adding that she thought that was where they were trying to get at.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he wanted to summarize it as he understands it. He stated that there seems to be three options. Planning Director Murdock’s is option A, any building built after January 1, 2023 all electric does not have any option for restaurant, etc., and will remain all City Council Regular Meeting 15 October 24, 2022
electric. If that is a mixed use building, residential on top, commercial on the bottom, that restaurant would not have the choice of option B which is to add gas for cooking if it is a building built after January 1, 2023 so everything on Palmetto now would be eligible to do that.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively. He didn’t have a particular policy recommendation but is just trying to simplify the category so Council can get its desired policy outcome. He stated, to Councilmember O’Neill’s point, if Council were to not venture into the existing building territory at this point in time, on adoption of this code, all the buildings that exist as of today on Palmetto would be eligible to convert if they are all electric buildings. He thought very few, if any, are, but they would be able to add a gas line to a new restaurant coming in and that could change in the future if Council undertakes existing building reach codes and decides that some of those gas extensions should not be authorized or those conversions should not be authorized and that is a different set of questions than should a new building allow a restaurant to have gas, which is policy question No. 1. If the answer is no, it would seem fine to prohibit existing building conversions at some point in the future. If the decision is to allow certain restaurants to have gas in new buildings, it also seems to be finding existing building policy to allow those conversions. He stated that those are questions for some point in the future, most likely with respect to existing buildings. He stated that his recommendation would be to think about the simplest question, which is should there be an exception in new buildings for restaurants to have gas. If they say no, perhaps some of the other questions flow more easily.
If they don’t think there should be gas, then maybe existing buildings shouldn’t have gas at some point in the future. If there should be an exception, then maybe exceptions should also be afforded to existing buildings. He stated that it might be a helpful starting point.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they should have both.
Councilmember Vaterlaus believes that restaurants should have the option to have gas.
Councilmember O’Neill thought that was either a new or existing building.
Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if she was okay if the residential portion has to remain electric and there is no option to go to gas.
Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded gas only for cooking.
Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck added that the only exception is for restaurants and he will agree.
Mayor Bier thought it was important for them to pay attention to the information that has been provided by their community, especially the community that has been studying this topic for a long time. She wants to include this language provided to them about the non-residential buildings containing kitchens. She thought it was good language and offers an exception and there are certain bindings that have to happen if they have the exception.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, if Mayor Bier is asking the Councilmembers , they need consensus from the Council as to whether everybody wants this language. She is not familiar City Council Regular Meeting 16 October 24, 2022
with the language she is referring to and she asked the Planning Director if he was familiar with the language and can he synthesize it for Council so they know what the mayor is referring to so they can agree or not.
Planning Director Murdock believes Mayor Bier is referring to public comments in the supplemental public comment packet distributed after agenda publication earlier today by the City Clerk.
Mayor Bier stated that is the language.
Planning Director Murdock stated, with respect to that proposed policy language, he thought that a lot of it is already contained in exception No. 4 of the city’s reach codes. He stated that the current exception to all the electric building requirement, exception 4 reads as follows, “nonresidential buildings containing a for-profit restaurant open to the public may be approved at the discretion of the building official for an exception to install gas-fueled cooking appliances. This request must be based on a business-related reason to cook with a flame that cannot be reasonably achieved with an electric fuel source. The examples include barbecue-themed restaurants and pizza ovens.” It then goes on to provide additional criteria that building official must use to evaluated and determine to grant or not grant that exception request. He stated that there is perhaps some tweaking or updating as proposed by the commenter and they can consider that. He stated that the core question is does the Council want to continue with this exception for in largely the same form, broaden it to all restaurants or keep it more narrowly tailored as it is currently presented in exception 4, so there are variations on this that staff needs to hear from Council.
Councilmember O’Neill has no problem with the phrase Mayor Bier keeps referring to. He stated that the other language they were receiving, i.e., a new building built with electric could not become more fuels.
