CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck
Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 February 27, 2023
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
February 27, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Off-street parking is allowed by permit for attendance at official public meetings.
Vehicles parked without permits are subject to citation. You should obtain a permit from the rack in the lobby and place it on the dashboard of your vehicle in such a manner as is visible to law enforcement personnel.
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES DURING MEETING
Alternative Ways to Observe and Participate in the Meeting:
The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is in-person at the meeting location published in the meeting agenda. However, there are alternative ways to observe and participate in the meeting:
• Watch on TV on Comcast channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv
• Call-In Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, dial-in to the number and enter the Conference ID listed below. You will be placed on hold in a call-queue.
Please mute any background sound and listen through your phone to be called upon by the last 4-digits of your phone number. State your full name at the start of your public comment. • Dial-in: 1-650-898-6965 | Conference ID: 383 609 442 # o Press * 5 to raise your hand in the call queue.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone #.
Please note that Alternative platforms for participation are subject to underlying technology functionality and may be modified or interrupted at any time without notice. • Written Public Comments:
BEFORE THE MEETING: Written public comments may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected]. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Public Comment on Item Not on Agenda” in the Subject Line
• Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date will be provided in their entirety to the City Council and posted to the City’s website prior to the meeting but will not be read verbally at the meeting.
AT THE MEETING: Materials in writing provided at the meeting should provide seven (7) copies to provide for each Councilmember, City Clerk and City staff.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 27, 2023
6:15 PM CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiations (Government Code § 54956.8).
Property: 1220 Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica California. Agency Negotiation: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager and Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney. Negotiating Parties: North Coast County Water District. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment for Right of Entry Agreement.
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier
Closed Session Report
CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.
Items on the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion unless a Councilmember requests, before the vote on the motion, to have an item discussed. Time limit on comments is three minutes or less.
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on February 13, 2023.
2. Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending December 31, 2022.
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending December 31, 2022.
3. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2022.
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 27, 2023
quarter ending December 31, 2022.
4. Letter of sponsorship for Assembly Bill 612 (AB 612), introduced by Assemblymember Marc Berman with principal co-author Senator Josh Becker, to authorize the purchase of excess Caltrans property in the Pedro Point neighborhood for state parks purposes.
PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter of sponsorship on behalf of the City Council for AB 612 related to the purchase of excess Caltrans property for State Parks purposes in the Pedro Point neighborhood.
5. Adopt Resolution revising job description, title and salary for Associate Civil Engineer in PW Wastewater to Senior Civil Engineer
PROPOSED ACTION: Recommended Resolution revising the job description, title, and salary for the Associate Civil Engineer in Public Works Wastewater Division to Senior Civil Engineer
6. Approval of Purchase, Including Demolition, of a Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following action to:
A. Approve Purchase Agreement with Bay Area Mechanical LLC for $104,956.23 plus a 10% contingency to purchase a newly onsite constructed walk-in refrigerator/freezer for a total of $115,451.85
B. Adopt the Resolution to Approve Agreement to purchase a new onsite walk-in refrigerator/freezer for the Pacifica Community Center main kitchen C. Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to these agreements.
7. Storage License Agreement For Railcar #1409 (Salada Ave & Francisco Blvd) - Portion of Parking Lot (APN 016-060-100).
PROPOSED ACTION:
A. Approve the License Agreement with "The Pacifica Historical Society" to temporarily store Ocean Shore Railcar #1409 at Salada Ave & Francisco Blvd Parking Lot B. Adopt the Resolution to Approve Agreement with the "The Pacifica Historical Society" to temporarily store Ocean Shore Railcar #1409 at Salada Ave & Francisco Blvd Parking Lot
C. Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to this agreement
8. Resolution Approving Agreement with Universal Building Services for Janitorial Services PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to approve a Vendor Agreement for Products and/or Services for Janitorial Services for Citywide Facilities with Universal Building Services and Supply Company in an amount Not to Exceed $18,563/month.
9. Adoption of an Ordinance to amend 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 (File No. 2022-036 – Text Amendment TA-123-22).
Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)).
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to waive the second reading and adopt “An Ordinance of City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 27, 2023
the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Article 49 (Short Term Rentals) of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (Text Amendment TA-123-22) and Finding adoption of the text amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
This portion of the Agenda is available for the public to address the City Council on any issue that is not on the Agenda. Any person wishing to address the Council shall be recognized by the Mayor during this time, provided, however, that only items not on the agenda for that meeting may be addressed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member thereof. Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Public Comments on Items Not on the Posted Agenda. A maximum time of three minutes will be allowed for any speaker. Persons addressing the City Council shall adhere to time limits and not disrupt the conduct of the meeting, and not make threats against any person or the public order. The Mayor, or their designee, may remove or cause the removal of an individual for disrupting the meeting, after providing the necessary warning pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.95 with confirmation from the City Attorney that removal is appropriate.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Council Communications is for Councilmembers to inform each other of items of potential interest to other Councilmembers, such as interagency meetings.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Staff Communications is for the City Manager to offer announcements as appropriate.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
10. Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project Phase 2 Engagement Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation on key elements of a Communication & Engagement Plan for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project Phase 2A, provide input on the key elements, and appoint a Council ad hoc subcommittee to continue to give input to the staff and consultant team in finalizing and beginning to implement the plan.
11. 2022 Annual Progress Reports on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element of the General Plan, and the City of Pacifica General Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution approving the City’s 2022 Housing Element Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and the 2022 General Plan Annual Progress Report on Implementation of Other Elements of the General Plan, and directing the City Manager to transmit the reports to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 27, 2023
ADJOURN
NOTICE: If you challenge a city's zoning, planning or other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Judicial review of any city administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period for litigation, in certain cases 30 days following the date of the final decision The City of Pacifica will provide assistance for disabled citizens upon at least 24 hours advance notice to the City Manager’s Office (650) 738-7301, or send request via email to:
[email protected] if you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary. All meeting rooms are accessible to the disabled.
The Pacifica Municipal Code is available online at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode);
HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:
Agendas are posted no later than Friday prior to the City Council meeting date, at the entrance to the City Hall location at the Pacifica Community Center, 540 Crespi Drive.
View on the Internet:
Follow the link to Council agenda, at www.cityofpacifica.org E-mail subscription:
Send a request to Sarah Coffey, at [email protected] City Clerk’s Office/City Manager’s Office
City Hall, 540 Crespi Drive
Council meetings:
Agendas are available at the City Council meeting
HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313 • Assembly Member Marc Berman, 721 Colorado Ave, Suite 101, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 324-0224 • Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, 698 Emerson Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 323-2984 • Senator Alex Padilla, B03 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 • Senator Dianne Feinstein, #1 Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco CA 94104 (415) 393-0707 • President Joseph R. Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500
CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck, tbigstyck@ pacifica.gov
• Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus, [email protected]
• Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Councilmember Christine Boles, [email protected]
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/27/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on February 13, 2023.
STAFF CONTACT:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on February 13, 2023 (Attachment A).
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 6
CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck
Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 February 13, 2023
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
February 13, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on February 13, 2023 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. Conference with Real Property Negotiations (Government Code § 54956.8). Property:
1220 Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica California. Agency Negotiation: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager and Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney. Negotiating Parties: North Coast County Water District. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment for Right of Entry Agreement. 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bigstyck called the regular meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Present
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor pro Tem Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Chris Clements, Acting Police Chief; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Nelson Schlater, Engr.
Manager-Wastewater; Tommy Yu, IT Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bigstyck read the Land Acknowledgment.
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 13, 2023
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there was nothing to report.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame Week / 2023 Inductees Mayor Bigstyck read the proclamation honoring Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame Week.
On behalf of the Pacifica Sports Club, Mr. Horace Hinshaw thanked him and appreciated Council for their support this year as well for past years. They have been active for almost 40 years and the Hall of Fame has been for the last 32 years. He stated that this year they inducted three excellent people who have been involved. He invited Council to the dinner, where City Manager Woodhouse would be the master of ceremonies.
Mayor Bigstyck opened public comment.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus thanked him, adding that she was inducted in the Sports Hall of Fame last year, and she thought it was an amazing presentation. She stated that, at the Community Center, you can see the Wall of Fame with everyone’s picture and bios. She felt especially privileged to be among them and she thanked him for all he did.
Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated that he has been doing it as long as he has and she felt he was a gift to our community. She stated that, to read the history, be at the event and see the gathering and hear the stories, it was special. She stated that the young kids are coming up and the long tradition of sports in Pacifica is special.
Councilmember Bier stated that they will soon have to add the wall on the other side. She stated that Mr. Hinshaw is special to our community and she thanked him for that.
Mayor Bigstyck echoed what they all said. He stated that it occurs to him how much sports has had an effect on his life as he is a person who is not a big sports guy but, through his work, he understood the role that his coaches had in influencing him when he was growing up.
Jack Burgett, Pacifica, stated he just got off the phone with Coach Gray who played for him at San Francisco State, and he reiterated everything they all said about how special Mr. Hinshaw is in all the club’s activities.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they had new staff members to introduce before they move on to Consent.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to take the opportunity to introduce several new and returning employees. He stated that Director Petersen will provide the details.
PW Director Petersen first introduced Eddie Pastrano, the new collection system manager, a returning employee who came on from Manteca in January with 27 years of experience in the wastewater industry and immediately helped following the storms. The next employee who
1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 13, 2023
came at the end of January, new city engineer, Deputy Director of Public Works, Roland Yip, who comes from Daly City after working there for 7.5 years as a senior engineer and previously worked for 11 years in a private engineering consulting industry. Another returning employee is Louis Sun, who is coming from Foster City, and is an expert on things in the wastewater treatment plant. She is so thankful to have these individuals as part of the PW team.
Mayor Bigstyck welcomed all of them and looked forward to getting to know them better as they progress.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bigstyck asked if any Councilmembers wanted to pull an item from Consent. Seeing no one, he opened public comments. Seeing no one, he closed public comments. He then asked if any Councilmembers had any questions on any item and, if not, he was open to a motion.
Councilmember Boles stated that there was a question from the public about the fire compliance report and suggested that they may need more inspections of short-term rentals in the future, and she wondered if they had the capacity for taking on something like that. Referring to the vegetation management grant, she knows past grants were for fuel reduction to allow neighborhoods to take down trees and put the vegetation on the street but only done for the Vallemar and Linda Mar areas, and she asked if they were considering continued grants. She knew there was interest on the north side of the city that didn’t have those opportunities.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he had a similar question on No. 8 after he read the email. He asked if she had a specific question on No. 9.
Councilmember Boles asked if they can continue to look for vegetation management grants for the north end of the city for fuel reduction.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, on No. 8, he asked a question and got an answer but, as it has been brought up, he asked if there is an augmented inspection that needs to happen if residence is acting as a short-term rental.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh is present and can augment what he has to say. He stated that, for the mandated fire and life safety inspections, that addresses a number of statutorily driven dwellings, including multi-family dwellings, and are not dependent on whether a building is used as a short-term rental or long-term rental, as they do inspect all multi-dwellings from 3 units and up. There is no statute requiring inspection of other single family homes, but Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh can expand as necessary Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh referred to the inspection, and every year in the report, what is stated is what they do for mandated occupancies. Regarding the short-term, he believed there would have to be ordinances looked at as well as fire codes before looking at how that would work but do inspections on those. He thought there would be a lot of conversations to explore to look at what type of ordinance there would be moving forward.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified the question and asked if the question was expanding the fire inspections to single family or duplexes, as that would be a very different conversation.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, when he initially read it, he was confused as to whether or not inspections were required for short-term rentals, and through email, he has come to understand
1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 13, 2023
that it doesn’t matter what the usage is for a three-unit or larger development, as at that number it will be inspected.
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh referred to the grant issue and stated that this year what they applied for and what they have to get as part of the process is a resolution from Council on the CCI grant that they are putting through CalFire. He stated that, in Pacifica, they are trying to look at $100,000 for public education funds and $200,000 for roadway clearance. He stated that, through the past years, through the Coastal Conservancy, they got the grant for the chipping program. If they get this grant, it will open up some broader avenues for them to utilize field reduction with those monies if they get it approved. He stated that the one with Coastal Conservancy was specifically for a chipping program. He hoped that, if they get this one, they will have a broader spectrum to utilize those funds with roadway field clearance. He stated that the $100,000 for public education can be used in many different ways, such as materials, messaging, public signs, etc. They appreciated Council backing them with this resolution as it is part of the process.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 12/01/22 through 12/31/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 1/01/23 through 1/31/23.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on January 23, 2023.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency related to December 2022/January 2023 Winter Storm Events
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist related to the December 2022 / January 2023 Winter Storm Events.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
5. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
6. Continuation of Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make determination that conditions of local
1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 13, 2023
emergency continue to exist regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19").
7. Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19.
8. 2022 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report PROPOSED ACTION: Receive 2022 mandated fire and life safety inspections compliance report and move to adoptresolution acknowledging receipt of the North County Fire Authority’s mandated fire and life safety inspections performed within the City of Pacifica pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
9. Vegetation Management and Wildfire Preparedness Grant Funding Opportunities Through CalFire
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the Resolution to submit for state sponsored grant funding for community vegetation fuel reduction and community education within the City of Pacifica.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Colleen Golden, Pacifica, stated that she lives in a quiet West Sharp Park neighborhood, and expressed her concerns following the response to a theft at the Bloom Room.
Lynn Adams, Pacifica, stated that she thanked Council and staff for their support, and wanted to give a PBC report. She stated that, in 2022, they engaged 12,323 volunteers and mentioned the details of their accomplishments for that year. She stated that they had a big year, including bringing in 100 teams to Pacifica to clean the beaches, mostly corporations, which also brought in commercial commerce. She stated that they initiated an education fund to fund naturalists to lead school groups at the beaches to learn and become future earth heroes.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, referred to the December 31 floods, and then corrected some statements on the city’s website, such as the Anza pump station, pipes, etc., and he suggested the city do an audit on all the purchased equipment at the pump stations that have never been installed.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, referred to articles regarding sea level damage in Half Moon Bay which he considered a clear message for Pacifica. He mentioned San Francisco passing their Housing Element on February 1. He asked about our compliance with the California Surplus Land Act, i.e., providing a list and reporting annually, and asked about getting access to the list and report.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Boles stated that she attended her first Peninsula Clean Energy meeting, taking over as a voting member in place of the mayor for that meeting, and she stated that they have
1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 13, 2023
committed to 100% clean energy by 2025, including buying more batteries, etc. She stated that we are also looking at some additional solar projects in Pacifica in various locations, beginning with the Community Center. She volunteered to serve on their citizens advisory committee with public communication to bring more electrification. She listened to the Coastal Commission and Sea Level Rise working group meeting and one thing that struck her was that we should remember our beaches are a public resource; people in Central Valley come here on hot days, described as climate refugees, which made her realize we need to protect our beaches. They mentioned the very short window of opportunity regarding climate change and need to plan for sea level rise adaptation in larger areas. She encouraged us to look at a longer vision regarding our coastline. They mentioned that future funding for adaptation will depend on our LCP updates and only communities that have adapted sea level rise strategies will be eligible and she didn’t think Pacifica was there yet and she thinks we need to follow up on our LCP as it goes through the Coastal Commission. She attended the Half Moon Bay memorial with fellow councilmembers which was a moving event and is getting started on the Airport Roundtable and Commute.org. She stated that the Pacifica Beach Coalition movie night was fun and crowded.
She stated that the Pirates of Manor had a fundraiser for the PRC.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus attended the San Mateo County Emergency Services Council and they talked a lot about the new system of SMC Alerts. She urged everyone to sign up for SMC Alerts. She stated that there were a lot of questions about evacuation and Zone Haven will give the latest information on where you should evacuate. She attended the Council of Cities and they had a legislative update. She went to Sanchez Art Center where they made soul boxes.
She attended the San Mateo County Flood Sea Level, known as One Shoreline, where there was a presentation by PW Director Petersen, talking about what happened in the flooding and storm issues we had. She thought it was good to have someone from the coast as a lot of what they do is based on the bay side. She met with someone to talk about businesses in Rockaway and they are interested in doing some development there. She thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer for attending the City and County Association of Government meetings while she was gone for a week attending other meetings.
Councilmember Beckmeyer had an opportunity to meet with the Anza Arguello neighborhood and they heard someone at the podium about flooding and sanitary sewer overflows around new year’s. She stated that there is a process in place and staff is working with representatives from the neighborhood to get questions answered and provide information to the neighborhood so they know what is going on and understand how our current storm water and wastewater systems are configured and what is planned and hope to be funded to do some significant overhauls. They are working on the things they can work on, such as communication and getting resources to people. She thought it was a productive meeting and thinks there definitely needs to be more, as one outcome will be a weekly or bi-weekly update of what will happen, etc. She was in Santa Barbara for the local government workshop and discussed the possibility of agendizing some time to talk about all these issues she is encountering in the workshop and Coastal Cities group, as they touch on a lot of topics and getting a quick blur of it; she wants to give a picture so everyone understands how we move from one accomplishment to the next and she thought it was a good meeting. She stated that there were representatives from SurfRider and Smart Coast, a group that started by realtors and is now a stand-alone advocacy group. She stated that it was useful to hear the collaborative tone with which everyone approached the issues. She wasn’t part of the Coastal Cities group when it was formed seven years ago, but she understands that it was a bit contentious in the beginning and over time they have had the opportunity to share and look at issues to focus on, not the polarization. She was pleased to have an opportunity to spend time to get to know Dr. Charles Lester who has done work in Pacifica. She referred to defining what a neighborhood approach
1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 February 13, 2023
is, as they discussed whether that was even a good word. The intention is to look at areas that are adjacent to each other instead of looking at individual properties to see immediate needs and long-term visions, such as an approach to coastal erosion. She sees the work underway and she is pleased to be there. She had her regular committee meetings of Beatification Advisory Committee and there will be upcoming news on the Beautification awards, possible at her next report. She met with BID as a member of the Economic Development Committee, and noted a lot of interaction among the hotel members of BID and city staff. She met with Robine Runneals and worked on the Pride Parade which will be on Palmetto which is June 3. She attended a small portion of the Library JPA meeting at the mayor’s request as he is the primary liaison and she is the alternate. She wanted to be sure everyone understands that we will be having toll lanes north of Whipple Avenue in the early part of March, which was mentioned in the CCAG meeting. She stated that they will be doing a public awareness campaign to be open and operational in early March. She stated that CCAG chair and vice chair are continuing in their roles. She stated that something they are working on is a study to look at all county processes and policy decision-making and how they incorporate equity into that and there will be more information coming.
Councilmember Bier acknowledged what happened at the Bloom Room and was sorry that kind of crime has been brought into our neighborhoods and there is fear. She thanked the speaker for the information and the police department for getting the job done. She referred to what happened in Half Moon Bay, specifically the response from our county, and she wanted everyone to be proud of being in San Mateo County as people across the county got together fast and got resources down to Half Moon Bay quickly and they collaborated. She stated it was beautiful to watch them work. She stated that her heart is with them, adding that she sits on the board of Coast Pride and at the board meeting they talked about safety at the center as there were young people there when there was lockdown and they learned what they need to do during emergencies. She attended the Mayors Mental Health Initiative which they are continuing and discussed funding opportunities for training for this fiscal year for mental health first aid training and continued collaboration with the county. She was sworn into the HEART board and she looks forward to doing some work there. She attended the Council of Cities meeting which the Peninsula division executive committee for CalCities put together and was a great turnout with Santa Clara County colleagues and legislators. She stated that part of her commitment for CalCities Peninsula Division is talking about the different water projects going on in the region, she is on the Environmental Quality Policy committee; at the joint articulation meeting, they talked about the water projects going on here and she will take information about what is going here and take it to the regional board and talk about it. She thinks it is wonderful to have a seat at the table and represent the coast and talk about what is happening there. She attended the CCAG Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and one thing they talked about was a One Bay Area Grant cycle 3 and the grant funding Pacifica applied for and she was disappointed that the MTC hadn’t accepted our proposal but she thought there was some update about that, and maybe the City Manager could update them during staff communications. She attended the HOPE IAC meeting and got updates on the Navigation Center on the El Camino house and update on what happened in Half Moon Bay. She made a soul box at Sanchez Art Center and thanked them for quickly getting an event for our community to come together after what happened in Half Moon Bay which is another example of people coming together and collaborating and working so quickly to address things in our community. She stated that the Surf Movie was great and an awesome showing of support from the city.
Mayor Bigstyck thanked all the Councilmembers for the work they are doing on their various committee assignments. He thought each of them would like to think they all have answers to
1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 February 13, 2023
address the myriad issues affecting Pacifica and the county, but they break it apart and they hopefully have the knowledge base to make well-informed decisions. He thought Councilmember Bier’s point was well-taken about the Bloom Room and the atmosphere of fear that maintains despite our best efforts and translates from as far away as Ukraine where his heart has been for over a year and as close as our neighbors in Half Moon Bay where he attended the memorial. He stated that we are together and need to support each other to make something better. He attended the Arguello-Anza meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer, a first step toward figuring out how to work with the neighborhood to communicate effectively and figure out what interim solutions are so flooding that is historical can be minimized, if not gotten rid of; we don’t want to see any more of the sanitary sewer overflows as we saw New Year’s Eve. He stated that he will be bringing that up at goal setting on March 4 that, the sooner they get to the $6 million project in that neighborhood identified in the master plan, the easier he will be able to rest that our neighbors will hopefully not have to deal with this historical flooding anymore. He attended Assemblymember Mark Berman’s open house in Menlo Park which was an opportunity to get to know him and his staff better, and he looked forward to working with him and his staff going forward. He stated that night was the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting which Councilmember Boles attended in his place. When he was done with his interaction with the assemblyman, he got on the call and listen and be grateful that Councilmember Boles has his back when he isn’t able to attend. He stated that they all attended the Council of Cities dinner that was put together by CalCities, a wonderful bringing together of state Senator Josh Becker and Assemblymembers Diane Papan and Mark Berman and Hayward state Senator Aisha Wahab who, while not representing us, was impressive and it was good to get to know her. He had a lot of constituent meetings over the last three weeks, i.e., he and Councilmember Beckmeyer attended Brews and Views at the Maverick’s house at Princeton with a lot of people, such as Supervisor Ray Mueller, who was discussing the coastal resilience infrastructure strategic plan which will include Pacifica and he looks forward to discussing that with him. His understanding is that it will address infrastructure needs along the entire coastline, Senator Becker was there, and mentioned many other reps from various organizations and cities; he mentioned the forum for discussion in the aftermath of storms, and thought some stories from the other side of the tunnel were heartbreaking and realized it could have been worse under other circumstances. He shared what he discussed with other community attendees to work toward out communities growing closer. He toured the Cattle Hill Trail and a week later enjoyed their service to learn how to create a water bar, and the community will be engaging with our trails to make them more user friendly. He referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer mentioning the Library JPA meeting and he asked her to be in attendance with him as he will for every meeting; this is because, while he is interested in learning what they need to know for our library to be a reality, Councilmember Beckmeyer, as a librarian, has a knowledge base that will better inform him and he wants to be on the same page, as they will be working together to figure out what needs to get done. He is learning how strong of a supplemental educational resource libraries are. He stated that there are so many resources that make a modern library a focus for community building and our resources are so antiquated in Pacifica so he looks forward to learning more and working on bringing that resource to Pacifica. He met with staff members from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s office at the pier and it was good to deepen his relationship with her office, and during that time, he saw Engineer Marquez leading a tour of consultants regarding work needed at the pier. Mayor Bigstyck introduced her staff to our staff and he then enjoyed part of the tour to understand our needs as well. He attended the Beach Coalition fundraising movie about surfing in Ireland and was fun and educational and thanked Lynn Adams for putting on the event. Lastly, he attended a Local Agency Formation Commission Budget Committee meeting.
1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 February 13, 2023
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he attended the CalCities Peninsula Division Meeting with our legislator representatives and was one of two city managers there. It was very informative and it was great to hear their perspective. He attended the League of CalCities City Managers’ Department Annual Conference which is a great convening and professional development session for city managers around the state covering sessions on mental health crisis intervention response, succession planning, ethics, infrastructure, diversity/equity/inclusion, first amendment rights as applies to City Council meetings, sales tax and strategic public communications. He recently had an introductory productive meeting with the incoming executive director for the California Coastal Commission, along with the outgoing executive director. He will remain in close contact with the new incoming executive director to represent Pacifica’s issues. He described some great work PW Field services is doing on Palmetto related to our street light bulb replacement: There are numerous bulbs that are out and, because of proprietary technologies specific to those street lights, and supply chain issues, it has been difficult to replace those bulbs. He stated that staff got innovative and figured out a solution that will replace bulbs in the lights, and the proprietary bulbs cost about $800 each and the new fix will be about $75 each. He stated that there will be great money savings to replace them and they have started to install the lights and are in the process of replacing 30 out of the 82 bulbs and it is anticipated, factoring in light fixture corrosion, and additional repairs, that work will be completed by the end of April. He expressed appreciation to our two-person building maintenance team which services over 2000 street lights in the city. He stated the City also redistributed hundreds of beach safety brochures to Pacifica hotels and two surf shops in town following another tragic drowning in the Pacific; the information is available to anyone and everyone and discusses beach safety tips as well as how to deal with rip current. He thanked PB&R staff who did the distribution. He referred to the Council Chambers wall and stated there were several frames photos that have not been unveiled yet; those were the first three photos they will be getting from Steve Johnson Photography to help decorate the Council Chambers.
He stated that PW will be installing those soon, probably before the next Council meeting. He referred to Councilmember Bier asking him to provide further information about our OBAG 3 grant application and it is a project they applied for and the City County Association of Governments had approved and recommended to the MTC for funding: a $1.3 million project for East-West ADA access in West Sharp Park on three roadways, including replacement of uneven sidewalks and non ADA compliant driveways approaches and ADA ramps. Upon hearing that the MTC did not award our project, PW Director Petersen proactively reached out to CCAG to discuss why and prepare better for the next iteration of application but they don’t know any details yet or anything confirmed. They are hoping to be working with them in the interim to actually come up with an approach that will be funded, sooner than later, for that project. He stated that, when you don’t get what you asked for, you ask why and push hard on it and maybe there can be an alternative solution. It is not guaranteed but that is what they are hoping to bring that project to fruition. He appreciated PW for aggressively pursuing our grant pursuits.
Mayor Bigstyck called a break then reconvened the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. Introduction of an Ordinance to amend 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 (File No. 2022-036 – Text Amendment TA-123-22).
1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 February 13, 2023
Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)).
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Article 49 (Short Term Rentals) of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (Text Amendment TA123-22) and Finding adoption of the text amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
City Manager Woodhouse introduced the staff report and then turned it over to Planning Director Murdock to make the presentation.
Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
Mayor Bigstyck asked why 150 permits and not 150 units. He added that, when it was before Council previously, he imagined that the cap would be 150 units and there was a lot of comment during the Planning Commission.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the direction understood by staff was to impose a cap on the number of permits that were issued through the short-term rental ordinance and program, but not to change other mechanics or operation of the short-term rental ordinance and program.
He stated that as City Manager Woodhouse mentioned earlier, other changes to standards or mechanics of the program requires a more complex analysis. As they considered Council’s direction with respect to the cap, and recognizing that the city’s practice since enactment of the 2018 short-term rental ordinance was to issue a single permit for a property regardless of the number of individual units operating, to change from that practice while imposing this cap would be a more complex amendment to the ordinance and the city’s operation and administration of that ordinance. That is why this has been prepared consistent with past practice since 2018.
Mayor Bigstyck verified they were trying to put something quickly in place to put a lid on it before it got worse. He asked if they currently have over 150 units, given the number of permits they currently have out.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they do.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that it means they already passed the 150-unit mark. He asked how many permits they currently have.
Planning Director Murdock confirmed that they have 136 permits.
Mayor Bigstyck asked, if they put this cap on at this meeting, coastal zone notwithstanding, presumably that means there are 14 more permits it would be possible to issue and that would be the extent of the growth of the STRs for the time being.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified, in case there is late breaking data, that he believed that there are more in-process units pending already; through bringing them into compliance, or having applied and being already in the process to be approved, the number is up to 144.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is still the same count. They have 136 active permits currently, and they have about 10 properties that are currently in the process of obtaining the permit, but they are working with the property owners to bring them into compliance.
1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 February 13, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked if those 10 were already running as STRs now.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they are, and they are bringing them into compliance.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, practically speaking, it might as well be 146 permits.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed, unless some of them decide to close, which happened in the past.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he was trying to clarify is that, currently, that housing stock is not on the market.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, to their best knowledge, they have additional ten properties that are operating without a permit.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, practically, there are four permits, assuming those 10 go through, that could be issued.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed.
Mayor Bigstyck thought it sounds clearly like a cap. He thought, if this goes through, his concern is after the coastal zone, the worst case scenario is the following: this goes through, not in the coastal zone, it is capped but how do they cap it in the coastal zone or can they cap it in the coastal zone or is it possible to delay processing those permits in the coastal zone while the Coastal Commission rules on it or while they are waiting for the Coastal Commission to rule on it, could 20 more show up in the coastal zone and they have to live with them even though they surpass our cap after the Coastal Commission rules.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, explaining that the ordinance will not be able to take effect to impose a cap applicable to short-term rental permits in the coastal zone until the ordinance, if adopted, is certified by the Coastal Commission. The potential exists that, between City Council enactment of this ordinance, if that occurs, and Coastal Commission certification, the cap could be reached such that no new short-term rental permits outside the coastal zone would be issued but we would be compelled to continue to issue short-term rental permits within the coastal zone, provided they meet all the other applicable non-cap criteria of the short-term rental ordinance. If that occurs, which is speculative but the potential exists, they do have some options they can discuss with Council at this meeting to potentially make some additional changes to the draft ordinance before them to allow some staff flexibility through the adoption of regulations that would enable some sort of prioritization process related to the annual renewals to over time bring that number of permits back down to the cap. He stated that the process will depend, in part, on how far over the cap the city could end up and it would be a tool in the toolbox to help potentially through the annual renewal process or through other prioritization mechanisms by regulation to bring the total number of permits in alignment with the cap.
Mayor Bigstyck stated, as he thinks about the next steps in the process, assuming they vote on the cap at this time, there is a nightmare scenario regarding the coastal zone that is playing out in his head, and he would like to have some understanding on how they can mitigate that. He would love to hear that nuance later. He then opened to questions by Council.
1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 February 13, 2023
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if it is per property, and you have six units in your building and you apply right now for each one of your units, if it is just rejected since it is per building.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they will have to verify with HDL how they would handle specific situations. She also outlined that they have nine permits that operate on multiple units.
If any operators apply for multiple permits, whether it would be denied or some kind of screening would be in place so they would have to check the specific situation, she is hoping that HDL will still be consistent, i.e. if it is the same physical location, they would treat it as such.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he was told that there is one permit holder that has a four-unit complex of which three of those units are being rented out as STRs. He stated, under their permit, if that fourth person were to move out, would that permit cover converting that fourth unit to an STR or is that permit only allowing the three.
