exceptions. Public Resources Code Section 30514 additionally provides that any ordinance enacted by the City Council which amends the City’s zoning standards or zoning map shall not take effect within the Coastal Zone until the California Coastal Commission certifies an amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Program.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Adopt the attached Resolution initiating the Text Amendment and recommending approval to City Council (Attachment A) and finding the proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
BACKGROUND:
The term “short-term rental” (“STR”) refers to the use of all or a portion of a residential dwelling unit for a rental of less than 30 consecutive days. The popularity of STRs has increased steadily over the past decade due in part to the convenience of booking provided by companies such as Airbnb and VRBO and the increased availability of STRs as an alternative to a traditional hotel or motel. STRs can also provide a source of income for owners and occupants of the residential dwelling units offered for rent as STRs.
The increasing number of STRs in Pacifica led the City Council to adopt Ordinance No. 835- C.S. (“Ordinance”) in 20181. The Ordinance established a permit requirement for operation of an STR, certain operating requirements, and permit revocation and enforcement processes (“STR Program”). The operating requirements established in the Ordinance also included certain guest safety standards including a requirement that a diagram of exits, fire extinguisher locations, and fire and police contact numbers be printed and on-site for the renter. The Ordinance appoints the Assistant City Manager or designee as the responsible City official for administration of the STR permit process. Other staff primarily in the Finance Division of the Administrative Services Department assist applicants with completing their STR permit registrations, business license registration and then once permitted, compliance with the City’s transient occupancy tax (“TOT”). The City engaged a consultant, HdL, in July 2021 to assist the Finance Division with reviewing the annual filings for the TOT returns, including TOT compliance verifications for STRs.
On June 13, 2022, City staff provided a comprehensive update to the Council on implementation of the City’s STR Program2. At that meeting staff provided a detailed report on implementation of the STR Program, which included information regarding STR locations in Pacifica, the TOT collections from STRs, the impact STRs have on the City’s housing stock, unpermitted STRs and City enforcement activities. Staff summarized the status of the STR Program as follows:
1 City Council Ordinance No. 835-C.S.
2 City Council June 13, 2022 Agenda Report, Item No. 14. 2 Packet Pg. 6
10.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 17, 2023
• The City’s STR Program is still relatively new;
• STRs comprise a small share of dwelling units3(less than 1%), especially low for a coastal community;
• Some STR concentration has been observed in West Sharp Park and Pedro Point neighborhoods;
• No evidence of significant neighborhood problems or impacts to public health, safety and welfare.
The City Manager’s recommendation, at that time, was to not undertake any modifications to the STR Program and to continue to gather data on the number and types of STRs, continue to work to identify unregistered STRs and assess and enforce as necessary any Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) being utilized as STRs. Ultimately, the City Council did not direct any changes to the STR Program but did direct that potential revisions to the STR Program be revisited during the Council goal setting in 20234.
Following the June 13, 2022 City Council meeting, members of the public expressed their concerns relating to the sale of residential property in Pacifica for the singular purpose of using the property as an STR. These types of purchases can have a negative impact on the community as they remove an entire housing unit from the housing stock available for long-term residential use. As a result, at the October 10, 2022 City Council meeting, staff presented to Council information about residential property sales resulting in subsequent STR use and asked for direction on whether amendments to the STR Program regulations were warranted5. The public comments received during the meeting ranged from neighbors of STR properties expressing their complaints of STRs that are impacting their neighborhoods to a STR host detailing the affordability benefits their STR brings to their housing situation. As presented at the meeting, based on data from HdL, 101 STR permits were issued in Pacifica, 24 STRs were identified as unregistered, and 47 STRs were closed and ceased activity as of September 2022.
In response to concerns that increasing STRs would impact the City’s housing stock, a majority of the Council provided direction to amend the STR Program regulations to impose a cap of 150 total STR permits issued in Pacifica and that further potential revisions to the STR Program be revisited during the Council goal setting in 20236.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
The proposed text amendment would revise various sections of Article 49 “Short-Term Rentals” of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the PMC. The text amendment is summarized below:
3 The 103 STRs identified by HdL in the June 13, 2022, report comprise less than 1 percent of Pacifica’s total housing stock.
4 City Council Minutes June 13, 2022
5 City Council October 10, 2022 Agenda Report, Item No. 10 6 City Council Minutes October 10, 2022
2 Packet Pg. 7
10.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 17, 2023
Definitions. A definition for “Permit,” “Permittee,” and “Short-term rental permit cap” would be added to provide clarity of the terms as used in Article 49.
Short-term Rental Permit Cap. A new section would be added to establish a cap of 150 STR permits. The section also would identify a waitlist would be created for applications received after the issuance of 150 STR permits.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU). Language would be added to clarify that no STR shall operate within a JADU. This language is complementary to existing language in Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.454(a)(6).
Term and Renewal. The text amendment would change the stated expiration date of STR permits to October 31 from December 31, which mirrors the City’s expiration date for all business licenses. This will align currently inconsistent deadlines for permittees, which are required to get a business licenses renewed for a STR two months before they are required to get their STR permit renewed.
The proposed text amendment would not impact any of the existing STR permit application standards, STR operating requirements, or implementation of the STR permit revocation and enforcement provisions of the STR Program. Tracked changes of the proposed text amendment is shown in Attachment B.
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
No Ordinance amendments would be effective in the Coastal Zone until the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) certifies an amendment to the City's local coastal program (LCP) pursuant to Section 30514 of the California Public Resources Code. The CCC has found that outright bans or undue restrictions on STRs are inconsistent with Coastal Act policies prioritizing public access and visitor-serving uses.
Pacifica’s Coastal Zone contains the only recreational vehicle (RV) park and six of Pacifica’s seven hotels/motels. These broad accommodation types suit the needs of various sized groups and budgetary levels of the City’s visitors. The City’s approximately 328 Coastal Zone hotels/motels rooms can generally accommodate groups of two to four in a room, but some hotel/motel rooms can accommodate up to 10 in a room and potentially larger groups through connected rooms. The average room cost for hotels/motels in the Coastal Zone is $180 to $225 per night. The RV Park can accommodate visitors with vehicles up to 45 feet in length and rates can range from $83 to $159 per night.
Based on the hosts’ self-identified STR guest maximum, the average STR in the Coastal Zone can accommodate groups of 6.5 people per site, with a maximum of 16 guests per site. The City 2 Packet Pg. 8
10.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 17, 2023
was unable to collect the average nightly STR rates, but a maximum rate of $643 per night was identified. The City’s proposed text amendment to the STR Program will not change accommodations that are provided through the currently permitted STRs.
The CCC has also recognized a need to restrict STRs in some coastal communities where evidence showed that the STR market was significantly impacting the availability of housing or having other impacts on coastal resources.
Based on data provided from HdL, as of December 16, 2022, there were 129 STR permits issued in Pacifica, 48 of which (37 percent) are located in the Coastal Zone. Pacifica’s Coastal Zone contains approximately 2,574 housing units7. There are approximately 14,652 housing units total within Pacifica8. STR permits occupy approximately 1.9 percent of the housing units in the Coastal Zone and approximately 0.88 percent of housing units in Pacifica overall, showing a disproportion concentration of STR permits issued relative to the proportion of Pacifica’s housing units located in the Coastal Zone (more than twice the concentration). However, this value could be an underestimation as STR permits are not issued per housing unit, but are issued per application. Therefore, an application can cover more than one housing unit (e.g., multiple apartments could be covered under one STR permit). Table 1 details the impact of permitted STRs on housing stock within the Coastal Zone.
Table 1. Housing Stock Impacts of Permitted STRs in the Coastal Zone Neighborhood No. of Housing Units a No. of Permitted
STRs
Percentage of Housing Units being
used as Permitted STRs
Fairmont West 349 1 <0.5
West Edgemar/
Pacific Manor
671 3 <0.5
West Sharp Park 1,040 28 2.7
Pedro Point 301 16 5.3
Coastal Zone 2,574b 48 1.9
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Table H1 Note:
a. Estimated based on census block units that most closely represent the neighborhood as defined in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan
b. Includes housing units in all Coastal Zone neighborhoods In addition to the permitted STRs, HdL has been tracking advertisements for STRs in an effort to identify unpermitted STRs and bring these operators into compliance. Based on HdL’s findings of unpermitted STRs as of December 21, 2022, Table 2 details the impact all STRs, permitted and unpermitted, are having on housing stock within the Coastal Zone.
Table 2. Housing Stock Impacts of Permitted and Unpermitted STRs in the Coastal Zone Neighborhood No. of Housing No. of Permitted No. of Unpermitted Percentage of Housing Units 7 U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Table H1 8 Ibid.
2 Packet Pg. 9
10.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 17, 2023
Units a STRs STRs being used as STRs
(Permitted and Unpermitted)
Fairmont West 349 1 0 <0.5
West
Edgemar/
Pacific Manor
671 3 1 0.6
West Sharp
Park
1,040 28 24 5.0
Pedro Point 301 16 8 7.9
Coastal Zone 2,574b 48 34c 3.2
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Table H1 Note:
a. Estimated based on census block units that most closely represent the neighborhood as defined in the Local Coastal Land Use Plan
b. Includes housing units in all Coastal Zone neighborhoods c. Includes one unpermitted STR in the Fairway/Rockaway neighborhood During a time when the state of California, and especially the San Francisco Bay Area is experiencing a housing crisis, these small percentages of housings units being used as STRs are having a negative effect on housing availability, and therefore are negatively impacting housing affordability.
The City’s General Plan does not directly address the balance of STRs and their relationship with housing availability. Guiding Policy CD-G-3 of the General Plan9 states “Neighborhood Conservation. Preserve the unique qualities of each of Pacifica’s residential neighborhoods.” Additionally, the goals, objectives, and programs contained in the City of Pacifica’s 2015-2023 Housing Element10 “strive to encourage and incentivize the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing affordable to persons of all income levels and special needs categories.” The profusive use of the City’s existing housing stock for STRs would impact the City’s Housing Element goals of encouraging and incentivizing the preservation of housing. Furthermore, due to the attributes of STRs, their use can prompt consideration of their compatibility with the unique qualities of a residential neighborhood.
Coastal Act Policy No. 5 in Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan11 states that “Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. […].” Removing housing units from the Coastal Zone, even temporarily, through their rapid conversion to STRs at a greater pace than development of new long-term housing conflicts with this policy and will significantly impact the availability of housing in the Coastal Zone on a long-term basis.
Therefore, a cap on STRs is appropriate and consistent with General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan policies.
9 Pacifica 2040 General Plan, adopted July 2022
10 Pacifica Housing Element 2015-2023, adopted May 2015 11 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, March 1980 as amended 2 Packet Pg. 10
10.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 17, 2023
As stated above this text amendment does not impact currently permitted STRs that are providing visitor-serving uses. Rather, it would limit the availability of additional STR permits once the cap is reached.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Prior to publishing, one public comment was received and is included in Attachment C.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the proposed zoning text amendment to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The text amendment would be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the “General Rule” exemption in CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)). The General Rule exemption provides that “The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.”