Mayor Bier clarified it was converted to mixed fuel.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed, adding that he is concerned about the ground floor restaurant.
He thinks they are talking about the same thing.
Mayor Bier agreed.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has no problem limiting it to pizza ovens and barbeque, etc.
City Attorney Kenyon asked, for clarity, if he is saying that the current exception in No. 4 is appropriate language, because language that is referred to in the public comment attachment is different than what the Planning Director just discussed. She asked Planning Director Murdock to synthesize the distinction between those two so Council knows what they are deliberating on.
Planning Director Murdock stated that some of the terminology is different but, largely, the substance seems to be the same. He thinks one exception is in the suggested language by the public where they are talking about requiring installation of an energy star appliance, but he believes separate provisions of the energy code already require that and he thinks a restatement with different terms is largely the same substance. He stated that they can take a more careful look if Council wants to continue forward with an exception for restaurants which is the core question to allow them to do their work to prepare the ordinance. He stated, if they City Council Regular Meeting 17 October 24, 2022
come back and they want to massage the language further to more closely align with the public commenter’s version, they can make that change at that time.
Mayor Bier appreciated that.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he is comfortable with exception 4 and the language from the language from Ms. Meiman’s email to Council as long as, in a new building, the residents stay the same with all electric but down below they can cook on gas.
Mayor Bier thinks they need to be redirected to where they belong.
Planning Director Murdock stated, before moving in, Council previously didn’t want to venture into existing building regulation building codes and in one applicable area it is probably not all that controversial to allow the exception for existing buildings as well.
Mayor Bier agreed.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed, adding that every restaurant will be given the option of gas and electric providing they meet this criteria and will sign a form which states which preference they have.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it would be for the type of restaurants described in exception No. 4 and they would have to make an affirmative application to the building official and provide evidence to support the findings.
Councilmember O’Neill added that it would take into account any sort of ethnic hot pot, sometimes their gas checks underneath a hot pot.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that there are additional restaurants that use gas, such as wok cooking. They use gas source and there could be additional restaurant types other than the ones listed.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it was in the Council’s discretion if they want to expand the examples but currently the substance of this exception is not limited to a particular type of food, ethnicity, but just says a business related reason to cook with a flame. It provides some flexibility and discretion for the building official to make that determination based on that reason and the other reasons in the exception.
Mayor Bier stated that they still need to be redirected.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they can advance to the next slide.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if, before they move on, can they talk about exception No. 2, as what is on the slide and what is in the packet are different in regard to the concept of emergency centers. She is grappling with the difference between new construction and existing. She keeps thinking about all the kitchens at the schools that are gas as they exist and she asked, if the Community Center burns down and they have to replace it with a new building, whether they are saying, based on the slide, they would be eliminating the exception to have gas cooking in the Community Center kitchen that replaces the one that burns down.
Planning Director Murdock stated that would be the outcome of this. He stated, at the study City Council Regular Meeting 18 October 24, 2022
session, the term was more aligned with backup generators but it would apply more broadly than that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to make sure they are good with that.
Mayor Bier was good with that as they are moving toward the phasing out and they have to prepare for it.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the study session, there were ample other methods of providing backup power.
Mayor Bier stated that they can go to the next slide.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, keeping on the building electrification reach codes for the time being, with respect to the multi-family dwelling EV parking requirements, there was earlier discussion at this meeting, describing both potential sides of an affordable housing exception and they heard from Mr. Reyes of PCE that as of now there are financial incentives to help reduce or eliminate the cost for 100% affordable housing developments. He stated that, to be transparent, not all of the affordable housing units constructed in Pacifica will be 100% affordable housing units, as those are larger projects constructed by an affordable housing developer and most of the projects Council is likely to see will arguably be BMR ordinance projects with 15% of those units as affordable units. He stated that the PCE’s current funding solution may not be available for all affordable housing units at this point in time.
Mayor Bier thanked him for that clarification.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, as proposed now, it is at the developer’s option and the person best situated to make that financial decision is arguably the developer saying they can’t make the project work if they have EV chargers and they would be able to exclude them if Council were to move forward with the exception. He stated that it was an option and not a mandate.