Asst. City Manager Carter didn’t want to speculate for how HDL treats this kind of situation, but she would guess when an STR operator applies for the permit, the lease wouldn’t be included in the permit, only the physical location.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there are two questions: What does the ordinance say and what would this amendment do about that in relation to the issue, and what are some of the administrative procedures and decisions made by the city’s consultant that helps implement the permitting process? He stated that they don’t have full insight at this moment to all the different permutations of what a technician at one point in time might do for a particular application. He can offer that there is nothing in the ordinance that would prohibit or limit that fourth unit from being turned into an STR. There may need to be an administrative function amending the permit application, perhaps applying for a new permit, but there is no limitation in the ordinance currently or proposed on that fourth unit becoming a short-term rental.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that it is very quick to jump from the cap to things that aren’t specifically limited to the cap. He appreciated that they are going to try and keep this conversation as capspecific as possible. For the sake of trying to understand what the playing field is, he thought it might be helpful for him to understand that the permit runs with the address, whatever the permutation of units happened to be at that address.
Planning Director Murdock thinks that is the best working understanding of that situation. He also added on to what Asst. City Manager Carter mentioned about the nine permits that they have identified that have multiple units or short-term rentals associated with that permit. He stated that the total number is 34 operating under those nine permits. Regarding his question of how that would relate to the cap if they go to a unit basis, it appears, from the data they have, that when you take the 34 minus the 9 permits they already have, it will be 25 more, approximately 171 or 175 total permits.
Councilmember Bier asked if an HDL consultant is present.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they are not.
Councilmember Bier confirmed, if she has a question for them, to give it to the city manager.
Councilmember Boles stated that she knows they are only to discuss the cap, and she appreciated the Planning Commission having delved a little deeper and put a wish list together of what a real ordinance might be. She hoped they could dig into that a little bit more so they
1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 February 13, 2023
have a better understanding of where we want to go. She thought it tied into the housing element. She is concerned that they are losing so much housing. In terms of rental housing, she knows three ladies over 70 who have been evicted from long-term apartments for Airbnb conversions. She stated that we have only built 159 units in the last seven years and we are here with 129 plus the extra 25 for these multiple permits and are already at 154 and then 10 more. In these few years, they have already washed out everything we built. She believes it is becoming a problem and she thinks it needs to be addressed in our housing element, and she hopes they can have a robust discussion at this meeting. Councilmember Boles asked about the range of 6-16 people being accommodated at each STR.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was characterizing is the average size of the accommodation and the largest accommodation that was identified in the data. He stated part of that analysis is to help frame the assortment of visitor accommodations for the Coastal Commission, anticipating the request for that data in the certification process for the ordinance, if adopted.
Councilmember Boles was trying to understand that these can hold so many people, i.e., 16 people. Reading our municipal code definition of hotels in Section 9-4-.245, she thought that some of these STRs could fall under our hotel definition; she was curious on staff’s thought on that, as there are then different requirements such as fire department inspections, building code requirements, etc.
Planning Director Murdock stated his initial thought regarding if it was in a commercial district it might be a hotel. It may have hotel-like characteristics, but this is a use authorized as a shortterm rental pursuant to the zoning; upon obtaining a permit, such a use can operate under the current short-term rental ordinance in a residential zone without being a hotel for purposes of zoning.
Councilmember Boles stated, for life safety issues and exiting, the rules are very different.
Planning Director Murdock thought there was more than one issue here. He thought her first question was asking about land use and zoning classifications and that is what his response addressed. It could be the case, independent of zoning, that the size of a particular short-term rental could trigger a change in occupancy for purposes of the building code and thus trigger required alterations to exiting, etc. Those are particular technical aspects that he isn’t prepared to speak in detail about at this time, but it is something that they should be looking out for and is some feedback they took previously to begin to incorporate into revisions to the administration of the process.
Councilmember Boles reviewed the application, which did not ask the number bedrooms or number of people, which can have a very different impact on the community, including traffic.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that maybe they can come back to the question about hotels or not after public comment, but she would like to go back over what he said in his opening about how the number of permitted STRs in the coastal zone is disproportional to the number of housing units in the coastal zone, as compared to the number of STRs not in the coastal zone.
Planning Director Murdock stated that Pacifica has along the order of 14,600 dwelling units citywide; within the coastal zone there are approximately 2,500. A relatively small share of the city’s housing stock is located within the coastal zone in terms of dwelling units. He stated, while the numbers vary, they have a particular snapshot in time in the Planning Commission
1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 February 13, 2023
staff report and they have a more up-to-date figure that has increased somewhat. Regardless of which figure you use from either report, relatively more short-term rentals are located in the coastal zone than outside of the coastal zone when you compare the number of dwelling units in the coastal zone against the number of dwelling units outside; it is something along the order of at least twice as intensive in terms of short-term rentals per dwelling unit if they are to use that ratio. He stated that, what their data has demonstrated is that, for whatever reason, more operations of short-term rentals are occurring in the coastal zone and that housing units are being disproportionately converted to short-term rentals in the coastal zone as compared to outside the coastal zone.
Councilmember Beckmeyer added that, in the data they are preparing for the Coastal Commission, is this fact among those, did they address that in their questions, or are they going to provide that context for them.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively. The Coastal Commission believes that bans on short-term rentals are inconsistent with the Coastal Act, but reasonable regulations, Including limits on the number and location and certain other characteristics, are permissible, if there is a demonstrated adverse impact to housing availability or other Coastal Act considerations. He stated that the Local Coastal Program does provide policy support and emphasis for housing opportunities for people with low and moderate incomes: The more housing units that are converted, the fewer housing opportunities there are in the coastal zone for persons with low or moderate income. That is a key point they intend to make and transmit to the Coastal Commission if Council were to adopt this ordinance.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the list of questions the City Manager sent to Council and highlighted whether it is possible to cap the number of units per permit, somewhat along the lines of what the mayor was asking. She realized this is a bigger question than at this meeting, but it goes to the issue of proliferation. She doesn’t understand it well enough to understand why it can’t be done or what the constraints are. She felt it would be helpful if someone can address that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there are already nine permittees in the program that have permits for multiple units. If Council were to direct a cap on units, instead of permits, they would be in a situation tonight that they can’t speak to all of the analysis, enforcement, and legalities about how they address those that already have permits for multiple units under one permit. He stated that it was a complexity they weren’t directed to look at and did not analyze that and wouldn’t be prepared to speak to that at this time; they would have to go back and spend time and work on that as directed by Council. In the larger reevaluation of the STR program, there are going to be a lot of ideas that generate questions about administration and enforcement of the program, and one relates to when does a multi-unit dwelling STR now become a hotel and what applies in that situation. He stated that there will be a whole host and it will be complicated to figure out how to administer and enforce that program as revamped.
This is an example of that complexity.
Councilmember Beckmeyer understood and wanted to echo what the mayor said in his opening comments: Ut was her thought when they talked about this in October that 150 is 150 units, not permits that have 9 or 15 or more than one unit attached to them. She takes responsibility for not understanding that, and her question to the city attorney is how quickly that could be fixed.
She knows they talked about having a larger discussion at goal setting so staff can look at what they want and be able to give them an answer about what it will take legally to review that administratively. She has to put it out as it is in the front of her mind that they get that done as
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 February 13, 2023
soon as they can which is not at this meeting.
Councilmember Bier echoed everything she said.
Councilmember Boles added that the explanation they got today was really that was done for tax purposes but it seems tax purposes and business license purposes aren’t necessarily the same thing. She stated that they could report once for taxes on all their units.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that those are good questions. He thinks the point relating to tax purposes is that this ordinance is implemented on the foundation of how our business taxes operate and that is how originally the ordinance was created. It is not for tax purposes, but that is the structure upon which that is based. He stated that there are other examples of businesses that have different operations, but they have one business license. He referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s question as well as others, concerning if they are going to be directed to do another iteration or permutation of this ordinance, then they need to consider Planning staff workload impacts and what is not going to get done while they do that. He stated that, even this simple cap approach has been a large impact to staff, i.e., attorney’s office, city manager’s office and planning, just to get to this point. He stated that it is a very complex program and he wants to be transparent about further work on the ordinance before doing a holistic review of the ordinance in the future is very impactful to what they are trying to get accomplished in Council’s priorities.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that the point is well-taken that when staff brought this approach to Council in October it was the understanding that this is the simple way to try and get a handle on it as we put it off to a time when we can invest staff time and resources needed to give it a true visit which the community has shown they would like to see and he believes Council would support. He thought this was the easy approach, but he was hearing that it was an approach that would require more work than they thought would be required. He concluded that they then led with the notion that this is very complex and they are hearing a lot of feedback from the community, and other communities have come up with an ordinance that they thought would be a good fit, and he thought they should just be able to cut and paste and not “reinvent the wheel”.
He asked, if that is not the case, whether they can give Council some insight as to why.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he thought it was because Pacifica was an early adopter in regulating STRs, so other communities have learned from what other cities have done along the way. He stated that another point is that each community is different, and the Coastal Commission views it that way in reviewing permits; they will ask very community-specific questions applying to the coastal zone in Pacifica, meaning what works in places such as Marin County or Half Moon Bay, in their interpretation, may not be appropriate for Pacifica. While we don’t know, he thinks it is a very community-specific program, and the dynamics, decision and data for the Planning Commission and Council should also be very community-specific. He thought the good thing is that there are a lot of examples and ideas that have been implemented on the California coast that Pacifica can borrow from (the Planning Commission brought up many of them, and staff has a variety ideas as well as Council) and he believes all those ideas will go into the hopper to see what is appropriate for Pacifica community-wide as well as the coastal zone. He concluded that they can’t say there is a perfect fit ordinance from another city that they can apply in Pacifica; if there is, he thought it would save a lot of staff time and they will evaluate that, referring to the City Attorney. He stated that, just as other communities learned from Pacifica’s experience, we want to learn from them in a future holistic revisitation of the program.
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 February 13, 2023
City Attorney Kenyon agreed with everything City Manager Woodhouse said and wanted to add that, when drafting the original ordinance, they look at other ordinances but they do not use a cookie cutter approach. They used other ordinances for ideas and concepts. She referred to the concept that they want units, not permits for buildings, and the cap on units, not permits.
She stated that idea will have to be tailored based on what our current ordinance says, look at the implications of modifying the current ordinance and the permittees who already hold permits for multiple units with one permit, and look at the taxing implications as this is based as a taxing ordinance. She stated that there are a lot of factors, not just taking an ordinance from another community. She stated that, for every community, it isn’t simply to say that they did it in a specific community and let us do it, as every community is different. They can take those ideas to give them new creative ways to approach issues, but she didn’t think it was fair to say that they saw it in another community and just apply it here, as it wasn’t that simple.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that she is saying that they can’t lift portions of an ordinance from a different community and paste it into ours.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is very difficult to do and, while she isn’t saying it never happens, it is generally better for the community to tailor an ordinance specifically for their unique community with different issues. They have to look at the specifics for that community’s needs as there are a lot of different factors going into the analysis. She stated that, while the idea is simple, implementation of the idea through an ordinance is never simple.
Councilmember Boles referred to enforcement and stated what concerned her in the staff report was an increased number of unpermitted STRs noted in the coastal zone with 48 permitted and 34 unpermitted which is higher than in October. She asked what the total number of unpermitted STRs are in the city and what they actively do now when they find an unpermitted STR. She asked if there are fines or back taxes for the ones now applying for permits.
Planning Director Murdock asked if she could point out where she is seeing an increase in the number of unpermitted short-term rentals.
Councilmember Boles stated that it was in several different documents and referred to the packet that said 24 STRs were identified as unregistered and now there are 34 just in the coastal zone.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, generally, depending on the characteristics which vary throughout the year, such as nightly rental rates, number of permitted and unpermitted STRs, there is a lot of seasonality to that data and they change over time. He stated that Asst. City Manager Carter might be able to speak to what HDL’s process is, but they routinely audit through their third party service the number of STRs that are currently active on various platforms and compare that against the permitted operations the city has and, for those unpermitted, they issue letters to notify them that in Pacifica a permit is required to operate and they take steps to try to bring them into compliance. He stated that they have a relatively good success rate of doing that. He thought their efforts have only resulted in three persistent noncompliant short-term rental operators in Pacifica. The others either closed their operation or registered in response to those contact efforts from HDL.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that, in October, when they reported to Council, there were 24 non-compliant STRs and this number is now down to 3 that did not respond to any compliance letters sent to them. She stated that HDL completed the compliance process and sent it to Pacifica to direct them on what to do next. She stated that the other properties either were
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 February 13, 2023
brought into compliance and why you see the increase in the total STR permits, reporting 124 in October and now they report 136; or they close their operations, pay their TOT taxes, and do whatever they needed to do legally to close operations and terminate the ads. Now, they have ten new properties that are in the discovery process. Every day it changes, with new ones, some brought to compliance, some closed, an ongoing process.
Councilmember Boles stated that the number of 34 is just in the coastal zone and she concluded that it isn’t a true number at this point.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they received updated numbers from HDL today and they have 60 permitted STRs in the coastal zone now. She doesn’t know if the three noncompliant are in the coastal zone or not, but she thought they can double check on that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was 60 permits or 60 units.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is permits.
Planning Director Murdock confirmed the figure they have as of this day is 62 in the coastal zone.
Councilmember Boles thought, while HDL is trying to bring them into compliance, they haven’t covered all the fire and safety necessities, and she asked if they are still allowed to operate or are they fined for non-compliance with our ordinances.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the process is very complex, as they have to comply with the permits, the requirements with the TOT taxes, and the business license. Typically it requires several steps and several stages of compliance letters. She stated that the first compliance letter is rather general, implying that they may not know about the compliance factors they need to comply with and all the provisions of the municipal code. Then when that letter is not addressed properly within the timeframe, the next letter is sent. If they don’t comply, the municipal code accounts for some penalties and additional tax implications.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was important to set the expectation. He stated that, generally, in terms of code enforcement, it is for all zoning violations, and with short-term rentals being in the zoning code, the same structure applies: The city goes out of its way to have a voluntary compliance approach to code enforcement. He stated that some cities are very confrontational, direct and abrupt with violators, and go straight to putative measures. That is not Pacifica’s current code enforcement, as we contact property owners through our code enforcement officer or HDL contact letters or other means to let them know they are violating the city’s municipal code and, if they don’t stop, there could be consequences. He stated that they have very high rates of voluntary compliance. He stated that, in this case, they have gone from several dozen non-compliant operations to three as of this specific day, and they have had very good success with the voluntary compliance approach. He stated that they are evaluating those 3 persistent violators internally as to what the appropriate next enforcement step is, such as notice a violation, citations, civil actions through the City Attorney’s office to stop them with a court order, but none of them are immediately going to cease the operation. That needs to be the expectation for zoning related violations in nearly every instance.
Councilmember Boles stated that her concern is not just about enforcement and permitting, but also about life safety issues for the people who are staying there, as they haven’t committed to doing the requirements for the permit.
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 February 13, 2023
Planning Director Murdock understands, as it is a very relevant concern. He thinks the reality is that they don’t have a good mechanism as a city to go out and kick the door in, etc. There are realistic and reasonable limits to the ability and means the city has to keep tight control and very time-sensitive control over these types of violations. They have issued the notices, worked toward voluntary compliance, and then evaluate what the appropriate next steps are in the event of non-compliance.
City Manager Woodhouse was going to add to the analogy regarding the enforcement process that that is exactly what they are doing related to business license enforcements. They have been auditing business licenses, and there are a lot of businesses in town that don’t have business licenses. He stated that it is an iterative process with letters stating that their records show they don’t have a business license and they would like them to come into compliance. He stated that one nuance of an enforcement approach is that, if you go in and shut down the business, you will have a very difficult time gaining any back taxes already owed. A cooperative process that brings them into compliance over time has proven to be the best approach.
Councilmember Bier asked if that enforcement was through our code enforcement officer or HDL.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the enforcement is done by HDL.
Councilmember Bier thought it would have been helpful to have them present at this time, as she thought they could have provided them with some information. She stated that they are getting a lot from our community and she asked if it was possible for them to put a moratorium on the short-term rental permits between the time of this evening and when they look at it through goal setting.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is not a possibility for this agenda.
Councilmember Bier agreed not tonight but she asked if it is possible.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there is research and data gathering and more evidence that they would need to put together to make a determination as to whether or not a moratorium would be legally defensible. She stated that there are certain findings that requires certain evidence and findings to establish them. She stated that they have not researched that or worked with staff, and as mentioned by the city manager, that would take additional time for the City Attorney’s office to do research and for Planning staff to gather the data and evidence needed to support any moratorium.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he wanted to follow up on her question about enforcement. He stated that there are two tracks regarding enforcement. The enforcement activity for this ordinance is undertaken by HDL, the contract provider administering the shortterm rental registration process by sending those letters to achieve voluntary compliance. He stated that the other component of enforcement is through the code enforcement officer and police department, which takes two flavors, one is that the persistent violator can be referred to code enforcement for citation, etc. There are also quality-of-life type complaints that trigger investigation and code enforcement action, similar to responses to noise and other unruly type of neighborhood quality-of-life impacts that the police department may respond to as well. He stated that, for the last two years, our code enforcement officer since January 2021 has received 19 complaints related to short-term rentals which is a relatively small number in
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 February 13, 2023
relation to the total number of short-term rentals but those are important complaints if you are the neighbors living around them. He didn’t want to trivialize them but he wanted to provide specific data, and reiterated that it was 19 in the last two years, and the police department has similar figures as well.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if the companies of Airbnb and Vrbo cooperate and give the information to HDL so we have exact numbers.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that is part of the scope of work that HDL is doing for the city, and she didn’t believe they get the information directly from Airbnb or VRBO. They use their own system that allows multiple listings and they cross-reference and verify each specific listing.
If you go on the Airbnb website, you will probably see a bigger number than 136; that is what HDL is tasked to do, to go in each lease, verify and eliminate all the duplicate postings, ads, and long-term occupancy, and limit it to the short-term. They return this data to us and issue compliance letters to those who need to comply with our municipal code.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if Council had any other questions before he opened the public hearing.
He stated that they have gotten a lot of letters and public feedback and why he wants to take a moment to draw out some of the complexities for something as seemingly simple as this cap and what looks to be a much more extensive process so those who are about to comment and those who are listening have some idea why they will only be discussing the cap after public comment and why, on March 4, when they are discussing what to put on next year’s work agenda, that is the time when they will be able to have a more robust discussion around whether or not they want to put this on their work plan because of the complexities and amount of work involved. He is looking forward to that conversation on March 4 and thought fellow councilmembers are also but is not meant to dissuade the public from making whatever comment but understand that any feedback they receive that does not have to do with the cap specifically will not be something they are considering at this meeting but they will be listening and will further inform ideas they will be able to deliberate on at a later date, specifically March
4. He then opened up the public hearing.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that, as the sole successful appellant to the Pacific Skies Estate eviction that removed every single unit of very low income and low-income housing and as a Planning Commissioner who broke a 6-month deadlock on the ADU legislation, he believes Council has an unfunded mandate, and explained his concerns and thoughts what the city can and cannot do on this issue.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, shared her concerns on this issue, acknowledged that it is a complicated issue, and urged Council to consider an emergency moratorium on any new permits while following the suggestions from Planning.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, appreciated Council for addressing his email’s question regarding the safety aspects, and shared his concerns on this issue.
Pam Raymond, Pacifica, stated that she is a resident with her house surrounded by Airbnb homes and shared her concerns on this issue.
Cheryl Greene, Pacifica, shared her concerns on this issue and suggestions on plans going forward to get this job done.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, referred to live-stream problems and questioned HDL being absent.
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 February 13, 2023
She then shared her concerns and thoughts on this issue as well as housing problems specifically.
Jen Hansen, Pacifica, appreciated that Council discussed concerns she shared in an email, and she then shared her thoughts on data on this issue.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he had questions to share with Council and asked that they count based on units not permits and shared his thoughts on the issue.
Mayor Bigstyck closed the public hearing. He stated that, before going to discussion, he referred to Commissioner Ferguson and asked him if he wanted to respond to any of the comments or point out some specifics from the Commission meeting.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that most of their questions were repeated by Councilmembers and he would share the general consensus of the Commission. They thought the cap does not go far enough to address the issue and they urged Council to take on a holistic overhaul of Pacifica’s short-term rental program. He stated that some of the priorities they wanted Council to consider for next year were listed in the notes from staff: They would like Council to approve the cap at this time and agendize it for next year to put effort into an overhaul of the program.
Mayor Bigstyck thanked him for that, and he appreciated his presence to share their perspective as needed. He then referred to speakers who talked about ADUs, and he understood that it doesn’t inform their decision on the cap, but their understanding is that ADUs are not allowed to be used as STRs under our ordinance. He asked if they are aware of any ADUs being used or, if aware, what the city is doing as they are not allowed to be used under the ordinance.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the issue takes a number of different forms. He thought it was easy to look at the exterior of a space and assume it is an accessory dwelling unit but there are particular zoning standards and a permit process entailed to establish and accessory dwelling unit. He stated that, once an ADU has been permitted and created, the current shortterm rental ordinance will continue to prohibit short-term rentals within ADUs. He stated that they have a list from HDL of what they believe to be up to 36 potential ADUs that may be operating as short-term rentals. He has cross referenced the permit history for ADUs for the past ten years and has only confirmed four of them, and potentially a fifth, that is a permitted ADU. He stated that they are following up on those particular instances with code enforcement investigations and contact if the complaint is substantiated. If the short-term rental use is not discontinued they will take the appropriate enforcement action in that instance. In other cases, they may be functioning as un-permitted living spaces that are operating as short-term rentals, may be mobile units that are not intended for long term habitation, and may be guest houses that are technically part of the primary unit but are detached in nature. He stated that there are different types of formulations that are very staff- and time- intensive to investigate and follow up and validate the circumstances. He stated that the short-term rental ordinance does require that, in order to operate as a short-term rental, the space in question needs to be permitted as a permanent dwelling unit. Things like trailers, sheds, and other types of spaces that are not intended or permitted as permanent dwelling units are not eligible to operate as short-term rentals.
Mayor Bigstyck asked where a guest house falls on that list, and what distinguishes a guest house from an ADU.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is detached from the main building but it doesn’t have
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 February 13, 2023
all the features to constitute a separate dwelling unit, as it may not have a toilet, restroom, or a kitchen and an ADU has to have all of the necessary amenities to function as an independent dwelling unit, and sleeping space, hygiene space (bathroom with a shower and sink), as well as a space to cook and store food in a refrigerator.
Mayor Bigstyck asked Planning Director Murdock to further explain.
Planning Director Murdock stated guest hosts are not required to have a bathroom, so they may or may not, but they cannot have all of those elements and not meet the criteria to be approved as an ADU. He stated that you need to choose the characteristics you would like for your guest house, and if it has all of them, it would meet the requirements to be an ADU.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that HDL is going through and figuring out what they can enforce.
Planning Director Murdock admitted that it was an area that needs improvement and refinement. As mentioned earlier, the Council’s 2018 ordinance was a very low intensity, low regulatory type of ADU ordinance and the process to administer and implement it has not been on the more rigorous end to have a very thorough screening and vetting process or ruling out all types of different ineligible spaces to operate - it was ensuring permitting to ensure TOT collection. They have learned about these particular vagaries and undesirable outcomes through administration of the process. He has been working with Asst. City Manager Carter and she has been engaging with HDL and it is an ongoing process to try to tighten up those and to screen for the appropriate types of instances that they don’t want to occur, such as ADUs.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that, while they have been developing the program since 2018, they are figuring out the proper approaches along the way, and this is a major learning moment for Council.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was a fair assessment.
Councilmember Bier asked if the proposed text amendment, including the junior ADUs, covers tiny homes.
Planning Director Murdock thought not necessarily as tiny homes need to be considered somewhat uniquely as they don’t fit anywhere under the definition of tiny home in the zoning.
He stated that, commonly, tiny homes are constructed and desired to be occupied on wheels and that is not something permissible under the building code or short-term rental ordinance because it isn’t a type of unit intended for a permanent dwelling unit occupancy. He stated that a tiny home that meets the minimum dimensions, bathroom, kitchen, and sleeping area requirements to be an ADU and could be placed to meet the setback requirements and installed on a permanent foundation with a building permit may be able to be an ADU but then it could not be a short-term rental. He stated this is another variation that adds complexity to their administration and enforcement process.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that there was a question from a community member to clarify the transit occupancy tax revenues and what the actual number is.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, for the current fiscal year, they projected about $1.2 million generated from STRs, and the total number in the budget for TOT is about $2.1 million.
They are currently going through the mid-year budget projections so they will have more granular projections when they bring it back and they will make sure to separate this between
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 February 13, 2023
the hotel TOT, regular TOT, and the STR, but that is best assessment she can make now.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded our best assessment is $1.2 million.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated $2.1 million is the adopted budget for TOT and about $1.2 million is projected from the STRs.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to respond to a comment made related to this, i.e., the thought of increasing fees on STRs or the TOT. The STR permit is a business tax and the TOT is a separate transient occupancy tax. He stated that, to change both of those, would require a ballot measure with a vote of the people, and, when they brought back different ballot measure options, one was restructuring the business tax, as we have a very antiquated business tax system and, in future years, Council may want to consider that type of restructuring and that would be when you could restructure a business license tax related to STR operation and a transient occupancy tax change or increase or different structure would be on a measure as well.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was thinking about something like a BID but a BID for STRs. She stated that we currently have a BID but it is only charged to hotels, not to STRs.
She asked what the legal mechanism is, i.e., the same as what he just said which is that it would have to be a ballot measure.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the BID is able to be charged through state highway code and they would have to research whether that could be applied to STRs.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it takes Council action to enact one of those or does it take a vote of the people.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, for the current BID under the State Highway Code, it was not a vote of the people but a Council action. He stated that they would have to research that more unless Asst. City Manager Carter knows.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed that they will have to do additional research, but she reminded them that the BID, by the definition, is a self-assessment so that might complicate the issue on applying it to the STRs.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what self-assessment means.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that all the hotels agreed to be assessed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that they can’t require it as, if they want to have an STR, this is what they have to do.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they will have to do additional research.
Mayor Bigstyck stated the same commenter made a statement of not suggesting a moratorium but a pause which didn’t strike him as a legal term at the time, and he asked if the city attorney has another perspective.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is another form of moratorium.
1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 February 13, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck referred to mention of the Coastal Commission, and they were talking about various mechanisms and worst-case scenarios in which they pass this, and they are waiting for the Coastal Commission to say yes to us, but in the meantime 50 short-term rentals pop up in the coastal zone. He asked, in such a nightmare scenario, what options are available to the city such to preempt such a nightmare scenario if they are heading in that direction. He asked for more detailed and nuanced versions.
Planning Director Murdock thought they should be aware of the potential for a nightmare scenario, but that potential may not materialize. He stated the best-case scenario is that it could be that they do not exceed the cap if the Council enacts this ordinance by the time the Coastal Commission certifies it, and the worst-case scenario is where they far exceed the cap. If that is the case, staff would need to evaluate where they are in terms of STR permits issued on the date of the Coastal Commission’s certification and strategize what the most appropriate approach or options might be for Council. He had mentioned earlier as a suggestion from staff is that, if the Council is concerned about the potential to exceed the cap by the time the Coastal Commission certifies the ordinance, they can add a tool to the toolbox to allow the short-term rental program administrator which, by ordinance, is the Asst. City Manager or designee, to express permission to adopt regulations to implement the ordinance, including explicitly the STR cap. What that could mean is that, given that the STR permits are subject to annual renewal and there is no vested right to the ongoing possession or operation of an STR permit, one option could be that the Council introduces the amendments, which he will read shortly, it is possible through regulation that the STR administrator could put a framework in place to say, “here’s the priority order for the STR renewals because we are over the cap and we cannot, by law, operate in excess of the cap”. He stated that the STR program administrator is going to bring the renewals back into alignment with the cap. He stated that the mechanics of that have not been developed yet, but they would like Council to consider introducing the ordinance with some additional language at this time so at least there is expressed authorization for the development of those types of regulations and they are potentially the regulations that will come up to help facilitate administration of the ordinance. He referred to Section 9-4.4905, Permit Term and Renewal, stating that there are subsections (a) and (b), and staff would propose that subsection (b) be amended to read, “Renewal. The permittee may renew the permit annually, subject to the short-term rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902 by submitting a renewal application and fee between October 1 and October 31 of each year regardless of when the short-term rental permit was issued. If a renewal application and fee are not filed prior to the October 31 deadline, the short-term rental permit may be deemed revoked by the Administrator”. He stated that the new language is that, subject to the short-term rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902, it gives some extra weight and specific reference to the cap when considering the renewal process. He stated that the other amendment they would recommend is in Section 9-4.4907, entitled permit revocation and enforcement. They would propose adding a new subsection (e) that reads, “The administrator or his/her designee is authorized to promulgate any policies or procedures necessary to implement and enforce this article, including but not limited to a process for accepting and prioritizing applications received after the short-term rental permit cap set forth in 9-4.4902 is reached”.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if it would be appropriate to simply write “their” or “he/her/they”.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles asked him to read that last part one more time.
Planning Director Murdock stated he is not familiar with all the pronoun usages, but the
1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 February 13, 2023
“administrator or they/their designee is authorized to promulgate any policies or procedures necessary to implement and enforce this article, including but not limited to a process for accepting and prioritizing applications received after the short-term rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902 is reached”. He thought the nuance of that is that, while they cannot impose the cap until the ordinance is certified by the Coastal Commission within the coastal zone, there is a point at which the cap will be reached and they can document when that is and the regulations would apply to applications submitted after the cap has been reached and it allows for a process to address those during future renewal process as stated in whatever those future regulations would be.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified that Council would be delegating to the short-term rental administrator the authority to develop and implement these regulations, so it is a delegation of authority - it would not be brought back to Council.
Planning Director Murdock stated, in addition to those recommended amendments, there is also an administrative correction renumbering some of the subsections in Section 9-4.4901 and those could be made ordinarily between introduction and adoption as minor administrative clarifications but he will save them for the record at this meeting, and Council should consider any other clarifying edits related to pronouns as he thinks there is perhaps one other instance where there is a his/her, and he wants to be sure they can address those.
Mayor Bigstyck asked Council if they were okay with those amendments.
All Councilmembers agreed.
Councilmember Boles wanted to go back to the moratorium question again, as she is hearing that it will be taking a lot of staff time. She understands the findings for a moratorium are difficult, but she is concerned in the coastal zone particularly as she hears from the Coastal Commission is that their process is 100 days minimum and we need another 30 days and that is quite a few months and they could be getting a lot more permits in the coastal zone, especially given that there are 38 or 39 now that are unpermitted and could be seeking those permits to continue to operate. She asked if they could consider a moratorium that is for a time specific to say until the Coastal Commission reviews the cap and say the moratorium is just in the coastal zone as they don’t need it for the whole city because the cap will be able to be put into effect.
She understood he may not have answers now, but she asked if that would help them to make that case to protect Pedro Point and Sharp Park that are most effected.
Planning Director Murdock wanted to clarify for the record that the data staff has today indicates three unpermitted operating short-term rentals and there were previously more as expressed earlier and they had good success in bringing them into compliance and they are discontinuing operation. He stated that they don’t have data at this time to confirm whether any of those are in the coastal zone.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, regarding the question of whether those types of factors make it easier to make the moratorium findings, it is hard to say. They would put them in there, but that alone would not be enough. They would need more data and analysis to explain why short-term rentals in the coastal zone are problematic and injurious to public health and safety. She stated that is the foundational evidence they need and it hasn’t been gathered to substantiate the moratorium findings, not that they can’t. She stated that, if they limit it to the coastal zone, that would focus the analysis but there are still additional research and analyses that would be needed to make findings.