The text amendment would make amendments to the existing STR Program to, among other things, establish a limit the number of STRs that would be permitted within the City. The limitation of STRs would not have a significant effect on the environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution initiating the text amendment and recommending approval to the City Council.
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION FOR APPROVAL:
Move that the Planning Commission FINDS the proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; ADOPTS the resolution included as Attachment A to the staff report to initiate Text Amendment TA-123-22 and recommends approval to the City Council; and, INCORPORATES all maps and testimony into the record by reference. 2 Packet Pg. 11
10.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 17, 2023
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Draft Resolution and Draft Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment B - Tracked changes of Short-Term Rental Provisions (PDF) Attachment C - Public Comment (PDF)
2 Packet Pg. 12
Attachment A Omitted from Packet
10.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental TITLE 9. - PLANNING AND ZONING
CHAPTER 4. - ZONING
Article 49. Short-Term Rentals
Article 49. Short-Term Rentals
Sec. 9-4.4900. Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this article is to establish regulations governing the short-term rental of residential property within the City of Pacifica in order to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Pacifica, and to allow for the short term rental of single-family and multi-family dwelling units for less than thirty (30) consecutive days, while still preserving the single-family character of neighborhoods, and preventing short-term rental activities from becoming a nuisance or a threat to public health, safety or welfare. (§ 2, Ord. 835-C.S., eff. July 10, 2018)
Sec. 9-4.4901. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the following words and phrases are defined as set forth below:
(a) "Administrator" means the Assistant City Manager or designee. (b) "Advertising platform" means any online site that provides a means for the host to advertise or otherwise offer for rent a short-term rental.
(c) "Operate" means the operation of a short-term rental, and includes the acts of establishing, offering, maintaining, or listing for rent a short-term rental with an advertising platform. (d) “Permit” or “Short-term rental permit” means a permit issued by the City pursuant to this Article to allow the use of a dwelling unit property, or portion of it, as a short-term rental. (e) “Permittee” means a property owner and/or authorized representative of the property owner, who has been issued a short-term rental permit by the City. (d) "Rental" means the occupancy or use of a dwelling unit property, in exchange for any form of rent that may be valued in money, including cash, credit, goods, labor, or property, regardless of whether such rent is actually received.
(e) "Short-term rental" means the use of a dwelling unit, or portion of it, for a rental of less than thirty (30) consecutive days.
(f) “Short-term rental permit cap” means the maximum number of short-term rental permits that may be issued at any given time by the City.
(§ 2, Ord. 835-C.S., eff. July 10, 2018)
Sec. 9-4.4902. Short-term rental permit cap.
The short-term rental permit cap shall be one hundred fifty (150) at any given time. The Administrator shall not approve any applications for short-term rental permits once the Administrator has determined that the short-term rental permit cap has been reached. The Administrator may create a waiting list for those applications received after the issuance of 150 short-term rental permits.
2.b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment B - Tracked changes of Short-Term Rental Provisions (5247 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
10.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental
Sec. 9-4.49032. Short-term rentals permitted.
Short-term rentals are permitted in all residential zones, subject to compliance with the following requirements:
(a) No person may operate a short-term rental without first obtaining a short-term rental permit issued pursuant Section 9-4.49043.
(b) In accordance with Section 9-4.453(a)(6) and 9-4.454(a)(6), no person may operate a short-term rental in any accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. (c) Each person operating a short-term rental shall comply with the transient occupancy tax requirements set forth in Chapter 7 of Title 3 of this Code, and shall obtain a Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate pursuant to the Section 3.7-06.
(d) Each person operating a short-term rental shall obtain a business license and pay the business license tax required pursuant to Chapter 1 of Title 3 of this Code. (e) No person shall operate or allow short-term rental of property in any location not approved for use as a permanent dwelling unit including, but not limited to, any vehicle, trailer, tent, storage shed or garage.
(§ 2, Ord. 835-C.S., eff. July 10, 2018)
Sec. 9-4.49043. Short-term rental permit required.
Subject to those requirements in Section 9-4.4903 and subject to the short-term rental permit cap specified in Section 9-4.4902, Aa short-term rental permit may be approved by the Administrator, provided that the Administrator determines the applicant has met the following requirements:
(a) Application. The applicant must complete an application on a form provided by the City, accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council. (b) Property owner consent. If the applicant is a tenant, he or she must demonstrate written consent of the property owner to operate short-term rentals on the property. (c) Contact information. The applicant must provide current contact information to the City, and information regarding the advertising platform(s) to be used. (d) Guest safety. The short-term rental must have a smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher. The applicant must submit a signed safety declaration in a form prepared by the Administrator, to be kept in the property file at the City.
Approval of a short-term rental permit does not legalize any use or structure not permitted by law or contract, including, but not limited to, restrictions imposed by a homeowners association or in a lease agreement. (§ 2, Ord. 835-C.S., eff. July 10, 2018)
Sec. 9-4.49054. Permit term and renewal.
(a) Term. A short-term rental permit is valid for one year from the date of issuance until October 31st of each year, until December 31 of the year it is issued, unless suspended or revoked by the Administrator prior to October 31st.
(b) Renewal. The permittee may renew the permit annually annually, by submitting a renewal application and fee between fore October 1
st and October 31st of each year, regardless of when the short-term rental permit was issued. the If a renewal application and fee are not filed prior to the October 31st
2.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment B - Tracked changes of Short-Term Rental Provisions (5247 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
10.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental
deadline, the short-term rental permit may be deemed revoked by the Administrator. expiration of the permit.
(§ 2, Ord. 835-C.S., eff. July 10, 2018)
Sec. 9-4.49054906. Operating requirements.
A short-term rental shall, at all times, be operated subject to the following standards:
(a) Permit required. The short-term rental must be operated under a valid short-term rental permit issued by the City in accordance with Section 9-4.49043.
(b) Current information. The short-term rental permittee shall, during the term of the permit, promptly inform the Administrator regarding any changes regarding information provided in the application, including contact information and information regarding advertising platforms used by the permittee to advertise the short-term rental.
(c) Guest safety. The short-term rental permittee must provide the following materials electronically to any guests before arrival and make available printed materials on-site for the guest with the following information:
(1) A diagram of exits, fire extinguisher locations, and fire and police contact numbers; (2) The short-term rental permittee's contact information; and (3) The City's noise regulations (Chapter 10 of Title 5 of this Code); and (4) The City's Social Host Liability Ordinance (Chapter 28 of Title 5 of this Code). (§ 2, Ord. 835-C.S., eff. July 10, 2018)
Sec. 9-4.49064907. Permit revocation and enforcement.
(a) Permit suspension or revocation. The Administrator may suspend or revoke a short-term rental permit after making a determination that the permittee has violated any of the provisions of this article or is operating the short-term rental in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or constitutes a nuisance or has failed to renew their short-term rental permit. The Administrator shall provide the permittee with written notice stating the supporting factual basis for the decision. The notice shall contain an advisement of the right to request an appeal before a hearing officer by filing a written appeal. (b) Appeal to Hearing Officer. Suspension or revocation issued by the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (a) will be effective ten (10) days from the date appearing on the notice, unless a timely appeal is filed before such date along with the deposit of an appeal fee established by resolution of City Council. A hearing shall be scheduled before the hearing officer within thirty (30) days. The decision of the hearing officer shall be a final administrative order, with no further administrative right of appeal or reconsideration. The hearing officer may sustain a denial, suspension or revocation, overrule a denial, suspension or revocation, reduce a revocation to a suspension and/or reduce the length of a suspension. (c) Reapplication. No application for a short-term rental permit will be accepted within one year after a shortterm rental permit is revoked. (d) Enforcement. The City may enforce this article by any means permitted by law, including, but not limited to, those penalty provisions set forth in Chapter 2 of Title 1 of this Code. The City Council may establish fines for violating this article by resolution.
(§ 2, Ord. 835-C.S., eff. July 10, 2018)
2.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment B - Tracked changes of Short-Term Rental Provisions (5247 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
10.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental 1 O'Connor, Bonny
From: DARCY DUCKENFIELD
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 9:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Tuesday, January 17th, 2023 City Council meeting Agenda Item-- FltE NO. 2022-036 FOR TEXT AMENDMENT TA-123-22. Pacifican Feedback
[CAUTION: External Email]
Pacifica City Council:
My name is Darcy Duckenfield, and I am a long time (10+ years) of West Sharp Park. I am writing/reaching out in regard to the city resolution around short‐term rentals.
Over the last few years, I have seen the cultural landscape of my neighborhood change‐ for the worse. I attribute much of that change to the rise in short‐term rentals. More and more homes in my neighborhood have become short term rentals‐ I see less and less families, hear stories of disrespectful guests and have even heard loud music late at night coming from a short‐term rental half a block away.
My wife and I dream of owning a home in our neighborhood as we have become a part of this great community. We have learned from other community members that corporations are buying a big portion of the limited housing inventory in our community and are essentially operating those homes as hotels. No families‐ often guests coming to not just enjoy the coast but to also throw loud parties late into the evening. I have also learned that often these corporations often pay significantly over asking price all in cash on available listings. As we all know the Coast is an expensive place to begin with and there is a very limited supply of available housing. So, when we are ready to buy a home‐ how are we supposed to compete with a faceless corporation that pays all cash, far over asking? I ask each of you on council‐ do you want your neighborhood to become a series of unregulated hotels?
To be clear I am not trying to impede any homeowner’s rights. I get it‐ we live in an expensive area‐ I am not suggesting we prevent a homeowner of earning additional income to help pay his/her mortgage. Not against the homeowner but rather the faceless corporation that is only looking to profit from our beautiful city. As a city we need to find the right balance of protecting homeowner rights while still maintaining the culture of our community. I would suggest that a cap of 150 short‐term rentals in our relatively small town is not enough.
Not even close.
2.c
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment C - Public Comment (5247 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
10.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental 2 I would prefer to see what our neighbors to the south (Half Moon Bay) are attempting to implement‐ a cap on the number of times that a home can be made an unattended short‐term rental. I would suggest this is fair to all parties‐ homeowners that depend on rental income to pay their mortgages can still rent out a portion of their home while still ensuring our neighborhoods are not overrun by corporations that are running unregulated hotels and only see our community as a profit center. There is clearly a public safety benefit in such a solution too‐ I have neighbors who have had to call the Pacifica Police many times over the last year due to noisy/disrespectful guests (that in many cases were violating the law) staying in the short‐term rental (operated by a corporation) next to their home. I respectfully ask you to consider my feedback/proposed solution.
Respectfully,
Darcy Duckenfield
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
2.c
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment C - Public Comment (5247 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
10.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental
10.c
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)
10.c
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)
10.c
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)
10.c
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)
10.c
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)
10.c
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)
10.c
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)
10.c
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)
10.c
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)
10.c
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
2. TA-123-22 File No. 2022-036 – Text Amendment TA-123-22, initiated by the City of Pacifica, to repeal and replace Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals” of the City of Pacifica Zoning Regulations (Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”) to establish a cap of 150 short-term rental permits issued citywide and various other conforming amendments and finding the text amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Recommended CEQA Action: Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the “General Rule” exemption in CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).
Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report.
Acting Chair Hauser asked if the commissioners had any questions.
Commissioner Wright stated that he would save his questions for deliberation.
Acting Chair Hauser referred to the number of houses allowed for each permit and asked clarification as to whether they are trying to limit permits or number of houses.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that she wasn’t clear on her question.
Acting Chair Hauser reiterated that permits allowed multiple homes so 150 permits could include 180 homes, and she then referred to the resolution, Sec. 9-4.4901D before them, and said it seemed to be limiting units of housing and not permits.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that it was not the intention of the definition to address that point, and the full definition is that the permit or short term rental permit means a permit issued by the city pursuant to this article to allow the use of a dwelling unit property or portion thereof, as a short term rental is not to limit that permit to just one unit. She thought it was the property of that unit and it could be broader.
Acting Chair Hauser understood and asked, if they are creating a wait list and someone renews their permit, are they able to keep their permit or are they put at the bottom of the wait list.
Sr. Planner O’Connor explained that they will be able to keep their permit and revisions direct that the renewal be submitted October 1-31, they would have an opportunity to renew their permit before it expires, and it never becomes available for another person.
Acting Chair Hauser wanted to confirm that what they are reviewing at this time and will go to Council for final approval is a stopgap measure that has a cap of 150, but does not mean that Council would not be discussing this at goal setting, and adding additional items. She asked if that was a correct understanding.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that Council made it clear when providing staff direction that they had full intention of bringing it back for discussion during Council goal setting to include it in the other priorities staff will be working on.
10.d
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
Acting Chair Hauser concluded it was not one or the other but both. She thanked her for that clarification.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there is no guarantee that Council will place further short term rental regulation amendments on the work plan for the next fiscal year, but he is confident that Council will carefully consider doing that, but will need to weigh that among all their other priorities and desires for items to be worked on next year and they will make that decision as part of the goal setting process.
Commissioner Godwin referred to the comments they received regarding a number of companies that own a large number of housing units that they are using as STRs in the city, and he asked if there was a way of limiting the number of units per company or group of individuals that could be included in this evening’s decision.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that it was an option presented to Council in the October meeting that they create a cap of how many STR permits could be issued to an individual person, and she thought it was recognized that there are too many loopholes that could be created where the effectiveness would not meet the immediate goal of pausing things, and they directed staff to create a cap. She agreed that it was a possibility to limit the number of permits per permittee but that wasn’t the direction provided to staff.
Commissioner Godwin concluded there was no simple rule they could put together and assemble a group of related people which was their assumption at that time that of what Council made.
Planning Director Murdock didn’t know if there was a simple way to do that and it is a common issue with various types of regulatory permits. He thought one approach that Council took with the cannabis permitting ordinance which set a single permit allowance for any entity or individual in Pacifica which sets thresholds of percentage of ownership by any individual owner of an entity such as an LLC or corporation and sets limits on the ability to transfer that. In the cannabis context, that was about as restrictive and imposing a method that they could come up with to help address fairness and highly restricted ownership and transfer. He stated that can be explored as part of the more robust regulatory process if Council prioritizes that for next year, but no approach that he is aware of will be ‘bulletproof” or be without a potential loophole, but there are ways to make a good effort to tamp down on the ability of a single person or entity having multiple permits.
Commissioner Wright asked Asst. City Attorney Murphy if it would be possible for someone to buy a large apartment building and turn it into a hotel by using this ordinance.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy agreed that there was a possibility that they could turn units into short term rentals under the ordinance when applying for a permit and complying with the requirements in the ordinance but it would not technically be a hotel but a short term rental unit.
Commissioner Wright concluded that it would count as one permit out of the 150 even though it is a large apartment building.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy responded affirmatively.
Acting Chair Hauser opened the Public Hearing.
10.d
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that she provided public comments at previous Council meetings on the issue of short term rentals and shared the ongoing and growing impact in her West Sharp Park neighborhood. She mentioned the proposed cap of 150 units, and didn’t think it was enough and shared her concerns, such as increased real estate investment businesses that are dominating short term rentals and the problems that creates and mentioned possible solutions.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, expressed his concerns and thoughts, such as a cap on STRs is a good step, but insufficient and doesn’t solve the problem, then proposed other alternative approaches that might be more effective than a cap, such as a moratorium.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she was a member of Pacifica Housing for All, and expressed her thoughts on this issue. She supports a moratorium as the present situation is onerous to many residents and we need to address the problem. She offered thoughts for staff and Council to consider.
Caitlyn Quinn, Pacifica, stated she appreciated their support of the cap on STRs, but added her thoughts on it not being enough to ensure that neighborhoods don’t become unregulated hotels, giving specific concerns and suggestions to fix the problem with further amendments.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, stated that she supported the previous speakers, i.e., this is a good start but this issue is a bigger problem and gave her thoughts on possible solutions.
Assoc. Planner Lin introduced one call-in speaker, then acknowledged that he was not able to be heard.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he could send an email with his comments and they would be included as part of the record.
Acting Chair Hauser asked him to give the caller an email address so he could send it in, and Planning Director Murdock could read it into the record.
Planning Director Murdock gave the email address, [email protected].
Acting Chair Hauser closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Wright voiced his concern on this problem, saying that he knows this is a serious concern for all the community and he wanted to make sure they gave all the community a chance to have a voice.
Acting Chair Hauser thought reopening the comments to add his comments to the record was the best they can do at this time.
Planning Director Murdock stated that this was only impacting one person and it was possible that his comment will be included before the end of the meeting. He added that, because the callin option is a second option, there is no legal requirement for that and, if it can’t be fixed, there is no reason when they can’t proceed with the item at this meeting.
10.d
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
Commissioner Wright understood the legal aspect, but he felt that, as they were used to following the meeting on Comcast where they are given written instructions for participating, that inability to watch on Comcast could be impacting more residents from being able to be involved.
Acting Chair Hauser confirmed with Assoc. Planner Lin that the caller was back on, so she reopened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director Murdock asked that the caller speak loudly and clearly into his phone.
Acting Chair Hauser stated, as the caller could still not connect, she again closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Ferguson stated, as a West Sharp Park resident, he echoes their comments. Adding that he has noticed a change in the community as families move out and are replaced by corporation short term rentals. He applauds putting a cap as he didn’t see how that would hurt neighborhoods, but he had a couple of questions regarding how they can go a few steps further to get at the root cause of their concerns. He stated that they have only addressed a citywide cap and he didn’t think that was an equal problem in the entire city and he wondered about thoughts of doing it neighborhood by neighborhood such as a specific zoning ordinance for different sections.
He suggested increasing it for visitor serving areas but not for those in residential areas. He then mentioned the possible different types of short term rentals such as government employees who live for different lengths of time in other locations and could have the opportunity to rent to offset the costs of living in two places as opposed to a corporation that is technically operating a socalled “hotel” in a zone not permitted for hotels. He thought they could take a separate approach layered on top of the cap to allow the type of user augmenting his income from that of a corporation displacing a family.
Commissioner Godwin thought he might have a question for the Asst. City Attorney. He asked if there was a summary of police activity in reference to residents’ concerns about the level of activity going on versus resident houses that they can refer to in their discussion.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that Planning Director Murdock could address that.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, regarding quality of life impacts, the data research staff did as well as input from the police and corroborated by code enforcement officers concluded that short term rentals don’t trigger a high volume of calls to the police department or complaints to code enforcement officers, but at least one commenter has indicated that they don’t want to bother the police department with these complaints as they recognize short staffing and staff having to deal with more urgent calls. In terms of dealing with that issue of reporting or not reporting isn’t something he has any data on to make a definitive judgment but, anecdotally, he concludes that the residents aren’t reporting all the situations that could be reported to the police department regarding short term rentals.
Commissioner Godwin then mentioned that a portion of his street was shut down and there was a rumor about drug manufacturing going on in one of the homes, and he asked if there was a provision in the short-term rentals if there are any violations of the law to remove the permits immediately following the discovery of a significant allegation of something unacceptable.
10.d
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
Planning Director Murdock stated that there is. The ordinance contains a revocation process, but they have to provide due process to all parties. There is a process to revoke a short-term rental, and the city has undertaken that in the past. He only recalls one, but there may be a short handful that Asst. City Manager Carter may have information on the number of revocations. They are very rare but they do require sufficient evidence to substantiate the revocation proceeding, and if it exists, the city will initiate the process. The city has no interest in allowing unruly short-term rentals to operate in violation of the adopted regulations. Regarding whether the adopted regulations cover all the conducts of concern is a fair question and is a question for a more robust short-term rental ordinance process the city could choose to undertake in the next fiscal year.
Commissioner Wright stated he had a few more questions. He asked staff how much they thought this would affect the availability of housing for the general public. If they can have more rentals per building and they are talking about 150 rentals. He asked if they have conducted an analysis of their expectations.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that information has not been collected and she is not aware that is information that needs to be reported as to how many units are covered under the permit. She doesn’t think they have the data available at this time to do that analysis. If Council directs staff to do a comprehensive update, they can do the research and get more information.
Planning Director Murdock added that they have provided estimates of the conservative number of dwelling units that are impacted, i.e., less than 1% of dwelling units overall with over 2% in the coastal zone and a disproportionate level of dwelling units affected in the coastal zone as compared to non-coastal zone areas, which is a relatively small number of city dwelling units affected. He thought, in our current housing crisis, any dwelling unit taken off the long-term rental market was impactful. With so many land uses, the city has to strike the right balance and figure out where the balance should be drawn. One consideration is our requirement to comply with the coastal act and Coastal Commission certification of an ordinance and other factors short-term rentals generate such as tax revenue that supports other city programs that the community desires. He stated that it isn’t a simple ban them all and there are no tradeoffs, as there is a give and take and Council will have to make that policy decision. The last impact to housing stock that he wants to address is that, in a prior update to Council, they explained that the data staff had showed different impacts to different types of housing units, i.e. there are relatively few studio and one-bedroom housing units in Pacifica’s overall housing stock and they are disproportionately operated as short-term rentals based on the data they have. He added that a very large share of the housing stock in Pacifica are 3 or 4 bedroom single-family housing stock and relatively few of those are operated relative to the overall housing stock. He stated that it isn’t easy to speak in terms of housing impacts without understanding the types of housing that are impacted disproportionately compared to others and logically, studios and one-bedrooms may be the more affordable long-term housing types available to people of lower moderate income.
He stated that there is more to the story that could be analyzed or developed as part of a more robust ordinance development process, and they need to think if they should focus limitations on the size of the housing units or different parts of the city as mentioned in Commissioner Ferguson’s question. He stated that there is more that can be done in terms of zoning in neighborhoods, which requires a lot more time and analysis than they have to dedicate to this issue right now.