Mayor Bier concluded that they need to tell staff if they are still okay with the direction they gave them on the 27th. She stated that, if they go section by section, it might be easier to get consensus on each one. She asked Council if they are following her and are okay with that.
All councilmembers agreed.
Mayor Bier asked the Planning Director to lead them on the next item.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, the next area was identified with respect to EV parking standards, what is for the non-residential. He stated that the model code presented by PCE staff at the study session included a requirement for EV capable spaces and Council directed to change that to EV ready, but where they need Council’s guidance, if they are okay with that direction, is whether to create one or both of the new categories. He thought Councilmember O’Neill who brought up the question of overnight accommodations and one other councilmember brought up the public parking lots land use type, and those were the two that would deviate from the model code and the question is whether Council thinks there is a necessity to create one or both of those distinct categories and what should be the appropriate parking standards. Staff has included a recommendation, detailed in the staff report, based on the type of use and how it relates to the other uses and they recommended adjustments to the City Council Regular Meeting 19 October 24, 2022
level 2 EV charging station and level 2 EV ready percentages of off street parking spaces.
Mayor Bier asked if Council was okay with that, and all agreed.
Planning Director Murdock asked if there was a desire by Council to speak further about the geotechnical hazard local amendment or the underground utilities.
Mayor Bier agreed to both of those.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated undergrounding.
Mayor Bier stated undergrounding and the geotechnical.
Councilmember O’Neill asked what they would consider the definition of new development and AVUs. He supported the undergrounding, but they know back in Park Pacifica that there are some that actually have a driveway that is so long there are two houses back there and if they each put in an ADU, is that considered new development and have to underground for the ADU.
He asked if an ADU has its own meter or set off from the house.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is at the option of the project applicant and related members of the new meter. He stated that the city’s ordinance does not require installation of a new meter for ADUs. With respect to undergrounding, the question depends on the available service at the property to begin with. He stated that, in relatively few cases, there is enough panel space to connect the ADU or install a subpanel. In some cases, a service upgrade is needed and in the instance where there is a service upgrade there may need to be new lines run and those upgraded lines would likely need to be undergrounded under this. He stated that, in either case, whether the existing service can accommodate or a service upgrade is needed, the connection between the new building to the detached ADU in that example would need to be all underground.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that, if they require the undergrounding, that could potentially increase the cost of affordable housing if they are building an ADU.
Planning Director Murdock agreed it is likely to increase the cost of that project.
Mayor Bier added that they are also saying that, as we phase out, it would be more expensive later.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he was talking about electrical connections to the ADU.
Mayor Bier understands that, but it would be more expensive later as she understands it.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought Mayor Bier’s point is that the entire state is going to a place where eventually we’re getting rid of gas and what may save them money today might cost them a lot more tomorrow. He stated that the last point he was going to bring up was, as they enter the discussion about undergrounding, that it would be helpful to him to have had Planning Commission have this conversation ahead of their deliberation. He has listened to many of their conversations around this topic when it came to nuancing the General Plan, and he feels that this is the last thing they should be giving Council feedback on to make sure that they are properly in alignment with what some of their feedback intention was and that they ultimately incorporate it. He stated that, after hearing Commissioner Hauser call in, he could hear how City Council Regular Meeting 20 October 24, 2022
much she was trying to offer them and, rather than hear that in three minutes, he would like to hear that conversation with the full Planning Commission so he has some idea of all the pros and cons and whether they jive with what Council needs to do in order to get this done in a month. He appreciated that, and it would be helpful for him to have those brains that are more attuned with this kind of work to have that discussion ahead of this discussion so Council knows exactly what they are discussing.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, for additional context for Council, he stated that it wasn’t articulated in the staff report but at least the new utility line undergrounding requirement has been a standard practice for the city. This ordinance, with respect to new utility lines in any case, would not change the past practice. With all those years of encouraging and telling applicants to underground, he was aware of one instance that occurred this year where a property owner building a new single family home refused to underground and said it was not a requirement. That prompted the city to review its regulations and determined they didn’t have an ordinance requiring what they were already doing. Perhaps PW Director Petersen can comment, but he doesn’t know if it has also been standard practice for upgraded services to also be undergrounded, but if Council wanted further input, maybe it is on any new component to this practice because the city has already been undertaking the new utility underground installation for years at this point.