1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 February 13, 2023
Councilmember Boles asked if Council wants to consider a moratorium, if staff could come back to the next meeting with a better estimate and a better idea of what attorney and staff time might be so Council can decide if that is something they might want to pursue.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed that they can come back at the next meeting and give them a better estimate of time and cost associated with doing that analysis.
City Manager Woodhouse emphasized that performing the analysis itself is difficult to estimate.
They could start the process, with field investigations, code enforcement, planning, city attorney’s office, just to get an idea of how complex that analysis is going to be. He stated that it is going to be difficult to predict until they get into how much time it is going to take. He would prefer, if Council wants them to evaluate the potential for the grounds of a moratorium, for them to understand that it is going to sidetrack staff for weeks to do that, and they will do that and bring it back; they can start the process and say that there isn’t anything there and they can go back to Council to confirm that or say it is way more complex and come back to Council. He stated that they don’t know what evidence exists on the public health and safety impacts.
Mayor Bigstyck stated, if he understands Councilmember Boles, drawing an analogy, it is the equivalent of walking into the water and seeing if it gets up to our knees before deciding if we want to go for a swim.
Councilmember Boles agreed, adding that she sent the city attorney some examples of a moratorium from Marin County and their coastal town up north. There might be some language that is there that may not match exactly to our circumstances but can give us an idea of what is required through the Coastal Commission to be able to enact it.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if the moratorium could put us in violation of what the Coastal Commission is looking for. If we put a moratorium and they want more units available in the coastal zone, that may cause us additional problems.
Councilmember Boles thought it was clear from some of Ms. Abbott’s letters where she documented what other cities have done and the comments from the Coastal Commission that they understand that there is a problem with a loss of housing on the coast and she was sure they could have a preliminary discussion with the Coastal Commission before they got too far along to feel them out.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the legal definition and requirement. She stated that she had asked for a moratorium for short-term rentals in October and the answer was no, it can’t happen because it has to be injurious to public health and safety, they have to make findings, and they have to readopt it every 45 days. She stated that the same outcome could be had by placing a cap on the number of units, not permits, and once you hit that you stop. She stated that, with a moratorium, you stop as soon as it is adopted. She stated that they want to stop the pain and they are hearing from our community and a ton of them they aren’t hearing from. She asked, in respecting those they are hearing from, what can they do now, if not a moratorium, or perhaps a moratorium is the right thing to do, and requested input from City Attorney Kenyon.
City Attorney Kenyon concluded that the problem, as was the case in October, was they are unable to answer if they have the evidence to support a moratorium as they weren’t given the direction to do it. She stated that the problem, as expressed by the City Manager, is that Council is in a difficult position because it is going to take staff time and resources from both the
1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 February 13, 2023
attorney’s office and Planning to even determine whether there is enough evidence to adopt a moratorium. She thinks the question is whether Council wants to take staff time and cost for the potential of finding out that they can’t adopt a moratorium. She stated that analysis has not been done and the question for Council is do they think the need for a moratorium, even with the adoption of this cap, although only on permits and not units, would be as necessary as it would be if they hadn’t introduced the ordinance at this time related to the cap. She stated that was the approach taken in October, i.e., to see if the cap will do some good and perhaps a moratorium will not be necessary, and they would revisit the whole issue in a more holistic way at goal setting and take a deeper dive as mentioned at this meeting. That is a deliberation topic for Council to take because they will do whatever Council directs them to do but what they are hearing are competing interests with staff resources and time and cost. She stated that she could come up with a cost in a few days for what the City Attorney’s office would spend in researching preparing a moratorium and going through the whole process, but in terms of staff time and resources and pushing aside other projects, that is another issue that she doesn’t know if Council will be able to get a grasp on until staff work with the attorney’s office to justify the moratorium.
Planning Director Murdock added that, as Council is weighing where to prioritize the city’s efforts and resources with the advice of the City Manager and City Attorney, he indicates that they have a relatively small planning department and many of the same staff that would focus on the work to prepare a moratorium would be the same staff prioritizing work to prepare and submit an ordinance to the Coastal Commission for certification. He stated that preparation to transmit to the Coastal Commission would not be able to occur during the period that staff is also working on preparing the analysis of a potential moratorium. He would offer them the thought to weigh the relative durability of whatever approach Council wants to take. He stated that Council could commit a significant amount of staff time and financial resources through the City Attorney’s office and perhaps other outlets to prepare a moratorium that is good for perhaps 45 days and, if renewed, another 45 days, but moratoriums are not permanent solutions - they are intended to give enough time for Council to analyze and legislate a permanent solution. He stated that they are some way towards a permanent solution with the cap, not all that Council would desire, but an important first step and the only reasonable first step that City Manager has explained that staff can provide without significantly modifying other priority work plan items and that discussion should occur during the goal setting process. He thought the durability and the reward versus resources expended is going to be one or the other but not both in terms of a moratorium or going full steam toward certification with the Coastal Commission.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that his curiosity around the moratorium had something to do with holding off on new permits in the coastal zone until the cap was certified by the Coastal Commission and what he is hearing him telling him is that is not the way it will happen - they would have a moratorium, not a cap.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was a high probability that the efforts to obtain Coastal Commission certification of the ordinance would be significantly delayed by pursuing a moratorium.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he can comment on the impact of those two activities he outlined would have on finishing the housing element.
Planning Director Murdock thought it could have very important impacts. He stated that City Manager Woodhouse indicated that he could probably dedicate one mid-level planning staff member and would necessarily need to commit our code enforcement officer to investigation
1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 February 13, 2023
and exploration of a moratorium; he would ultimately need to supervise the work of both of those staff, and he is currently the only staff primarily dedicated to working on the housing element process. He stated that they are currently short one senior level planner and won’t replace that position for a month or two in the best-case scenario. He stated that they are talking about trading resources from one important activity to another and Council has to determine what is most important. He understands there are strong arguments to be made for committing the continued significant amount of resources towards completion of the housing element, but Council can ultimately figure out what is most important for the community.
Councilmember Bier wanted to be clear that if they have the evidence needed to do a moratorium, they need to protect our community; however, moving forward, they are going to be able to talk at goal setting about all of the items that have been presented to them by Planning Commission and all the things coming from our community, i.e., tax, enforcement, hosted versus un-hosted, et al. She wants to have the opportunity to change it all at once but her fear is that, in the interim, what will happen: If they are talking about it at goal setting, that timeline after goal setting, with the fiscal year starting in July, she thinks there needs to be some kind of protection between now and after July when they will be able to get to the short-term rental ordinance. She is open to other ideas, suggestions, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus understands that there are “bad actors” in the short-term rental community and she thinks, opposite of what she said earlier, the cap is a natural moratorium.
She stated that we are very close to it now, and if they put the cap on it, they have basically done a moratorium without calling it a moratorium or going through the research involved in calling it a moratorium. She also wondered if they are eliminating people who need to do shortterm rentals and are not allowed to do it because they capped it, but she is in favor of the cap.
She can see many future regulations for the short-term rentals as some people are way out of hand and we need more regulations. She hopes that will eliminate some of the “bad actors” and allow for people who need to do the short-term rentals.
Councilmember Bier stated that bad actors are everywhere and that she also experienced issues with short-term rentals. She wants to make sure that what they do moving forward is the right thing to do and get these in place, and she thought the most important thing to her is to get on the entire ordinance as soon as possible.
Councilmember Boles suggested that they table the moratorium for a little bit and brainstorm methods to address some of the “bad actors”. She thinks they do need to tackle this ordinance next year. She stated that the one thing she doesn’t like about the cap is that it caps hosted short-term rentals so someone trying to rent a bedroom in their house to help pay their mortgage and there are no more permits. She didn’t think they should be capping that at all as they are not the ‘bad actors”. They are there making sure that the rules are followed and that also limits the city’s ability to make more money on short-term rentals. She stated that one thing suggested in one of the letters was reaching out to Airbnb and asking them to put license numbers on the website and that is something they often did for other cities like San Francisco so Airbnb can become an enforcer and take down a site that does not have a license. She wondered if the city has pursued that or have they had any conversations with Airbnb about increasing some of their rules and communication about neighborhood regulations regarding noise, etc. She stated that they appear to be somewhat concerned about their overall reputation within communities that complain.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, one intention is to follow up soon with Airbnb about what they are doing regarding their “bad actors” as they also have rules and they have a voluntary
1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 February 13, 2023
reporting agreement with them and they submit the TOT. Typically as a corporate sponsor, they are not that proactive regarding enforcement issues. When they first started the agreement, they had those conversations back when Airbnb, as a corporation, was pushing back pretty hard on this stuff. He stated that they want to see what they can do and if they have implemented license numbers, and they can explore that. He stated that they haven’t been able to make a lot of headway with that corporation on this function.
City Attorney Kenyon was also involved the preliminary discussions with Airbnb, and she happens to be in discussion with Airbnb for another much larger jurisdiction, and those discussions were much smoother than the discussions they had with Pacifica. She asked them why and they said it was because we don’t have as big of an Airbnb market. The reason they are much more amenable to negotiating and even doing enforcement for a community like San Francisco is because their Airbnb market is much larger there. She stated that they were very upfront about it, and that was many years ago so she has not had communications since then, but that was their attitude when negotiating with Pacifica and why the negotiations she was involved in with the other community was 180 degrees different.
City Manager Woodhouse added that his point is that, in working with HDL, we have some ongoing enforcement matters we want to work on with this program and they want to bring Airbnb back into that, and perhaps VRBO as well, so they can learn more and see what improvements we can make.
Councilmember Boles thought putting that license number on there would be something very easy to do. She stated that some things mentioned briefly in the staff report were fines, and she asked if that was something Council could look at again. She asked if they are only charging $100 if someone is operating illegally as a first fine. She stated that, in trying to recapture the staff time and consultant time, maybe they can also establish a fund for redoing proper legal documents as they move forward.
Councilmember Bier stated that would involve enforcement and she asked if that would be part of the larger discussion they would have moving forward or is she talking about in the short term.
Councilmember Boles referred to Section 9-4-4907 which states Council may establish fines for violations, and she asked if they can revisit that to help stem the tide of illegal operations.
Planning Director Murdock stated that violations of the Pacifica Municipal Code can be enforced three different ways, adding that the City Attorney can clarify if necessary. He stated that there is a criminal approach which is extremely rare, a misdemeanor citation approach which allows up to $1000 but has particular requirements to implement, and the administrative citation process, which is by far the most common approach to address zoning violations when voluntary compliance cannot be reached. He stated, by general state law, cities are limited to $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second, and $500 for third and subsequent administration citation violations. He agreed that they have the opportunity to pursue fines when they take code enforcement action but that is not the city’s traditional or first response to most code enforcement situations.
Councilmember Boles asked if the fine levels would make an impact when short-term rentals could be charging up to $2000 a night.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, potentially, but they are typically applied per 12-month
1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 February 13, 2023
period: The first violation that escalates to a second and third, etc., within that year would be at the $500 level. He stated that most operators are probably not going to laugh at a $500 citation, but if they are charging $2000 a night, perhaps that is a cost of doing business, and that is why citations are one of the tools in the enforcement toolbox. There are more severe sanctions if the City Attorney’s office can assist with by going to court seeking remedies in that fashion.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it occurred to her that the Coastal Cities group is meeting on the 16th and one of the things they will do is approve their work plan which includes developing understanding and position on evolving short-term rental issues in the coastal zone. She thinks they should be bringing this forward in all of our state and regional committees.
Mayor Bigstyck appreciated the comment earlier that the cap, in a sense, acts like a natural moratorium, except against the cap except coastal zone, depending on how long it takes the Coastal Commission to express their response on our cap. He is trying to figure out how hard he might want to push for a moratorium, and they have been discussing what it means to have a moratorium. He thought to have a moratorium in place without a clear next step is hard. He thought that clear next step may be goal setting and we figure out what direction staff takes and then the moratorium is there until they get it together. He thought it was helpful in hearing the amendments where we give our administrator the leverage to create those rules that, in a worstcase scenario, if the permits are issued in the coastal zone in a way that he wouldn’t prefer, they would be able to walk them back quickly such as within a year time frame based on what he heard described and what the amendments before them would enable them. He stated that it helps him to be more comfortable putting the cap in place with the understanding that those permits could be issued in the coastal zone before the Coastal Commission has the opportunity to weigh in on our cap but then it is relatively simple vis a vis the amendment to then walk them back shortly thereafter. Given our lack of staff resources, he is currently leaning in that direction, wanting to have a robust discussion about putting this on the work plan in March. He stated the consideration around a moratorium is bearing in mind that, if they have the appetite to divert staff resources and develop it, they will also need to have a four Council appetite when it comes to them to pass it, which he thought they might have, and is a consideration. He asked, before further deliberation, to have a motion to extend the meeting.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Councilmember Boles asked if they can change their application to ask a few more questions.
Asst. City Manager Carter responded that they can work to add some additional points.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like to give some suggestions. She would like to have the application to ask how many units per one application or they can change the application moving forward so that it is one application per actual unit.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they can modify the application and collect additional data
1.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 February 13, 2023
points, as long as those points don’t trigger the decision.
Councilmember Boles concluded that they couldn’t deny a permit based on multiple units, but they can ask for that information.
Mayor Bigstyck thought that was a simple change and asked if they need Council consensus to get that direction.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought she had several other things for the application.
Councilmember Boles confirmed. She stated that it was raised in several letters if they could ask for a name and contact person of a responsible local person that could respond within an hour or two if there is a complaint and maybe that is a number that could be given to the police department for enforcement. She wanted to ask how the property was used prior to an STR so they can get some information if they are losing rental property versus something that is owned.
She asked about checking to make sure that there aren’t active violations or open permits, as she has heard that happen a couple of times on some units on Esplanade, so they don’t give a business license if there is an ongoing complaint or unpermitted work being done.
Asst. City Manager Carter asked if she was asking if the operator self-reports that information.
Councilmember Boles clarified it was a question of whether we check that if an application comes in.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the business license tax is for a tax, not regulatory, and they cannot deny a business license tax because there are code enforcement violations or other violations with the business. She stated that they are entitled to receive the business license tax so long as they meet all the requirements in our business license tax ordinance which is adopted by the voters. To change the requirements in order to receive a business license tax would not be possible without modifying the ordinance which requires a vote of the people, assuming the tax is being modified in any way. She reiterated that the business license tax is a revenue generator, not a regulatory fee.
City Manager Woodhouse added that, in a future revision to the ordinance, there are other things they could require as part of the application, similar to what they do for the cannabis business program. If they wanted to have a provision that said, if there are certain violations on the property, they aren’t going to get permitted, then they could require that.
Planning Director Murdock thought any of them are possible, but they don’t have a sophisticated information system that allows them to automate those cross-checks for code enforcement violation status or work without a permit. He stated that any level of control that Council wants to impose on the review process will require assigning a short-term rental permit and business license applications to a planner to conduct a manual search of code enforcement records, building permit records, etc. which is particularly time-intensive. One short-term rental permit application here or there would be able to be absorbed in our workload, but to do it every year for potentially 150 STR permits with some of those having multiple units could have an adverse workload impact on the Planning Department. He stated that the general rule is the more control, the more regulation, the more bureaucracy, and the more staff and time and resources to administer it; Council should understand that, when asking for more, it will divert resources away from some other activity.
1.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 February 13, 2023
Councilmember Boles understands it is more staff time, and maybe it is more for the longer term ordinance than just the application, but she thought they could ask if there are outstanding violations and do they have a permit for that use.
Planning Director Murdock wanted to raise one point for City Attorney’s opinion. He referred to Councilmember Boles’ mention of name and contact of a local contact person, and that is a question that imports a regulatory requirement that is not in the ordinance currently with respect to a local, and that could discourage someone from making an STR permit application. He stated that, regarding the other questions about general descriptive information about the unit, he didn’t know how that would dissuade someone from making application or not, but a local contact person is not currently a requirement in the STR ordinance, so he thought they should be careful about suggesting that it is a registration requirement.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is a good point. In order for the permittee to be required to have a contact person, it would have to be in the ordinance, but in terms of asking for that information, she didn’t see a problem with asking for it in the application. To the Planning Director’s point, in terms of enforcement, they would need it to be in the ordinance in order for it to have any teeth.
Councilmember Boles understood, but if some of them provide that information, it would be helpful as she thinks that is some of the frustration when they can’t get ahold of someone.
City Manager Woodhouse thought, in the application, they could probably say name and contact of local person if applicable.
Councilmember Boles asked if they can charge more for the applications to cover some of this additional research time and support.
Asst. City Manager Carter asked if she means the permit application.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively, asking about the fees they charge in order to process a short-term rental permit.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the permit application is $150.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, when they review the budget in the coming months, the fee schedule will come before them and they can have a discussion on that at that time. He asked if staff needed a consensus from Council in order to take that direction on the changes to the forms.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they would need consensus from the majority of Council, not a formal motion, but they need to know that there are a majority of Council that agreed with changes recommended by Councilmember Boles.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he heard the number of units and contact information and he asked if everyone was in agreement with that.
Councilmember Bier agreed, adding that it is frustrating that they can’t do a lot and she feels Councilmember Boles’ frustration.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they need to keep their eyes on March 4 and suggested to
1.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 February 13, 2023
Pacificans that they show up on March 4 and send them comments as they are hearing them and at least some of them are looking forward to getting that on the work plan and having that discussion.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified for the audience that, at goal setting on March 4, the objective is to identify this as a future work item if Council agrees, rather than delve into and discuss the substance of the ordinance.
Mayor Bigstyck appreciated that, adding that he thought the community would still like to give feedback on what they think approaches will be and they will take a moment discussing some of the items and why they want it on the work plan, if they do decide to add it to the work plan.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it seems there is enough meat and questions that this might be something they need to think about appointing an ad hoc committee of Councilmembers to work on it. There are so many details and there are a lot of ideas and other ordinances to look at and a lot of things that need to occur outside the scope of Council meetings and outside the scope of goal setting. She then stated that at this meeting, they are being asked to approve or not approve the cap; she would like to propose, with the time now at 10:55 PM, that they focus on deciding if they are approving it or not.
Mayor Bigstyck agreed and stated that he is in favor of the cap with the amendments that were indicated by Planning Director Murdock.
Planning Director Murdock clarified that the Council would be introducing the ordinance at this time for a potential adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, if no further deliberation, he will entertain a motion or a second.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved introduction of an ordinance to amend Article 49 (Short-Term Rentals) of the City of Pacifica zoning regulations, Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to establish a cap of 150 short-term rental permits issued citywide and various other conforming amendments, including the changes brought forward by Planning Director Murdock, File No. 2022-36, Text Amendment TA-123-22, recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3).
Planning Director Murdock asked City Attorney Kenyon to confirm that was a sufficient reading by title only, as that was the agenda subjected, not the recommended action.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Article 49 (Short-Term Rentals) of Chapter 4 as amended.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that as amended and clarifying her motion included introduction.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, if the City Attorney understands the motion, they are all good.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if there was a second.
Seconded by Councilmember Boles.
1.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 February 13, 2023
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
CONSIDERATION
11. Anza Pump Station Repair Project–Additional Budget Authorization for Construction and Construction Services Management
PROPOSED 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.
PW Director Petersen introduced the staff report and then passed it over to Wastewater Engineering Manager Nelson Schlater to present the report.
WW Engr. Manager Schlater presented the staff report.
Councilmember Boles appreciated all the information and pictures. She was thinking about the timing and making sure we are operational before next year’s rains. She understood they have to apply for a Coastal Development permit with the Coastal Commission as they are not allowing the city to continue on the emergency permits and she wondered if we applied for that and, if so, is there a rough time estimate of what they would need.
PW Director Petersen stated that the Coastal Commission is saying regarding the two elements of the station they applied for (the emergency coastal development permit) that they want the city to submit a standard coastal development permit because of the amount of time that the project has taken. They are in the process of putting it together and will submit it, but they will continue to move forward on the project and it will not stop.
Mayor Bigstyck referred to the extra money and asked if the insurance will ultimately cover that.
PW Director Petersen stated that, everything they have done at the pump station is needed and should be covered by insurance. They have continued having conversations with the insurance company related to all the elements they are putting in the Anza pump station and the city believes they will be reimbursed for them all, but they are still in those conversations.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked for clarification on a comment from one member of the public who stated that, in 2014, we purchased two pumps that were never installed.
WW Engr. Schlater stated that he was unaware of that. He stated that, when he came into the project, they researched what was there and what they needed to replace, and those older pumps have been operational since the 70s. They have been maintained, and they are the
1.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 February 13, 2023
smaller pumps on the side. The larger pump has a nameplate of 1947. He stated that those are just the pumping facilities, and there are also the larger gas engines that drive the pumps.
He reiterated that, even though they can only run the one large pump since March 16, 2020, that is 70,000 gallons per minute. They have never had an overflow associated with the Anza storm water pump station.
Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to a) Adopt a Resolution increasing the Anza Station 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; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
ADJOURN
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 11:23 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor
1.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 2-13-2023 Special and Regular Meeting (5282 : Approval of Minutes)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/27/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending December 31, 2022.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending December 31, 2022.
STAFF CONTACT:
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7402
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Fiscal Sustainability remains one of the City Council Strategic Goals, which includes planning for and implementing long-term financial health and stability. A key component of this goal includes preparing a quarterly financial report that would provide readers with an executive summary of the City’s current economic conditions related to the annual operating budget.
Last year staff implemented a new financial reporting practice on a quarterly basis that started last fiscal year to ensure accountability and transparency in managing public funds. This work is especially meaningful as we monitor post COVID-19 pandemic recovery of the local economy and the City’s financial health.
On June 27, 2022, the City Council adopted the structurally balanced FY 2022-23 Budget that included the revenue assumptions post-COVID-19 pandemic. Finance staff has completed the second Quarter of the Fiscal Year 2022-23, and this report reflects the financial results for the Quarter.
The Second Quarter Financial Report summarizes the City’s General Fund and is not meant to be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions. This report intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s operations and fiscal condition. This report provides an update on the financial status of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures for the Quarter ending December 31, 2022.
The General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund and is used to account for day-to-day activities. It receives unrestricted revenues and provides the City’s general administrative services, law enforcement, fire, public works, parks, beaches and recreation, and community development-related activities such as planning, building, and engineering. Revenue sources include but are not limited to property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), business registration, and current fees for services such as parking charges, engineering, planning, building permit fees, and recreation services.
The Second Quarter Financial Report for the City of Pacifica provides the financial status 2 Packet Pg. 41
Pacifica City Council 2
February 27, 2023
update of the City’s General Fund by outlining the revenues and expenditures as of December 31, 2022. The Financial Report is prepared on a cash basis; therefore, only the revenue received by December 31, 2022, is reflected in the analysis. Likewise, expenditures are recorded when paid using the cash basis method of accounting.
With the completion of the Second Quarter, General Fund Revenues were $26.2 million (57% of budget), and Expenditures were $20.8 million (48% of budget). Revenues exceed expenditures, not only because of the large installment of property tax received in December 2022, but also due to receiving an upfront payment of $4.6 million ARPA Grant funding.
General Fund Operating expenditures are on target at the end of the second Quarter. The Fire department is about 55% of the budget at the end of the second quarter. Expenditures are higher than expected partly due to public safety and public works staff overtime being more than was budgeted.
Overall, staff is pleased to report that the FY 2022-23 Budget is on track with revenues and expenditures performing as expected, validating the assumptions made by staff at the budget adoption. However, it is important to note that these are only preliminary numbers, as additional booking entries may occur throughout the year and during the fiscal year-end that may modify some of the Second Quarter figures. Staff will continue monitoring the City’s economic conditions and will use the data presented in this quarter for a more in-depth FY 2022-23 MidYear Budget review that is currently underway and will be presented to Council in March, 2023.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the Second Quarter Financial Report will not change the City’s financial condition as of the end of the Quarter ending December 31, 2022.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
This item furthers the City’s efforts toward Fiscal Sustainability.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the Council’s acceptance of this report.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Q2 22-23 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1(DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 42
City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2022‐23
SecondQuarter Financial Report
1 OVERVIEW
This Second Quarterly Financial Report is an analysis of the unaudited financial status of the City’s General Fund from July 2022 through December 2022. The City of
Pacifica has completed the Second Quarter of the Fiscal Year 2022‐23. The Second Quarterly Financial Report will summarize the City’s General Fund and is not meant to
be inclusive of all finance and accounting transactions.
This report intends to provide the Council and the public with a broad overview of the City’s fiscal condition, as the General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City
and is used to account for most operational activities.
Information presented in this report is unaudited, and
additional adjustments may occur during the year-end
process.
GENERAL FUND
General Fund Financial Condition: With half the year
complete, General Fund Expenditures are at 48% of
projections, and revenues are at 57% of the FY2022-23
Budget. These figures exclude budgeted once-a-year
operating and capital transfers, and some routine journal entries will be posted later in the year that may change these numbers. Revenue exceeded expenditures for the
second quarter as revenues are typically more during the second quarter due to the timing of certain key revenues such as property tax and sales tax. In addition, the City has already received a budgeted $4.6m COVID-related
ARPA grant funding. This year’s outlook is slightly better than the prior year, when the City collected 53% of
budgeted revenues at the end of Q2. Both expenditures
and revenues are explained in more detail below.
*Excludes operating and capital transfers
The General Fund Balance as of December 31, 2022, is
$19,756,470 (including net budgeted transfers in and
out). This is based on the audited fund balance as of the end of the fiscal year 2021-22, and includes budgeted
transfers and factors in year‐to‐date revenue and
expenditures.
Expenditures. Departmental operating expenditures
are on target at the end of the Second Quarter. The
Fire department is at 55% spent, partly due to
overtime being more than was budgeted. The Police,
Public Works and Parks Beachs & Recreation
departments expenditures are each at 51% spent.
Staff will conduct additional analysis to determine if a mid-year adjustment is needed for these
departments. The Planning Department’s
expenditures are low due to the delay in processing
and reconciling the cost-reimbursable expenses.
General Government and Non-Departmental are on
target with the Budget. The following chart
summarizes year‐to‐date combined expenditures by
department as of the Second Quarter:
Revenues: The following is a summary of revenues as
of the end of the Second Quarter:
General Fund Qtr 2
FY2021-22
Qtr 2
FY2022-23
FY2022-23
Budget
% Change
Q2 FY22 vs
Q2 FY23
Qtr 2
% Budget
Revenues 20,784,122 26,196,709 46,144,363 26% 57%
Expenditures 19,632,438 20,762,982 43,688,492 6% 48%
General Fund Expenditures
by Department
Qtr 2
FY2021-22
Qtr 2
FY2022-23
FY2022-23
Budget
% Change
Q2 FY22 vs
Q2 FY23
Qtr 2
% Budget
Spent
General Government 2,911,327 3,459,503 7,264,434 19% 48% Police Department 5,726,439 5,824,735 11,506,318 2% 51% Fire Department 4,421,139 4,340,754 7,821,755 -2% 55%
Planning & Building 1,233,762 1,300,619 5,394,439 5% 24% Public Works 2,128,171 2,416,058 4,755,630 14% 51%
PB&R 2,437,409 2,839,078 5,521,616 16% 51%
Non-Departmental 774,191 582,236 1,424,300 -25% 41%
Total General Fund
Expenditures 19,632,438 20,762,982 43,688,492 6% 48%
2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Q2 22-23 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (5285 : Q2 Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2022‐23
SecondQuarter Financial Report
2 Property Tax: Property Tax is the City’s largest revenue source. The first installment of the Property Tax payment was remitted to the City by the County of San Mateo in
December 2022. The City has received roughly 60% of
the budgeted Property Tax revenue through December
31, 2022. This is a healthy increase in property tax
beyond what was budgeted. Secured property tax is the
largest property tax item budgeted at $14.3 million,
assuming an increase of 6.4% from the prior year. The
first large installment in December was 7% more than
the prior yearso this item exceeds the budgeted revenue projections. Included in this category is the Vehicle
License Fee (VLF) in Lieu, which is a property tax in lieu of VLF. This revenue line includes a one time backfill
payment of $2.0 million from the state for the VLF
shortfall in FY 20-21. The City budgeted half of the
projected shortfall since it was uncertain if the State would follow through on their commitment at the time
the budget was developed.
Sales Tax: As of December 31, 2022, the City has
received 35% of its budgeted Sales Tax revenues. There
is a two-month lag on the receipt of sales tax revenues, so the 35% only represents four months of allocation
consistent with the prior year and appears to be on track with the budget.
Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT): TOT revenues are
remitted approximately 30 days after the end of each
month, and revenues are not accrued at quarter‐end (as
they are at the end of the fiscal year). The Second
Quarter reflects the TOT receipts for the months of July through November. The revenues are showing a
substantial increase compared to the prior year, given
the post-COVID recovery of the hotel industry and recent efforts by HdL, the City’s tax consultant, in identifying short-term rentals and bringing them to compliance.
Staff will further analyze this revenue category to report back to Council at Mid-Year Budget review.
Other Taxes: These include franchise tax, business
license, utility users tax, ½ cent public safety sales tax, and cannabis operations tax. Payments for most of these taxes are remitted 30 days after the end of the month.
As such, only 47% of the Budget has been received as
of December 31, 2022. Utility Users Tax is the largest
revenue source in th Other Taxes category with a
budget of $1.9 million and 51% collected as of
December 2022. Franchise Tax is the second largest
source with a $1.7 million budget, but is only 26%
collected due to a longer delay in which this revenue
is collected. The larger franchisee payers, such as
PG&E, have an average of a quarter lag time, so 26%
is right on target.
Department/Programs: These include building
permits, engineering, and planning fees, fees related
to Parks, Beaches & Recreation programs, and
rentals. As of December 31, 2022, the City received
44% of the Budget, which is reasonable and can be
considered on budget with few late payments
expected to be collected in the next quarter. Permits
and planning fees tend to fluctuate based on the
timing of projects. Building permits are 61% of the
budget, but planning related fees are only 15% of the
budget due to the timing of the cost recovery process
of billing for the revenue.
Grants: These include police grants and all COVID-19-
related grants. The grant revenues primarily
represent the $4.6 million American Rescue Plan Act
allocation from the State.
Excess ERAF: (Excess Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund). The FY 2022-23 General Fund
Budget only included $88,000 to fund the community
grant program to local non-profit organizations as
previously directed by the Council. The remainder of
the Excess ERAF Allocation is reported in the Disaster
Accounting Fund.
SUMMARY
Overall, staff is pleased to report that the FY2022-23
Budget is on track, with revenues and expenditures
performing as expected and in certain cases a little
better than expected. The City’s operating
expenditures are at 48% of the Budget at the end of
the Second Quarter. It is also important to
2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Q2 22-23 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (5285 : Q2 Financial Report) City of Pacifica
Fiscal Year 2022‐23
SecondQuarter Financial Report
3 understand that these are only preliminary numbers as additional booking entries may occur throughout the
year and during the fiscal year-end that may modify
some figures presented in this report. However, it is
encouraging that the budget appears to be on target at
the end of the second quarter. Staff will use the data in this report for more in-depth FY 2022-23 Mid-Year
Budget Review analysis that is currently underway and is scheduled to be presented to Council in March.
2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Q2 22-23 Quarterly Financial Report - Attachment 1 (5285 : Q2 Financial Report)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/27/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2022.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2022.