Commissioner Wright stated that another concern was that, during prom time, when you have kids who want to have a party and one night stays, you are inviting people to come and bother all
10.d
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
their neighbors. He asked if there was any consideration or analysis on making a minimum number of stays.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he will defer to Sr. Planner O’Connor if she has any information relative to that issue, but any potential regulatory option needs to be part of a more robust ordinance development process and this cap is the extent of regulation that they can offer the Commission and Council now without sacrificing other priority work and taking that off of the work plan. Council has focused on the cap for now and they will decide if more staff resources should be committed to a more robust ordinance process in the next fiscal year.
Sr. Planner O’Connor added that she hasn’t heard of any consideration of a minimum night stay for consideration at this time.
Acting Chair Hauser wanted to ask a process question, i.e., was it possible to make a recommendation at this meeting of a base recommendation that staff has put forth and a more robust ordinance development process so they don’t lose all of the time and effort of pertinent comment that the public has given them to provide a framework of what that should, at the bare minimum, include.
Planning Director Murdock thought that could be very helpful to Council if staff prioritizes that ordinance development process listing to and including, in terms of potential factors the city should consider in any future ordinance.
Acting Chair Hauser stated, if okay with the commissioners, she has been taking notes of what people are recommending, including members of the community, and they can go through the list.
Commissioner Wright stated that he loves that process then asked if he can continue.
Acting Chair Hauser agreed that he can continue.
Commissioner Wright asked if there is any consideration given by staff of limiting the number of permits such as for a rental family needing to rent for a couple of weekends in the summer to get more income to get them through the year versus seniors needing to supplement income by renting out bedrooms of children who have moved out.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that the cap of 150 was identified by City Council because it allowed for all current STR permittees to renew their permit without being affected by the cap. By December 2022, there were 129 STR permits issued and a cap of 150 would allow all the current permittees relying on that income, as he mentioned, can continue if they need to.
Commissioner Wright asked Asst. City Attorney Murphy if there was any number of days per year, such as 30 or 60 days per year for any given unit, that they could limit their operations as opposed to limiting the number that are out there and available and essentially stop them from becoming a business and unlicensed hotel.
Assist. City Attorney Murphy stated that it is something they can look at and would need to consider the existing permits that have been granted, as well as any concerns the Coastal
10.d
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
Commission may have, adding that, if that is something the Planning Commission desires, that could be included.
Commissioner Wright thought it was a more equitable decision for a seasonal community and could have a positive effect on our budget as it may generate more revenue for us. He thought it was something worth considering. He asked staff, if they are issuing permits to something that is effectively a hotel, will they be held to the same building standards and codes as hotels are, from a safety perspective, such as sprinkler or alarm systems .
Planning Director Murdock stated that currently the STR process did not provide enough information for staff to flag those potential issues as those are lumped into a change in occupancy classification. Even though it is zoned residential and constructed as residential, when changing to short-term occupancy has the potential to convert the occupancy classification under the building codes and trigger upgrades of the type he described, such as sprinklers, etc. He stated that the potential exists, but they did not have information to date to address that and that is an issue for a more robust regulatory program and they will flag and follow through on those issues.
He stated that, if someone is aware of a property that has been converted, they should contact the Planning Department and they will take a look at it as their ultimate interest is ensuring the health and safety of the occupants of the building and the neighborhood issues are separate and more of a zoning issue as part of this more robust process. He stated that the tools already exist to address changes in occupancy classification when the city learns about them.
Commissioner Wright asked if they solicited input from existing hotels to see how they feel about this.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated not to her knowledge.
Commissioner Wright asked if there was any consideration given to limiting the number of cars per one rental unit and the occupancy level.
Sr. Planner O’Connor thought that would be folded into the future comprehensive revising of the ordinance should that be prioritized.
Commissioner Wright asked if she could explain to him the benefits and negatives to renewing the permit, i.e., is renewing a better option than going to the back of the line.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated, if someone has a current permit and they wish to operate the STR in the future, they should choose to renew their STR in a timely fashion but if they don’t plan to use their property as an STR in the future, they would save themselves the business license and the STR permit fee.
Commissioner Wright didn’t think he made his question clear. He questioned why the 151st person at the top of the list had less right than someone who had the benefit of a year of having a permit for a year.
Sr. Planner O’Connor thought the intention of Council when they provided that direction was to maintain the status quo and current permittees had the option of continuing to operate should they choose and, thus, getting priority.
10.d
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
Commissioner Leal stated he had two questions for staff. He didn’t see in the staff report if there was an estimated number of unpermitted short term rentals operating across the entire city of Pacifica at this time. He saw the number of 34 estimated in the coastal zone, but not in the entire city’s estimate.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that data was not in the report, but they did receive data from HDL that could probably identify that number. She didn’t know if she could pull it up now but they had the data to identify that number.
Commissioner Leal stated that he did a random data search on the 16th and he came up with 166 available STRs but doesn’t show those already booked or those booked through other platforms.
He stated he will start with the 166 number, and if they cap it at 150, they would have a wait list and that was a healthy thing to maintain. He referred to enforcement, and asked if staff was aware of any STRs that have operated within the city since the ordinance passing where the city has contacted the operator of a non-permitted STR and they rectified the issue.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that the city has hired a consultant, HDL, to help with the processing of the STR permits and part of their scope is to also identify unpermitted STRs, reach out to them and bring them in compliance. She then referred to his previous question, stating that in a presentation to Council in September 2022, there were 121 registered STRs, 49 closed or seized STR activity locations and four unregistered or unresponsive STRs. And there were about 170 permitted STRs that had occurred in the city.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the number operating permitted and unpermitted was fluid, going up and down, so they can’t pin a particular number but HDL has had some fair amount of success in getting unpermitted operators to register but not all of them have. So with all the violations in the city, they have to prioritize their enforcement resources to address those which is a longer term process for the STR administrator and the Planning Department code enforcement team and the city attorney’s office are all there to help support that effort which is an ongoing “cat and mouse” game so it is difficult to be specific about that information.
Commissioner Godwin asked, if they decide to do nothing at this meeting and recommend Council do a more robust ordinance during the 2023 planning and allocate resources for it, what would be the downside of not doing anything in 2023 and wait for the new ordinance to be studied and planned out.
Planning Director Murdock thought the risk was proliferation of STRs could continue which could exceed the cap if it was in place and however limited the protections of those that don’t support the cap, they at least provide a ceiling to the number of properties that can be used for the STR use and provide some measure of protection and limits the scope of the impact for the community until such a time that the city provides a more robust ordinance to be developed.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that she was going to go through a few thoughts she has. She wanted to speak to something one of the community members said, i.e. there is something in the ordinance that prohibits STRs in both ADUs and new junior accessory dwelling units. She thought, if they are going to approve something at this meeting, it has to be a stopgap measure where something is considered more robustly as they are all on the same page that this is not enough. She thought they needed to consider lowering the cap over time, i.e., if there are 125 permittees, maybe the goal is 100, and as people have violations to rule out, they don’t offer a
10.d
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
new permit. So, she thought they need to consider what that cap is as she thinks 150 is too much.
She also thought, for obvious reasons, this needs to be a cap on units and not a cap on permits, as a six plex could be all Airbnb or that the Airbnb could own an apartment building is absurd when they are trying to get new housing units in our housing element. She thought those were easy things to move forward. She appreciated a lot of the comments they received with a common thread through a lot of them and she would also recommend that they put forth to Council a primary residence requirement which means that no out of town person can live in Montana and own a Pacifica home as an STR and limiting the maximum number of rental nights to 60 unhosted nights makes sense. She stated that was essentially the Half Moon Bay ordinance that was quoted by a lot of commenters. She thought the maximum number of STRs per owner operator goes away if you have a primary residence requirement. She wasn’t married to that one but she thought they do want to implement compliance standards and any violations that are part of the STR standards that they don’t rectify and cure within 30 days is grounds for losing their permit. She thought performance standards that help to ensure the safety of the surrounding neighborhood are really important. She heard horror stories of unjust evictions for people who are converting their homes to Airbnbs and it is very frustrating to not know who to contact in this circumstance as you don’t know who owns the house and you can’t talk to the neighbor. She had Airbnb of luxury car rentals in her neighborhood and, in front of her home, there was a Maserati and three other luxury cars for weeks on end. She stated that there was no trash, no noise, just cars, but she thought there was something overwhelming about having strangers coming into your neighborhood and not understanding what is happening. She thought, when they make this recommendation to Council, and the Commission agrees that they do this with the framework in mind, these are things that they have enumerate to Council as there are a lot of comprehensive thoughts that have gone into what should be here and there was more needed.
Commissioner Wright stated that he had a couple of more questions. He referred to the ADU piece, and stated his understanding of the purpose of the ADU is to add more units for people to live. If they were to ask for proof of full time residency in the ADU and anyone trying a short term rental in the larger unit to stop someone from utilizing the ADU as a crash pad when renting out their bigger place, they are getting around the whole point of the ADU and it might be something worth considering. He also wondered if staff considered what the impacts would be to the willingness for larger developers to come in and build future hotels here, as there are a couple of sites he can think of such as the lot near the Council Chambers or at the quarry. He asked if staff has done an analysis or consideration of that.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they have not as part of the cap consideration at this time.
He thought it was important to consider that these are somewhat different product types and experiences for people and he cautions concluding that they are direct competitor with one another. He did think it was a valid thought and warrants some analysis.
Commissioner Wright asked if they gave any consideration as to what kind of value impact it will have on the property for a permit holder, as he thought the property would be worth a little more if you can generate all this income out of it and it would detract from the value of the people who live next door. He has a concern about that, and asked if staff gave any consideration to that and how they might address some equity issues in that regard.
Planning Director Murdock stated his simple answer was no, adding that all of these factors would require significant time from staff to research and analyze them and for that reason they focused on preparing the cap, consistent with Council’s direction to do so until more resources
10.d
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
are committed by Council through the goalsetting process. He stated that, when preparing the accessory dwelling unit ordinance update, he thought, with the first comprehensive update they did in 2015 timeframe, he did analyze and compare what typical rents were for a rental dwelling unit on a long term basis and what the types of rent can be from a short term rental, operated 30 days per month, and there was significantly more revenue potential from the short term rental operation. He stated that the economic pressure is to rent the short term rental rather than a long term housing unit and there are potential housing availability impacts. He presumed there could be a potential property value impact favorably for the short term rental operator. He didn’t have any data that indicates that property values of non-STR properties surrounding an STR necessarily diminishes.
Commissioner Wright asked what the fine structure was around people who are not getting their permit or abusing their privilege of permit and causing trouble for the neighbors.