City Manager Woodhouse added that there were practical considerations timeline wise, whether they could bring an item to the Planning Commission and get back to the Council by Nov. 28 for adoption of these reach codes.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he doesn’t know enough about this thing that keeps getting to his attention about undergrounding the poles, if a subdivision or commercial building, and that is what he keeps thinking on in his brain, and the part where they might have the opportunity now to insert it now, but he doesn’t know that part. He concluded that the City Manager was saying the Planning Commission could not look on this on November 7 as it would be brought to Council on the 14th.
City Manager Woodhouse thought the real aspect of fighting that off for a Planning Commission discussion and yet still drafting an ordinance that meets those needs and Council direction by November 28.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it would be a supreme challenge for him, given the upcoming community meetings for the housing element and other technical work to prepare the draft by the end of this year.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he will let the Councilmember weigh in, but he thought, if they have to send it back to Planning to incorporate a thing about bars into the outdoor, this seems to have more gravity than his understanding and it is frustrating for him that what wasn’t incorporated into the plan was to have Planning look at something that is building related. He stated that the best they can do is incorporate that into the existing code discussion when they come back in March.
Planning Director Murdock understood, and he needs to clarify for Council that the utility undergrounding means different things and they are striving at this meeting is to codify what had been a standard practice by the city to require underground installation of new utility lines. What the public commenter and Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck are describing is undergrounding existed utility poles is an entirely different matter, subject to entirely different regulations, legal City Council Regular Meeting 21 October 24, 2022
considerations, financial implications, coordination requirements and those need considerable thoughtful analysis. He agreed that the Planning Commission would probably have helpful insights into that process, but keeping in mind that it is already something that can be evaluated through the discretionary review process for larger projects such as those mentioned by the commenter, mixed use buildings, commercial building, all of which are already going to the Planning Commission for a discretionary review process. The General Plan incorporated very supportive policies to help the city require the undergrounding of existing utility poles across project frontages, but what they are talking about here is 95% of projects in Pacifica being single family home projects and making sure their new utility connections are installed underground.
Undergrounding existing utility poles is an entirely different issue. He stated that new subdivisions are required to install underground utilities and none of those issues really come into play with what staff had contemplated.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought this is something they can contemplate in March when they talk about existing codes.
Planning Director Murdock agreed that this is part and parcel to any other local amendments that Council wants to consider, including reach codes for existing building, how to retrofit or underground existing utility poles, another universe of policy considerations that go beyond new buildings.
Mayor Bier stated she was okay with the exceptions here.
Councilmember Vaterlaus understands the reason for this, as it is an infill project and between two houses that have poles, yet we required undergrounding and it makes it a very complicated issue and was stopping someone from getting their project done because of it. She understands why they have this codified now. She asked if every other new building undergrounded as requested other than this one.
Planning Director Murdock stated, to his knowledge, they have.
Mayor Bier stated that they can move on.
Planning Director Murdock referred to a slide, refreshing Council’s memory that this issue came up during the General Plan update process, and there were members of the public that thought the city should require more comprehensive geotechnical hazard assessments beyond what is included in the California building code and California residential code which are very site specific and primarily focused on the design of the building being constructed. He stated that it was a reflection on the city’s experiences with past geotechnical hazards and the thought being that, if a more thoughtful assessment had been done on up slope and down slope hazards, perhaps other interventions could have protected life and property in those instances. He stated that this would take one step in that direction to require a broader assessment of potential geotechnical hazards and reflecting the legal limitations of the city’s authority, its inability to require and authorize property owners to allow others to enter their property to perform geotechnical assessments. He stated that it would be a supplement to other existing General Plan policies and California Environmental Quality Act, requirements to analyze geotechnical hazards that exist as part of the discretionary review process and would fill a gap that exists in the city’s processes currently.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated yes.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 October 24, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they were talking about specific degrees of up slope or down slope.