STAFF CONTACT:
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7402
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City Council adopted Administrative Policy 39 - Investment Policy to reflect current law and best practices in accordance with Government Code Section 53600 et seq. The policy provides guidelines for prudent investments and efficient cash management and requires the City to provide the governing body a report regarding the City’s investment activities on a quarterly basis to ensure “compliance” with the statement of investment policy.
The investment policies and practices of the City of Pacifica are strictly based on state law and prudent money management. The investment of funds for the City is directed to the goals of safety, liquidity, and yield while meeting the cash flow needs of the City through prudent investment of unexpended cash.
All funds are invested in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and the authority governing investments set forth in the California Government Code, Sections 53601 through 53659. The investment policy for bond proceeds is contained in the relevant bond documents approved by the City Council at the time of the issuance of the debt.
As shown in the Treasurer’s Report (Attachment 1), the City holds various investments in external investment pools and fiscal agent accounts and they are listed at par value, cost, as well as their fair value. Par value represents the original issue amount for securities or investments purchased. There were no securities or investments that are held by the City where they were purchased at a discount or premium so the par value is equal to the book value. The fair market value is the current market value of the investment as of December 31, 2022. In accordance with GASB 31, the State provides a factor that can be multiplied by the City’s share of the LAIF pool to determine the market value each quarter. Other than LAIF, the fair market value of all other investments are equal to the book and par value.
The City’s cash and investment portfolio, at fair market value, as of December 31, 2022, is $57,805,680, of which $35,107,013 is placed with the State Controller’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), $9,010,621 is placed with US Bank, $343,215 is in the PARS Trust, $156,432 is placed in Bank of New York (BNY Mellon), $3,002,292 is in Roy Davies Trust, $10,169,247 in the Tri Counties Bank operating accounts, and $3,445 in Petty Cash held by 3 Packet Pg. 46
Pacifica City Council 2
February 27, 2023
various departments. Although operating checking accounts are not typical investment accounts, the City includes those balances as part of this report to show the total cash on hand for the quarter.
The City’s investment portfolio decreased by $368,917, from $58,174,597, this reporting quarter ending December 31, 2022, compared to the last quarter ending September 30, 2022. The decrease is primarily attributable to normal operating payments to vendors, payroll, and annual debt service payments net of normal revenue receipts in the last quarter of the year.
The Treasurer’s Report includes details of cash and investments which are held by institutions.
The report also summarizes the City’s cash position and distribution across funds for the quarter ending December 31, 2022. Historical cash flow trends are compared to current cash flow requirements on an ongoing basis to ensure the City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all reasonable anticipated operating requirements.
As of December 31, 2022, the portfolio contains sufficient liquidity to meet the next six months of expected expenditures by the City.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
There is no reasonable alternative to this informational item, as not accepting the 2nd Quarter Treasurer’s Report will not change the City’s cash position as of the end of the quarter ending December 31, 2022.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
This item furthers the City’s efforts toward Fiscal Sustainability.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report, but Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports detail some of the fiscal activities that directly affect the City’s financial standing.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 12-31-22(PDF)
Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 47
City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
December 31, 2022
Portfolio Summary
Par Value
GASB 31 Fair
Market Value Book Value % of Portfolio
General Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank $ 7,984,772 $ 7,984,772 7,984,772 13.66% Payroll Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank 23,024 23,024 23,024 0.04% Workers Compensation Account-Checking Account with Tri Counties Bank 11,289 11,289 11,289 0.02% Senior Services Account with Tri Counties Bank 2,113,522 2,113,522 2,113,522 3.61% Turbo Data Account with Tri Counties Bank 36,639 36,639 36,639 0.06% Roy Davies Trust- Principal Account-Ladder Acct (Business) with City National Bank 2,974,391 2,974,391 2,974,391 5.09% Roy Davies Trust- Interest Account-Public Funds - Checking Acct with City National Bank 27,901 27,901 27,901 0.05% Petty Cash - Held by various Departments 3,445 3,445 3,445 0.01% Cash $ 13,174,984 $ 13,174,984 $ 13,174,984 22.53%
Investments
California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) $ 35,772,771 35,107,013 35,772,771 61.18% Bank of New York Mellon-Fund 91 - Cash & Short Term 156,432 156,432 156,432 0.27% Deutsche Bank-Cash-Earmarked for debt service - Energy Retrofit Lease 13,415 13,415 13,415 0.02% US Bank - Money Market Fund 9,010,621 9,010,621 9,010,621 15.41% PARS Post-Employment Benefit Trust* 343,215 343,215 343,215 0.59% Total Investments $ 45,296,454 $ 44,630,696 $ 45,296,454 77.47% Total Cash and Investments $ 58,471,438 $ 57,805,680 $ 58,471,438 100.00% Date
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
* PARS Trust - Public Agency Retirement Services - invests in Capital Appreciation funds for the City's OPEB trust and Moderate Index funds for Pension trust.
The above investments are consistent with the City's Investment Policy and are allowable under current legislation of the State of California. Investments are selected using safety, liquidity, and yield as the criteria. The City has sufficient cash flow to cover anticipated expenditures through the next six months. 12/27/2023
3.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 12-31-22 (5284 : Q2 Treasurer's Report) City of Pacifica
Treasurer's Report
December 31, 2022
Reconciliation to General Ledger
Description Bank Account # Amount
Tri Counties General Checking Account xx0541 $ 7,984,772 Tri Counties Payroll Account xx6915 $ 23,024
Tri Counties Workmens Comp Account xx1341 $ 11,289
Tri Counties Senior Services Account xx5996 $ 2,113,522 Tri Counties Turbo Data Account xx9758 $ 36,639
City National Bank Roy Davies Trust-Principal xx5367 $ 2,974,391 City National Bank Roy Davies Trust-Interest xx7033 $ 27,901 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) xx1614/xx1007 $ 35,772,771 Bank of New York Mellon xx0166/xx0167 $ 156,432
Deutsche Bank - Energy Retrofit Lease S80844.1 $ 13,415 US Bank - 2016 Refunding xx5000 $ 1,005,813
US Bank - 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond-Project Fund xx2001 $ 4,068,213 US Bank - 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond-Interest xx2003 $ 897 US Bank - 2021 Civic Center Bonds xx9000 $ 3,935,698
Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) - Post Employment Benefit Trust $ 343,215 Petty Cash $ 3,445
Total Cash per Bank Statements $ 58,471,438
Description GL Account # Amount
Cash in Bank xx.xxxxxx.11000.xxxx.xxx $ 10,022,188
Cash in Bank - Payroll xx.xxxxxx.11002.xxxx.xxx $ (542,095) Petty Cash xx.xxxxxx.11100.xxxx.xxx $ 3,445
Investments - LAIF 01.000000.11290.0000.000 $ 35,772,123 Investments - LAIF 22.900000.11292.0000.000 $ 648
PARS Trusts-Pension 01.000000.11297.0000.000 $ 170,279
PARS Trusts-Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) 01.000000.11298.0000.000 $ 172,936 Reserve Cash-2014 Wastewater Revenue Refunding 18.940000.11032.0000.000 $ 645 Reserve Cash-2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Project 18.940000.11033.0000.000 $ 4,068,213 Reserve Cash-2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Principal 18.940000.11034.0000.000 $ 254 Reserve Cash-2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Interest 18.940000.11034.0000.000 $ 252 Cash with Fiscal Agent 22.900000.11022.0000.000 $ 13,415 R Davies Trust - Principal 27.900000.11293.0000.000 $ 2,974,391 R Davies Trust - Interest 27.900000.11296.0000.000 $ 27,901 Cash Reserve - 2016 Lease Payment 40.880000.11026.0000.000 $ 1,005,813 City of Pacifica 2021 Project Fund 40.880000.11038.0000.000 $ 3,935,698 Debt Service Reserve Fund - 2004 TAB 91.960000.11019.0000.000 $ 131,458 Cash with Fiscal Agent 91.960000.11020.0000.000 $ 24,974 Total Cash per General Ledger $ 57,782,539
Tri Counties Bank reconciliation adjustments and timing differences $ 688,900 Total Reconciled GL Cash $ 58,471,438
3.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Attachment 1 – Treasurer's Report 12-31-22 (5284 : Q2 Treasurer's Report) 1 | P a g e
City of Pacifica
Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms
Agency: Federal agency securities and /or Government-sponsored enterprises.
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR): The official annual financial report for the City of Pacifica. It includes a combined set of statements for each individual fund and account group prepared with the accounting requirements established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). It also includes supporting schedules necessary to demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and contractual provisions, extensive introductory material, and a detailed Statistical Section.
Bankers’ Acceptance (BA): A draft or bill or exchange accepted by a bank or trust company.
The accepting institution guarantees payment of the bill, as well as the issuer.
Book Value: The value at which a security or investment is carried on the financial records of its owner. This value may be the original cost of acquisition of the security or original cost adjusted by amortization of a premium or accretion of a discount. The book value may differ from the security’s current market value.
Broker: A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission.
California Local Government Debt: Is bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness of any local agency within California. California local government debt is a permitted investment under the California Government Code. The Government Code does not specify minimum credit ratings for local government debt in which local agencies may invest.
Certificate of Deposit (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate.
Large-denomination CD’s are typically negotiable.
Collateral: Securities, evidence of deposit of other property which a borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies.
Coupon: (a) The annual rate of interest that a bond’s issuer promises to pay the bondholder on the bond’s face value. (b) A certificate attached to a bond evidencing interest due on a payment date.
Dealer: A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account.
Debenture: A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.
Delivery versus Payment: There are two methods of delivery of securities: delivery versus payment and delivery versus receipt. Delivery versus payment is delivery of securities with an
3.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5284 : Q2 Treasurer's Report) 2 | P a g e
exchange of money for the securities. Delivery versus receipt is delivery of securities with an exchange of a signed receipt for the securities.
Derivatives: (1) Financial instruments whose return profile is linked to, or derived from, the movement of one or more underlying index or security, and may include a leveraging factor, or (2) financial contracts based upon notional amounts whose value is derived from an underlying index or security (interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equities or commodities).
Discount: The difference between the cost price of a security and its maturity when quoted at lower than face value. A security selling below original offering price shortly after sale also is considered to be at a discount.
Diversification: Dividing investment funds among a variety of securities offering independent returns.
Federal Credit Agencies: Agencies of the Federal government set up to supply credit to various classes of institutions and individuals, e.g., S&L’s, small business firms, students, farmers, farm cooperatives, and exporters.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A federal agency that insures bank deposits, currently up to $250,000 per deposit.
Federal Funds Rate: The rate of interest at which Fed funds are traded. This rate is currently pegged by the Federal Reserve through open-market operations.
Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLB): Government sponsored wholesale banks (currently 12 regional banks) which lend funds and provide correspondent banking services to member commercial banks, thrift institutions, credit unions and insurance companies. The mission of the FHLB is to liquefy the housing related assets of its members who must purchase stock in their district Bank.
Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA): FNMA, like GNMA was chartered under the Federal National Mortgage Association Act in 1938. FNMA is a federal corporation working under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is the largest single provider of residential mortgage funds in the United States. Fannie Mae, as the corporation is called, is a private stockholder-owned corporation. The corporation’s purchases include a variety of adjustable mortgages and second loans, in addition to fixed-rate mortgages.
FNMA’s securities are also highly liquid and are widely accepted. FNMA assumes and guarantees that all security holders will receive timely payment of principal and interest.
Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC): Consists of seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and five of the twelve Federal Reserve and Presidents. The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member, while the other Presidents serve on a rotating basis. The Committee periodically meets to set Federal Reserve guidelines regarding purchases and sales of Government Securities in the open market as a means of influencing the volume of bank credit and money.
3.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5284 : Q2 Treasurer's Report) 3 | P a g e
Federal Reserve System: The central bank of the United States created by Congress and consisting of a seven-member Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., 12 regional banks and about 5,700 commercial banks that are members of the system.
Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae): Securities influencing the volume of bank credit guaranteed by GNMA and issued by mortgage bankers, commercial banks, savings and loan associations, and other institutions. Security holder is protected by full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Ginnie Mae securities are backed by the FHA, VA or FmHA mortgages. The term “pass-throughs” is often used to describe Ginnie Maes.
Issuer: Any corporation, government unit or financial institution which borrows money through the sale of securities.
Liquidity: A liquid asset is one that can be converted easily and rapidly into cash without a substantial loss of value. In the money market, a security is said to be liquid if the spread between bid and asked prices is narrow and reasonable size can be done at those quotes.
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): A special fund in the State Treasury which local agencies may use to deposit funds for investment. All interest is distributed to those agencies participating on a proportionate share determined by the amounts deposited and the length of time they are deposited. Interest is paid quarterly via direct deposit to the LAIF account. The State keeps an amount for reasonable costs of making the investments, not to exceed one-quarter of one per cent of the earnings.
Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP): The aggregate of all funds from political subdivisions that are pooled together for investment and reinvestment.
Market Value: The price at which a security is trading and could presumably be purchased or sold.
Master Repurchase Agreement: A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase – reverse repurchase agreements that establishes each party’s rights in the transactions. A master agreement will often specify, among other things, the right of the buyerlender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller-borrower.
Maturity: The date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable.
Money Market: The market in which short-term debt instruments (bills, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, etc.) are issued and traded.
Mutual Funds: Referred to in the Government Code, Section 53601(l) as “shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies.” The Mutual Fund must be restricted by its by-laws to the same investments as the local agency by the Government Code. These investments are Treasury issues, Federal Agency issues, State of California and City (within California) debt obligations, Bankers Acceptances, Commercial Paper, Certificates of Deposit, Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, Repurchase Agreements, Reverse Repurchase Agreements,
3.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5284 : Q2 Treasurer's Report) 4 | P a g e
and Medium Term Corporate Notes. The quality rating and percentage restrictions in each investment category applicable to the local agency also apply to the Mutual Fund.
Negotiable: Term used to designate a security, the title to which is transferable by delivery.
Offer: The price asked by a seller of securities. (When you are buying securities, you ask for an offer). See Asked and Bid.
Open Market Operations: Purchases and sales of government and certain other securities in the open market by the New York Federal Reserve Bank as directed by the FOMC in order to influence the volume of money and credit in the economy. Purchases inject reserves into the bank system and stimulate growth of money and credit; sales have the opposite effect. Open market operations are the Federal Reserve’s most important and most flexible monetary policy tool.
Par Value: The amount of principal of a security that must be paid at maturity. The par value may also be referred to as the “face amount” of a security.
Portfolio: Collection of securities held by an investor.
Primary Dealer: A group of government securities dealers who submit daily reports of market activity and positions and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary dealers included Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – registered securities broker-dealers, banks, and a few unregulated firms.
Principal: Describes the original cost of a security. It represents the amount of capital or money which the investor pays for the investment.
Prudent Person Rule: An investment standard. In some states the law requires that a fiduciary, such as a trustee, may invest money only in a list of securities selected by the custody state – the so-called legal list. In other states the trustee may invest in a security if it is one which would be bought by a prudent person of discretion and intelligence who is seeking a reasonable income and preservation of capital.
Qualified Public Depositories: A financial institution which does not claim exemption from the payment of any sales or compensating use or ad valorem taxes under the laws of this state, which has segregated for the benefit of the commission eligible collateral having a value of not less than its maximum liability and which has been approved by the State to hold public deposits.
Rate of Return: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price. This may be the amortized yield to maturity on a bond the current income return.
Repurchase Agreement (RP or Repo): A holder of securities sells these securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a fixed date. The security “buyer” in effect lends the “seller” money for the period of the agreement, and the terms of the agreement are structured to compensate him for this. Dealers use RP extensively to finance their positions. Exception: When the Fed is said to be doing RP, it is lending money, that is, increasing bank services.
3.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5284 : Q2 Treasurer's Report) 5 | P a g e
Safekeeping: A service to customers rendered by banks for a fee whereby securities and valuables of all types and descriptions are held in the bank’s vaults for protection.
Secondary Market: A market made for the purchase and sale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution.
Security: An investment instrument, other than an insurance policy or fixed annuity, issued by a corporation, government, or other organization which offers evidence of debt or equity.
Securities & Exchange Commission: Agency created by Congress to protect investors in securities transactions by administering securities legislation.
SEC Rule 15C3-1: See Uniform Net Capital Rule.
Structured Notes: Notes issued by Government Sponsored Enterprises (FHLB, FNMA, SLMA, etc.) and Corporations which have imbedded options (e.g., call features, step-up coupons, floating rate coupons, derivative-based returns) into their debt structure. Their market performance is impacted by the fluctuation of interest rates, the volatility of the imbedded options and shifts in the shape of the yield curve.
Treasury Bills: A non-interest bearing discount security issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Most bills are issued to mature in three months, six months, or one year.
Treasury Notes: Medium-term coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury securities issued as direct obligations of the U.S. Government and having initial maturities from two to ten years.
Uniform Net Capital Rule: Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member firms as well as nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1; also called net capital rule and net capital ratio.
Indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among member of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash.
Yield: The rate of annual income return on an investment, expressed as a percentage. (a) Income Yield is obtained by dividing the current dollar income by the current market price for the security. (b) Net Yield or Yield to Maturity is the current income yield minus any premium above par or plus any discount from par in purchase price, with the adjustment spread over the period from the date of purchase to the date of maturity of the bond.
3.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Attachment 2 – City of Pacifica Glossary of Cash and Investment Terms (5284 : Q2 Treasurer's Report)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/27/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Letter of sponsorship for Assembly Bill 612 (AB 612), introduced by Assemblymember Marc Berman with principal co-author Senator Josh Becker, to authorize the purchase of excess Caltrans property in the Pedro Point neighborhood for state parks purposes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize the Mayor to send a letter of sponsorship on behalf of the City Council for AB 612 related to the purchase of excess Caltrans property for State Parks purposes in the Pedro Point neighborhood.
STAFF CONTACT:
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
(650) 738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In late 2022, City staff in the Planning and Public Works Departments engaged with State of California staff at the Coastal Conservancy, Coastal Commission, and Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) to discuss a potential ownership transfer of a parcel of State-owned property sometimes known as the “Disney Lot” (“Parcel”). The approximately 15,121-square foot Parcel is located at the southeast corner of the Pedro Point Shopping Center, and is identified by Caltrans Director Deed No. DD-028801-01-0 (Attachment A). The Property was previously used for staging of construction equipment by Caltrans and others.
Caltrans has determined the Parcel is no longer needed for its operations and approached the City about potential acquisition. Initially, Caltrans proposed a market rate purchase by the City at an appraised value of $680,445. City staff did not identify available funds to pursue the purchase at that price and requested Caltrans to delay the property sale while the City pursued funding opportunities. However, Coastal Conservancy staff more recently advised the City that due to the site’s location within the Coastal Zone, Article XIX, Section 10 of the California Constitution could enable the sale of the Parcel for its original acquisition price, $56,680, provided its ongoing use would be for recreational purposes. A transfer under the California Constitution requires legislation to be passed by the Legislature to authorize the transfer.
Upon learning of the potential for a less costly acquisition of the Parcel, City staff approached the staff to Assemblymember Marc Berman and Senator Josh Becker. Both legislators expressed support for the Parcel acquisition, and on February 9, 2023, Assemblymember Berman introduced Assembly Bill 612 (AB 612) with Senator Becker as a principal co-author (Attachment B). If ultimately passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Newsom, AB 612 would provide for transfer of the Parcel from Caltrans to the California Department of Parks and Recreation for inclusion in the management of Pacifica State Beach for park purposes that are consistent with the City of Pacifica Certified Local Coastal Program. AB 612 would allow for 4 Packet Pg. 55
Pacifica City Council 2
February 27, 2023
a future change of ownership of the Parcel to a local agency (e.g., the City) for purposes consistent with trailhead parking adjacent to the California Coastal Trail (CCT). Coastal Conservancy staff have indicated the agency may have funds to pay for the Parcel as part of the transfer to State Parks and Recreation.
The Parcel has significant potential for long-term public recreational use. It is located immediately adjacent to an approximately 2,000-foot gap in the CCT between the southern end of Pacifica State Beach and publicly-owned lands in the Pedro Point Headlands to the south.
The City, in partnership with other public agencies, plans to make improvements to close this gap in the CCT. The California Coastal Conservancy completed a feasibility study in 2019-2020 and found the Parcel to be an ideal location for CCT trailhead parking. Furthermore, on fair weather days, the Pacifica State Beach parking lots at the north end of the CCT gap become full and parking frequently spills over into nearby residential streets, causing adverse impacts on the Pedro Point neighborhood. The availability of the Parcel for transfer from Caltrans presents an opportunity to support development of additional Pacifica State Beach parking in the near term and a CCT trailhead parking lot over a longer term once improvements are made to eliminate the CCT trail gap.
While the City has not yet created a project to improve the Parcel for trailhead and beach parking purposes, Caltrans’ desire to dispose of the excess property as soon as possible presents a time-sensitive opportunity to retain the Parcel in appropriate public ownership for long-term publicly beneficial purposes with support from Assemblymember Berman and Senator Becker. The acquisition and future use as CCT trailhead parking would also support prior state expenditures of $304,535 awarded to the City of Pacifica through the Habitat Conservation Fund grant to partially fund the acquisition of five acres in the Pedro Point Headlands (the “Colt Property”) for the future CCT alignment. The parcel acquired with HCF funds is located approximately 300 feet south of the Parcel.
AB 612 would enable acquisition of the Parcel at no immediate cost to the City. Retaining the Parcel in public ownership would prevent a Caltrans sale to a private party which could preclude the beneficial use for beach and CCT trailhead parking. Therefore, the City Manager recommends authorizing the Mayor to send a letter of sponsorship on behalf of the City Council for AB 612 (Attachment C).
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not send a letter of sponsorship.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Acquisition of the Parcel as provided by AB 612 would be consistent with the following Fiscal Year 2022-2023 City Council goals:
• “Fiscal Sustainability” includes investing in economic development to increase revenues, funding a reserve/emergency fund, and being well prepared for grant opportunities. • “A Healthy and Compassionate Community” includes addressing affordable housing and mental health services, exploring and implementing strategies that relate to homelessness, and supporting community services for all ages.
• “Environmental Sustainability” includes stewardship of parks, urban forests and open space, preserving hillsides and beaches, and adaptation to climate change. 4 Packet Pg. 56
Pacifica City Council 3
February 27, 2023
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of the recommended action.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Vicinity Map (PNG)
Attachment B - Text of Assembly Bill 612 (AB 612) (PDF) Attachment C - Draft Letter of Sponsorship (DOCX)
4 Packet Pg. 57
4.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Attachment A - Vicinity Map (5276 : Pedro Point Excess Caltrans Property Acquisition (AB 612)) calif
ornia legislature—2023–24 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 612
Introduced by Assembly Member Berman
(Principal coauthor: Senator Becker)
February 9, 2023
An act to add Section 104.23 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to state property.
legislative counsel
’s digest
AB 612, as introduced, Berman. State parks: Pedro Point.
Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has full possession and control of state highways and associated property.
Existing law provides for the department to dispose of property that is no longer needed for highway purposes on terms, standards, and conditions established by the California Transportation Commission.
Section 10 of Article XIX of the California Constitution authorizes the Legislature, by statute, with respect to surplus state property located in the coastal zone and acquired with revenues restricted by Article XIX to transportation purposes, to authorize the transfer of that property to the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Wildlife Conservation Board, or the State Coastal Conservancy for specified purposes for a consideration at least equal to the property’s purchase price.
This bill would require the department to sell and transfer certain surplus state property it owns in the City of Pacifica to the Department of Parks and Recreation for state park purposes. The bill would make various findings and declarations in that regard.
99 4.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Attachment B - Text of Assembly Bill 612 (AB 612) (5276 : Pedro Point Excess Caltrans Property Acquisition (AB 612)) This bill would make legislati
ve findings and declarations as to the
necessity of a special statute for the surplus state property in the City of Pacifica. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following:
line 3 (a) Public access to and along the coast of California is protected line 4 under Article X of the California Constitution and the Coastal Act line 5 of 1976.
line 6 (b) The California Coastal Trail (CCT) is an official state trail line 7 and completion of the CCT is an integral part of the state’s line 8 responsibility to provide public coastal access for all in perpetuity. line 9 The CCT, when completed, will provide a continuous, line 10 interconnected public trail system spanning over 1,230 miles from line 11 the state’s border with Oregon to its border with the United line 12 Mexican States.
line 13 (c) In the City of Pacifica, the CCT provides a scenic corridor line 14 with views of the coast and State Route 1, and is popular for a line 15 variety of recreational pursuits, including hiking and biking. line 16 (d) The Director of the Department of Transportation has created line 17 Director’s Deed DD–028801–01–01 to describe certain state-owned line 18 land located immediately adjacent to an approximately 2,000-foot line 19 gap in the CCT within the City of Pacifica located between the line 20 southern end of Pacifica State Beach and publicly owned lands in line 21 the Pedro Point Headlands to the south. The City of Pacifica, in line 22 partnership with other public agencies, plans to make line 23 improvements to close this gap in the CCT. Furthermore, on fair line 24 weather days, the Pacifica State Beach parking lots at the north line 25 end of the CCT gap become full and parking frequently spills over line 26 into nearby residential streets, causing adverse impacts on local line 27 neighborhoods.
line 28 (e) The Department of Transportation has determined that the line 29 property identified in Director’s Deed DD–028801–01–01, located line 30 in the City of Pacifica, is surplus state property. The property is line 31 located immediately adjacent to CCT trail improvements that line 32 would close the identified gap in the CCT within the City of 99 AB 612 —
2 —
4.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Attachment B - Text of Assembly Bill 612 (AB 612) (5276 : Pedro Point Excess Caltrans Property Acquisition (AB 612)) line 1
Pacifica. The department’s determination presents an opportunity line 2 to support development of a CCT trailhead parking lot that will line 3 expand public access to the CCT once improvements are made to line 4 eliminate the trail gap. The State Coastal Conservancy completed line 5 a feasibility study in 2019–20 and found the property identified in line 6 Director’s Deed DD–028801–01–01 to be an ideal location for line 7 CCT trailhead parking.
line 8 (f) The property identified in Director’s Deed
line 9 DD–028801–01–01, located in the City of Pacifica, is surplus state line 10 property located within the coastal zone, as defined in Section line 11 30103 of the Public Resources Code, as that zone was described line 12 on January 1, 1977, and subject to Section 10 of Article XIX of line 13 the California Constitution. It is, therefore, fitting and proper, and line 14 in furtherance of the public interest, that the Department of line 15 Transportation sell its ownership interest in the property identified line 16 in Director’s Deed DD-028801-01-01 for the purpose of adding line 17 the property as a trailhead parking lot to the CCT. line 18 SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature that, after the line 19 Department of Transportation sells and transfers the property in line 20 the Pedro Point neighborhood of the City of Pacifica, which line 21 property is identified in Director’s Deed DD–028801–01–01 and line 22 is also known as the “Disney Lot,” to the Department of Parks and line 23 Recreation for conversion to state park purposes pursuant to line 24 Section 104.23 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Department line 25 of Parks and Recreation shall include this area in the management line 26 of Pacifica State Beach for park purposes that are consistent with line 27 the City of Pacifica Certified Local Coastal Program, until such line 28 time as the property may change ownership to a local agency for line 29 purposes consistent with trailhead parking adjacent to the California line 30 Coastal Trail.
line 31 SEC. 3. Section 104.23 is added to the Streets and Highways line 32 Code, to read:
line 33 104.23. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the department line 34 shall declare that the Pedro Point excess property identified in line 35 Director’s Deed DD–028801–01–01, also known as the “Disney line 36 Lot,” is surplus state property acquired by the expenditure of tax line 37 revenues and located in the coastal zone, pursuant to Section 10 line 38 of Article XIX of the California Constitution. The department shall line 39 provide for the sale and transfer of this property to the Department 99 — 3 — AB 612
4.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Attachment B - Text of Assembly Bill 612 (AB 612) (5276 : Pedro Point Excess Caltrans Property Acquisition (AB 612)) line 1 of Parks and Recreation for state park purposes as provided under line 2 Section 10 of Article XIX of the California Constitution. line 3 (b) The sale and transfer of the property required by this section line 4 serves a public purpose.
line 5 SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute line 6 is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable line 7 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California line 8 Constitution because of the of the unique circumstances set forth line 9 in Section 1 of this act relating to facilitating expansion of public line 10 access to Pacifica State Beach and the California Coastal Trail.
O
99 AB 612 —
4 —
4.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Attachment B - Text of Assembly Bill 612 (AB 612) (5276 : Pedro Point Excess Caltrans Property Acquisition (AB 612))
CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive • Pacifica, California 94044-3422
(650) 738-7341 • www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Tygarjas Bigstyck
MAYOR PRO TEM
Sue Vaterlaus
COUNCIL
Sue Beckmeyer
Mary Bier
Christine Boles
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
February 28, 2023
Assemblymember Marc Berman
721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 101
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 324-0224
Senator Josh Becker
1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 303
San Mateo, CA 94402
(650) 212-3313
Subj: Letter of Sponsorship for Assembly Bill 612 (AB 612) for Acquisition of Excess Caltrans Property Located in the Pedro Point Neighborhood of the City of Pacifica The Honorable Marc Berman and The Honorable Josh Becker:
On behalf of the City Council of the City of Pacifica (“City”), I write to express appreciation and support for our sponsored bill, Assembly Bill 612 (AB 612) that would direct the transfer of ownership of an approximately 15,612-square foot parcel located in the Pedro Point neighborhood of Pacifica to the California Department of Parks and Recreation (referenced as Caltrans Director Deed No. DD-028801-01- 0, “Parcel”). AB 612 would expand coastal access around Pacifica State Beach and support a future California Coastal Trail (CCT) extension in Pacifica. It would also reinforce prior State investments in the Pedro Point area such as a Habitat Conservation Fund grant that helped the City acquire a five-acre parcel in the Pedro Point Headlands to create a continuous publicly-owned connection between Devil’s Slide Trail to the south and Pacifica State Beach to the north.
The Parcel has significant potential for long-term public recreational use. It is located immediately adjacent to an approximately 2,000-foot gap in the CCT between the southern end of Pacifica State Beach and publicly-owned lands in the Pedro Point Headlands to the south. The City, in partnership with other public agencies, plans to make improvements to close this gap in the CCT. The California Coastal Conservancy completed a feasibility study in 2019-2020 and found the Parcel to be an ideal location for CCT trailhead parking. Furthermore, on fair weather days, the Pacifica State Beach parking lots at the north end of the CCT gap become full and parking frequently spills over into nearby residential streets.
The availability of the Parcel for transfer from Caltrans presents an opportunity to support development of additional Pacifica State Beach parking in the near term and a CCT trailhead parking lot over a longer term once improvements are made to eliminate the CCT trail gap.
Public access to open space and natural amenities are major priorities for the City Council and residents of Pacifica. Passage of AB 612 would align with these priorities and reflect the long history of collaboration between the State and the City for preservation and improvement of public beaches, trails, and other open space areas.
4.c
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Attachment C - Draft Letter of Sponsorship (5276 : Pedro Point Excess Caltrans Property Acquisition (AB 612)) 2 Sincerely,
Tygarjas Bigstyck
Mayor
4.c
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Attachment C - Draft Letter of Sponsorship (5276 : Pedro Point Excess Caltrans Property Acquisition (AB 612))
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/27/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Adopt Resolution revising job description, title and salary for Associate Civil Engineer in PW Wastewater to Senior Civil Engineer
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Reclassify vacant Associate Civil Engineer position to a Senior Civil Engineer position in the Public Works Wastewater Division.