Planning Director Murdock referred to his question as well as public commenters questioning enforcement, and stated that the STR ordinance is a relatively basic regulatory construct that has basic operational requirements and when this ordinance was first developed it was a mechanism to clarify the lawfulness STRs operating in compliance with the operational standards and provided a mechanism to ensure they were registered for transient occupancy tax and helped support the city’s desire to collect transient occupancy tax and no more robust enforcement process was included in the ordinance. He stated that, currently, violation of the STR standards is the same as any other city’s violations of zoning codes and there are administrative citations that can be assessed, at about $100 with increasing costs for repetitive violations and the city has the option to charge it as a misdemeanor and prosecute it as a criminal violation or pursue administrative misdemeanor citations of up to $1,000 for a violation. There are a variety of options from a traditional enforcement standpoint and other civil remedies where the city could sue, issue a restraining order, etc., which Asst. City Attorney Murphy could possibly explain in more detail. He stated that they have the full range of possible enforcement options for violations such as any other zoning situation.
Commissioner Wright stated that he has his own concerns about this and understands the amount of work staff has put into this and there is a lot of community input with their concerns on this, and asked if there were any other amendments or concerns that staff thinks would be a good idea to pose to Council if they move forward with this at this time.
Planning Director Murdock didn’t think there was anything he could present other than the cap they are putting forward as any other regulatory option would require analysis and staff time which they don’t have the ability to commit to doing that analysis. He stated that what seems simple is complex when it comes to STR regulations, figuring out where you are compared to other communities, are there property rights that could complicate the city’s ability to take away a permit that someone already has that purchased property to exercise that permit. He stated there are a lot of complexities to STR regulations that aren’t evidence on its face, and it could trigger other unintended consequences that require staff and city attorney staff time to analyze, vet and make a recommendation. He thought doing anything other than the cap would be inconsistent with Council’s direction so it was his recommendation to include those as factors to be considered if and when the Council prioritizes a more robust ordinance development process.
Commissioner Ferguson referred to what he just said, and he liked the existing cap at 150 for now with a handful of bullet points they talked about as a recommendation for further analysis. If
10.d
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
they leave it at 150 with current permittees at 129 and the problem as it exists now, they do nothing to address the problem that already exists. He thinks, if they want to fix the sticky problem they have let things get to, they have to find a way to walk back from where they are to a level that is allowable for the community and fits in with all the work they do to protect our neighborhoods as is, thus, he would be in favor of a motion that starts at 150 because they can get it done as it is a direction they have been given, but provide a recommendation for a scale down to a number that is less than 129 as there is a consensus that where it is now, is not where they need to be. It should be focused on the number of units they are talking about. If possible, he would love to see a recommendation to conduct some kind of analysis as far as the impact to existing commercial hotels pertaining to city revenue streams. He stated that he has visiting families who have used short term rentals in Pacifica as they are within walking distance of where they live and availability of hotels during holiday weekends such as the one nearest their home is often not an option. He mentioned the analysis looking at whether pushing back on STRs would just create more business at hotels which is a plan that has been our city’s goal. He stated that, on looking at a recommendation, he thought 60 days would be too much as the revenue for STRs comes from a handful of key weekends and weeks throughout the year. He thought a long term rental was the solution they are looking at with a family living in the house, not living in it as a hotel. If someone moving away wants to rent the house, that would achieve our goals. He thought a goal of 30 days annually was a better incentive to push new and existing permittees in the long term to keeping our neighborhoods in the character of the neighborhood and not operating as businesses.
Commissioner Leal stated he is also a resident of West Sharp Park and in one of the more impacted neighborhoods in Pacifica. A home across from his sold and was turned into a short term rental so he is aware of the challenges community members are facing. He stated that he is also a short term rental operator of a property outside of San Mateo County and he sees both perspectives and understands the impacts to our community. Regarding his observations of situations outside the county and Pacifica, he wanted to share some things they may be able to bring to Pacifica to better regulate these short term rentals. He referred to guest safety, and where his short term rental is, they have onsite fire department inspections required, so he thought they should consider that in Pacifica for these properties that have business licenses. He stated that a Good Neighbor Fire has been implemented in other communities and he added the thought of ocean safety could be included in that along with the other factors. He referred to number of permits, and he thought it was standard that, permittees have first rights in renewals but if you miss your deadline, you go to the end of the line and that would incentivize them to get the renewed permits as soon as possible. He referred to number of nights rented, and he thought, if you have a permit, you should have a minimum number of nights rented rather than a maximum.
He referred to getting a permit, stating that the city assumes if you get a permit you will use it and it provides TOT taxes. He stated what he has seen in other communities is that people have separate homes, living out of the state or out of the area, the homes will be vacant except for a few weeks, except when someone comes to spend time in their second home. With short term rentals, it opens up the opportunity for those homes to be occupied with tax dollars being spent in Pacifica. If they limit the amount of short term rentals in our community, it may not improve the overall available housing stock. He stated that there are examples of that on Beach Boulevard where homes are vacant most of the year and he never sees anyone in the house. Regarding what is in front of them now, he thought it was clear that they either postpone or make a decision at this meeting. He thought the risk of postponing is that it may not be taken up in the future depending on priorities of Council’s goals. He was okay with moving forward with staff’s
10.d
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
recommendation as it is a stopgap and change to the current ordinance and they will get to revisit this in less than two months.
Acting Chair Hauser asked Planning Director Murdock if the caller has submitted his comments in writing through email.
Planning Director Murdock asked Assoc. Planner Lin if he has the last four numbers of that caller’s phone number.
Assoc. Planner Lin stated they were 9309.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the individual did submit comments.
Acting Chair Hauser asked the Assist. City Attorney if they need to open public comments to hear those comments and have them officially read into the records.
Assist. City Attorney Murphy stated that they can reopen the public hearing to hear the comments.
Acting Chair Hauser reopened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director Murdock stated, before reading the comments, he wanted to state that it was not the ordinary procedure even during Covid, and he then stated the speaker was Clifford Lawrence and he was unable to connect. He then read his comments, i.e., this proposal will not address the loss of residential housing to commercial parties converting them to STRs. He commented that controlling the maximum number of permits which does not control the number of units doesn’t make sense and no enforcement makes no sense. After expressing his concerns, he asked that they invoke a moratorium.
Acting Chair Hauser then closed the Public Hearing. She wanted to know if they had a consensus on the framework she laid out in the beginning, i.e., making a recommendation similar to staff’s recommendation but with inclusion of a framework for City Council to consider.
Commissioner Wright asked if she can itemize them.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that she will itemize each one and, if she misses anything, they can raise their hand. She will go through each one to get a consensus or at least a majority. She recommended that they leave TOT or anything referring to finance to City Council’s purview, acknowledging consensus. She heard consideration of a neighborhood by neighborhood cap rather than an overall city cap, acknowledging consensus. She heard not allowing single night stays to avoid parties and other single night events, acknowledging consensus. She heard, if multiuse building are allowed, they need to meet the same code requirements for occupancy appropriate to the use, but she suggested not allowing multi-unit buildings to be covered by this.
Commissioner Ferguson thought the important thing was to clarify it was units and not permits and permits should not be an unlimited number of units.
10.d
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
Acting Chair Hauser stated that is the one thing she would like to change when making the motion that it refers to units, and not permits and that should go to Council if that is the Commission’s direction. She asked if that was amenable to staff.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was a complicated point and distinction to make as that is a potential complication for a multi-unit operator who has a permit and may not be able to get permits for all the units currently operating. He thought that was an issue that required a fair amount of research and consideration before becoming law.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that Commission is saying that a permit represents a unit and maybe Council, in their deliberation, could issue five permits, although that is not what they are recommending . Since they are making suggestions for their deliberation, as long as they are equating a permit to a unit and Council can subsequently consider the amount. She asked if Planning Director Murdock follows that distinction.
Planning Director Murdock stated Council’s direction was to implement a cap of 150 STRs and they know many of the permitters currently may operate multiple units, and to allow them to continue to operate, which he understands is Council’s guidance, is to maintain the status quo but impose a cap, and that could throw into question what the appropriate number is and staff doesn’t have data at this time to determine what that number would be in terms of STR permits above 150 to allow all of the current permittees to continue operating.
Commissioner Godwin stated that there was a discussion that a lot of the units were permits that are currently operating and covering one and two bedroom units and he assumes there could be multiple units covered under one permit and proposing one permit per unit could get messy and be different from what the operator thought he had a permit for.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that there are also short term rentals that rent individual bedrooms within a single unit as separate rental units. He asked if there was a way to lay out a guideline for something that would take effect on October 31, 2023 so existing permit holders aren’t affected until the renewal period.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there are a number of different ways to craft the regulations, which are all complicated and require time to analyze and make a recommendation but staff does not have time to do that, specifically not at this meeting or for the remainder of this fiscal year so anything other than a 150 cap or some other numerical number related to a simple cap is not something staff can fully develop into an ordinance or recommendation for the foreseeable future until prioritized by Council.
Commissioner Wright thought the definition of STR that they are using at this time is a lot, not a unit.
Commissioner Ferguson stated it was a permit.
Sr. Planner O’Connor confirmed that it is a permit which could include one unit on a lot or it could include multiple units on a lot or a portion of a structure on a lot.
Commissioner Godwin likes Commissioner Leal’s idea of minimum nights rented, and he asked if it was a possibility of including that so you get a permit and you rent it out or not at all or a
10.d
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
couple of nights a year as that is not what they are trying to do. He asked if they can add a sentence saying it must be at least 15 nights a year or so, without making it more burdensome on staff or harder to implement.
Planning Director Murdock thought one component of the short term rental ordinance that has not been discussed and he would like to clarify is that they spent a lot of time and effort to analyze and craft such an ordinance, but every ordinance has an enforcement component and the more tailored and sophisticated the ordinance is, the higher the burden on the staff on what it will take to implement and enforce. Without the proper assignment of resources on administration and enforcement side, you are left with dissatisfied residents expecting one outcome when the city is not able to resource the administration to ensure that outcome, thus, that is a resourcing decision that Council will have to make in order to determine, not only the appropriate regulations, but how much staff and financial resources are we willing to commit to that program which is complicated in its application.
Commissioner Godwin understood and was just trying to make an argument for one point he thought was useful.
Acting Chair Hauser stated she will go through the items listed and they can get to the minimum versus maximum. She went back to the number of units versus number of permits, and she saw it, at the very least, as a deficiency on the application that they didn’t ask this question. She stated that it is too messy now and they just want Council to consider it, and at the very least, she thought it was important to add a row on the application to at least get them to add data. If they are asking them to submit an application, it is a very easy thing to fill out.
Planning Director Murdock reiterated that it is a simple thing to do, but the genesis of the current ordinance is to ensure registration primarily for tax purposes and the particular characteristics of the operation weren’t important to the Council’s regulatory approach at that time. He agreed that it was something they could consider crafting into the administration of applicant materials moving forward.
Commissioner Wright asked if it was staff’s opinion, with the fees, permits, and tax generating revenue, as to whether this would generate revenue and pay for itself or end up being a burden on the city.
Planning Director Murdock stated he didn’t have first hand knowledge regarding the sufficiency of the fees they charge for these permits but his impression is that they cover the cost of the consultant they have but it is for a very limited and regulatory scheme and the level of fee to administer that will likely need to increase with the amount of sophistication and detailed standards of requirements, etc. for a more robust STR ordinance and that will place a financial burden on operators, may increase costs for per night stays so there are a variety of potential effects but ultimately, the city’s goal is to achieve cost recovery with its permitting processes.