Planning Director Murdock thought the question came up on what was the triggering criteria for this expanded analysis. He stated that there was more than one way to go about it, one way that is able for the city and applicants to administer is whether it is in a state identified geotechnical hazard zone, either liquefaction or seismic induced landslide, and he thought those seem to be a good place to start. He stated other approaches, such as average slope of the property or something else would likely require some professional in the first instance to survey the property, determine the average slope and many more applicants would be incurring costs just to conclude they don’t have to do the analysis. He thought starting with the maps might be a good place.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it sounds good.
Mayor Bier stated that they had a public comment that stated it should be done during the planning review process and not the building permit review process and she asked for staff’s comment on that.
Planning Director Murdock stated that many but not all projects require something called a discretionary permit or discretionary review where a public hearing is required by Planning Commission and the city can impose conditions, consider hazards, etc., and in many cases undertake environmental review of those projects, all of which are opportunities for the city to apply General Plan policies, environmental review mitigations, etc., to address geotechnical hazards. He stated that most projects in Pacifica don’t go through that process and are known as ministerial projects and they only require a building permit with no public hearing and no ability for the city to condition the project or apply mitigations. He stated that, what this does is require a engineer for the project to consider these geotechnical hazards as part of their building design and the building code requires them that the project be designed to incorporate those recommendations from the appropriate design professional and this would fill a gap in the city’s process currently to require any geotechnical hazard consideration beyond the building design itself and require those design professionals to look up slope and down slope, determine how the site could be affected by other hazards or how this project could increase hazards to other property.
Mayor Bier thanked him and asked and confirmed Council was okay.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the last item was discussion of the reach codes for gray water. He stated that, at the September 27 study session, in response to public comments, Council wanted some preliminary analysis of options related to gray water. Portola Valley’s gray water ordinance was used as an example and they evaluated that ordinance and provided some analysis and recommendations related to those regulations adopted by Portola Valley and there may be other example ordinances but staff did not have the time or ability to go through and consider alternative approaches. He stated that there may be more and less intensive options to consider with respect to a gray water ordinance. If Council is interested, they could come back with something short of a fuller approach that Portola Valley has set out.
Mayor Bier understood.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he brought this up and he didn’t think they can do it for the reach codes today and probably is something in March when they do the goal setting. He would City Council Regular Meeting 23 October 24, 2022
also like to include capture of rain water. He stated that his gutters work even if they have a heavy fog and they would be getting something. He also knows that Commissioner Hauser is working with the Water District to get that plastic fog harvesting thing going. He thought it might be a bit much, but he encouraged Council to look at that for goals and work plan in March.
Mayor Bier asked Planning Director Murdock if it would be easier for his staff if they looked at it in the next work plan.
Planning Director Murdock admitted that deferring any additional analysis at this time would be very helpful, given their staffing situation in the planning department.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought it sounded great.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed.
Planning Director Murdock thought he heard a consensus by Council that they are interested and see if they can add in capture of rain water as well but evaluate that as part of a work item if decided by Council in March as part of goal setting.
Mayor Bier agreed.
Councilmember O’Neill thought it would be worthwhile, referring to what other cities are doing in new developments, such as pipes so recycled water could be pumped out to houses, if it was something they would want to put in the work plan. He stated that they are already doing that at Ingrid B. Lacey Field and another school, he thought Oceana.