STAFF CONTACT:
Irene Camarena, HR Manager
(650) 501-6029
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, Public Works Director
(650) 730-4948
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City Manager is recommending reclassifying the vacant Associate Civil Engineer position to a Senior Civil Engineer in the Public Works Wastewater Division that will be reflected in the City’s position control once approved.
The City Council approved the additional position of an Associate Civil Engineer in the Public Works Wastewater Division during the FY 2022-23 budget cycle to assist the Division in delivering the large Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that is moving forward in Wastewater.
Over the past few years, staff has had difficulty recruiting for jobs in the Wastewater Division due to the specialized nature of the positions and the limited number of applicants with this specialized relevant experience. The Division recently completed a recruitment for the Associate Civil Engineer position but received only one qualified applicant who ultimately turned down the City’s offer of employment as they would have been required to take a significant pay cut to join the City.
Additionally, staff has determined the need for this position requires a higher level of experience within Wastewater to assist the Division with the complexity of the CIP projects to be delivered to the community.
To successfully deliver the Wastewater Capital Improvement Program, it would be practical to recruit for a higher-level Senior Civil Engineering position for the Division. The City currently has a Senior Engineering job classification that will be assigned to Wastewater, so the classification does not need to be created or changed at this time. The City’s salary range for the Associate Civil Engineer position is $9,069 - $10,635/month. The current City salary range for the Senior Civil Engineer position is $10,300-$12,083/month.
FISCAL IMPACT:
5 Packet Pg. 65
Pacifica City Council 2
February 27, 2023
Staff anticipates very minimal (if any) fiscal impact for this reclassification in the current fiscal year, due to the timing of this request and the typical length of a recruitment process. However, the Wastewater Fund has substantial cost savings from the Associate position being vacant since the beginning of the fiscal year, so no additional budget allocation will be needed this fiscal year even if the incumbent joins the City before the end of the fiscal year.
Since the position is fully funded by the Wastewater Enterprise Fund 18, there will be no impact on the General Fund budget. If approved tonight, staff will add the full increase of approximately $15,000 related to this position upgrade to the FY 2023-24 Wastewater Fund Base Budget.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
Human Resources
City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
5 Packet Pg. 66
Pacifica City Council 3
February 27, 2023
RESOLUTION NO._______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AUTHORIZING THE
RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER TO A SENIOR CIVIL
ENGINEER POSITION IN THE PUBLIC WORKS WASTEWATER DIVISION WHEREAS, Article 4, Section 2-5.403 of the Pacifica Municipal Code establishes procedures for the administration of personnel matters; and WHEREAS, said Chapter requires that the City Manager, as Personnel Officer prepare and recommend to the City Council a position classification plan, class specifications, and revisions thereto; and
WHEREAS, the City has been trying to fill the vacant Associate Civil Engineer position for Wastewater Division, but was not successful; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for a higher-level engineering position in the City’s Wastewater Division to complete complex and critical Capital Improvement Project work requiring a change from an Associate Civil Engineer position to a Senior Civil Engineer position in the Division; and
WHEREAS, the new City’s Senior Engineer position will be funded by the Wastewater Enterprise Fund 18 with no impact to the General Fund;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Pacifica that the Associate Engineer position to be reclassified to a Senior Civil Engineer position in Public Works Wastewater Division and this change is to be reflected in the position control. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on February 27, 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 5 Packet Pg. 67
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/27/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Approval of Purchase, Including Demolition, of a Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the following action to:
A. Approve Purchase Agreement with Bay Area Mechanical LLC for $104,956.23 plus a 10% contingency to purchase a newly onsite constructed walk-in refrigerator/freezer for a total of $115,451.85
B. Adopt the Resolution to Approve Agreement to purchase a new onsite walk-in refrigerator/freezer for the Pacifica Community Center main kitchen and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to these agreements.
C. Amend the FY 2022-23 Budget to appropriate the cost of the repairs and contingency for a total of $115,451.85 in the PB&R Special Revenue Fund 28.
STAFF CONTACT:
Bob Palacio, Director, Parks Beaches and Recreation
(650) 738-7382
[email protected]
Beth Phipps, Recreation Supervisor Senior Services
(650) 738-7352
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City of Pacifica’s Community Recreation Center needs a new Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer unit. The current unit, which is over 30 years old, continues to fail. Public Works has determined that the unit is beyond its useful life and can no longer continue to be repaired. The unit has also started to repeatedly leak and accumulate ice on the floor of the unit which is a safety hazard for staff.
The Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer Unit is primarily used to service the Seniors Hot Lunch and the Meals on Wheels programs throughout the year. Therefore, for those programs to continue, a new unit must be installed.
Public Works and PB&R staff solicited quotes from 3 separate vendors. It was determined by staff that only 1 respondent, Bay Area Mechanical, provided enough detail regarding demolition, construction, temporary freezer/refrigeration storage, and a schematic of the final unit to warrant purchasing services. Bay Area Mechanical was the highest of the 3 quotes, however, their quote was most inclusive and knowledgeable of the work that is needed to be done to complete a quality project.
6 Packet Pg. 68
Pacifica City Council 2
February 27, 2023
The 3 Companies and their quotes were as follows:
• Cool Rite Refrigeration Inc - $98,100
• Market Mechanical - $80,000 (little to no detail provided in quote) • Bay Area Mechanical - $104,956. 23
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose not to approve the Purchase Agreement, which would potentially result in the discontinuation of the Seniors Lunch and Meals on Wheels Programs RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“An Engaged Community” includes creating opportunities to expand public participation, increase communication, and build community post-COVID.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project will be funded by the Sirkka Niukkanen Trust Fund (PB&R Special Revenue Fund 28) dedicated to senior programs and services. The total of $115,451.85 (including contingency) will be appropriated from the available fund balance in the Fund 28 to cover the cost of this purchase. The current fund balance of the Fund 28 is over $2.1 million and is sufficient to accommodate this emergency purchase.
ORIGINATED BY:
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment 1 Bay Area Mechanical Refrigerator Freezer Quote (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 69
Pacifica City Council 3
February 27, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING
AGREEMENT OF THE PURCHASE OF A NEW WALK-IN REFRIGERATOR/FREEZER FOR
THE PACIFICA COMMUNITY CENTER
WHEREAS, the City provides a Senior Hot Lunch and a Meals on Wheels program that requires the use of a working Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer unit; and WHEREAS, the City desires to purchase a new Walk-in Refrigeration/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center located at 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA 94044 with the use of the Sirkka Niukkanen Trust Fund which is dedicated for senior services and its’ programs; and
WHEREAS, the City is selecting to purchase from the company that provided the most detailed and complete quote for purchases and service.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES:
The City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby approves the purchase a new Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center in the amount not to exceed $115,451.85 from Bay Area Mechanical LLC and amend the FY 2022-23 Budget to appropriate these funds in the PB&R Special Revenue Fund (Fund 28). • • • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 27th 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 6 Packet Pg. 70
SUBTOTAL $98,937.80
TAX @ 9.375% $6,018.43
GRAND TOTAL $104,956.23
Description of Work
Work Scope:
Furnish and install (1) 8x10 portable cooler unit for the duration of 2 weeks and connect to shore power from building. Includes temporary cabling and 30 amp breaker at the panel.
Furnish and install (1) 8x10 portable freezer unit for the duration of 2 weeks and connect to shore power from building.
Includes temporary cabling and 30 amp breaker at panel.
Demolish and disposal of freezer and cooler. Includes recovery of refrigerant, removal of equipment, removal of electrical circuits, removal of cooler and freezer walls, floors, and ceilings.
Furnish and install new freezer and cooler box. Includes new freezer equipment, cooler equipment, all connected refrigerant piping, all plumbing, all electrical to existing circuits, new epoxy floors in cooler, new coving for cooler floors to 4" above floor, and insulated flooring in freezer. (Please see attachments for detailed information).
Specific Exclusions:
a. All structural engineering and/or support work required to accommodate mechanical equipment. b. Survey, repairs, and/or modifications to existing HVAC system other than those specifically included. c. All work associated with hazardous materials (lead, asbestos, etc.) d. All upgrades including power, 120V wiring, conduit, disconnect switches, motor starters, interlock wiring of smoke fire dampers, smoke detectors, and smoke detector wiring.
e. All cutting, coring, patching, painting, roofing, etc. f. All permits, labor to obtain permit, and fees
Services to be completed
[Refrigeration] Location - Building
Remove and replace walk-in freezer/cooler combo box and refrigeration.
Terms and Conditions
Access to Client's Premises
The Client accepts to provide the Contractor with sufficient access to the premises where services are being performed on the date that work is scheduled.
Condition of Premises
From Bay Area Mechanical LLC
406 Martin Avenue
Santa Clara CA 95050
16692264623
Quote No. 2005533
Type Installation
Prepared By Evan Auckland
Created On 01/03/2023
Quote For Pacifica Community
Center
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica CA 94044
(650) 738-7378
6.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Attachment 1 Bay Area Mechanical Refrigerator Freezer Quote (5281 : Refrigerator Freezer Purchase) The Contractor accepts to keep the premises clean and orderly and to remove all debris from the premises as needed during the work hours.
Termination
Either party may terminate this contract if any party fails to perform any of its obligations under this contract with a 30-day written notice Limitation of Liability
In no event shall either Party be liable to the other party or any third party for any damages or any special, indirect, or consequential damages, that might result from any part of this Contract such as, but not limited to, loss of profit, revenue, or failure in the delivery of Services.
Hours of Operation
Unless otherwise specified, all work agreed upon in this contract will be conducted during our business hours which are 7:00am-4:00pm. If contract work needs to be performed outside business hours overtime rates will apply.
Payment Options & Terms
Payments may be made via check or Credit Card (In person, over the phone or online). All clients are required to pay in full within 30 days of receiving the completed invoice. A 1.5% late fee will be applied to the invoice every 30 days the payment is overdue. At 90 days overdue the invoice will be sent to collections.
By my signature below, I authorize work to begin and agree to pay the Grand Total according to the terms and conditions of this agreement.
Name: Date:
Signature:
6.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment 1 Bay Area Mechanical Refrigerator Freezer Quote (5281 : Refrigerator Freezer Purchase) W13 W14 W15
W1 WT2 WS2 W4 W5 W7 W8 WD6
W12 WT11 WS2 W9 W16 W18 W19 WD17 Ramp 27x34 HPR
C1 CT2 C3 C4
F1 F2
FREEZER COOLER
TEL 217-228-2421 * 800-521-2665 * FAX 217-228-2424
401 DELAWARE ST. * QUINCY, IL 62301
U.S. COOLER
DWG. REF DATE
JOB#
CUSTOMER
APV.
DRAWN
P.O.# / Job Ref.
Bay Area Mechanical
01/12/2023
603633-1
/ Pacifice Community Center
C.G.S. 3.0
To aid in packing, please indicate with
an X the corner where installation will
be starting.
Refrigeration Specifications
Qty Manufacturer Model HP Electrical MCA CmpRLA CmpLRA Dimensions DxWxH Pre-assembled Remote Low Temp R448A Air Cooled Outdoor Condensing Unit 1 Russell RFO230L4SDA 2 208-230/1Phase/60Hz 32 12.4 754 28.25"x39.875"x21.25" 1 Russell RL6E042DDAA 208-230/1Phase/60Hz 5.4 15.5"x27.125"x18.125" Pre-assembled Remote Med Temp R448A Air Cooled Outdoor Condensing Unit 1 Russell RFO100M4SDA 1 208-230/1Phase/60Hz 19.7 7.2 46.7 28.25"x27.875"x18.75" 1 Russell RL6A066ADAA 115/1Phase/60Hz 0.8 15.5"x27.125"x18.125" Scale: 1/4"= 1'
COMBO: 13'-2 1/4" x 10'-8 1/2" x 8'-11"
COOLER: 9'-2" x 10'-8 1/2" x 8'-11"
FREEZER: 4'-0 1/4" x 10'-8 1/2" x 8'-11"
Materials:
ExtMetal:Galvalume
IntMetal:Galvalume
Foam:Extruded 4in.
Legend
Ceiling
Floor
QUOTE DRAWING
Sign below for acceptance
X____________________________ By signing here, you agree to our terms and conditions as outlined on www.uscooler.com/terms. Panel configuration subject to U.S. Cooler final approval. A facsimile or emailed approval of this drawing 603633-1 shall have the same force and effect as a signed original and shall, upon receipt by U.S. Cooler, be binding on both parties.
6.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment 1 Bay Area Mechanical Refrigerator Freezer Quote (5281 : Refrigerator Freezer
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/27/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Storage License Agreement For Railcar #1409 (Salada Ave & Francisco Blvd) - Portion of Parking Lot (APN 016-060-100).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
A. Approve the License Agreement with "The Pacifica Historical Society" to temporarily store Ocean Shore Railcar #1409 at Salada Ave & Francisco Blvd Parking Lot B. Adopt the Resolution to Approve Agreement with the "The Pacifica Historical Society" to temporarily store Ocean Shore Railcar #1409 at Salada Ave & Francisco Blvd Parking Lot
C. Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to this agreement STAFF CONTACT:
Bob Palacio, Director, Parks Beaches and Recreation
(650) 738-7382
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Pacifica Historical Society (PHS) previously stored Ocean Shore Railroad (OSRR) Car No. 1409 at the City’s Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) for more than five years in partnership with the City of Pacifica until PHS’s lease with the City expired on November 1, 2019. PHS then applied for a temporary use permit to enable relocation of the railcar to the Vallemar Center shopping center at 2125 Coast Highway.
The Planning Commission approved Temporary Use Permit TUP-2-19 (File No. 2019-029) on November 4, 2019, authorizing the PHS to perform minor grading, to construct heavy timber cribbing, to install the railcar within a temporary enclosure, and to perform renovation work on the railcar. The initial term of TUP-2-19 allowed the railcar installation and restoration operation for a period of six months with the ability to seek up to two six-month extensions by the Planning Director.
Following approval of TUP-2-19, the PHS performed the minor grading and constructed the wooden cribbing platform required to prepare the site for the railcar. The PHS relocated the railcar to the Vallemar Center site in December 2019 and began restoration work shortly thereafter. However, the worldwide novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and public health emergency caused the Health Officer of the County of San Mateo to issue a shelter-in-place order shortly thereafter in March 2020.
On June 21, 2021, the Planning Commission approved Temporary Use Permit TUP-1-21 (File No. 2021-016) to continue the restoration operations in the manner initially approved by TUP-2-
19. The approval of TUP-1-21 allowed the railcar installation and restoration operation for a period of six months with the ability to seek up to two six-month extensions by the Planning Director.
7 Packet Pg. 74
Pacifica City Council 2
February 27, 2023
The PHS proposes to relocate its Ocean Shore Railroad Car No. 1409 restoration operations to a City owned parking lot located at 1910 Francisco Boulevard in the West Sharp Park neighborhood. The railroad car will be placed on the southwest corner of the site. It will be situated on cribbing under a tent, which will be removed for restoration work. The tent measures approximately 54 feet long by 20 feet wide by 18 feet tall. The tent will be surrounded by 6-foottall chain link fencing.
Restoration work on the railcar would include finishing the roof, installing windows, and painting the exterior. All work will be done with battery operated hand tools, and no generator will be placed on the site. All milling and fabrication work will be done off-site and then brought onsite.
The PHS has indicated that the railcar does not contain lead or asbestos hazardous materials.
Hours of restoration work are proposed to be 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM and would include up to three workers.
These workers would utilize existing parking spaces. At this time, no security lighting is proposed. The railcar will be protected by a 6-foot-tall chain link fence. Francisco Boulevard contains street lighting abutting the proposed location and the site is adequately lit. If there are any security concerns in the future, the applicant will provide a lighting plan to the City for review prior to installation of security lighting.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council of Pacifica could not approve the License Agreement and “The Pacifica Historical Society” would need to look for an alternative location.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“A Healthy and Compassionate Community”
FISCAL IMPACT:
$1 per six-month period for duration of the lease.
ORIGINATED BY:
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Railcar #1904 License Agreement (PDF)
EXHIBIT A (DOCX)
7 Packet Pg. 75
Pacifica City Council 3
February 27, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH "THE PACIFICA HISTORICAL SOCIETY" TO TEMPORARILY STORE OCEAN SHORE RAILCAR #1409
AT SALADA AVE & FRANCISCO BLVD PARKING LOT
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica seeks to enter into a License Agreement with “The Pacifica Historical Society” to store Ocean Shore Railcar #1409 at 1910 Francisco Blvd; and WHEREAS, the Pacifica Historical Society will temporarily store and refurbish the railcar for a period of 6 months with the ability to seek up to two (2) six-month extensions by the Planning Director;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES:
The City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement with “The Pacifica Historical Society” to temporarily store Ocean Shore Railcar #1409 at 1910 Francisco Blvd per the terms of the approved agreement. • • • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 27th 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 7 Packet Pg. 76
7.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Railcar #1904 License Agreement (5283 : Railcar 1409 Storage License Agreement)
7.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Railcar #1904 License Agreement (5283 : Railcar 1409 Storage License Agreement)
7.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Railcar #1904 License Agreement (5283 : Railcar 1409 Storage License Agreement)
7.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Railcar #1904 License Agreement (5283 : Railcar 1409 Storage License Agreement)
7.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Railcar #1904 License Agreement (5283 : Railcar 1409 Storage License Agreement)
7.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Railcar #1904 License Agreement (5283 : Railcar 1409 Storage License Agreement)
7.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Railcar #1904 License Agreement (5283 : Railcar 1409 Storage License Agreement)
7.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Railcar #1904 License Agreement (5283 : Railcar 1409 Storage License Agreement)
7.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Railcar #1904 License Agreement (5283 : Railcar 1409 Storage License Agreement)
7.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Railcar #1904 License Agreement (5283 : Railcar 1409 Storage License Agreement)
7.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: EXHIBIT A (5283 : Railcar 1409 Storage License Agreement)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/27/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Resolution Approving Agreement with Universal Building Services for Janitorial Services RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to approve a Vendor Agreement for Products and/or Services for Janitorial Services for Citywide Facilities with Universal Building Services and Supply Company in an amount Not to Exceed $18,563/month and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents associated with this agreement.
STAFF CONTACT:
Gino Assereto, Parks & Facilities Superintendent
(650) 738-3760
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, Public Works Director
(650) 730-4948
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
For years, the City of Pacifica has managed four (4) different janitorial services vendors across sixteen (16) facilities, which include the Public Works Corporation Yard/Engineering offices, Council Chambers, Libraries, Police Department Building, Community Center, Recreation Buildings, Civic Center Facilities and Childcare Facilities. Managing four different contracts is time consuming. Consolidating services to one vendor for these buildings would be more efficient and more cost effective, especially when negotiating intermittent additional cleaning needs. The 4 different vendors were providing different quality of services and the City seeks to achieve high quality services under the same vendor.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on July 1, 2022 for janitorial services for the 16 City facilities from one vendor. On August 9, 2022, eight (8) qualified firms submitted proposals in response to the RFP. Staff from the Field Services and Engineering Division reviewed the submitted proposals from the eight (8) vendors. The following table shows the vendors who submitted a proposal with their proposed monthly cost.
Vendor Monthly Cost
Eco Bear Not Complete
Universal Building Services & Supply Co. (UBS) $18,563.00 Karla's Janitorial & Suppliers, LLC. $22,220.00
CCS Facilities Services $23,742.04
Central Maintenance $24,195.00
Olympic Cleaning Services $30,192.82
8 Packet Pg. 88
Pacifica City Council 2
February 27, 2023
Cappstone, Inc. $32,690.00
MEK Enterprises, Inc. $55,129.10
After review, City staff interviewed UBS, Karla's Janitorial & Suppliers, and CCS Facilities Services. Staff found that UBS would be the best vendor that could perform the scope of work at a cost-effective price with good quality services. UBS is currently the vendor that services the Sanchez and Sharp Park Libraries and was very responsive to the COVID protocols during the pandemic and both the City and County Libraries are pleased with their services.
The City typically spends $225,296 a year on janitorial services for the 16 facilities. The yearly cost for the City using UBS will be $222,756, which reflects a savings of $2,540 a year using their service. This price also reflects the higher quality of janitorial services that will be provided for all City facilities. The City will additionally realize cost benefits dropping from four to one vendor related to reduced staff costs required to manage one vendor versus four vendors.
Therefore, the City Manager recommends awarding the Vendor Agreement (Agreement) for Janitorial Services for Citywide Facilities with Universal Building Services and Supply Company in an amount not to exceed $18,563 per month as provided in the attached Agreement (Attachment 1). This new Agreement with UBS would start on April 1, 2023 and would be effective for three (3) years. After three (3) years, the City has the right to extend the agreement in one (1) year increments thereafter.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose not to award the Vendor Agreement for Janitorial Services; however, this will result in staff managing four different vendors. Therefore, the approval of the Agreement would allow staff to manage one vendor, making administration efficient.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the agreement is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. The approval of the agreement would ensure the facilities are all in clean and safe condition.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Services will only be needed for 14 facilities during construction of the Civic Center campus as both City Hall and the P&P building are currently under construction. The UBS monthly proposed cleaning cost for these buildings is $1,386 per month. Therefore, until finalization of the City Hall campus construction work and occupation of the buildings, the monthly payment to UBS will be $17,177. Upon construction completion and occupancy of the buildings, the UBS monthly payment will be $18,563. The following is the estimated source and use of funds for the project:
Total Project Source and Use of Funds
Janitorial Services Agreement $18,563.00 / month
Yearly Cost $222,756
Total Use of Funds $(222,756)
8 Packet Pg. 89
Pacifica City Council 3
February 27, 2023
Total Source of Funds (Various Department Building
Maintenance Funds)
$222,756
Estimated Project End Balance $ 0
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed (PDF)
8 Packet Pg. 90
Pacifica City Council 4
February 27, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A VENDOR AGREEMENT WITH UNIVERSAL BUILDING
SERVICES FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR CITYWIDE FACILITIES WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), the City of Pacifica advertised a Request for Proposals for Janitorial Services in July of 2022 to consolidate Janitorial Services for City Services; and WHEREAS, the low bidder for these yearly vendor services was Universal Building Services (UBS) for a three (3) year period with an option to extend the contract yearly; and WHEREAS, the City has multiple janitorial vendors servicing sixteen (16) City buildings and desires one vendor for administration efficiency, contract management and to streamline costs; and
WHEREAS, the City interviewed UBS and is satisfied they can successfully complete the work and has been satisfied with their services at Pacifica’s Sanchez and Sharp Park libraries; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered approval of the agreement at the February 27, 2023 City Council meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE BI IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement with Universal Building Services in an amount not to exceed $222,756 per year for an agreement term of three (3) years. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on February 27, 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 8 Packet Pg. 91
ATTACHMENT 1
8.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
8.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: ATTACHMENT 1 - CITY OF PACIFICA CONTRACT_Signed [Revision 1] (5277 : Approve Resolution for Vendor Agreement -
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/27/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Adoption of an Ordinance to amend 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 (File No. 2022-036 – Text Amendment TA-123-22). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to waive the second reading and adopt “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Article 49 (Short Term Rentals) of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (Text Amendment TA-123-22) and Finding adoption of the text amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).” STAFF CONTACT:
Christian Murdock, AICP - Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
This ordinance was introduced, as amended by the City Council, at a duly noticed public hearing held at the regular meeting of the City Council on February 13, 2023, and is now in order for adoption.
The staff report from the introduction of the Ordinance at the February 13, 2023 City Council meeting is attached as Attachment A and provides additional background / discussion of the proposed Ordinance.
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:
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 that 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 9 Packet Pg. 118
Pacifica City Council 2
February 27, 2023
Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.454(a)(6).
Term and Renewal. The text amendment would change the stated expiration date of STR permits from December 31 to October 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.
The amendments made at introduction of the Ordinance included the following:
(1) typographical corrections,
(2) addition of a phrase in Sec. 9-4.4905(b) to state, "The permittee may renew the permit annually, subject to the Short-term rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902,...", and (3) addition of subsection (e) in Section 9-4.4907, stating, "The Administrator is authorized to promulgate any policies or procedures necessary to implement and enforce this article, including but not limited to, a process for accepting and prioritizing applications received after the Short-term rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902 is reached Local Coastal Program
Ordinance amendments would not become 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.
The proposed Ordinance is consistent with the California Coastal Act and the City’s certified Local Coastal Land Use Plan which includes policies addressing residential land use, short-term vacation rentals, affordable housing, coastal access and the need for lower cost visitor serving accommodations. Coastal Policy No. 5 specifically provides 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, to allow STRs to operate at a greater pace than development of new long-term housing will conflict with this policy and will significantly impact the availability of housing.
California Environmental Quality Act
The Ordinance is 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. 9 Packet Pg. 119
Pacifica City Council 3
February 27, 2023
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Council may decline to adopt the Ordinance at this time.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• “Fiscal Sustainability” The City’s efforts to ensure registration of all STRs should increase tax revenues in a manner consistent with this City Council Goal. • “An Engaged Community” Consideration of the Ordinance in a public forum expands public participation in a manner consistent with this City Council Goal. • “A Healthy and Compassionate Community” Evaluating the relationship of STRs to the City’s housing stock and potential impacts of too many STRs is consistent with this City Council Goal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget includes $2.1 million in TOT revenues. About half of TOT revenue will come from STRs. Staff projects to receive approximately $1.2 million in TOT revenue from STRs annually if all STRs identified as active on the current market are brought to compliance.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Clerk
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: City Council Staff Report 2-13-2023 (PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 120
Pacifica City Council 4
February 27, 2023
ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 5278)
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 49 “SHORT-TERM RENTALS“ OF CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 9 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A CAP OF 150 SHORT-TERM RENTAL
PERMITS ISSUED CITYWIDE AND VARIOUS OTHER CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
RELATING TO THE REGULATION AND PERMITTING OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND
FINDING THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
WHEREAS, Chapter 7 of Title 3 the Pacifica Municipal Code imposes a transient occupancy tax on any persons occupying space, for thirty consecutive calendar days or less, in any structure or portion of any structure for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, based on a percentage of rent charged; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2018, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance 835-C.S. adding Article 49 “Short-Term Rentals” (“STRs”) to Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to establish regulations governing the short-term rental of residential property within the City of Pacifica; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2022, City staff provided a comprehensive update to the Council on implementation of the City’s 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; and WHEREAS, 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 as 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; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022, the City Council discussed public concerns relating to the sale of residential property in Pacifica for the singular purpose of using the property as an STR and directed staff to prepare a text amendment to cap the STR permits to 150 citywide; and
WHEREAS, there are areas within the City where there are concentrations of STRs, including West Sharp Park and Pedro Point and that there are a high number of STR permits located in the Coastal Zone of the City; and
WHEREAS, the total percentage of housing units in the Coastal Zone being used as unpermitted and permitted STRs is approximately 3.2 percent as of December 2022; and WHEREAS, STRs can be conducted so as to safeguard neighborhood integrity, promote coastal access, and protect coastal resources; and
9 Packet Pg. 121
Pacifica City Council 5
February 27, 2023
WHEREAS, one method of ensuring that housing stock is available for long-term residential use and to maintain affordable housing in the City is to regulate the number of shortterm rentals through a maximum limit on the number of short-term rental permits issued by the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance, which includes a cap on the number of STRs in the City, is consistent with the California Coastal Act and the City’s certified Local Coastal Land Use Plan which includes policies addressing residential land use, short-term vacation rentals, affordable housing, coastal access and the need for lower cost visitor serving accommodations; and
WHEREAS, Coastal Policy No. 5 specifically provides 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, to allow STRs to operate at a greater pace than development of new long-term housing will conflict with this policy and will significantly impact the availability of housing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance, is also consistent with the General Plan. While 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 Plan 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 Housing Element “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, the use of them can prompt consideration of their compatibility with the unique qualities of a residential neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments contained in Text Amendment TA-123-22 (File No. 2022-036) on January 17, 2023, and adopted Resolution No. 2023-001 by a vote of 5-0 initiating and recommending City Council approval of Text Amendment TA-123-22; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed ordinance on February 13, 2023, and considered all correspondence, staff reports and other materials presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Amendment. Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals” of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing and replacing, in its entirety, to read as follows:
9 Packet Pg. 122
Pacifica City Council 6
February 27, 2023
“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 shortterm rental activities from becoming a nuisance or a threat to public health, safety or welfare.
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. (f) "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. (g) "Short-term rental" means the use of a dwelling unit, or portion of it, for a rental of less than thirty (30) consecutive days.
(h) “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.
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.
Sec. 9-4.4903. 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 9-4.4904.
(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 9 Packet Pg. 123
Pacifica City Council 7
February 27, 2023
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.
Sec. 9-4.4904. 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, a 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.
Sec. 9-4.4905. 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, unless suspended or revoked by the Administrator prior to October 31st.
(b) Renewal. The permittee may renew the permit annually, subject to the Shortterm rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902, by submitting a renewal application and fee between October 1st and October 31st of each year, regardless of when the short-term rental permit was issued. If a renewal application and fee are not filed prior to the October 31st deadline, the short-term rental permit may be deemed revoked by the Administrator.
Sec. 9-4.4906. 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 9-4.4904. (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:
9 Packet Pg. 124
Pacifica City Council 8
February 27, 2023
(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).
Sec. 9-4.4907. 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 short-term 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.
(e) The Administrator is authorized to promulgate any policies or procedures necessary to implement and enforce this article, including but not limited to, a process for accepting and prioritizing applications received after the Short-term rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902 is reached.” Section 3. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.
9 Packet Pg. 125
Pacifica City Council 9
February 27, 2023
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. For areas within the Coastal Zone, this Ordinance shall not become effective until the California Coastal Commission certifies an amendment to the City’s local coastal program pursuant to Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
____________________________
Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney 9 Packet Pg. 126
Pacifica City Council 10 February 27, 2023
* * * * *
(ID # 5278) at 2/27/2023 6:15 PM City Council Regular Meeting 9 Packet Pg. 127
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/13/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Introduction of an Ordinance to amend 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 (File No. 2022-036 – Text Amendment TA-123-22). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Article 49 (Short Term Rentals) of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (Text Amendment TA-123-22) and Finding adoption of the text amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).” STAFF CONTACT:
Christian Murdock, AICP - Planning Director - (650) 738-7341 [email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
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 Ordinance appoints the Assistant City Manager or designee as the responsible City official for administration of the STR permit process. The City engaged a consultant, HdL, in July 2021 to assist the Finance Division with reviewing the annual filings for the transient occupant tax (“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. 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. 1 City Council Ordinance No. 835-C.S.
2 City Council June 13, 2022 Agenda Report, Item No. 14.
9.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Staff Report 2-13-2023 (5278 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Pacifica City Council 2
February 13, 2023
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 2023 3 .
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 warranted4. 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 any rental activity as of September 2022. One method of ensuring that housing stock is available for long-term residential use and to maintain affordable housing in the City is to regulate the number of shortterm rentals through a maximum limit on the number of short-term rental permits issued by the City.
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 on the total number of STR permits issued in Pacifica to 150 and that whether or not to undertake in the future further potential revisions to the STR Program be revisited during the Council goal setting in 20235.
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:
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 that 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 from December 31 to October 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 3 City Council Minutes June 13, 2022.