He imagines that whatever proportionate increase there is in staff and consultant time to do that, there would be a proportionate increase in the cost of the permit to ensure cost neutrality for the city.
Commissioner Wright asked if the Commission and community will have a chance for additional input later if this is a stopgap measure with another discussion and another decision point once they have gone through this whole process.
10.d
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
Planning Director Murdock stated that there will be multiple public input opportunities moving forward after this meeting as the next logical opportunity is the City Council’s public hearing on whatever the Planning Commission’s recommendation ends up being for this ordinance and the public can send comments at any time to the city’s website, [email protected] or to their City Council members, by mail or dropping it off at the Planning Department and the next opportunity would be at the goal setting process where Council will be deciding what items to put on the work plan for the next fiscal year starting in July and at any point thereafter at Council meetings through public comment, so there are ample opportunities for the public to relay their desires and concerns related to short term rental regulations.
Acting Chair Hauser stated she would continue going through the list. She referred to Commissioner Wright’s suggestion of limiting the number of occupants and vehicles allowed, acknowledging a majority of three. She referred to discussion of safety standards needing to be implemented, acknowledging a consensus. She referred to considering a minimum and maximum number of nights, both 60 and 30, and thought it needs more deliberation. She is in favor of the maximum and would be comfortable with Commissioner Ferguson’s recommendation of 30 or Half Moon Bay at 60.
Commissioner Wright suggested 45.
Commissioner Ferguson didn’t see how that solves either issue but he thought there could be a binary approach and they were making nonbinding recommendations to Council to consider their own priorities and not be held hostage by what is achievable or not with our resources, and he recommended suggesting a binary approach, mentioning some specific examples, or recommend they look into fixing the existing problem through the use of limited days and leave it to them to decide.
Commissioner Wright likes the idea of a short term permit and a year long one and thought there was a lot of merit to that.
Commissioner Ferguson stated it was just recommendations.
Commissioner Wright agreed.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that they will do nothing about the existing problem and will actually allow 21 more permits with this. He apologized to all the community members who came thinking there would be a solution to the problem in the existing neighborhoods, but he thought that was beyond their scope for this decision.
Acting Chair Hauser was fond of considering setting a cap from 150 to a lower number that she thought would solve the problem, and the number that comes to mind is 75, but she thinks it needs to be studied by their consultant.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that, considering the recommendation to split it to units instead of permits, he wondered what it looks like existing in the future.
Commissioner Wright asked if they could suggest a goal of a certain amount and consideration for further review to be considered.
10.d
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
Acting Chair Hauser stated that the goal she is suggesting is 75.
Commissioner Wright stated that he would support a goal of 75 units instead of permits.
Acting Chair Hauser agreed.
Commissioner Wright thought she was talking about long term permits now.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that, in their recommendation, permits would equate to units at some point when it is feasible.
Commissioner Wright thought the Coastal Commission gets to vote on 75 or whatever they allow.
Acting Chair Hauser agreed. She referred to the primary residence requirement is a big one and asked if they want to recommend that the owner is the primary resident.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was for that, adding that you can’t have a minimum number of days if you live there.
Commissioner Godwin asked if it was legal.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that it was.
Commissioner Godwin asked if you can limit other state residents from issuing this.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that is definitely something they can look into in greater detail.
Commissioner Godwin thought there were potentially issues.
Planning Director Murdock understood the question was requiring the property owner to be on site during the rental.
Acting Chair Hauser stated no, just you are renting your primary residence.
Commissioner Godwin stated that there are a significant number of people in Pacifica with secondary houses and maybe they live elsewhere in the county or in another state. He stated that there are other mechanisms other than short term rentals to achieve that income in that situation.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that people do that all over the place all the time.
Commissioner Leal stated that, on this topic, he didn’t agree with that but agreed it should be looked at from Council’s perspective as all the ideas raised at this meeting should be passed on to Council and studied further in our community. He stated, if Council and the community choose this as a requirement so be it, but he didn’t think it should be a requirement, especially with the cap and other restrictions. He omitted something from his prior statement and wanted to add something they should pass on to Council if they all agree, i.e., having a local contact person as someone can be at the property within 60 minutes which is something other municipalities
10.d
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
implement 24/7 and the person would be on record with the police department within the city so they can contact them if there is an issue at the property and they can be there and rectify the issue.
Acting Chair Hauser asked and acknowledged that they had consensus on that.
Commissioner Wright asked clarification as to whether renters are eligible for permits and lease holders or just property owners or lease holders and property owners with property owner permission.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that the definition of permittee does include renters but they would need property owner permission and authorization.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that the other two items on her list was compliance standards such as violations you don’t take care of within a specified period cause you to lose your permit and then what she would call neighborhood unity standards where you aren’t putting a commercial dumpster in front of the house or other things akin to that.
Commissioner Wright asked if they could suggest a number of violations in any given permit period.
Acting Chair Hauser asked if he had a number in mind.
Commissioner Wright stated he was good with her indication of two.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that she was good with two which is what Half Moon Bay was doing.
Commissioner Godwin asked her to repeat that.
Acting Chair Hauser stated she will call them neighborhood unity standards where people who own these are not putting commercial signage out, or a dumpster or things that interfere with the feel of the neighborhood. She asked if there was anything else before they move on, and seeing no one, she asked if anyone had a motion.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he would like to read back the recommendations he has captured before proceeding to the motion.
Acting Chair Hauser agreed.
Planning Director Murdock stated that what he heard from Planning Commission consensus was future ordinance to be developed, if identified as a priority work plan, should include factors, including but not limited to a neighborhood based cap requiring more than one night minimum stay, verification changes in occupancy classification under the building code, occupancy limits, minimum off street parking requirements, one permit required per dwelling unit, not for property, on site safety inspections for smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors and other safety code requirements, diminishing cap over time, requirement for a local contact person, requirement that the STR be a primary residence for the operator, but not require that the primary occupant be onsite during STR operation, abandonment of STR permit if violations are not addressed within 30 days of notice by the city, trash receptacle design and placement standards. He wasn’t sure he
10.d
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
heard consensus on the number of night limits or the recommendation is more general to impose such a limit. He stated previously noted is a number of STRs operating by an individual operator but he didn’t hear it discussed recently.
Acting Chair Hauser stated he was correct. She asked if the commissioners had an issue with adding that each operator has a maximum number of STRs they can operate.
Commissioner Wright was okay with limiting it.
Commissioner Ferguson asked if it was per permittee.
Acting Chair Hauser responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Ferguson stated he was okay with that but didn’t know what it would look like.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that the only thing she takes note of is the violations, as they would recommend two violations before the permittee loses the permit. She thought the sunset for the cap that they were recommending was 75 units.
Commissioner Wright asked for parking clarification regarding a certain number of vehicles per unit, per bedroom. He heard off street parking but that doesn’t stop someone from throwing a big party in the house and having the whole neighborhood impacted with the cars but the number of cars per bedroom would accomplish that goal.
Planning Director Murdock envisioned it being addressed in a couple of different ways based on what was stated, one being occupancy limits such as the number of people allowed in the building or STR in any given time would not be exceeded which he thinks would likely function to limit the number of vehicles associated with the STR and also requiring a certain number of off street parking spaces. He can’t speculate what the standards would be but he imagines they would be tailored to the size of the STR and they would need to demonstrate that they have several parking spaces if they have several bedrooms that are being rented and there is the ability to provide parking those vehicles off the street. He didn’t know if there was any good mechanism to attribute one vehicle parked on the street to an STR as compared to some other use in the public streets for public parking, particularly in the coastal zone where visitors have an equal rights with others to use the parking. He thinks there is some enforcement complexity there but he thought they could make good headway towards that issue with other parameters that they would impose.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that one other thing she would like to add, which goes without saying, but she thought it would be helpful to have it written in their recommendation which is to clarify that they are recommending a more robust ordinance development process and this is being viewed as a stopgap measure.
Planning Director Murdock understood, stating that there is actually something that he prepared that will be added to the resolution recommendation once they pin down the specific criteria. He made a revision to diminishing cap over time to 75 STRs and abandonment of an STR permit if two violations are substantiated by the city within one year. He didn’t think he heard where they were going regarding the recommendation on the number if nights, and if that is important, as there was some support for a maximum and some support for a minimum, so he asked if it is to
10.d
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
explore a minimum or maximum days with a more generalized recommendation. He didn’t currently have enough to include that.
Acting Chair Hauser had personal thoughts on that, but asked if any commissioner wanted to comment.
Commissioner Leal thought they should recommend that Council look at a number of nights but he didn’t know if they needed to recommend a minimum or maximum but he did think that topic should be reviewed or passed on as a topic of deliberation.
Planning Director Murdock assumed that the minimum or maximum stays per STR.
Acting Chair Hauser thought maybe both points could be delineated so Council understands what the Commission’s thinking was, i.e., there was a concern about TOT and that encouraged conversation about a minimum as well as conversation about a maximum or 30-60 days. She didn’t know if they want to delineate a minority or majority in that if appropriate but, if appropriate, they could poll the Commission.
Planning Director Murdock thought determining what the minimums and maximums should be studied and compared with other cities with the pros and cons of the various approaches vetted as part of that process. He thought it was hard to sit here now and know what that number should be. He also thought, regarding specifying a cap of 75, he didn’t know what that was grounded in.
If it is the Commission’s recommendation, so be it, but currently there is a rationale behind a cap of 150 and he thought they would need to further develop a specific cap if that is part of the recommendation but he thought perhaps that could wait.
Acting Chair Hauser stated that they will leave the vague language at a maximum of 75 but leave studying the minimum or maximum nights.
Planning Director Murdock asked if the Commission wants some criteria to balance neighborhood impacts with TOT and other considerations, and are those two of the key factors the Commission is attempting to balance or just more generally the appropriate minimum or maximum.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that it is the Council’s purview and they are just notifying them that they recognize both priorities and leave it to them to study it and make the decision.
Commissioner Godwin stated his concern with the minimum is that, if you limit the number of facilities, and the businesses aren’t generating any revenue because they have no customers, do you want to have them keep renewing their permit when you don’t get a revenue stream from them versus someone who is in the waiting line who would be much more vigorous in their pursuit of business and generate a lot more money for the city. That is his thoughts on the minimum idea.
Planning Director Murdock thought Commissioner Leal made an interesting point, and he presumes, if the city has an STR permit process, it is because they want a certain number of STRs to operate within the delineated parameters and not have people hoarding permits because they are afraid they won’t be able to get an STR permit in the future having non-operating or less than
10.d
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
efficient operations. He thought he was assuming a lot, but he thought there was some reasonable reasons.
Commissioner Godwin stated that was his general idea, that they wanted efficient operations and some tax revenue if they issue a permit and if someone doesn’t meet that criteria, they want them to not be able to renew and give someone else who has a better idea with a more robust pursuit of the business a chance.
Planning Director Murdock thought there was a sound policy basis to that and there are also other policy bases, but for this level of recommendation and detail, appropriate minimum and maximum, such as 30-60 day maximum per year is how he has crafted it for now.