Planning Director Murdock stated that was another option, and he thought there were more practical considerations for that, given the availability and cost of installing recycled water infrastructure. He stated that the Planning Commission did consider that in the Sharp Park Specific Plan and they have a policy that is supportive of including those connections where available, but as the system currently exists in Pacifica, there are some regularity issues as well in terms of metering and access for private parties. He stated that it would be a very specific undertaking of Council wanted to do that and the availability of that, given the infrastructure, is relatively limited today to the Sharp Park area.
Mayor Bier asked if he got everything he needed from Council.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he did.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there were several references to things in March for goal setting and he wanted to clarify as they did in previous study session. He stated that they are not analyzing and preparing and assessing all these issues for goal setting.
Mayor Bier thanked him and called a break, then reconvened the meeting.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
9. Rejection of Bids for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair Project & Award of Agreement with GHD, Inc. for structural inspection of Pacifica Pier PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Reject the Bid for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair, Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with GHD, Inc. (Attachment A) in the amount not to exceed $167,252, City Council Regular Meeting 24 October 24, 2022
and allocate $217,252 in budget for the pier structural assessment from the pier handrail repair project.
PW Director Petersen stated she was joined by Project Manager Marquez to make the presentation and consultants, Satish Chilka and Craig Lewis from GHD, were available to answer questions, and then opened the staff report.
Project Manager Marquez presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the last substantial structural assessment was 20 years ago.
Project Manager Marquez stated that was his understanding.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated the opportunity to learn more about how the pier physically works.
Mayor Bier asked if he could explain the fencing that will be placed on the L-shape and give them details.
Project Manager Marquez stated that they haven’t finalized the details and are looking for direction from Council for staff to finalize those details and look into it. He thought now they were looking at chain link fencing at the same height as what the railing is now and it would be safety rated and wouldn’t be a standard chain link they see in someone’s yard but thicker piping and bolted into the concrete deck and attached to the panels on both sides of the fallen pier.
The panel that is there would be removed and it would be cleaned up and safe to have people out there.
Mayor Bier stated that, if they do a full inspection, is there enough funding to create a strategic plan for repair, and how would it work. She was sure they would need a plan in place to get money.
Project Manager Marquez stated that they would and, within the structural assessment, there is some scope to come up with an opinion of costs and detail what those repairs might look like and it would be a mini-plan.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wondered if what they end up with would enable them to seek future grants for the different elements of the project that would need to be done, whatever they may be, based on the structural and analysis they are proposing.
Project Manager Marquez thought they have a good understanding of cost and scope of work they would need and they would be able to detail what type of funding they would need.
Councilmember Beckmeyer went back to the 2002 analysis, and she asked if that was the time the last significant repairs were done to the pier or prior to that.
Project Manager Marquez understands that there have been various repairs since that 2002 inspection on different elements and he thought the last major one was in 2013. There has been ongoing work every few years out there.
Councilmember Beckmeyer was wondering about the last funding source of significance which City Council Regular Meeting 25 October 24, 2022
she thought was $5 million but she didn’t have the specifics but thought Councilmember O’Neill might remember.
Project Manager Marquez stated for the most part it was state, such as Coastal Conservancy, etc., and they have to keep that in mind and he can look it up. They have been keeping an eye on grants for this type of work because they have been trying to do this project. He stated that there are a few.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked about the pier abutment. He stated that, when they talk about the assessment work being done, he concluded he is talking about the concrete deck in the center of it and not about the outer edge visible in the picture he was looking at.
Project Manager Marquez responded that they were talking about the concrete surfacing that they walk on and not the wall portion.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Dep. City Clerk La introduced the call-in speaker.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, thanked Council and staff for looking at the pier. He expressed his concerns about the safety for the public and his hopes for the process.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor Bier thought they have to have a full assessment of the pier before they do anything else as it wouldn’t be worth the money to do tiny repairs when they will know there are a lot of things that need to be done to the pier after doing the assessment and she felt they have to prepare for that. She thought they need to talk to our state legislators to get some funding. She agrees with staff’s recommendations.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed that they need a full assessment of the pier as, if they just keep pouring money into something that keeps rotting away, it doesn’t make much sense. He asked, once they get the money, whether it will require a coastal development permit and a year’s delay while sitting on the Coastal Commission’s desk.