4 City Council October 10, 2022 Agenda Report, Item No. 10 5 City Council Minutes October 10, 2022
9.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Staff Report 2-13-2023 (5278 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Pacifica City Council 3
February 13, 2023
enforcement provisions of the STR Program. Tracked changes of the proposed text amendment are shown in attached Planning Commission staff report packet (Attachment B of Attachment B).
Local Coastal Program
Ordinance amendments would not become 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.
The proposed Ordinance is consistent with the California Coastal Act and the City’s certified Local Coastal Land Use Plan which includes policies addressing residential land use, short-term vacation rentals, affordable housing, coastal access and the need for lower cost visitor serving accommodations. Coastal Policy No. 5 specifically provides 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, to allow STRs to operate at a greater pace than development of new long-term housing will conflict with this policy and will significantly impact the availability of housing.
The Planning Commission staff report (included as Attachment B) includes additional information about non-STR visitor-serving accommodations in the Coastal Zone.
Planning Commission Review
At the January 17, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the text amendment to the City Council by a vote of 5-0 (with two absences). The staff report, resolution adopted by the Planning Commission, and meeting minutes are included as Attachments B through D.
The Planning Commission included in Resolution No. 2023-001 several additional areas of STR regulation that it recommended for City Council consideration as part of a future ordinance update beyond the cap that was presented by staff. Additionally, several members of the public provided comments at the meeting and their statements are summarized in the meeting minutes.
California Environmental Quality Act
The Ordinance is 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.
9.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Staff Report 2-13-2023 (5278 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates) Pacifica City Council 4
February 13, 2023
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Council may decline to adopt the Ordinance or direct that a different cap on the number of permitted STRs be included in the Ordinance.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• “Fiscal Sustainability” The City’s efforts to ensure registration of all STRs should increase tax revenues in a manner consistent with this City Council Goal. • “An Engaged Community” Consideration of the Ordinance in a public forum expands public participation in a manner consistent with this City Council Goal. • “A Healthy and Compassionate Community” Evaluating the relationship of STRs to the City’s housing stock and potential impacts of too many STRs is consistent with this City Council Goal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget includes $2.1 million in TOT revenues. About half of TOT revenue will come from STRs. Staff projects to receive approximately $1.2 million in TOT revenue from STRs annually if all STRs identified as active on the current market are brought to compliance.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments (January 17, 2023) (PDF) Attachment C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-001 (PDF) Attachment D - Planning Commission Minutes January 17, 2023 (PDF)
9.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Staff Report 2-13-2023 (5278 : Ordinance - Short Term Rental Updates)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/27/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project Phase 2 Engagement Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive a presentation on key elements of a Communication & Engagement Plan for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project Phase 2A, provide input on the key elements, and appoint a Council ad hoc subcommittee to continue to give input to the staff and consultant team in finalizing and beginning to implement the plan.
STAFF CONTACT:
Ryan Marquez, P.E. - Project Manager
(650) 738-3769
[email protected]
Roland Yip, P.E. - Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer (650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Lisa Petersen, P.E. - Director of Public Works
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:
On November 28, 2022, City Council approved an amendment with GHD, Inc. to begin the second phase of the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP). More specifically, the approval was for the first subphase of phase 2, titled phase 2a - preliminary design. This subphase begins the preliminary design of the hybrid concept approved by the City Council on June 9, 2021, following public input -- a seawall, rock scour apron, and beach nourishment. This phase will advance the shoreline protection concept, approved by City Council in Phase 1, through preliminary design development resulting in a well-defined Project supported with analyses, drawings and visualizations suitable for community outreach meetings to share information on the Project and solicit feedback on specific Project features.
At the November 28, 2022 meeting, staff stated that the project team would return with a communication and engagement outline, to be subsequently developed into a more detailed plan. The previous final engagement plan prepared in phase 1 is attached (Attachment A). This plan followed a similar formulation as being proposed; an outline brought to City Council for feedback and then a Council ad hoc subcommittee approving the plan later on. Elements of the plan for phase 1 apply to phase 2 and are expected to be carried over into the phase 2 communication and engagement plan. The purpose of tonight’s Council discussion is to receive input on the communication and engagement outline, and appoint a Council ad hoc subcommittee to continue to give input to the staff and consultant team in finalizing and beginning to implement the plan.
10 Packet Pg. 132
Pacifica City Council 2
February 27, 2023
KEY ELEMENTS OF PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT PLAN:
The City Manager is seeking Council input on the following key elements of a Communication and Engagement Plan:
A. Objectives of Engagement;
B. Engagement Tools;
C. Focus of Engagement.
Objectives of Engagement
Staff and the consultant team have preliminarily identified the following proposed objectives of engagement:
1. Continue to communicate broadly the purpose and need of the project;
2. Employ varied tools to ensure equitable communication and engagement;
3. Engage with regulatory partners early and frequently;
4. Clearly communicate the project components that will be focused on in the engagement process
The City Manager is seeking Council input and confirmation of these objectives.
Engagement Tools
The November 2022 approved agreement has the following engagement tools scoped out, combining tools used in phase 1 with new tools. Although the overall budget is set, the scope of the engagement tools could be shifted around based on Council input if such changes do not result in increased expenditures (unless the Council authorizes additional expenditures). The City Manager is seeking Council input on this proposed scope of engagement tools. • Public Workshops - 2 virtual and 1 in person;
• Website information repository and social media blasts; • Online Surveys - 2 surveys to reach a wide audience.
• Council ad hoc subcommittee - to help guide the staff and consultant team in communications and engagement, and amplify the project. 5 planned meetings. • Regulatory Engagement - early and frequent meetings to keep agencies up to date. 5 planned meetings.
• Pop-Up Workshops (new tool) - to reach a wider audience, the team plans to setup numerous pop-ups with project information, at events such as Fog Fest, Farmers Market, Earth Day, a nice weekend day at the Pier, etc. Up to 5 events. • Project Team Office Hours (new tool, when requested) - The team realizes there may be members of the community who will want specific information outside the scope of engagement activities or more information that may not be able to be provided during engagement activities. The project team will offer monthly times where the public can sign up with specific requests and team members can make themselves available for virtual meetings to discuss the project or specific requests. • Postcards to all residents (new tool) - Mail a postcard(s) to all residents in the city advertising the public workshops.
• Physical signage on Beach Boulevard Promenade and Pier • Subscription list of e-mail addresses - Maintain a list of e-mail subscribers to disseminate information directly (current list is over 300)
A high-level preliminary schedule can be found in Attachment B for the overall engagement activities.
10 Packet Pg. 133
Pacifica City Council 3
February 27, 2023
Focus of Engagement:
The City Council has previously approved the design concept for the project -- a seawall, rock scour apron, and beach nourishment. The project team of professional licensed engineers and scientists will make engineering design and science decisions based on technical analyses and input from regulatory agencies and experts. For example, engineering design for the seawall (height, wall type, and alignment), the rock scour apron (rock size and apron dimensions), and natural shoreline infrastructure/beach nourishment (placement location of sand, quantity, and frequency), are highly specialized areas of professional expertise. Although these design features will be communicated and explained to the community, they are not intended to be the focus of engagement and input. However, input from members of the community who have specialized expertise in any of these areas will be welcomed, but most likely appropriate for the Project Team Office Hours tool described above or written comments.
The main focus of engagement and input is intended to be on less technical design features such as:
▪ Promenade Landscaping/Hardscaping
▪ Beach access (location & type)
▪ Community amenities
Although there may be more categories than these examples for the focus of engagement, it is important to be clear at the outset about the focus of the engagement process.
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE:
During the first phase of this project, City Council convened a City Council ad hoc subcommittee consisting of Councilmembers Bier & Beckmeyer with a defined scope and duration. This tool was very useful and the City Manager recommends establishing a new City Council ad hoc subcommittee for this second phase of work. The previous purpose was to meet with staff and the project team on an as-needed basis to assist with the following four specific tasks:
i. Identifying a broad range of project stakeholders;
ii. Providing suggestions on the best methods to reach these stakeholders and encourage their participation;
iii. Amplifying the project’s community involvement opportunities during their own work in the community.
iv. Provide overall input & feedback on the engagement strategy plan document.
Staff believes points ii to iv are still applicable. Point i was completed in phase 1 and will be used in phase 2, with stakeholders added as recommended by the ad hoc as necessary. During phase 1, it was found the ad hoc was a great sounding board for both feedback after the engagement activities as well as during the planning of activities. Thus, staff is proposing the following focus for the ad hoc.
i. Provide suggestions on the best methods to reach stakeholders and encourage their participation;
ii. Amplify the project’s community involvement opportunities during their own work in the community;
iii. Provide overall input, feedback, and approval on the communication and engagement plan document;
iv. Provide content and approach feedback and suggestions during planning for and after engagement activities.
10 Packet Pg. 134
Pacifica City Council 4
February 27, 2023
The City Manager recommends that both of the Councilmembers who were on the previous ad hoc be appointed onto the new ad hoc, as their background and familiarity with how the first phase outreach was planned and executed will allow for good continuity and streamlining of the process. The previous ad hoc was convened five times during phase 1. The current scope allows for five meetings of the new ad hoc during business hours for phase 2a (the currently funded phase). The ad hoc will be delegated by Council to approve a final Communication and Engagement Plan to be implemented during phase 2.
The City Manager is requesting the Council appoint Councilmembers Beckmeyer and Bier to a Phase 2 BBIRP ad hoc subcommittee for the above stated purposes.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Alternative actions may include:
1. Requesting the project team return to a future City Council meeting for approval of the final Communications and Engagement Plan rather than delegating approval authority to the ad hoc subcommittee. This alternative will cause a project delay and increase consultant costs and staff time.
2. Appoint one or two different Councilmembers to the ad hoc subcommittee rather than those recommended by the City Manager.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
This item is consistent with the following Council-adopted goals and Work Plan initiatives:
● “An Engaged Community” includes taking actions to restore trust in city government, expanding communication, and building community.
● “Stewardship of City Infrastructure” includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise.
● “Maintaining a Safe Community” includes supporting our first responders (police, fire, public works), responding to storm emergencies, protecting people, property, businesses, and our infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, storm, seawall, and waste water), and engaging in emergency preparedness activities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no additional anticipated fiscal impact due to the recommendation action beyond the budget and agreement approved for this work in November 2022, unless the Council directs additional elements for the communication and engagement plan not mentioned in this report.
As a reminder, the agreement with GHD for phase 2a has a budget of $1,554,633 . The associated Source and Use of Funds table for this project thus far is shown below:
Source of Funds Funding
California State Budget Grant $1,500,000
Disaster Accounting Fund (Fund 38) $1,000,000
Total $2,500,000
10 Packet Pg. 135
Pacifica City Council 5
February 27, 2023
Use of Funds
Phase 1 Feasibility (completed) $ 804,455.17
Grant Services (completed) $ 36,260.00
Phase 2a - GHD, Inc.(remaining GHD
budget from 2020)
$ 697,984.66
Phase 2a - GHD, Inc. (new amendment
to task order 1)
$ 856,448.34
Future Independent Design Review (2a) $ 100,000
Total $2,495,348.17
Estimated Budget Remaining $ 4,651.83
Staff has been and will continue to monitor and apply for potential grants for this project, as Phases 2B & 2C do not have any identified funding source at this time, yet are still needed as part of the design work, and are estimated to cost $4 to $5 million.
ORIGINATED BY:
Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (PDF)
Attachment B - Engagement Prelim Timeline (PDF)
10 Packet Pg. 136
10.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Project Background and Purpose .........................................................................................................3
1.1 Project Background.............................................................................................................................3
1.2 Project Schedule..................................................................................................................................4
1.3 Engagement Plan Purpose ..................................................................................................................4
1.4 Plan Development Process..................................................................................................................4
1.5 Related Efforts in Pacifica....................................................................................................................5
2. Stakeholder Engagement Objectives and Guiding Principles ...............................................................6
2.1 Stakeholder Engagement Objectives..................................................................................................6
2.2 Guiding Principles................................................................................................................................7
3. Stakeholder Audiences and Interests....................................................................................................8
4. Phase 1 Stakeholder Engagement Activities and Schedule ................................................................10
4.1 Phase 1 Timeline ..............................................................................................................................10
4.2 Overview of Phase 1 Components and Input Sought .......................................................................11
4.3 Phase 1 Engagement Activities ........................................................................................................12
5. Outreach Materials and Resources.....................................................................................................15
6. Measuring Success and Planning Engagement for Future Phases......................................................15
6.1 Measuring Success............................................................................................................................15
6.2 Planning Engagement for Phases 2 and 3 .........................................................................................17
10.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 3 1. Project Background and Purpose
1.1 Project Background
In 1984, the City of Pacifica (City or Pacifica) constructed an 18-22-foot-tall seawall with a rip rap revetment and promenade along Beach Boulevard north of the Pacifica Pier. The southern section of the seawall was constructed in 1987 using a differing design. Since its construction, the north seawall has experienced failures in multiple locations and continues to be an increasing public health and safety risk for the City. The historic West Sharp Park neighborhood, in particular, which includes the Beach Boulevard Promenade, continues to be at risk of erosion and coastal flood damages
associated with coastal processes of the
Pacific Ocean.
To protect essential public infrastructure
along the Beach Boulevard promenade, the
City is conducting the Beach Boulevard
Infrastructure Resiliency Project (Project) to
replace the current seawall and outdated
infrastructure. The Project area (see Figure
1) is located parallel to Beach Boulevard, just
west of the Palmetto shopping district. The
Project will assess the current infrastructure
and seawall, which includes four structures:
North Wall
Pier Sheet Pile Wall
South Wall
South Gap
Project Phases
Phase 1: Preliminary Planning and Feasibility will review existing conditions, project future conditions and risks, develop design alternatives, and ultimately determine a single preferred alternative solution. Phase 1 is expected to be completed by April 2021. Phase 2: Design, Environmental and Permitting will take place between May through November 2021
Phase 3: Construction timing is still to be determined.
Figure 1: Project Area
10.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 4 1.2 Project Schedule
The stakeholder engagement process will be planned and implemented around the project timeline and its respective milestones. The overall project schedule is included below.
1.3 Engagement Plan Purpose
The purpose of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Plan) is to provide a “roadmap” for the stakeholder engagement process and to align engagement activities with key project tasks and milestones. The Plan describes objectives, guiding principles, stakeholder audiences and interests, recommended activities and materials, a proposed process schedule, roles and
responsibilities, and metrics for success. The Plan is intended to be an internal, living document that will be revisited and updated throughout the process.
The Plan details an engagement approach for Phase 1 and outlines high-level objectives for Phases 2 and 3. The
engagement objectives and approach for Phases 2 and 3 will be refined as the Project progresses.
1.4 Plan Development Process
This Plan is informed by interviews with stakeholders representing a broad range of interests in Pacifica. The stakeholder engagement approach is intended to be responsive to their interests and preferences around communications and engagement in support of the Project.
The stakeholder perspectives consulted to help inform development of this Plan include members of the following:
West Sharp Park residents
City of Pacifica Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commissioner Figure 2: Project Schedule
A Note on COVID-19
At the time of writing, there are many
unknowns about evolving health,
economic, social, and political impacts
from the COVID-19 pandemic and social
distancing requirements. The health and
safety of Pacifica community members is
of the utmost importance. Project
engagement will adhere to local socialdistancing and shelter-in-place requirements, and there will be greater
reliance on virtual engagement strategies.
10.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 5 Pacifica Climate Committee member
Pacifica Beach Coalition member
San Francisco Public Golf Alliance representative
This Plan is informed by input from City of Pacifica staff and Kearns & West’s prior experience working with stakeholders in Pacifica, as well as professional best practices for stakeholder communication and engagement.
1.5 Related Efforts in Pacifica
The Project overlaps in geography and focus with other efforts underway in Pacifica. These efforts, when combined, will help establish Pacifica’s future for development and preservation for decades to come. It is important to help stakeholders understand how these efforts align (or diverge), and ensure that staff responsible coordinate closely to avoid confusion or fatigue for stakeholders. These efforts are summarized below.
Plan Pacifica: In early 2019, the City of Pacifica commenced an effort that was titled Plan Pacifica and comprised of three separate, but related, long-term planning efforts including updating the General Plan, updating the Local Land Use Coastal Plan, and developing a Specific Plan for the Sharp Park neighborhood. Information on the current progress of the Plan Pacifica effort can be found at https://www.planpacifica.org/.
o General Plan: The General Plan, last updated in 1980, is the “constitution” for the city and guiding document for development and policy making in a wide range of topics. There was an extensive effort to update the General Plan between 2009 and 2012, but the Draft General Plan was not adopted by City Council. Plan Pacifica aims to update and complete the 2012 Draft, shape a forward-looking vision for Pacifica, and provide the City with a regulatory document that responds to our contemporary issues and legal context. o Local Coastal Program: The Local Coastal Program (LCP) consists of two components, the Land Use Plan and the Implementation Program.
Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP): Specifies the kinds, locations, and intensities of land uses; the applicable resource protection and development policies; and where necessary, a listing of implementing actions.
Implementation Program: Consists of zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments needed to implement the Land Use Plan. The current planning process in Pacifica does not include the development of an Implementation Program.
A LCP, certified by the California Coastal Commission, provides a local jurisdiction, such as the City of Pacifica, the ability to issue coastal permits for most new development in the Coastal Zone, subject to the standards established in the certified LCP. The LCLUP was last updated in 1980. In February 2020, the City Council approved a draft LCLUP to be sent to the Coastal Commission for certification.
o Sharp Park Specific Plan: The Sharp Park Specific Plan will establish a vision for a vibrant, community-focused heart of the City in the historic Sharp Park neighborhood. The Specific Plan will address and provide implementation guidance for economic development, transportation, land use and housing opportunities in the neighborhood.
10.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 6 Beach Boulevard Promenade Public Plaza: The Public Plaza along Beach Boulevard Project will rejuvenate the sandy regions adjacent to the Beach Boulevard Promenade between Birch Lane and Clarendon Road. Amenities being considered for installation include: exercise furnishings, hard-scaped plaza, bicycle parking, stone animal play structures, and new concrete benches. The project is currently in the design phase and is anticipated to be a short-term project. Proposed Developments: Several commercial and residential developments are being considered in or near the Project area, including a hotel near the current seawall. The long-term viability of many of these projects require a protected coastline along Beach Boulevard, which the Project aims to provide.
2. Stakeholder Engagement Objectives and Guiding Principles
2.1 Stakeholder Engagement Objectives
The City is committed to designing and conducting a transparent, community-based planning process that allows stakeholders to provide ideas and comments that inform the development of alternatives for the Project. The Project will provide the City and the West Sharp Park neighborhood, in particular, with the opportunity to develop a solution that not only addresses the infrastructure resiliency issues, but also reinvigorates the Beach Boulevard Promenade into an exciting space that the Pacifica community will proud of.
This Plan aims to achieve the following stakeholder engagement objectives:
Engage a wide range of Pacifica stakeholders, particularly those located in or near the West Sharp Park neighborhood and those that regularly use the Beach Boulevard Promenade, to build a broad understanding of the project’s purpose and scope, and how they can participate in the process. Provide stakeholders with multiple, meaningful opportunities to participate in the project development process and provide input.
Align engagement opportunities with key project milestones and deliverables to ensure that stakeholder input can be incorporated to the extent feasible.
Specific engagement objectives by Project phase include:
Phase 1: Preliminary Planning and Feasibility
Introduce the Project and begin connecting with Pacifica stakeholders. Share information related to Phase 1 project deliverables: Existing Conditions, Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment, and Alternative Design Development and Analysis. Collect stakeholder input on Phase 1 project deliverables, and ultimately, solicit stakeholder input that will inform the identification of a Preferred Alternative for the project. Share information on other recent, current and/or upcoming projects in Pacifica and how they connect to the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project.
10.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 7 Phase 2: Design, Engineering and Environmental
Coordinate with regulatory agencies on necessary permits and secure permits by end of Phase 2. Share information and collect stakeholder input on potential protection, mitigation and Enhancement (PM&E) measures and other design features (i.e., amenities, aesthetics, uses, access).
Complete public participation requirements of CEQA not completed in Phase 1, including scoping and public comment periods on the Draft and Final EIR.
Solicit input on how stakeholders would like to stay informed on construction status.
Phase 3: Construction
Share information and notify relevant West Sharp Park residents and businesses and users of Beach Boulevard Promenade of construction related impacts (road closures, restricted access, etc.)
Share project information through the project website and social media.
2.2 Guiding Principles
To achieve the objectives identified above, the Project and outreach team (Team) will follow the guiding principles of engagement listed below.
Use a flexible and adaptive approach: The Team fully appreciates that the current COVID-19 shelter in place policy will impact the Team’s ability to engage stakeholders in the near-term, particularly as it relates to in-person meetings and workshops. We understand that stakeholders will want to be engaged in different ways, and we will aim to be flexible and responsive to their needs. In addition, the Team will identify barriers to effective engagement early in the process (should they occur) and adapt the engagement process as needed.
Encourage transparency: The Team will conduct stakeholder engagement in an inclusive, open, and transparent way. Transparency is a key component for building trust. Communicate early and often: The Team will introduce the Project to stakeholders as early as possible to build partnership and collaboration. The Team will share regular Project updates and provide opportunities for stakeholder input.
Promote easily accessible information and processes: For both project information and outreach activities, the Team will use a variety of methods to ensure those interested in the project can access information when convenient for them. The Team will use up-to-date technical data in the stakeholder engagement process and translate this information into more easily accessible language for a general,
10.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 8 non-technical audience. We intend to attend or speak at events where stakeholders are already gathered.
Engage “key communicators”: In addition to conducting direct engagement, the Team will leverage engaged stakeholders, particularly West Sharp Park residents, as “key communicators.” These key communicators will extend the reach of engagement efforts as they communicate with their respective networks and ensure their interests and priorities are included in Project discussions.
3. Stakeholder Audiences and Interests
The protection of the City of Pacifica’s coastal communities and resources is of significant interest and concern.
This Plan organizes stakeholders into the following eight audiences recognizing that there will be different levels of interest and influence among stakeholders, and that the stakeholder engagement strategy should be designed to accommodate this reality.
West Sharp Park residents
Local businesses
City of Pacifica Administration and City Council
Fishing and Recreation
Conservation
Regional, State and Federal Regulatory Agencies
The broader Pacifica community and the Bay Area as a whole, including environmental justice populations
Below are descriptions of the stakeholder audiences and summaries of their interests with respect to the Project. These interests were informed by stakeholder interviews and additional discussions.
Overarching Stakeholder Interests
Generally, there is broad support for replacing the current seawall with modern infrastructure that will allow West Sharp Park to thrive in the future. Concerns about the Project mainly center around the City’s ability to pay for the project (and how other priority projects might not get funded if the Project does go through), and potential environmental impacts.
Stakeholders have stressed that the Project should: protect residents’ homes; allow for continued economic growth; maintain recreational opportunities along the coastline; and help protect the natural environment.
Stakeholders want a transparent process that builds understanding among Pacifica residents regarding the need and importance for rebuilding coastal infrastructure, and tradeoffs between the Project alternatives that will be identified.
10.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 9 West Sharp Park Residents
Local residents have a direct public health and safety interest in the Project, and they are overwhelmingly supportive of it happening. Due to failing existing infrastructure, the West Sharp Park neighborhood is susceptible to erosion and coastal flood damages. They are also passionate about the City and neighborhood in which they live – they treasure their proximity to the ocean and the natural beauty that makes Pacifica so special. Residents also value the recreational opportunities and health and safety benefits that updated infrastructure would provide. Local Businesses
The West Sharp Park neighborhood, including the Beach Boulevard Promenade, serves as the City’s civic core and is home to many unique businesses. The Pacifica business community has a vested interest in the safe and profitable operation of their businesses in the Project area as well as potential future economic growth.
City of Pacifica Administration and City Council
The City’s primary goal for the Project is to protect essential public infrastructure along the Beach Boulevard promenade. The City is committed to the public health and safety of its citizens and visitors in and around the historic West Sharp Park neighborhood and the preservation of its coastline in the area. The City is also committed to conducting a transparent, community-based planning process that is designed to create a multi-benefit solution to protect public infrastructure, recreational activities, numerous homes, businesses and the community at large, from further impacts due to continued coastal erosion.
There are a variety of other City departments that have a keen interest in coastal flooding and erosion issues, including Public Works, the Planning Department, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the Pacifica School District.
Fishing and Recreation Interests
Recreational use in the Project area is wide ranging and includes walkers, joggers, cyclists, beachgoers, surfers, fishermen and others who use the Beach Boulevard Promenade daily. Recreational interests in the Project include maintaining current recreational activities and protecting the viability of these activities in the long-term. The recreation community includes beach and ocean users such as the Surfrider Foundation and Pedro Point Surf Club, and users of the Sharp Park Golf Course. Conservation Interests
Interests of the conservation community regarding the Project include prioritizing the health of habitat and species within the Project Area and the protection, conservation and enhancement of coastal resources. The Sharp Park Golf Course in particular provides freshwater habitat for endangered species, including the California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. Regional, State and Federal Regulatory Agencies
The Project’s focus and geography overlap with the jurisdictions of various regional, state and federal natural resource and regulatory agencies, and these agencies will play an important role in validating the technical information that will be used in the Project and, ultimately, issuing permits that will allow
10.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 10 the Project to proceed to construction.
Relevant agencies include (but is not limited to):
o California Coastal Commission
o California Department of Fish and Wildlife
o California State Lands Commission
o National Marine Fisheries Service
o San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department
o San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
o US Army Corps of Engineers
o US Fish and Wildlife Service
Broader Pacifica Community
The broader public includes Pacifica residents and organizations that are not located in or directly focused on the Sharp Park area, or focused on the issue of coastal resiliency. These stakeholders may not track the Project as closely as others, but they would like to be updated periodically and receive information that is easy to understand and helps explains the Project’s impacts on their lives and livelihoods. Residents across Pacifica want to know how the Project will be funded, and whether they will be expected to contribute through a tax measure or other similar means. The California Coastal Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy acknowledges climate change and sea level rise hazards will have disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities and may exacerbate existing environmental injustices. Because of this, the Project will support environmental justice in its planning and in how it engages with frontline communities within and in the neighboring communities around Pacifica. Bay Area Community
Pacifica’s beaches and coastal resources are a popular destination for residents across the Bay Area, including inland visitors, and they want to continue having access to Pacifica’s attractions. In addition, there are agencies and organizations who are tracking coastal protection efforts across the Bay Area, and they may have resources and expertise to contribute. This includes OneShoreline, i.e. the San Mateo County Flood & Sea Level Rise Resiliency District.
10.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 11 4. Phase 1 Stakeholder Engagement Activities and Schedule
4.1 Phase 1 Timeline
Consistent with the overall engagement strategy, the Phase 1 (Preliminary Planning and Feasibility) stakeholder engagement process will be planned and implemented around the project timeline and its respective milestones. The Phase 1 timeline (including stakeholder engagement activities) is included below.
4.2 Overview of Phase 1 Components and Input Sought
Phase 1 includes three main components: Existing Conditions; Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment; Alternative Formulation and Ranking. What follows are descriptions of the three components, the information provided for each component, and the input the City will seek.
Existing Conditions
Overview Information Shared and Input Collected
Existing Conditions will review and evaluate existing
data sources on the current seawall and identify any
information gaps. The project team will review
engineering as-built and past inspections
information, and conduct a visual inspection and
topographic survey to determine the most current
above-water condition of the wall and surrounding
infrastructure. The findings from this task will be
detailed in a memo describing the data, sources and
insights gained.
o Share information on the Existing Conditions task
including approach and status.
o Collect input from stakeholders on problem
areas as they exist today
o Collect input on how stakeholders interact with
or use the project area, and what they value
most about it.
Figure 3: Phase 1 Timeline
10.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 12 Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment
Overview Information Shared and Input Collected
The Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment (MHRA) task will
analyze flood, earthquake, utility, environmental and
economic impacts of the project alternatives versus
the no Project condition. The results of these
analyses will inform the response of the existing
seawall and potential project alternatives. Data and
studies performed under this task will be used to
assess the direct and indirect impacts of the project
alternatives as a Benefit/Cost analysis.
o Share information related to MHRA deliverables
the project team is developing, the approach for
studying hazards, and how the MHRA will inform
alternatives development.
o Collect stakeholder input on priorities and
concerns as they relate to the data presented
and gather initial input on potential project
alternatives at a conceptual level. There will be
less emphasis on discussing the specific
methodology, models, etc., and more emphasis
on what the resulting data/information means
for stakeholders.
Alternatives Design Development and Analysis
Overview Information Shared and Input Collected
Based on the existing conditions and the potential
risks, the project team will develop five different
project design alternatives, including no project and
sand nourishment alternatives. The project team will
develop and use a multi-criteria decision matrix
comparing the advantages and disadvantages of
each alternative considering topic areas such as
environmental impacts, visual impacts, flood
reduction, habitat creation, recreational
opportunities and initial and maintenance costs. The
project team will identify three alternatives to study
further before selecting a preferred alternative.
o Share information on the Alternatives Design
Development and Analysis task including
approach and timeline.
o Share information on each alternative under
consideration and the criteria that will be used to
identify the preferred alternative.
o Solicit stakeholder feedback on the Project
features and amenities toolbox which will inform
the development of Project alternatives.
o Collect stakeholder input on criteria and the
alternatives under consideration.
4.3 Phase 1 Engagement Activities
What follows are descriptions of the engagement activities the City will implement to inform Phase 1 documents and decisions.
Coordination with City Council and Ad Hoc Committees
The project team will periodically present to, solicit input, and coordinate with the Pacifica City Council which will be particularly focused on having effective community engagement for the Project. The City Council may also designate an Ad Hoc Committee to focus specifically on the Project.
10.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 13 Community Workshops
The City will convene four community workshops during Phase 1 to provide information and gather community input. Workshops will be open to the public and will begin with a presentation designed to educate participants on relevant topics, followed by a structured exercise to solicit input. Workshops will be conducted virtually or in-person depending on COVID-19-related restrictions at that time.
The anticipated focus and schedule of the public workshops are as follows:
The project team will notify Pacifica residents of upcoming workshops through a variety of channels, including email notification, social media, coordinating with local organizations to help spread the word, and potentially sending invitations via postal mail to West Sharp Park residents.
Coordination with Regulatory Agencies
While the City will not be seeking permits from regulatory agencies until Phase 2, it will be critical to keep them informed and gather their feedback in the process of developing project alternatives in Phase 1.
Coordinating with the California Coastal Commission, a state agency with quasi-judicial regulatory oversight over land use and public access in the California coastal zone, will be particularly important. Other agencies include the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California State Lands Commission (SLC), and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFWQCB).
The anticipated schedule of Phase 1 coordination with regulatory agencies is as follows:
Stakeholder Interviews
Kearns & West conducted stakeholder interviews in July 2020 to inform the Project’s stakeholder engagement strategy, and future interviews may be conducted to gather feedback on a specific topic or series of topics. This one-on-one engagement allows for detailed information gathering on specific issues, opportunities, constraints and solutions, and can be conducted at various times throughout the Project. The one-on-one setting allows for direct and nuanced input, and the interviews help to build trust and contribute to long-term relationship building.