Commissioner Godwin thought that was perfect and that was his motivation but he didn’t think it needed to go to that level of detail.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the full language that would be added to the resolution recommending City Council action on this would read as follows; i.e., whereas the public testimony related to the host ordinance has demonstrated that the short term rentals in residential neighborhoods has created quality of life noise and parking congestion have warranted further study by the city in order to develop more robust short term regulations and the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council prioritizes this item in its goal setting process for fiscal year 2023-2024. Factors to be considered in a future ordinance should include but not be limited to a neighborhood based cap, more than one night minimum stay, verification of potential changes in occupancy classification under the building code, occupancy limits, minimum off street parking requirements, one permit required per dwelling unit and not per property, on site guest safety inspections for smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and other safety code requirements, a diminishing cap over time to 75 STRs, requirement for a local contact person for the STR operator, requirement that an STR be a primary residence for the operator but not requiring that the primary occupant be on site during the STR operation, abandonment of STR permit if two violations are substantiated by the city within one year, trash receptacle design and placement standards, maximum number of STRs operated by individual operator and appropriate minimum and maximum stays per year of STR operation including possibly a maximum of 30-60 days per year.
Acting Chair Hauser thanked him for capturing that. She asked if anyone wanted to make a motion.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that it was her list but, if she wanted, he would take a crack at it.
Acting Chair Hauser didn’t think he needed to read the list.
Commissioner Ferguson moved that the Planning Commission finds that the proposed ordinance be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and adopts the resolution as included in Attachment A to the staff report to initiate Text Amendment TA-123-22 and recommends approval to the City Council; and incorporates all maps and testimony into the record by reference including the recommendation the Commission has agreed tonight and as read by Planning Director Murdock; Commissioner Godwin seconded the motion.
10.d
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Planning Commission Minutes
January 17, 2023
The motion carried 5-0.
Ayes: Commissioners Ferguson, Godwin, Leal, Wright
Acting Chair Hauser
Noes: None
Acting Chair Hauser called a 2-minute break and then reconvened the meeting.
10.d
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (5271 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Anza Pump Station Repair Project–Additional Budget Authorization for Construction and Construction Services Management
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
A. Adopt a Resolution Increasing the Anza Station Project Project’s construction contingency budget by $232,600 (10%) to the total contingency of $697,800 (30%), bringing the total construction authority to $3,023,800; and authorizing the City Manager to extend the term of the contract with DW Nicholson Corporation, and execute any additional construction change orders within the amended construction budget.
B. Adopt a Resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a Task Order No. 2 (Attachment “B”) to the Consultant Master Services Agreement with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services in an amount not to exceed $88,435 which includes a contingency of fifteen percent (15%); and add this amount to the overall Project budget.
STAFF CONTACT:
Nelson Schlater, P.E., Engineering Manager - Wastewater (650) 738-3767
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E., Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The fiscal impacts associated with the Anza Pump Station Repair Project (C036) - Additional Budget Authorization will be submitted for reimbursement to the City’s insurance carrier, PLAN JPA.
The Anza Pump Station is a stormwater pump station located just off Linda Mar Beach, west of Cabrillo Highway between Crespi Drive and Linda Mar Boulevard. On March 16, 2020, a fire occurred at the Anza Pump Station causing catastrophic damage. During the fire investigation, the pumps, engines, shafts, and other mechanisms of the pumping system were inspected. The inspection found that the fire resulted in damage to the pump station’s mechanical, electrical, gas meter and appurtenances, control systems, and building roof. Although most of the pumping system (that consists of three pumps and three engines plus associated equipment) was damaged by the fire and will need to be replaced, it was determined that one pump, built in the 1940’s, could be temporarily repaired and run with a rental engine from Herc Rentals and this has allowed the Anza Pump Station to function during recent storm events including the large storm events experienced in October of 2021, late December 2022 and early January 2023.
11 Packet Pg. 175
Pacifica City Council 2
February 13, 2023
The City of Pacifica’s Emergency Plan and Section 4-2.01 et seq. of the Pacifica Municipal Code empower the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim the existence of a local emergency when there is an actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and properties within this City. The Proclamation of Local Emergency was declared on April 8, 2020 for the Anza Pump Station.
The Proclamation has been continued and will continue until the Anza Pump Station is repaired and in working condition.
Additionally, pursuant to Section 3-15.09 (A) of the Pacifica Municipal Code, in cases of an emergency the City Manager is authorized to proceed at once to replace or repair any public facility without adopting plans, specifications, strain sheets, or working details, or giving notice for bids to let contracts. The City complies with Public Contract Code section 22050, which provides a process for City Council’s review of the emergency action if notice of bids to let contracts for public projects will not be given because of the emergency. This allows staff to obtain the necessary equipment to rehabilitate the pump station faster. For the Anza Pump Station, the City Manager has determined that the damaged pump station threatens the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure, which requires immediate attention and constitutes an emergency pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 4-2.02 and Public Contract Code section 1102. In cases where time allows, staff will receive Council approval in advance for elements of emergency work.
Beginning in May 2020, the City contracted engineering services to assist with temporary repair of the pump station, developed bid documents to construct the necessary permanent repairs, supported pre-purchasing three new natural gas engines and two new stormwater pumps, and performed a new gas engine submittal review to ensure compatibility of bid documents. Project bid documents were completed in November 2021. In parallel, the City advertised for prequalification of bidders in June 2021, with the goal of expediting the project schedule. Only one prospective bidder submitted. The City reached out to two other reputable pump station contractors who toured the Anza Pump Station. One bidder agreed to bid but required an extension to the submittal date which the City granted. Two bids were received with the second bid being 4% higher than the low bidder DW Nicholson Corporation whose construction contract was awarded at the 3/28/2022 Council Meeting. Active construction commenced on May 1, 2022.
The City applied for and received an Emergency Coastal Development Permit (ECDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) related to installation of a new gas service line and third pump and engine at the pump station. The City determined the other required fire damage repairs were covered under the City’s current permit with the CCC related to repair and maintenance. The CCC recently denied the City’s request to extend the ECDP and has requested the City submit a regular Coastal Development Permit for this work, which staff is in the process of coordinating. The ECDP was denied because the CCC felt the City should be working on a regular Coastal Development Permit (CDP).
Previous Council Authorizations for the Anza Pump Station The following actions related to the Anza Pump Station were previously approved by Council and occurred at several Council meetings between 2020 and 2022, including authorization to execute a construction agreement for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project which occurred at the 3/28/22 Council Meeting; and authorization to execute a construction agreement for the New 2-inch Gas Service Line to serve the Anza Pump Station which occurred at the 9/26/22 Council Meeting. Costs for all prior actions are provided under the fiscal impact section of this report. 11 Packet Pg. 176
Pacifica City Council 3
February 13, 2023
The prior actions were as follows:
-Rebuild of damaged pump, purchase of pump and reinstallation -Consultant services for design services for the repair -Bathroom repairs
-Purchase of two engines
-Pump Station repair construction
-Purchase of third stormwater pump
-Purchase of third engine
-Consultant services for engineering services during construction -Consultant services for construction management for the repair -New gas service line construction
-Additional consultant services for engineering services during construction Additional Budget Authorization for Construction of the Anza Pump Station Repair Project The Anza Pump Station Repair Project (Project) has been under active construction since May 1, 2022, is approximately 70% complete, and is anticipated to be completed in October 2023.
COVID-induced supply chain issues and construction at a 70-year old facility with no record drawings have impacted both schedule and cost. The City’s strategy to address these issues consisted of: pre-purchasing long lead time equipment; and establishing a construction budget contingency of 20%.
The City’s strategy to help expedite Project schedule was to pre-purchase complex, long lead time mechanical equipment (gas engines and storm water pumps). This strategy was also prudent, given the cost savings of purchasing the equipment sooner rather than later in a marketplace whose costs were, and continue to be, spiraling upwards. Relative to the general contractor purchasing this equipment, the City’s pre-purchase strategy saved time (and money) but also experienced supply chain delays as well. By the end of December 2022, two new gas engines had been installed and by the end February 2023, City staff anticipates having all mechanical equipment delivered to the site with installation commencing soon after. A major Project schedule delay has to do with control panel delivery which is explained in more detail below and has pushed finalization of the Project, related to automation, to late fall.
Construction at a fire-damaged 70-year old facility without historical record drawings has proven to be challenging. As noted above, to mitigate concerns around pump station age and lack of record drawings, the City established a construction budget contingency of 20% at the start of the Project. This amount was discussed with the City’s Insurance Agent who noted the City should budget what it felt would allow for project completion including necessary Contract Change Orders (CCO). Although initially 20% was estimated as needed for completion, due to various issues it is now believed staff will need a 30% contingency to complete the work. The Table below summarizes the Contract Change Orders (CCOs) executed to date.
CCO Description Cost
1 Third Party concrete and welding testing $13,082.62
2 K-Rails to provide pedestrian safety $5,903.00
3 Additional Structural Beams for Steel & Concrete Roof $32,706.00 4 Rotate Stormwater Pump No. 4 to align with engine shaft $2,379.00 5 Plaster and concrete South interior wall depressed area $7,688.00 6 UPS Control Panel Addition $32,630.00
11 Packet Pg. 177
Pacifica City Council 4
February 13, 2023
7 Signal I/O Change for Engine-Control Panel (CP) Communication $16,462.00 8 Engine Exhaust Piping Insulation $21,183.00
9 Bathroom lighting, hand dryers, and motion sensors $46,909.00 10 Pump No. 3 Discharge Piping Slipliner and Repair $106,080.00 11 Revised Power & Control Connections Engines- PC Communication $177,098.00 Total $462,120.62
Related to CCO #10, after the fire, the only pump not seriously damaged at the pump station was the large, old engine driven pump. The City has kept the pump station operational by using this old large pump along with a rented engine from Herc rentals, as the original engine was damaged. The project design plans included only fire damaged pumps and it was determined the old engine driven pump also needed to be replaced. During construction, it was identified that the discharge pipe related to this old pump would need to be repaired by a process called sliplining. This work resulted in the cost associated with CCO #10.
Related to CCO #11, the original design showed engine local control panel power and control signal wiring (conduits) routed directly from the engine room to the Master Pump Station Power and Master Pump Station Control Panels, which are located in the southwest room of the Pump Station. At the start of construction, during layout, a communication protocol issue was discovered that required intermediate power and signal boxes for each engine to communicate with the Master Pump Station Control Panel. Purchase of these intermediate boxes and their conduits resulted in the cost associated with CCO #11. In summary, the construction project’s budget contingency has reached its original budget authority of 20% ($465,200), with approximately $3,000 remaining.