Project Manager Marquez stated that it was tough to speak to that at this time without knowing the repairs. He stated that, for the most recent round, the hand rail replacement, they gave us a waiver and it was a matter of months and they have been working with them and understanding why the pier was closed and why they continued to have it closed with their ongoing work. He stated that the Coastal Commission does see the pier as a very good asset for the coastal access and he thinks it is in our best interest to continue to see it that way.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he supports repairing the pier, but his concern is that they get a grant and construction inflation in the Bay Area in the recent past has been higher than the general inflation area. Because of the Coastal Commission delays as they take nine months to check the formatting, they will never be able to finish it. He asked if it was possible to apply for the grants and start from the get-go when they get a grant.
Project Manager Marquez stated that there was a possibility of doing design before getting grants, and another way to hedge against that is to consider a bigger contingency, knowing that the permitting and environmental is going to take some time and the construction price might go City Council Regular Meeting 26 October 24, 2022
up during that time.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it could be an endless cycle because, if it goes up, the grant doesn’t meet it and they have to apply for another grant.
PW Director Petersen stated what he was talking about was relevant and something they have been experiencing, especially recently with the construction cost index she mentioned and they will definitely be reaching out to the Coastal Commission ahead of time, as soon as they have direction from Council on how they are going to be pursuing it and moving forward and work with them in order to get some idea of how they can expedite this. She thought one good thing, which Project Manager Marquez could speak to it if needed, is that they have definitely heard from the Coastal Commission asking them when the pier was going to get opened and they are interested in the project, so she thinks they are getting energy from the community about the pier and they do realize it is a very beloved asset of the community. She thinks that is probably in their favor.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, in his conversations with other councilmembers, they have looked at the pier as a regional asset and they tell him that they come over here and see more of their residents than they do in their downtown. He thinks, when they apply, they need to go to cities like South San Francisco and Daly City and get letters of support from their councils for this as it is looked at as a regional asset and even the Harbor Board looks at it as a regional asset. He thinks they need to exert all the pressure we can to get them to move because his biggest concern is that they get a grant and they have to return the grant because it’s not enough to fix it because of the construction price index.
PW Director Petersen thought that was a great idea.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, dove tailing off what Councilmember O’Neill was saying, he spends some regular time in Oakland, and when he tells them he is from Pacifica, they immediately refer to the pier and talk about how they spend time at the pier. He isn’t asking to get a letter from Oakland, but he felt the point is well taken that it is an extraordinary regional asset.
Councilmember O’Neill thought it was only about three or four of those types of piers in the Bay, one in Richmond, but we are the only one from San Francisco to Santa Cruz that is on the ocean as the rest are in the Bay.
Mayor Bier felt they definitely need to protect it any way they possibly can. She asked if they are all in agreement.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they need to have a motion.
Mayor Bier asked if they have a motion.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to Reject the Bid for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair, Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Master Services Agreement and Task order No. 1 with GHD, Inc. (Attachment A) in the amount not to exceed $167,252, and allocate $217,252 in budget for the pier structural assessment from the pier handrail repair project; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 October 24, 2022
AGENDA ITEM #9:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
10. Appointments to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission; Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee; Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission; and Economic Development Committee
PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission for one full term to expire May 2026 and one partial term to expire May 2024; 2) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee for one full term to expire May 2026, one partial term to expire May 2024, and one partial term to expire May 2025;
3) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission for two full terms to expire October 2026;
4) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Economic Development Committee for one full term to expire October 2026, one partial term to expire October 2023, two partial terms to expire October 2024, and one partial term to expire October 2025.
City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
City Clerk Coffey pointed out a written public comment received by one of the applicants today.