Workshop Date Topic
Workshop #1 September 2020 Project Kick-off and Existing Conditions Workshop #2 November 2020 Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment
Workshop #3 January 2021 Alternatives Design Development and Analysis Workshop #4 March 2021 Final Project Alternative
Meeting Date Topic/Audience
Meeting #1 September 2020 Project kick-off with CCC staff Meeting #2 September 2020 Introductory briefing(s) with USACE, SLC, and SFRWQCB Meeting #3 December 2020 Meet with CCC Staff to present findings and solicit feedback on and question re: alternatives
Meeting #4 January 2020 Meet with USACE, SLC, and SFRWQCB present findings and solicit feedback on and question re: alternatives
10.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 14 Targeted Stakeholder Meetings and Presentations/Briefings with Community Groups The project team will organize and conduct strategic, targeted conversations between project team members and influential or active stakeholders or organizations to solicit their input on Project content and the overall process. These targeted meetings will allow for honest, direct feedback and help to foster productive working relationships with key stakeholders. They can be used to vet potential solutions and test the level of support before sharing broadly. In addition to scheduling targeted meetings, the project team will also consider identifying opportunities to attend community group-hosted events and provide information and updates on the Project, including upcoming workshops and other opportunities to provide input. Attending existing meetings is a resource-efficient way to meet with stakeholders and demonstrates a willingness to show up and listen.
Online Surveys
The team will customize and disseminate online surveys to gather input from stakeholders on their experiences and priorities as they relate to the Project. Online engagement can be an effective method for building community support and awareness, and serves to collect public feedback to inform the Project. The survey tool will feature a fast and effective online experience, and it can be leveraged strategically with the County’s social networking tools. The team will develop and disseminate an online survey in August 2020 to inform Existing Conditions. The team will consider additional online surveys later in Phase 1.
Additional Engagement Activities to Consider
The project team will consider implementing the following additional engagement activities, depending on stakeholder and Project needs.
Pop-up Workshops
Mobile, or “pop-up,” workshops are an effective engagement tool for bringing information to community members and asking for their input. Pop-up workshops can serve as an alternative or supplement to large public workshops. The Team will consider conducting at key gathering places (e.g., farmers markets), and will accommodate social distancing requirements for the pop-up workshops as needed.
Site Tours
Site tours help foster a deeper understanding of project needs and alternatives. The Team will consider hosting site tours to get stakeholders out onto the Project site. Self-guided audio tours, combined with an online comment form, could also be developed. Community Working Group
A Community Working Group (CWG) could provide ongoing input for the Project during Phase 1 in an advisory capacity to the City. The CWG would reflect the diversity of interests in Pacifica, and while the CWG would not have decision-making authority, it would help the City stay connected to key stakeholders and organizations.
Project Team “Office Hours”
“Office Hours” allow stakeholders to ask questions of project team members in an informal and one-on-one fashion.
10.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 15 5. Outreach Materials and Resources
The Team will develop and disseminate Project materials to share information and ensure a common understanding of the Project’s purpose and scope and promote awareness of opportunities to participate in upcoming events. This will include the following activities:
Project Webpage
The City will update and utilize the Project webpage to provide easily accessible information to stakeholders. The webpage will be updated regularly throughout the process as more information becomes available. The webpage will include a sign-up form so stakeholders can be added to the Project distribution list, and it could also potentially feature an online comment form to gather rolling feedback throughout the process, particularly around Project milestones.
Information Materials
Providing consistent messaging about the Project’s purpose, scope and status will be a critical component of the outreach effort. The Team will develop outreach materials including a Project Overview factsheet, and other brochures/factsheets as needed, that will be posted on the Project webpage and will be distributed during stakeholder meetings. The development of outreach materials will include translating technical information into a more accessible format for the public. The Team will explore translating information materials, as needed, into other languages prominently spoken throughout Pacifica, including Spanish and potentially Chinese and Tagalog.
E-News Updates and Notifications
The Team will leverage the City’s stakeholder database and send email updates to the listserv throughout the Phase 1 process, focused around Project milestones or the release of publicly accessible Project documents. The Team will also encourage partner agencies and organizations to share Project updates through their respective email distribution channels, further extending the reach of Project communications Updates regarding the Project could also be included in the City’s Connect with Pacifica e-newsletter.
Social Media
The project Team will leverage the City’s existing social media channels, including as Facebook, Twitter, and NextDoor to share information with the general public. In particular, the project team will create and share social media posts to notice upcoming meetings and opportunities to provide comment. Since social media is meant to reach a broad range of stakeholders.
6. Measuring Success and Planning Engagement for Future Phases
6.1 Measuring Success
The Team will use an adaptive approach to plan and implement the Project’s stakeholder engagement program. It will solicit ongoing feedback from stakeholders regarding the effectiveness of engagement activities and will adjust future activities to be responsive to the extent feasible. The Team will meet periodically to evaluate and discuss the engagement program and may solicit stakeholder input in advance to inform these conversations.
10.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 16 At a high-level, determining whether stakeholder engagement is successful depends on whether the Project’s main engagement objectives are met, namely:
Engage a wide range of Pacifica stakeholders, particularly those located in or near the West Sharp Park neighborhood, to build a broad understanding of the project’s purpose and scope, and how they can participate in the process.
Provide stakeholders with multiple, meaningful opportunities to participate in the project development process and provide input.
Align engagement opportunities with key project milestones and deliverables to ensure that stakeholder input can be incorporated to the extent feasible If the above three objectives have been met, then the engagement program is serving its intended function. If they are not being met, the project team will work collaboratively with stakeholders to determine how best to meet them in the future.
Additionally, the following qualitative and quantitative metrics can be used to measure the success of the Project’s stakeholder engagement efforts.
Proposed process-focused metrics for the engagement activities outlined in this Plan include the following:
Community workshops
o Workshop attendance
Coordination with regulatory agencies
o Meeting attendance and representation of all invited agencies Targeted stakeholder meetings
o Number of meetings conducted/briefings provided
o Number of stakeholder constituencies (and individual organizations) involved Online surveys
o Number of online survey responses
Project website
o Number of website visitors
Outreach materials
o Number of outreach materials produced and shared on the Project website and through other virtual platforms
E-news updates and social media
o Number of e-news updates sent related to the Project
o Reach (i.e., number of recipients) for each communication channel Additional higher-level, outcome-focused metrics include:
Qualitative and/or quantitative metrics to indicate level of stakeholder support for the Project alternatives and, ultimately, the Preferred Alternative (check-in calls with key stakeholders and, potentially, periodic surveys).
10.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) 17 6.2 Planning Engagement for Phases 2 and 3
The project team has developed engagement objectives specific to Phases 2 and 3 (see Section 2), and it will develop more detailed engagement strategies for each phase as these phases approach. And, by guiding stakeholders through Phase 1 and gathering feedback along the way, the project team will be able to bring forward a well-informed approach. The project team will likely conduct stakeholder interviews to inform engagement for Phases 2 and 3.
10.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment A -BBIRP Phase 1 Engagement Plan (5273 : BBIRP Communication Plan) BBIRP Phase 2A: Proposed Engagement for Preliminary Design 2023 2024
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
Design
Process
Environmental
Process
Public Meetings/
Workshops
Ad Hoc
Committee
Agency
Engagement
Pop-up
Workshops
Online
Engagement
Proposed activities subject to change
AC Meeting
Agency Meeting Agency Meeting Agency Meeting Agency Meeting AC Meeting AC Meeting
Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3
Pop-Up Pop-Up Pop-Up Pop-Up Pop-Up
AC Meeting AC Meeting
Public CEQA Mtg
CEQA Project
Description
Notice of
Preparation
Agency CEQA Mtg
Online survey Online survey
Project overview,
Phase 1 recap,
initial design
Features &
Amenities
Prelim design including
integration of features &
amenities feedback
Design Criteria
& Objectives
Seawall Prelim
Design Draft 35% Plan Final 35% Plan
10.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment B - Engagement Prelim Timeline (5273 : BBIRP Communication
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/27/2023
1 SUBJECT:
2022 Annual Progress Reports on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element of the General Plan, and the City of Pacifica General Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to adopt a Resolution approving the City’s 2022 Housing Element Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and the 2022 General Plan Annual Progress Report on Implementation of Other Elements of the General Plan, and directing the City Manager to transmit the reports to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
STAFF CONTACT:
Christian Murdock, AICP - Planning Director
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
State law requires the City to submit annual reports by April 1st of each year on the status and progress of implementation of its General Plan during the prior calendar year to the City Council, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Government Code § 65400). The following discussion and the attached 2022 Housing Element Annual Progress Report (Attachment B) comply with the state law requirements.
During the 2040 General Plan update process, the City Council identified that the annual reports on implementation of the General Plan and Housing Element should provide a process for public input on whether any updates to the documents are needed to address the community’s needs. Seeking this additional input, beyond simply reporting on what actions the City undertook in the prior year, to identify what potential General Plan amendments may be necessary makes more robust use of the established annual reporting process. In addition, the timing of consideration of the annual reports is intended to allow public input to inform the City Council’s annual strategic planning and goal setting process that typically occurs in March of each year.
1. Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR)
The City Council adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element of the General Plan on May 11, 2015. That Housing Element covers what is known as the 5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), or RHNA 5. The APR is a routine item required by state law to report on housing-related activities in the prior calendar year and is not a policy document guiding housing-related actions to be undertaken by the City.
11 Packet Pg. 155
Pacifica City Council 2
February 27, 2023
Staff has prepared the Calendar Year 2022 APR in the format prescribed by HCD (Attachment B
1 ). This is the eighth and final APR associated with the 2015-2023 Housing Element. The City’s RHNA 5 allocation for the planning period 2015-2023 was 413 units (approximately 52 units per year). The 2022 APR prepared by staff demonstrates the number of housing units for which the City granted Planning entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy during the 2022 calendar year.
The APR must be considered by the Council at a public meeting where members of the public have an opportunity to provide comments. Members of the public may comment on the APR during public comment as part of consideration of the item. Acceptance of the APR is a routine matter and the report is informational only.
The APR also highlights other accomplishments and milestones achieved throughout the 2022 reporting period. Staff reports the following observations as compared to the 2021 APR reviewed by Council in terms of housing unit production:
• Overall housing unit production counted toward the City’s RHNA 5 goals, as measured by building permits issued, decreased to 55 units in 2022 from 63 units in 2021, a decrease of 13 percent. While the number of units decreased in 2022, housing approvals were still more than double the next best year in the Housing Element period. • Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, comprised 87 percent of the share of new housing unit approvals in 2022: 48 units. Twenty-two of these units were constructed at the Villages at Pacifica apartment complex. The complex owner has utilized provisions in state law that allow construction of ADUs in multi-family housing projects. The Villages at Pacifica ADUs will be affordable to households with low incomes as a result of the Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement between the City of Pacifica and the apartment owner approved by the City Council in 2020. A second building permit application was issued for construction of an additional 20 ADUs at the Villages at Pacifica apartment complex in 2021.
• The City received its first applications under the new state law known as Senate Bill 9, or SB 9. SB 9 allows for ministerial approval (i.e., no discretionary review) of two residential unit projects and/or urban lot splits of existing lots for projects that meet the qualifying criteria in the law. Six SB 9 applications have been submitted, one of which has been approved. These applications consist of an urban lot split only (4 applications) and combined two residential unit and urban lot split (2 applications). 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (RHNA 6)
Pacifica’s Sixth Cycle RHNA (RHNA 6) for the 2023-2031 planning period is 1,892 housing units across various levels of affordability (Attachment C). This is an increase of 1,479 units, or an increase of 358 percent, compared to its RHNA 5 allocation of 413 units. The City held three community meetings in late-2022 to seek community input for the Housing Element Update (HEU) to address RHNA 6 and work is ongoing by the City to release the public review draft and adopt the HEU.
2. Other General Plan Elements
Staff has also conducted a review of the City’s General Plan and prepared the report below outlining notable items related to implementation of elements of the City’s General Plan, other 1 Staff notes that readability of the Housing Element APR can be challenging. However, the City is required by law to use the prescribed reporting form.
11 Packet Pg. 156
Pacifica City Council 3
February 27, 2023
than the Housing Element. Past reports have focused on implementation of the 1980 General Plan. However, this annual report is the first to include the 2040 General Plan which was adopted by the City Council in July 2022 to comprehensively update the General Plan (except the Housing Element). Because the 1980 General Plan is no longer in effect, this annual report focuses on implementation of the 2040 General Plan.
Economic Sustainability Element
• ES-I-1: Town Center. Through a combination of mixed use land use designations/zoning, streetscape improvements such as undergrounding overhead utility lines, targeted public investment, and marketing strategies, promote Palmetto Avenue as a pedestrian-oriented destination with shops and services for residents and visitors alike.
On August 31, 2022, the City Council adopted the Sharp Park Specific Plan (SPSP).
The SPSP emphasizes mixed use land use designations along Palmetto Avenue and elsewhere, calls for streetscape and other public realm improvements, to make Palmetto Avenue a pedestrian-oriented destination with shops and services in a manner consistent with this policy.
• ES-I-16: “Shop Pacifica” Campaign. Create a “Shop Pacifica” campaign to support local businesses and decrease retail sales leakage.
City economic development staff created a “Shop Pacifica” campaign that included local gift cards used for purchases at participating businesses located within the City of Pacifica.
• ES-I-19: Host New Events. Promote regionally recognized events as a means of increasing awareness of Pacifica as a destination and fostering a positive image of the City as a place to visit, reside, and conduct business.
Examples of community events that could draw visitors to the city – and take advantage of the City’s outdoor amenities – include group hikes, trail races, golf tournaments, surfing competitions, LGBTQ Pride events, a Summer Concert series, as well as city celebrations such as Fog Fest, festivals, and promotional sales.
City staff supported planning and conduct of two new events in 2022: an LGBTQ pride parade, and Blues & Brews musical performance. Both events drew visitors from outside Pacifica and complimented other annual events in the City including but not limited to Fog Fest and the dog surfing competition.
• ES-I-28: Opportunity Sites Inventory. Maintain an inventory of available and “ready-togo” development sites on the City’s website, and provide the list to interested developers and/or businesses seeking sites in the City.
The inventory of development sites should be updated periodically, depending on the pace of development, and distributed to local developers, realtors, employment recruiters, large commercial bankers, and others involved in economic development. 11 Packet Pg. 157
Pacifica City Council 4
February 27, 2023
The City initiated an economic opportunities study, as part of the Vision 2025 fiscal sustainability strategy, to identify locations in Pacifica that would be suitable for redevelopment to increase vibrancy and tax generation for the City.
Community Design Element
• CD-I-4: Primary Activity Centers. Create primary activity centers at West Sharp Park, Rockaway Beach, and Linda Mar, and neighborhood centers in Pacific Manor and Park Pacifica (at and around the Park Mall site).
The Sharp Park Specific Plan Area will be the City’s mixed use core. The Sharp Park Specific Plan will serve as the guide to enhance Palmetto Avenue between Paloma Avenue and Clarendon Road as a vibrant, mixed-use main street, with strong connections to the Ocean. Sharp Park’s character will be signaled by higher-intensity buildings along the Highway 1 corridor, including at the Eureka Square site.
See Economic Sustainability Element Policy No. ES-I-1, above. • CD-I-20: Underground Utilities. Continue to require underground utilities in all new development. New developments should include undergrounding existing overhead utilities along each project frontage. Within scenic corridors, place lines underground or located there so they do not break the viewline of a roadway vista. This policy applies Citywide.
As part of the triennial update process for the California Building Standards Code, the City Council enacted a local amendment to require underground utility installation in all new development. The local amendment addresses utility undergrounding requirements for projects submit to ministerial review only (i.e., those projects not required to undergo a discretionary permit process).
Land Use Element
There was no reportable action on implementation of the Land Use Element.
Circulation Element
• CI-I-52: Age-Friendly Community. Support mobility programs and improvements that enable mobility for all people, including seniors and people with disabilities.
The City continued to operate several programs to address mobility for all people, including seniors and people with disabilities:
o A senior shuttle program to bring seniors to the Community Center lunch program during weekdays.
o A Connect a Ride program for seniors to access low-cost taxi rides (supported by the generosity of the late Sirkka Niukkanen).
o A Shopping Assistance for Seniors Homebound (SASH) program that pairs a SASH volunteer with a senior who cannot shop due to limited mobility or lack of transportation.
o A Meals on Wheels program to deliver meals to homebound seniors. 11 Packet Pg. 158
Pacifica City Council 5
February 27, 2023
Open Space and Community Facilities
• OC-I-1: Park Land Dedication or In-Lieu Fees. For new development, continue to require the dedication of land or payment of in-lieu fees to provide park land at a ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents.
The City Council adopted an update to the in-lieu fees for park land dedication. The fee update increased the amount of fees to ensure fees collected are adequate to acquire park land and construct improvements.
• OC-I-58: Civic Center. Continue to study the feasibility of developing a new City Hall or Civic Center to provide adequate space for long-term needs and enhance the City’s image.
The City commenced construction on a substantial renovation to the Civic Center at Santa Maria Avenue and Francisco Boulevard. The project would add a new elevator tower to enhance ADA access, restore the exterior to wood siding that matches its original design, and remodel the interior floorplan of the City Hall building. The project would also substantially renovate the interior and exterior of the Planning & Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Building.
The City also conducted an initial analysis of a potential joint project with the Pacifica School District (PSD) to combine corporate yard facilities on PSD property, and relocated PSD offices to City property (potentially including affordable housing development).
• OC-I-63: Senior and Community Services. Continue to use available funding sources to maintain and enhance the City’s Senior Services program, including meal services, transportation, and counseling. In addition, continue to support non-profit service providers in offering other needed community services.
See Policy No. CI-I-52, above.
Conservation Element
• CO-I-39: Heritage Trees. Update the Heritage Tree ordinance to improve ease of City administration and clarity for applicants and surrounding residents. Consider a canopy goal for heritage and non-heritage trees as part of the Heritage Tree ordinance update or other updates to the City’s tree regulations.
The City Council enacted a new tree protection ordinance that replaced the former Heritage Tree ordinance. The new ordinance expanded the definition of protected trees and required replanting at a 2:1 ratio for removal of healthy trees, among other updates. • CO-I-55. Green Building. Monitor the effectiveness of the California Green Building Code in bringing about energy efficiency in architectural design and building construction.
As part of the triennial update process for the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), the City Council enacted local amendments to require electric-only building appliances for new construction (i.e., prohibiting natural gas). Limited exceptions apply to certain restaurants only. The local amendments, known as “Reach Codes,” will result 11 Packet Pg. 159
Pacifica City Council 6
February 27, 2023
in lower carbon emissions by reducing fossil fuel use for building and water heating and cooking. They also would require more electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in new development than the standard CBSC provisions.
Safety Element
• SA-I-99: Multi-Jurisdictional Approach. Participate in State or regional efforts to develop a clear legislative and regulatory framework to manage the wildland-urban interface, including implementation of the MJ-LHMP.
City staff monitored ongoing efforts by the Office of the State Fire Marshal to update fire hazard severity zone maps. Draft map updates for the State Responsibility Area have been released for public and agency comment. However, Local Responsibility Area draft map updates have not yet been released and are anticipated no sooner than late 2023.
• SA-I-115: Code Updates. Update City codes and ordinances dealing with public safety to comply with State law and reflect the latest information on hazards and mitigation strategies.
The City Council enacted an ordinance to adopt the triennial update to the California Building Standards Code with certain local amendments to address unique issues due to Pacifica’s local topographic, geologic, and climatic conditions. These local amendments included a requirement to underground utilities in new development and to perform expanded geotechnical hazard assessments for potential off-site impacts.
Noise Element
There was no reportable action on implementation of the Noise Element.
3. Next Steps
The City Council should consider the amount of progress made in the prior calendar year towards implementation of the City’s General Plan, including specifically progress towards achieving the City’s RHNA. The City Council may also consider how the relative progress made in implementation of the General Plan or issues identified by during public comment may guide its strategic planning, priority work plan items, and potential future General Plan amendments.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The recommended action to adopt a Resolution approving the City’s 2022 Annual Progress Reports is consistent state law; therefore, no alternative action is identified.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
City Council Goals:
“Fiscal Sustainability” includes investing in economic development to increase revenues, funding a reserve/emergency fund, and being well prepared for grant opportunities. 11 Packet Pg. 160
Pacifica City Council 7
February 27, 2023
“An Engaged Community” includes creating opportunities to expand public participation, increase communication, and build community post-COVID.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct fiscal impact. However, timely filing of the Housing Element APR is important to retain eligibility for Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) funding under the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) and Priority Development Area (PDA) grant programs for regional housing technical assistance. The City has two PDAs, the Sharp Park Specific Plan PDA and the Skyline Corridor PDA.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Resolution Approving Annual Progress Reports on General Plan Implementation (DOCX)
Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (PDF)
Attachment C - Final RHNA 6 Allocation for San Mateo County (PDF) 11 Packet Pg. 161
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA APPROVING THE CITY’S 2022 HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE 2022
GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN; AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER TO TRANSMIT THE REPORTS TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) AND THE GOVERNOR’S
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH (OPR)
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65400(a)(1) requires that after the legislative body has adopted all or part of a General Plan, an annual report on the status of the General Plan progress and its implementation be prepared to ensure that the General Plan will serve as an effective guide for orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open-space land and natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the general plan; and WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65400(a)(2) also provides that the annual report must also provide the progress in meeting the City’s share of regional housing needs and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583; and
WHEREAS, the housing element portion of the annual report must be prepared through the use of standards, forms, and definitions adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development and must be filed with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) annually by April 1st of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the annual reports required by Government Code sections 65400(a)(1) and 65400(a)(2) at a public meeting before the where members of the public were allowed to provide oral testimony and written comments; and
WHEREAS, the City has made significant progress in implementing the policies contained in the City’s General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica as follows:
A. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
B. The City Council, acting as the planning agency and legislative body in accordance with Government Code sections 65100 and 65400, hereby approves the City’s 2022 Housing Element Annual Progress Report regarding progress of implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated as Exhibit A and the 2022 General Plan Annual Progress Report regarding progress of implementation of the other Elements of the General Plan, attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated as Exhibit B.
11.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution Approving Annual Progress Reports on General Plan Implementation (5279 : Annual Progress Report 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby directed to transmit the Reports to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the form attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, with minor non-substantive revisions that may be approved by the City Attorney.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 27th day of February 2023.
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_____________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ _____________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
11.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution Approving Annual Progress Reports on General Plan Implementation (5279 : Annual Progress Report
EXHIBIT A
2022 Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR)
11.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution Approving Annual Progress Reports on General Plan Implementation (5279 : Annual Progress Report
EXHIBIT B
2022 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (APR)
11.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment A - Resolution Approving Annual Progress Reports on General Plan Implementation (5279 : Annual Progress Report Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining
Application
Status
Notes
2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted+
(see
instructions)
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total PROPOSED
Units by Project
Total
APPROVED
Units by project
Total
DISAPPROVED
Units by Project
Was APPLICATION
SUBMITTED
Pursuant to GC
65913.4(b)?
(SB 35
Streamlining)
Ddi the housing
development
application seek
incentives or
concessions
pursuant to
Government Code
section 65915?
Were incentives
or concessions
reqested
pursuant to
Government
Code section
65915 approved?
Please indicate
the status of the
application.
Notes
+
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 4 0 5 0 46 55 0 0 016-301-060 131 BRIGHTON RD 2022-010 ADU R 4/7/2022 1 1 2 No No N/A Pending New ADU at Multi-unit property. 023-019-320 243 STERLING AVE 2022-025 ADU R 8/30/2022 1 1 2 No No N/A Pending New ADU at SFR property. 023-341-080 1693 HIGGINS WAY 2022-005 2 to 4 O 2/14/2022 2 2 No No N/A Pending SB 9 (Two Residential Units) 022-150-490 TBD Ohlone Drive Lot 5 Harmony at One 2021-019 SFD O 8/10/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending New SFR on undeveloped lot. 018-140-640 TBD Coast Highway Pacifica Highlands 2021-009 SFD O 4/7/2022 4 3 42 49 No No N/A Pending 49 unit detached SFR and duplexes Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
1 5
Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes Density Bonus Law Applications
10 Housing Development Applications Submitted
11.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Table A2
Streamlini
ng
Infill
Housing
without
Financial
Assistanc
Term of
Affordabili
ty or Deed
Restrictio
Notes
2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Entitlement
Date Approved
# of Units
issued
Entitlements
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Building
Permits Date
Issued
# of Units
Issued
Building
Permits
Very LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Deed
Restricted
LowIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Certificates
of
Occupancy
or other
forms of
readiness
(see
# of Units
issued
Certificates
of
Occupancy
or other
forms of
How many
of the units
were
Extremely
Low
Income?+
Was Project
APPROVED
using GC
65913.4(b)?
(SB 35
Streamlining
) Y/N
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance
Programs
for Each
Developmen
t
(may select
multiple -
Deed
Restriction
Type
(may select
multiple -
see
instructions)
For units
affordable
without
financial
assistance
or deed
restrictions,
Term of
Affordability
or Deed
Restriction
(years) (if
affordable in
perpetuity
Number of
Demolished/
Destroyed
Units
Demolished
or
Destroyed
Units
Demolished/
Destroyed
Units
Owner or
Renter
Total
Density
Bonus
Applied to
the Project
(Percentage
Increase in
Number of
Other
Incentives,
Concession
s, Waivers,
or Other
Modification
List the
incentives,
concessions
, waivers,
and
modification
s (Excluding
Did the
project
receive a
reduction or
waiver of
parking
standards?
Notes
+
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 22 0 26 7 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 1 0 009-085-430 TBD FARALLON SFD RESO 2019-014 SFD O 1 4/15/2019 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 009-124-200 430 MONTEREY RDSFD - ADU Existing Area 54762-21 ADU R 0 1 12/2/2021 1 7/5/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 009-143-080 432 FREMONT AVESFD - ADU Existing Area 54719-21 ADU R 0 1 11/22/2021 1 4/18/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 009-272-240 376 MILAGRA DR SFD - ADU Existing Area 54514-21 ADU R 0 1 10/1/2021 1 1 1/10/2022 1 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 009-303-240 660 HEATHER CT JADU 53945-21 ADU R 0 1 5/25/2021 1 5/27/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 009-334-150 483 GLASGOW DR SFD - ADU Attached54412-21 ADU R 0 1 9/8/2021 1 4/18/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 009-343-030 412 GLASGOW DR SFD - ADU Detached 53546-21 ADU R 0 1 3/11/2021 1 3/31/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 009-605-010 110 PARADISE DR SFD - ADU Detached 54692-21 ADU R 0 1 11/17/2021 1 6/10/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 016-050-400 44 SALADA AVE SFD RESO 2019-033BP 53929-21 SFD O 1 10/7/2019 1 1 5/19/2021 1 7/6/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 022-222-090 924 CORONA DR ADU 53135-20 ADU R 0 1 11/19/2020 1 8/30/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 023-073-200 510 SAN PEDRO New SFD BP 49802-16 SFD O 0 1 9/6/2018 1 10/11/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 023-123-100 884 MONTEZUMA DRSFD - ADU Detached 54425-21 ADU R 0 1 9/13/2021 1 12/16/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 023-332-380 1419 MADEIRA DR SFD - ADU Attached54418-21 ADU R 0 1 9/8/2021 1 3/22/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 023-333-110 1484 MADEIRA DR SFD - ADU Detached 53967-21 ADU R 0 1 5/27/2021 1 2/25/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 023-341-210 1667 HIGGINS WAYSFD - New House54253-21 SFD O 0 1 7/28/2021 1 9/7/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 023-075-050 (889)889 SAN PEDRO TERRACE ROAD ADU BP49946-18rev ADU R 2/26/2018 0 1 10/22/2020 1 1 11/16/2020 1 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 023-013-030 277 KENT SFD - Demo Existing and Rebuild RESO 2020-007 SFD O 0 4/20/2020 0 0 5/7/2021 0 6/30/2022 0 0 N Y 1 O reported in prior years & activity in 2022 023-013-010 1300 DANMANN Multi RESO 2020-009 5+ R 6 5/4/2020 6 6 6/23/2022 6 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 009-114-150 322 CHANNING WAYADU 52586-20 ADU R 0 1 7/16/2020 1 3/18/2022 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & activity in 2022 022-056-080 ODDSTAD WAY Lots 4-12 RESO 2020-012 SFD O 1 8/24/2020 1 0 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & progress updated in 2022 - plans under review as of 7/29/2022 022-244-060 1016 ESCALERO AVEADU 52754-20 ADU R 0 1 8/21/2020 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & progress updated in 2022 - pending inspections as of 10/26/2022 018-053-050 170 WINONA SFD BP 51242-19 SFD O 0 1 8/13/2019 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & progress updated in 2022 - pending inspections as of 01/09/2023 009-540-190 407 GATEWAY DR (405 GATEWAY & 423 GATEWAY) MFD - ADU 54579-21 5+ R 0 20 10/12/2021 20 0 0 N Y Regulatory Agreement reported in prior years & progress updated in 2022 - pending inspections as of 02/22/2023 022-083-030 801 FASSLER Duplexes RESO 19-2018; BP 53814-21 5+ O 2 2 20 3/19/2018 24 2 2 20 4/28/2021 24 0 0 N N INC 45 reported in prior years & progress updated in 2022 - inspections in progress as of 02/22/2023 022-150-030 21 OHLONE CT SFD BP 51891-19 SFD O 1 10/1/2018 1 1 12/18/2019 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & progress updated in 2022 - inspections in progress as of 02/22/2023 016-304-140 389 BUCKINGHAM WAY SFD RESO 2019-021BP 53530-21 SFD O 1 6/3/2019 1 1 3/5/2021 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years & progress updated in 2022 - inspections in progress as of 02/22/2023 009-036-240 381 CORAL RIDGE DR 55204-22 ADU R 0 1 3/17/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 009-183-180 4 HIBBERT CT 56329-22 ADU R 0 1 12/16/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 009-200-130 104 LORRY LN 56016-22 ADU R 0 1 9/21/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 009-255-200 243 MILAGRA DR 55463-22 ADU R 0 1 5/9/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 009-271-160 324 MILAGRA DR 55426-22 ADU R 0 1 5/2/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 009-432-340 251 EDGEWOOD DR 56094-22 ADU R 0 1 10/6/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 009-433-040 216 EDGEWOOD DR. 56295-22 ADU R 0 1 11/30/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 009-540-170 467, 455, 451 GATEWAY DR 55174-22 ADU R 0 22 3/11/2022 22 0 0 N Y Regulatory agreememt new in 2022 009-555-100 420 LYNBROOK DR 55139-22 ADU R 0 1 3/8/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 009-584-410 5026 PALMETTO AVE 56229-22 ADU R 0 1 11/10/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 016-041-050 140 CARMEL AVE 55022-22 ADU R 0 1 2/14/2022 1 1 11/16/2022 1 0 N Y new in 2022 016-270-110 TBD TALBOT CC RESO 16-2022SFD O 1 3/28/2022 1 0 0 0 N Y new in 2022 018-105-060 220 HIAWATHA AVE 55375-22 ADU R 0 1 4/18/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 022-150-470 5 OHLONE (LOT 3) 56103-22 SFD O 1 1 1 10/10/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 022-201-160 1175 BALBOA WAY 55899-22 ADU R 0 1 8/24/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 022-205-100 668 ARGUELLO BLVD 55954-22 ADU R 0 1 9/6/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 022-253-080 796 SERENA DR 55576-22 ADU R 0 1 6/9/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 022-262-270 923 CRESPI DR 55395-22 ADU R 0 1 4/21/2022 1 1 9/9/2022 1 0 N Y new in 2022 023-160-050 991 ZAMORA DR 56032-22 ADU R 0 1 9/27/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 023-262-160 1364 SOLANO DR 56029-22 ADU R 0 1 9/23/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 023-281-140 1219 ROSITA ROAD 55068-22 ADU R 0 1 2/22/2022 1 1 12/22/2022 1 0 N Y new in 2022 023-332-090 1488 LINDA MAR BLVD 55467-22 ADU R 0 1 5/10/2022 1 1 10/27/2022 1 0 N Y new in 2022 023-471-060 1185 MANZANITA DR 55670-22 ADU R 0 1 6/30/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 023-482-250 1082 BANYAN WAY 55826-22 ADU R 0 1 8/9/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 023-492-030 1167 ALICANTE DR 55688-22 ADU R 0 1 7/1/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 023-493-170 1154 BANYAN WAY 55928-22 ADU R 0 1 8/29/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 023-501-090 1159 BARCELONA DR 54936-22 ADU R 0 1 1/26/2022 1 1 4/21/2022 1 0 N Y new in 2022 023-582-260 1236 LERIDA WAY 56313-22 ADU R 0 1 12/5/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 023-761-140 9 CARLETON PL 56300-22 ADU R 0 1 12/2/2022 1 0 0 N Y new in 2022 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
016-182-370 2100 PALMETTO Palmetto Mixed-Use Condos RESO 2019-017 2 to 4 O 3 5/6/2019 3 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 016-011-190 1567 BEACH Beach Blvd Townhomes RESO 2019-016 5+ O 7 5/6/2019 7 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - project denied by California Coastal Commission, City unable to issue building permit 023-603-300 25 POINT REYES ADU BP 51049-16 ADU R 0 1 7/2/2019 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 - permits ready to be issued as of 10/22/2019 016-021-300 104 BELLA VISTA New SFD and duplex RESO 2020-004 2 to 4 O 3 3/2/2020 3 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 - permits ready to be issued as of 03/16/2020 023-072-010 505 SAN PEDRO Mixed-use RESO 2018-011 2 to 4 R 2 11/5/2018 2 0 0 N N reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 - permits ready to be issued as of 09/30/2021 023-022-080 1335 ADOBE Townhomes RESO 2019-007 5+ O 7 3/4/2019 7 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 - pending resubmittals as of 08/01/2020 009-037-470 327 BEAUMONT SFD RESO 2019-006 SFD O 1 3/4/2019 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 - pending resubmittals as of 09/30/2020 016-022-080 184 PALOMA Mixed-use RESO 2020-014 SFA O 1 7/6/2020 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 - pending resubmittals as of 12/01/2020 016-182-010 2105 BEACH Beach Blvd CondosRESO 2019-004 2 to 4 O 2 2/4/2019 2 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 023-341-080 1693 HIGGINS SFD RESO 2019-036 SFD O 1 12/16/2019 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 016-400-010 2500 FRANCISCO Mixed-use ZA RESO 2020-1 2 to 4 R 1 2/12/2020 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 016-400-010 2530 FRANCISCO Mixed-use ZA RESO 2020-1 2 to 4 R 1 2/12/2020 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 009-037-450 323 BEAUMONT New SFD RESO 2020-003 SFD O 1 2/18/2020 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 023-018-020 316 SAN PEDRO SFD RESO 2020-005 SFD O 1 4/20/2020 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 009-381-010 VISTA MAR Townhomes RESO 2020-017 2 to 4 O 4 10/19/2020 4 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 009-058-040 340 WATERFORD Mixed-use RESO 2020-021 5+ R 5 11/2/2020 5 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - no activity in 2022 009-037-430 300 CORAL RIDGE New SFD BP 49113-18 SFD O 0 1 2/23/2018 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years; permit expired as of 11/29/2022 023-422-170 1512 VALDEZ ADU BP 50120-18 ADU R 0 1 11/6/2018 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years; permit expired as of 02/09/2020 023-461-210 1165 MANZANITA ADU BP 51330-19 ADU R 0 1 9/3/2019 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years; permit expired as of 09/03/2020 023-640-020 1120 SHEILA SFD BP 51378-19 SFD O 0 1 9/11/2019 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years; permit expired as of 10/26/2021 023-182-090 1340 CRESPI ADU BP 51559-13 ADU R 0 1 10/10/2019 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years; permit expired as of 11/07/2022 023-064-010 1416 FLORES DR ADU 52437-20 ADU R 0 1 6/3/2020 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years; permit expired as of 06/04/2021 018-074-060 255 REICHLING AVEADU 52605-20 ADU R 0 1 7/24/2020 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years; permit expired as of 07/25/2021 016-351-030 333 BRIGHTON RD ADU 52645-20 ADU R 0 1 8/3/2020 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years; permit expired as of 08/03/2021 022-370-220 710 PRAIRIE CREEK DR ADU 52767-20 ADU R 0 1 8/25/2020 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years; permit expired as of 03/30/2022 016-294-530 120 BIRCH LN ADU 52765-20 ADU R 0 1 8/28/2020 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years; permit expired as of 08/28/2021 023-301-030 1683 TOLEDO CT SFD - ADU Detached 54005-21 ADU R 0 1 6/3/2021 1 0 0 N Y reported in prior years; permit expired as of 06/03/2022 009-510-030 451 FARALLON ADU BP 50044-18 ADU R 0 0 1 2/6/2019 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 022-351-200 83 KATHLEEN ADU BP 49619-18 ADU R 0 0 1 2/25/2019 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-153-080 424 VISTA MAR ADU BP 50010-18 ADU R 0 0 1 3/20/2019 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 022-261-130 995 SERENA ADU BP 49848-18 ADU R 0 0 1 4/1/2019 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 022-395-170 1250 ODDSTAD ADU BP 49339-18 ADU R 0 0 1 7/30/2019 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-373-070 524 INVERNESS ADU BP 51264-19 ADU R 0 1 8/16/2019 1 1 9/13/2019 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-124-050 478 MONTEREY New SFD BP 49130-18 SFD O 0 1 3/29/2018 1 10/28/2019 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 016-355-150 340 CHARING CROSSSFD BP 48866-18 SFD O 0 0 1 11/12/2019 1 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-382-160 425 NORFOLK Two-unit BP 47709-17 2 to 4 R 0 0 2 11/15/2019 2 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 023-281-230 1243 GALVEZ ADU BP 50766-19 ADU R 0 0 1 1/30/2020 1 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 016-353-050 425 BRIGHTON ADU BP 50528-19 ADU R 0 0 1 2/6/2020 1 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 016-022-040 134 PALOMA AVE ADU B2019-01092 ADU R 0 1 12/18/2020 1 1 3/12/2020 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 016-021-300 106 BELLA VISTA Two-family dwelling group RESO 987 2 to 4 O 0 0 1 3/16/2020 1 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 016-393-100 40 EASTLAKE ADU BP 50367-19 ADU R 0 0 1 3/23/2020 1 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 023-072-110 535 SAN PEDRO AVEMixed-Use BP 49487-18 2 to 4 R 4 9/18/2017 4 4 7/16/2018 4 4 6/5/2020 4 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-211-100 564 MILLER AVE ADU 52274-20 ADU R 0 1 3/10/2020 1 1 7/22/2020 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 092-261-180 311 MILAGRA ADU BP 51553-19 ADU R 0 0 1 7/31/2020 1 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 023-662-050 1022 GRAND TETONADU 52414-20 ADU R 0 1 5/29/2020 1 1 10/20/2020 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-360-200 531 INVERNESS Detached ADU BP 49836-18 ADU R 0 0 1 10/21/2020 1 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-069-210 340 FARALLON ADU BP 51524-19 ADU R 0 0 1 10/22/2020 1 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 022-063-190 780 ROCKAWAY BEACH ADU BP 51073-19 ADU R 0 0 1 11/19/2020 1 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-164-050 520 EDGEMAR AVEADU 52436-20 ADU R 0 1 6/3/2020 1 12/2/2020 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 022-241-230 652 ALTA VISTA DRADU 52608-20 ADU R 0 1 7/24/2020 1 1/11/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 023-530-430 3 CELIA CT ADU 52902-20 ADU R 0 1 9/28/2020 1 1/13/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-221-120 475 MANOR DR ADU 52462-20 ADU R 0 1 6/10/2020 1 2/11/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-332-020 251 KAVANAUGH WAY ADU 52543-20 ADU R 0 1 7/13/2020 1 2/17/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-114-140 314 CHANNING WAYADU 53218-20 ADU R 0 1 12/9/2020 1 4/2/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-431-120 250 SUNSHINE DR ADU 53167-20 ADU R 0 1 12/1/2020 1 4/19/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 022-282-130 1439 CRESPI DR ADU 53216-20 ADU R 0 1 12/7/2020 1 5/20/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 023-282-080 1235 LINDA MAR BLVDADU 52211-20 ADU R 0 1 2/28/2020 1 1 6/2/2021 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 006-152-200 407 FREMONT ADU BP 51156-19 ADU R 0 1 7/26/2019 1 6/17/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 023-022-040 1490 GRAND SFD RESO 2020-013 SFD O 1 7/6/2020 1 12/18/2020 0 6/23/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 016-112-020 428 SAN PABLO TERRACE SFD 52269-20 SFD O 0 1 3/10/2020 1 7/27/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 016-303-070 146 PACIFIC AVE ADU 52635-20 ADU R 0 1 9/15/2020 1 9/24/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-213-080 427 MANOR ADU BP 51245-19 ADU R 0 1 8/14/2019 1 10/14/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 023-461-180 1159 MANZANITA DRSFD - ADU Existing Area 53931-21 ADU R 0 1 5/19/2021 1 1 10/20/2021 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-360-090 575 INVERNESS DRADU 52932-20 ADU R 0 1 10/1/2020 1 10/22/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 022-062-110 7 SPRING STREET ADU 53086-20 ADU R 0 1 11/10/2020 1 10/27/2021 0 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-554-130 478 FIRECREST AVESFD - ADU Existing Area 53946-21 ADU R 0 1 5/25/2021 1 1 10/27/2021 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 023-542-050 1231 REDWOOD WAYSFD - ADU Existing Area 54388-21 ADU R 0 1 9/2/2021 1 1 11/15/2021 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 009-482-600 11 BROOKHAVEN CTADU 52604-2053844-21ADU R 0 1 5/4/2021 1 1 11/22/2021 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled 023-422-060 1528 VALDEZ WAY SFD - ADU Attached53801-21 ADU R 0 1 4/26/2021 1 1 11/22/2021 1 0 N Y reported in prior years - finalled Density Bonus
1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 4 7 10
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Housing with
Financial Assistance
and/or Deed
Restrictions
Project Identifier Demolished/Destroyed Units
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units
11.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
1 Projection Period 3 4
RHNA Allocation by
Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to
Date (all years)
Total Remaining
RHNA by Income
Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - 2 - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - 20 22 -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - 2 - -
Non-Deed Restricted - 1 1 4 - - - - 26 -
Above Moderate 154 - 7 12 5 26 14 26 39 7 - 136 18
413
- 8 13 9 26 14 26 63 55 - 214 199
5 6 7
Extremely low-Income
Need 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Total Units to
Date
Total Units
Remaining
61 - - - - - - - - - - 61
36 -
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.
34 Moderate
121
68 70
Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 44 2
Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
121
24 Total RHNA
Total Units
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Extremely Low-Income Units*
Progress toward extremely low-income housing need, as determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1).
11.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Date of Rezone Rezone Type
2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Date of Rezone Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above ModerateIncome Rezone Type Parcel Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Designation Zoning Minimum Density Allowed
Maximum
Density Allowed
Realistic
Capacity
Vacant/Nonvacant
Description of Existing
Uses
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
3 8
Project Identifier RHNA Shortfall by Household Income Category Sites Description 1 Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law Table C
11.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
1 2 3 4
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation Action Program No. 1:
Advertise available grant
and loan funding for lower
income property owners to
rehabilitate substandard
housing units.
The City will strive to refer enough
residents to ensure two residents will
successfully apply for the program each
year.
Annually Advertising is ongoing. The City has observed little interest from residents to apply for housing rehabilitation loans. Additionally, County program staff has indicated that budget reductions have impacted its ability to administer the program, resulting in a lower program capacity to assist Pacifica residents. The City will, however, continue to market the County’s rehabilitation program to provide the opportunity to apply to any interested residents.
Action Program No. 2:
Reduce potential loss of
life and property damage
from earthquakes by
requiring seismic
upgrades (structural
strengthening and hazard
mitigation) to unsafe
buildings, which includes
unreinforced-masonry
buildings and soft-story
buildings (those with
ground floors having a
lateral stiffness
significantly less than that
of the stories above).
1) Continue to distribute program
literature.
2) Refer five households per year.
1) 12/31/2016: Determine
whether development of a
mandatory seismic
upgrade ordinance and
sourcing of sufficient
funding to implement
upgrades are feasible.
2) 12/31/2017: If feasible,
complete enactment of
ordinance and
implementation of seismic
upgrade funding
program(s), the impact to
single family
neighborhoods is reduced.
Additional buffering above
and beyond the
quantitative requirements
outlined in the Zoning
Code is considered during
the design review process.
1) Reported in 2016 APR.
2) The City has not pursued enactment of an ordinance.
Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.
Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583
ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
11.b
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 3:
Develop programs to help
preserve the "at risk" units
at Casa Pacifica senior
housing complex.
Monitor Casa Pacifica Apartments for
any indication of intent to cease
participation in the Section 8 program.
Formulate a comprehensive response
with affordable housing partners to any
notice of intent to cease Section 8
participation.
12/31/2018: Contacted
property owner to inquire
about long-term intentions
for the site. Due to the
length of the current
participation agreement
(1/31/2015 through
1/31/2020), a single inquiry
suffices.
The current participation agreement is valid through 2025 and shall preserve 102 affordable units through 2025.
Action Program No. 4:
Encourage preservation of
the existing mobile home
park as an important
source of low- and
moderate-income housing.
Monitor mobile home park operator’s
long-term intentions for the site,
encouraging maintenance of the mobile
home park use. Administer Ordinance
No. 550-C.S. if necessary. Unless
development of additional mobile home
parks occurs during the planning period,
the maximum performance related to
this policy would be one mobile home
park conversion.
12/31/2017 and 12/31/2020:
Contact property owner to
inquire about long-term
intentions for the site.
The mobilehome park operator intends to operate the site on a long-term basis and has resumed leasing units to residents after completing various site upgrades. The mobile home park is still in operation.
Action Program No. 5:
Ensure proper marketing
of housing affordability
programs and groups by
partner agencies,
including the Reverse
Annuity Mortgage (RAM)
program, Human
Investment Project (H.I.P.)
Homesharing Program,
Lease-Purchase Program,
emergency shelters,
Project Sentinel, and
Center for the
Independence of the
Disabled.
Pacifica will change the focus of this
goal to staff training and encouragement
of partner organizations. City staff will
train other staff on available housing
referral resources, and will contact
partner agencies to determine the level
of service they are providing to Pacifica
residents. The City has no control over
the quantity of persons served by the
referral programs, but can monitor the
level of service being provided to
residents.
1) Bi-annually by 12/31 in
2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021:
Conduct training of
Planning Division, Code
Enforcement Division, and
Parks, Beaches, and
Recreation staff regarding
available housing referral
programs, services, and
agencies.
2) Bi-annually by 12/31 in
2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021:
Contact partner agencies
to verify whether they
continue to make referrals
and cross-referrals to
other assistance agencies.
Partner agencies, such as Human Investment Project (H.I.P.), continue to market housing affordability programs via the Home Sharing Program where a home provider is matched with a home seeker who pays rent in exchange for performance of household duties for reduced rent. The City shares this information weekly in a weekly e-newsletter sent to residents.
Action Program No. 6:
Create a reasonable
accommodation program
and procedures to allow
deviations from zoning
standards for projects that
improve access for
persons with disabilities.
Adopt an ordinance by the end of 2016. 12/31/2016: Enact Reasonable
Accommodation
Ordinance.
COMPLETED
To promote housing opportunities for a person with disabilities, in late 2019 the City established a reasonable accommodation process consistent with Fair Housing Laws in land use, zoning, and building regulations by adopting Ordinance No. 851 in to ensure equal access to housing.
11.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 7:
Emphasize housing
rehabilitation to forestall
decline in the housing
stock. Utilize government
subsidies including
Section 8 or other rental
assistance programs to
enhance owner
affordability. Use the
Code Enforcement
process to refer owners to
apply for Community
Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds for housing
rehabilitation.
Distribute rehabilitation and housing
affordability program information to 300
property owners during building code or
property maintenance code interactions
with City inspectors.
Annually (3-5 referrals) City staff made no referrals for Section 8 housing services during the reporting period.
Action Program No. 8:
Establish an incentive
program for voluntary
housing rehabilitation.
Continue implementation of Complete
Streets policies. Condition all
development approvals to require
improvements to infrastructure and
multi-modal connectivity. Pursue
funding to implement Phase I of the
Palmetto streetscape improvements and
planning for subsequent phases.
1) 1/31/2015 through
1/31/2023: Condition 80
projects (10 per year)
requiring Complete Streets
improvements.
2) 12/31/2018: Secure
sufficient funding to
initiate Phase I
improvements under the
Palmetto streetscape
improvement plan.
In 2018, the City completed Phase I improvements to Palmetto Avenue, enhancing the neighborhood quality of the 92 housing units in the vicinity of the streetscape improvements.
In 2021, the City completed two major street connections on Monterey Road to Hickey Boulevard closing a gap of about 100 feet; and 1,400 feet along Palmetto Avenue from Westline Drive.
Action Program No. 9:
Promote Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E)
Company’s "Energy
Savings Assistance
Program."
1) Continue to distribute program
literature.
2) Successfully refer 35 households per
year.
Annually (32-38 referrals) City staff maintains and distributes program information on the Planning Department website. The number of referrals is not known as click-through statistics are not available.
The City has not received a report from PG&E regarding the number residents participating in the program.
Action Program No. 10:
Prioritize in-fill mixed-use
and residential
development on
underutilized sites and
vacant sites interspersed
with developed areas.
Contact two property owners of
identified underutilized sites per year to
encourage redevelopment with higher
density, mixed-use projects.
Annually The overwhelming majority of projects receiving planning or building permit approvals in 2022 were infill housing developments (98%).
11.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 11:
Encourage and facilitate
construction of second
residential units on
properties zoned for singlefamily residential uses in
conformance with existing
zoning regulations.
Encourage construction of two second
residential units per year, or 16 second
units during the planning period.
Periodically evaluate the City’s second
unit zoning regulations and inquire with
residents and construction
professionals as to the perceived level
of difficulty and expense associated
with second unit construction. Where
perceptions suggest second unit
construction is difficult, develop
strategies to revise the City’s
regulations, such as by relaxing second
unit parking requirements.
By 12/31 in 2016, 2018,
2020, and 2022: Review
and revise, as necessary.
Forty-eight (48) accessory dwelling units (i.e., second residential unit or ADUs) received either a completed entitlement, building permit, or certificate of occupancy during the 2022 reporting period.
Action Program No. 12:
Amend Second Unit
Ordinance to incorporate
updates in state law.
Amend Second Unit Ordinance to
comply with state law by the end of
2016.
12/31/2016: Enact
amendments to Second
Unit Ordinance to conform
to state law.
COMPLETED
City Council adopted a new ADU ordinance (Ord. No. 825-C.S.) in 2017 to comply with state law.
In early 2019, changes made by the California Legislature resulted in City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 841-C.S., which included a repeal and replacement of the City’s existing second residential unit standards with current ADU standards in the Pacifica Municipal Code (PMC).
Later in December 2019, Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2019-037 recommending City Council approval of additional changes, and in January 2020, the City Council subsequently approved the proposed changes and adopted Ordinance 854-C.S.
Action Program No. 13:
Amend Density Bonus
Ordinance to reflect
updates to state law.
Amend Density Bonus Ordinance to
comply with state law by the end of
2016.
12/31/2016: Enact
amendments to Density
Bonus Ordinance to
conform to state law.
The City has not pursued enactment of an ordinance.
Action Program No. 14:
Consider amending the
Zoning Ordinance to allow
Rooming Houses and
Boardinghouses for
farmworker housing as a
permitted use in the R-3
(Multiple-Family
Residential) District.
Consider the zoning amendment and
enact amendments if determined
desirable and feasible.
1) 12/31/2016: Complete
consideration of the
amendment.
2) 12/31/2017: Enact
amendments to Zoning
Code, if determined
desirable and feasible.
The City has not pursued enactment of an ordinance.
Action Program No. 15:
Amend A (Agricultural)
Zoning District to allow
farmworker housing.
Amend A zoning district to comply with
state law.
6/30/2016: Enact
amendments to Zoning
Code.
The City has not pursued enactment of an ordinance.
11.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 16:
Amend Zoning Ordinance
to allow Emergency
Shelters, Transitional and
Supportive Housing.
Amend the Zoning Code to create new
definitions for emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and supportive
housing. Create new permitted uses for
these types of facilities to clarify their
treatment by the City. Create
development standards for the
establishment and ongoing operations
of these facilities.
1) 9/30/2015: Develop and
discuss at the Planning
Commission potential
development standards for
emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and
supportive housing.
2) 1/31/2016: Amend the
Zoning Code to explicitly
permit by-right emergency
shelters, transitional
housing, and supportive
housing.
The City has not pursued enactment of an ordinance.
Action Program No. 17:
The City shall initiate
contact with developers
from the private and
nonprofit sectors
interested in development
opportunities in the City of
Pacifica for rental housing
affordable to persons with
extremely low, very low,
and low incomes.
Begin a bi-annual housing developer
roundtable hosted by the City to provide
factual information on development
sites and the City’s development
process, as well as to demonstrate a
strong City commitment to affordable
housing development.
By 12/31 in 2016, 2018,
2020, and 2022: Host
developer roundtable.
The City processed a large number of housing project applications in 2022 and did not need to incentivize additional applications by conducting a developer roundtable.
Action Program No. 18:
Encourage development of
housing for all income
levels, including lower
income individuals, in
suitable areas to meet
ABAG's projected housing
need.
Update available development site
inventory annually to encourage
development of housing units to satisfy
the City’s RHNA.
Annually by 12/31: Post
updated inventory on
City’s website.
The development site inventory found in Tables III-1 and III-2 of the Housing Element remained representative of available development sites within Pacifica.
11.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Program No. 19:
Form a committee to
monitor housing trends
affecting needs and
development, as well as
implementation of action
programs. Devise
strategies to
accommodate housing
needs that arise during the
planning period that the
Housing Element does not
adequately address.
Form a committee to assert more active
oversight in Housing Element
implementation. Review the draft
Housing Element Status and Annual
Progress Report prior to the public
hearing and consideration by City
Council.
1) 8/31/2015: Establish a
Housing Element
implementation
committee.
2) Annually by 6/30:
Planning Division staff
conducts an internal
review of implementation
during first-half of year
and projected
implementation during
remaining-half of year.
3) Annually between 1/1
and 2/28: Hold a
committee meeting to
discuss prior year Housing
Element implementation
and to review the draft
Housing Element Status
and Annual Progress
Report.
4) Annually between 3/1
and 3/31: Present the
Housing Element Status
and Annual Progress
Report at a City Council
public hearing and seek
Council approval and
transmittal of the Report to
the California Department
1) The City did not establish a Housing Element implementation committee. 2) City staff focused efforts on assisting homeowners with obtaining permits to construct ADUs pursuant to Action Program 11 in order to fully implement the City's revised ADU ordinance.
3) N/A - the City did not establish a Housing Element implementation committee. 4) The City will consider the APR at the February 27, 2023 City Council meeting to seek City Council approval and transmittal of the Report by the April 1 deadline.
11.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Description of Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
3 4
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income
Description of Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Units Constructed as Part of Agreement
Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7 Table E
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Project Identifier
1 2
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
11.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
The description should adequately document how
each unit complies with subsection (c) of Government
Code Section 65583.1
+
.
For detailed reporting requirements, see the chcklist
here:
Extremely LowIncome+ Very Low-Income+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+Extremely LowIncome+Very LowIncome+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+ https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/docs/adequate-sites-checklist.pdf Rehabilitation Activity
Preservation of Units At-Risk
Acquisition of Units
Mobilehome Park Preservation
Total Units by Income
Table F
Please note this table is optional: The jurisdiction can use this table to report units that have been substantially rehabilitated, converted from non-affordable to affordable by acquisition, and preserved, including mobilehome park preservation, consistent with the standards set forth in Government Code section 65583.1, subdivision (c). Please note, motel, hotel, hostel rooms or other structures that are converted from non-residential to residential units pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c)(1)(D) are considered net-new housing units and must be reported in Table A2 and not reported in Table F.
Activity Type
Units that Do Not Count Towards RHNA+
Listed for Informational Purposes Only
Units that Count Towards RHNA +
Note - Because the statutory requirements severely limit what can be counted, please contact HCD to receive the password that will enable you to populate these fields.
Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c)
11.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Note: "+" indicates
an optional field
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Notes
2 3 6
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(2 to 4,5+)
Tenure
R=Renter
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate- Income
Deed Restricted
Moderate- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total Moderate Income Units
Converted from Above
Moderate
Date Converted Notes
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Table F2
Above Moderate Income Units Converted to Moderate Income Pursuant to Government Code section 65400.2 For up to 25 percent of a jurisdiction’s moderate-income regional housing need allocation, the planning agency may include the number of units in an existing multifamily building that were converted to deed-restricted rental housing for moderate-income households by the imposition of affordability covenants and restrictions for the unit. Before adding information to this table, please ensure housing developments meet the requirements described in Government Code 65400.2(b). 5 Project Identifier Unit Types
1 4
Affordability by Household Incomes After Conversion Units credited toward Above Moderate RHNA
11.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation
2 3 4
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Realistic Capacity
Identified in the
Housing Element
Entity to whom the site
transferred Intended Use for Site
1 Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
Table G
Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of Project Identifier
NOTE: This table must only be filled out if the housing element sites inventory contains a site which is or was owned by the reporting jurisdiction, and has been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of during the reporting year.
11.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
Designation Size Notes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
APN Street Address/Intersection Existing Use Number of
Units
Surplus
Designation
Parcel Size (in
acres) Notes
NOTE: This table is meant to contain an invenory of
ALL surplus/excess lands the reporting jurisdiction
owns
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Parcel Identifier
ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Table H
Locally Owned Surplus Sites
For San Mateo County jurisdictions, please format the APN's as follows:999-999-999
11.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Note: "+" indicates an
optional field
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain
auto-calculation
formulas
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Project Type Date Notes
2 3
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+ Activity Date Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income
Notes
Table I
Units Constructed Pursuant to Government Code 65852.21 and Applications for Lot Splits Pursuant to Government Code 66411.7 (SB9) NOTE: SB 9 PROJECTS ONLY. This table only
needs to be completed if there were lot splits
applied for pursuant to Government Code
66411.7 OR units constructed pursuant to
65852.21.
Units entitled/permitted/constructed must also
be reported in Table A2. Applications for these
units must be reported in Table A.
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Project Identifier Unit Constructed
1 4
11.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Project Type Date
Units (Beds/Student
Capacity) Granted
Density Bonus
Notes
2 3 5 6
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SH - Student Housing) Date Very Low- Income
Deed Restricted
Very Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Low- Income Deed
Restricted
Low- Income Non
Deed Restricted
Moderate- Income
Deed Restricted
Moderate- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total Additional Beds
Created Due to Density
Bonus
Notes
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Table J
Student housing development for lower income students for which was granted a density bonus pursuant to subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65915 Project Identifier Units (Beds/Student Capacity) Approved 1 4
NOTE: STUDENT HOUSING WITH DENSITY BONUS ONLY. This
table only needs to be completed if there were student housing projects WITH a density bonus approved pursuant to Government Code65915(b)(1)(F)
11.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Current Year
Deed Restricted
0 Non-Deed Restricted
0 Deed Restricted
0 Non-Deed Restricted 22
Deed Restricted
0 Non-Deed Restricted 267
55 Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed SFA 0 0 0
SFD 1 1 0
2 to 4 0 0 0
5+ 0 6 0
ADU 0 48 6
MH000
Total 1 55 6 4
55000000
Above Moderate
Units Constructed - SB 35 Streamlining Permits
Number of Streamlining Applications Approved
Total Developments Approved with Streamlining
Total Units Constructed with Streamlining
Total Housing Applications Submitted:
Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received:
Total Housing Units Approved:
Total Housing Units Disapproved:
Total Units
Housing Applications Summary
Use of SB 35 Streamlining Provisions
Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Number of Applications for Streamlining
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
11.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Income Rental Ownership Total
Very Low 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0
Moderate 0 0 0
Above Moderate 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
11.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Jurisdiction Pacifica
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Total Award Amount Total award amount is auto-populated based on amounts entered in rows 15-26.
Task $ Amount Awarded $ Cumulative Reimbursement
Requested
Other
Funding
Notes
Housing Element Update $54,500.00 $0.00 Other
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
Update $95,500.00 $0.00 Other
Summary of entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy (auto-populated from Table A2) Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
1 1
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Reporting
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Please update the status of the proposed uses listed in the entity’s application for funding and the corresponding impact on housing within the region or jurisdiction, as applicable, categorized based on the eligible uses specified in Section 50515.02 or 50515.03, as applicable.
$ 150,000.00
Task Status
In Progress
In Progress
Completed Entitlement Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
11.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Non-Deed Restricted 22
Deed Restricted
0 Non-Deed Restricted 267
55 Current Year
Deed Restricted
0 Non-Deed Restricted
0 Deed Restricted
0 Non-Deed Restricted
0 Deed Restricted
0 Non-Deed Restricted
06 Total Units
6 Certificate of Occupancy Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Low
11.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment B - 2022 Housing Element APR (5279 : Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 27 Jurisdiction
VERY LOW INCOME
(<50% of Area
Median Income)
LOW INCOME
(50-80% of Area
Median Income)
MODERATE INCOME
(80-120% of Area
Median Income)
ABOVE MODERATE
INCOME
(>120% of Area
Median Income) TOTAL
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Atherton 94 54 56 144 348
Belmont 488 281 283 733 1,785
Brisbane 317 183 303 785 1,588
Burlingame 863 497 529 1,368 3,257
Colma 44 25 37 96 202
Daly City 1,336 769 762 1,971 4,838
East Palo Alto 165 95 159 410 829
Foster City 520 299 300 777 1,896
Half Moon Bay 181 104 54 141 480
Hillsborough 155 89 87 223 554
Menlo Park 740 426 496 1,284 2,946
Millbrae 575 331 361 932 2,199
Pacifica 538 310 291 753 1,892
Portola Valley 73 42 39 99 253
Redwood City 1,115 643 789 2,041 4,588
San Bruno 704 405 573 1,483 3,165
San Carlos 739 425 438 1,133 2,735
San Mateo 1,777 1,023 1,175 3,040 7,015
South San Francisco 871 502 720 1,863 3,956
Unincorporated San Mateo 811 468 433 1,121 2,833
Woodside 90 52 52 134 328
FINAL ALLOCATION RHNA
11.c
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment C - Final RHNA 6 Allocation for San Mateo County (5279 : Annual Progress