As stated above, the Project is approximately 70% complete. To date, the Project has installed the new steel roof (hatches will be installed at the end of the Project); two of the three natural gas engines; and other appurtenant equipment. The Project still needs to install the third new gas engine, followed by the third new pump. We anticipate this equipment arriving at the site at the end of February 2023 with installation in March 2023. Furthermore, the Project needs to install the Master Pump Station Power and Control Panels, then test and commission the system. Due to supply chain issue delays with the Master Pump Station Control Panel, the Project will be delivered in two stages: manual mode testing and commissioning of the engines and stormwater pumps first; followed by automatic mode testing and commissioning of engines and stormwater and pumps. The anticipated completion dates for these two milestones are as follows: manual mode testing and commissioning: end of May 2023 or early June 2023; and automatic mode testing and commissioning: end of September 2023 or early October 2023. To reach these milestones, based on continuing discussions with the general contractor, City staff anticipates additional contract change orders associated with the engines and their appurtenances such as necessary foundation strengthening. As the Pump Station is currently 70% complete, there may be other required CCO’s that come up during completion of the final 30% of the work.
Therefore, City staff has estimated that the level of effort to bring the Project from its current state of completion through testing and commissioning of the fully automated pump station (100% completion) will require an additional $232,600 (10% budget contingency). City staff’s goal is to bring the Project in below the above value, but based on experience to date, City staff recommends an additional 10% budget contingency to complete the Project.
Additional Construction Management Services
11 Packet Pg. 178
Pacifica City Council 5
February 13, 2023
The original Construction Management (CM) Services budget for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project was based on anticipated Project duration. The original Project budget authorization of $242,660, which included a 10% budget contingency, was based on achieving Project completion in January 2023. Currently, the Project is behind schedule. Furthermore, due to supply chain issue delays with the control panel, the Project will be delivered in two stages:
manual mode testing and commissioning of the engines and stormwater pumps first; followed by automatic mode testing and commissioning of engines and stormwater and pumps. The anticipated completion dates for these two milestones are as follows: manual mode testing and commissioning: end of May 2023 or early June 2023; and automatic mode testing and commissioning: end of September 2023 or early of October 2023. Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. (GHA) is providing CM services for the Project. Currently, the CM Services has $47,060 remaining in the budget, which includes the original budget contingency of 10%. Based on discussions with GHA, City staff anticipates approximately 300 hours of CM project management/administration and 300 hours of CM inspection or a total additional fee of $123,960. This fee minus the remaining budget of $47,060 equals $76,900. City staff recommends authorizing budget authority for additional CM services through Project completion in an amount not to exceed $88,435 which includes a fifteen percent (15%) budget contingency for Task Order No. 2 for any unforeseen conditions.
Project funding is anticipated to be reimbursable by insurance as described below in further detail.
Approval of the recommendations will allow staff to move forward with constructing improvements to complete the Project and thereby supporting restoration of the stormwater pump station that will protect the health and safety of persons and properties, including critical public infrastructure. Should the Council approve the recommended actions in this report, the project construction will be finalized. The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the increased Project contingency and Task Order No. 2 to the construction services contract as discussed in this Council report.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose not to approve the construction budget augmentation and construction management task order agreement; however, this will result in project delays, possible increase of construction costs and increased possibility of equipment failure at the pump station and could lead to catastrophic flooding events. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the construction contract and supporting agreements is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure and Maintaining a Safe Community: This construction project will help facilitate the return of the Anza Pump Station to its pre-fire capacity, conveying storm water flows to the ocean to mitigate potential impacts of flooding including threatening the safety of residents and damaging private property or critical public infrastructure.
11 Packet Pg. 179
Pacifica City Council 6
February 13, 2023
FISCAL IMPACT:
The requested actions will increase the overall cost of the Anza Pump Station Project by $321,035 to a total of $5,326,081 (net of Self Insurance Retention limits). The City’s deductibles are $225,000 for PLAN JPA and $10,000 for American International Group (AIG).
The requested additional budget contingency and Construction Management Services also will be submitted for reimbursement to the City’s property insurance carrier, PLAN JPA. The total project use of funds for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project (C036) to date, including the recommended agreement approvals, is as follows:
Pump Rebuild & Installation $104,937.41
Bathroom Renovations $210,868.52
Schaaf & Wheeler Engineers for Repair Design $264,160.00 Pump Purchase & Installation $185,371.87
Two Caterpillar Engines Purchase $492,268.00
Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Cost $2,326,000.00 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Contingency (20%) $465,200.00 Pump No. 3 Purchase & Installation (incl 10% conting.) $228,133.64 Third Caterpillar Engine Purchase (incl 10% conting.) $358,696.72 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Engineering Support $105,630.00 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Construction Management (incl 10% conting.) $242,660.00 Anza Pump Station New Gas Service Line Construction $185,100.00 Anza Pump Station New Gas Service Line Construction Contingency (20%) $37,020.00 Anza Pump Station Repair Project - Additional Constr. Engineering Support (incl 15%) $34,000.00 Total Work Under Contract $5,240,046.16
Anza Pump Station Repair Project Additional Construction Contingency (10%) $232,600.00 Anza Pump Station Repair Project Additional Construction Management Services (incl 15%) $88,435.00 Total Work Proposed $321,035.00
Grand Total $5,561,081.16
Plan JPA ($ 225,000)
American International Group (AIG) ($ 10,000)
Total Insurance Deductible ($ 235,000)
Total Identified Insurance Reimbusement $5,326,081.16
ANZA PUMP STATION REPAIR PROJECT (C036)
Project Use of Funds - Previous Council Approved Completed/Under Contract Project Use of Funds - Work Proposed with this Approval ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Agreement - Ghirardelli Associates Inc 1-9-2023 Task Order #2_Anza Pump Station Repair CM (PDF)
11 Packet Pg. 180
Pacifica City Council 7
February 13, 2023
Attachment B: Resolution - Authorizing Task Order No. 2 for Ghirardelli Assoc (PDF) 11 Packet Pg. 181
Pacifica City Council 8
February 13, 2023
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AUTHORIZING AN
INCREASED CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE ANZA PUMP STATION REPAIR PROJECT
WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), the City of Pacifica entered into a construction services agreement with DW Nicholson Corporation (“DWN”) for construction under the City Council’s purchasing authority; and
WHEREAS, the level of effort required to complete the construction for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project exceeded the estimates used to establish the original agreement amount plus contingency for the work; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve the City’s construction services agreement with DWN for construction on March 28, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Project is at about 70% completion, and City staff anticipates additional contract change orders associated with the engines and their appurtenances, such as necessary foundation strengthening.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to:
1. Increase the construction contingency for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project by an additional $232,600 or 10% of the construction budget to the total contingency of $697,800 (30%), increasing the total project construction budget authority to $3,023,800; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to extend the term of the contract with DW Nicholson Corporation through October 31, 2023, and execute any additional construction change orders within the amended construction budget
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of February 2023, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
11 Packet Pg. 182
Pacifica City Council 9
February 13, 2023
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 11 Packet Pg. 183
1 TASK ORDER NO. 2
CITY OF PACIFICA
AND
GHIRARDELLI ASSOCIATES, INC.
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE
The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct GHIRARDELLI ASSOCIATES, INC. to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica (“CITY”) and GHIRARDELLI ASSOCIATES, INC. (“CONSULTANT”) hereto dated 3 March 2022 (“MASTER AGREEMENT”) SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK
The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment “A” – Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
SECTION 3 – COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT. Compensation for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be as set forth in Attachment “B” – Compensation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Total compensation for all services provided under this Task Order shall not exceed _Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred_($_76,900) (“Cost Ceiling”).
SECTION 4 – TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The services described in SECTION 2 of this Task Order shall be completed by December 31, 2023, or as extended in writing by the City Manager.
SECTION 5 – ITEMS AND CONDITIONS
All terms and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT are incorporated by reference and remain in full force and effect.
Approved this 3rd day of March, _2022__.
[Signatures on Next Page]
11.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment A: Agreement - Ghirardelli Associates Inc 1-9-2023 Task Order #2_Anza Pump Station Repair CM (5259 : Anza Pump 2 CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
Approved As To Form
By:
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Ghirardelli Associates, Inc.
By: Date
11.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment A: Agreement - Ghirardelli Associates Inc 1-9-2023 Task Order #2_Anza Pump Station Repair CM (5259 : Anza Pump 3 ATTACHMENT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
11.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment A: Agreement - Ghirardelli Associates Inc 1-9-2023 Task Order #2_Anza Pump Station Repair CM (5259 : Anza Pump 2055 Gateway Place, Ste. 470, San Jose, CA 95110 | T (408) 435-5503 | www.ghirardelliassoc.com 21104.002
December 22, 2022
Nelson Schlater, P.E.
Engineering Manager - Wastewater
City of Pacifica
151 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Task Order No. 2 – Continuation of Construction Management Services for Anza Pump Station Repair Project
Dear Mr. Schlater,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide construction management and inspection services for the Anza Pump Station Rebuild Project. Due to unforeseen delays, the project is now expected to be completed in May 2023 instead of December 2022 as originally anticipated. This proposal is submitted as requested by the City of Pacifica (City) in order to extend our services through May 2023.
The remaining balance in Task Order 1 as of 12/31/22 is estimated to be $25,000. The estimated fee to extend our construction management and inspection services for an additional five (5) months at 60 hours/month is as follows:
Jaime Heredia, PE (Resident Engineer) 300 hours x $240.44/hour = $ 72,132.00 Lam “Kean” Tran, PMP (Construction Inspector) 300 hours x $172.75/hour = $ 51,825.00 Total $ 123,957.00
Note: Rates include a 3% increase from the 2022 rates.
After including the balance in Task Order 1 ($25,000) and the contingency amount of $22,060, we estimate that an additional $76,900.00 will be needed to complete the project.
We look forward to continuing to support the City on the Anza Pump Station Repair Project. If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ghirardelli Associates, Inc.
Charlie Krueger, PE, QSD
Division Director
M: 510.867.4452
E: [email protected]
11.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment A: Agreement - Ghirardelli Associates Inc 1-9-2023 Task Order #2_Anza Pump Station Repair CM (5259 : Anza Pump 4 ATTACHMENT “B”
COMPENSATION
(Documented in Attachment A)
11.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment A: Agreement - Ghirardelli Associates Inc 1-9-2023 Task Order #2_Anza Pump Station Repair CM (5259 : Anza Pump RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SECOND TASK ORDER TO THE CONSULTANT MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GHIRARDELLI ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), the City of Pacifica entered into a master services agreement and task order no. 1 with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. (“GHA”) for consulting services under the City Council’s purchasing authority in May 2020; and
WHEREAS, the level of effort required to complete the construction management services for the Anza Pump Station Repair Project will exceed the estimates used to establish the original task order no. 1 amount for construction management due to the project completion estimated to slip an additional nine months; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to approve a master services agreement and task order no. 1 with GHA, Inc. for consulting services on March 3, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to execute task order no. 2 with GHA, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $76,900 per the agreement’s task order and authorize additional budget authority in the amount of $88,435 which includes 15% contingency or $11,535. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of February 2023, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
11.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment B: Resolution - Authorizing Task Order No. 2 for Ghirardelli Assoc (5259 : Anza Pump Station Repair Project –