Lauren Goodmiller, who is an applicant for the Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee, respectfully requested that she be appointed to the term that will end in May 2024.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck reminded them that he thought Ruby Tovar expressed an interest in either OSPAC or EDC, if not chosen for PB&R. He is bringing that up because they have two PB&R spaces and, of the five applicants who applied for PB&R, she was the one willing to fill either EDC or OSPAC if they don’t vote her to the PB&R.
Mayor Bier asked them to begin deliberation.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they can deliberate and come to a consensus for a nomination or a councilmember can make a nomination for the specific applicant. She suggested making nominations for each committee or commission separately and for PB&R, they can name the applicant for the full term and also an applicant for the partial term, and then someone can make that motion and a second and a vote.
Mayor Bier moved to appoint Stefanie Phillips for full term to expire May 2026 and Dahlia Rodriguez for partial term to expire May 2024 to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated Stefanie Phillips was one of his top two and Dahlia Rodriguez was one of his top three.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 October 24, 2022
The Council discussed in further detail.
City Attorney Kenyon reminded them that they have a motion on the floor.
Councilmember O’Neill asked to amend the motion on the floor for Stefanie Phillips to expire May 2026 and Ruby Tovar to expire May 2024.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if the maker of the motion would agree with that.
Mayor Bier stated that she doesn’t agree with that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that the motion stands as it was proposed.
Mayor Bier stated that it is because they had only a few other people who said that they would be okay with being on other committees and commissions and Ruby Tovar was one of those people. She stated that they have spaces they need to fill and not very many people said that they would be willing to fill other spaces. She appreciates the ones who did.
Mayor Bier stated that they can vote now on that motion.
Vote: 5-0
APPOINTMENTS TO PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION COMMISSION
Stefanie Phillips (full term to expire May 2026), Dahlia Rodriguez (partial term to expire May 2024)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Mayor
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to appoint Lauren Goodmiller for the partial term to expire May 2024 and Amanda Skaggs for the partial term to expire May 2025 and Ian McDermod for the full term to expire May 2026 to the Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was going to reverse his second because Amanda Skaggs applied to OSPAC and Ian McDermod didn’t; he would feel more comfortable giving Amanda Skaggs the May 2026 and Ian McDermod the May 2025.
Councilmember Vaterlaus apologized and stated she will take back that motion and change it to his motion.
City Attorney stated for the amender of the motion read what the motion actually states now.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they move that Lauren Goodmiller has the partial term to expire May 2024, Amanda Skaggs has the full term to expire May 2026 and Ian McDermod has the partial term to expire May 2025.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if the maker of the motion accepts that amendment.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 October 24, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed to accept the amendment.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if the seconder accepts that amendment.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed to accept the amendment.
Vote: 5-0
APPOINTMENTS TO OPEN SPACE & PARKLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE Lauren Goodmiller (partial term to expire May 2024), Amanda Skaggs (full term to expire May 2026), Ian McDermod (partial term to expire May 2025)
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to appoint Gregor Blackburn and Anthony Guzzetta to the two full terms to expire October 2026 for Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Vote: 5-0
APPOINTMENTS TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS & SAFETY COMMISSION Gregor Blackburn and Anthony Guzzetta (full terms to expire October 2026) RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to appoint Matthew Dougherty for the full term to expire October 2026, Brendan Berman for the partial term to expire October 2025, Lauren Claire Smith for the partial term to expire October 2024 and Ruby Tovar for the partial term to expire October 2023 to the Economic Development Committee.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck seconded with a friendly amendment that they put Ruby Tovar on the other 2024 as there are two 2024.
Councilmember Beckmeyer clarified that they are basically leaving the October 2023 position vacant.
Mayor Bier asked if the maker agrees to that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed to the amendment.
Mayor Bier asked if the seconder agrees.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed to the amendment.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 October 24, 2022
Vote: 5-0
APPOINTMENTS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Matthew Dougherty (full term to expire October 2026), Brendan Berman ( partial term to expire October 2025), Lauren Claire Smith (partial term to expire October 2024) and Ruby Tovar ( partial term to expire October 2023)
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 10:39 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 11/14/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor