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 August 14, 2023
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
August 14, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on August 14, 2023 at 5:45 PM 5:45 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bigstyck called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m., and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session.
00a. Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): North Coast County Water District v. City of Pacifica, Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, Case No. 22-CIV-03493.
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bigstyck reconvened the meeting at 7:06 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
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Bob Palacio, PB&R Director; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director (Field Services/Engineering); Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Raymund Donguines, Sr. Civil Engineer; Vicente Romero, Sergeant; Nelson Schlater, Engineering Manager-Wastewater; Stefanie Cervantes, Sr. Planner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 14, 2023
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bigstyck read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Bigstyck
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there was no reportable action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he would like to move public comment and the rest of the agenda until after the public hearings if acceptable to Council. He acknowledged that they found that acceptable.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if any councilmember wanted to pull any consent items, and seeing no one, he opened up public comments. Seeing none, he closed public comments.
CONSENT ITEMS #1-21
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 7/01/23 through 7/31/23.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of July 2023
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on July 10, 2023.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Quarterly Financial Reports for the quarters ending March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023.
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Reports for the quarters ending March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 14, 2023
6. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarters ending March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023.
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarters ending March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023.
7. Approve a new Senior Code Enforcement Officer Job Classification PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving a new Senior Code Enforcement Officer Job Classification and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a side letter to include and be recognized by the Teamsters Management 350 Unit.
8. Rescinding Resolution No. 30-2019 and Approving Resolutions to Appoint Directors to the Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA), and the Pooled Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (PLAN JPA) to Represent the City of Pacifica PROPOSED ACTION:
Adopt the attached resolutions of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to:
1. Rescind Resolution No. 30-2019 and Appoint Directors to Municipal Pooling Authority of Northern California to represent the City of Pacifica".
2. Appoint Directors to the Pooled Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (PLAN JPA).
9. Memorandum of Understanding with Teamsters Local 856 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and City of Pacifica for the period of July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2025.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacifica and (WWTP) Teamsters Union Local 856; for the period of July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2025, including the revised salary schedule effective August 14, 2023 and July 1, 2024.
10. Notice of Completion for the Anza Storm Water Pump Station – New Gas Service Line PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Anza Storm Water Pump Station - New Gas Service Line (C036) and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
11. Resolution Approving the Renewal of General Lease Agreement No. 8438 between the City of Pacifica and the California State Lands Commission for Lease of State Sovereign Lands for the existing rock revetment adjacent to the 500 Block of Esplanade Avenue PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Renewal of General Lease Agreement No. 8438 between the City of Pacifica and the California State Lands Commission for Lease of State Sovereign Lands for the existing rock revetment adjacent to the 500 Block of Esplanade Avenue and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents.”
12. Approval of New Pierce Fire Engine Lease Purchase Agreement PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution entitled "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Community Leasing Partners to Finance a New Front Line Fire Engine" and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to this purchase.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 14, 2023
13. Agreement with Tyler Technologies, Inc for the purchase and implementation of Munis Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Tyler Technologies, Inc. for the Munis Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP) System and Implementation Services for the City of Pacifica.
14. Approve the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement renewal between the City of Pacifica and Dell Marketing L.P.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution Authorizing Renewal of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement for a three-year term through the reseller Dell Marketing L.P. in the amount of $261,097.56 ($87,032.52 annually); and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to this project.
15. Fifth Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the Fifth Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company, by increasing the contract amount by $150,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $610,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.
16. Second Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Eisenberg, Olivieri & Associates Inc. for Commercial and Industrial Stormwater Inspections and Related Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Second Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Eisenberg, Olivieri & Associates Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents.”
17. Approval of Annual Agreements for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2023-2024 for Polydyne, Inc. for $200,000; Trojan Technologies for $100,000 and Synagro West, LLC for $171,960
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the following resolutions to approve Annual Agreements for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2023- 2024:
1. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Agreement with Polydyne, Inc. In The Amount Of $200,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023-24 Annual Supply of Polymer.
2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Agreement with Trojan Technologies Group, ULC in The Amount Of $100,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023-24 Annual Supply of Trojan System UV4000 Original Replacement Parts.
3. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Master Agreement for Biosolids Services and Task Order No. 1 with Synagro West, LLC In the Amount Of $171,960 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2023-24 Annual Biosolids Hauling and Disposal.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 14, 2023
18. Resolution Authorizing Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Schaaf and Wheeler, Inc. for Engineering Design Services for the Wastewater Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation and Repair Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Approve a Resolution Authorizing a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Schaaf and Wheeler, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $440,000 for the Wastewater Lower Linda Mar Rehabilitation and Repair Project; Approve budget authority in the amount of $506,000 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $66,000; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
19. Approval of Increase of Contingency Budget for New Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving an Increase in the Payment Allocation by $2,904.08 for a Total Budget Authority of $118,356.83 for Services and Equipment Provided by Bay Area Mechanical LLC for the Purchase and Installation of a New WalkIn Refrigerator/Freezer for the Pacifica Community Center" and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the agreements.
20. Rescind the Resolution No. 04-2023 and Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies to Examine Confidential Information for the City of Pacifica Transactions and Use Tax.
PROPOSED ACTION: Rescind the Resolution No. 04-2023 and Adopt a New Resolution to Authorize Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates DBA HdL Companies to Examine Confidential Information Related to the City of Pacifica Transactions and Use Tax approved by Pacifica voters on November 8, 2022.
21. Adoption of Ordinance to amend Pacifica Municipal Code section 3-17.03 to remove provision for allocation of funds within thirty days and replace the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce as the Managing Agency of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (BID) with the City of Pacifica
PROPOSED ACTION: Waive the second reading and adopt by title only the Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Section 3-
17.03 (Administration) of Chapter 17 (Hotel Business Improvement District) Within Title 3 (Finance) of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Remove Provision for Allocation of Funds Within Thirty Days and to Replace the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce as the Managing Agency of the Bid with the City of Pacifica”.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Tyler Hawes, Palo Alto, stated he was present on behalf of CivicBell, a locally owned and operated civic technology social platform connecting local level government officials like Council to their verified constituencies. They have a couple key distinctions that make them a better alternative way to productively engage with local constituencies. They use a verification system to ensure that all people using CivicBell are real humans and do reside factually within their district, the goal being to create a higher quality community engagement and deliberation amongst the community. It is a way that people in the community can give verified vetted feedback on surveys in a bulletin board format formerly the Council could disseminate information. The have an established presence in the coastside, are based out of Palo Alto, City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 14, 2023
and have presence in Santa Clara County, Mountain View and now on the coastside, with Assemblymember Mark Berman using CivicBell. He stated that this is a public invitation to the Council, to other community members and community government officials, that CivicBell is and will be free for the coastside.
Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, shared PRC's business hours as well as back-toschool program data, grocery distribution program, and Temporary Safe Parking Program. She thanked Pacifica’s Police Department for extra support to reduce harassment toward those in the Temporary Safe Parking Program.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated she went to a lot of places but the most important place was Relay for Life. She suggested to everyone to do self-exams and mammograms.
Councilmember Boles states she went to several meetings. The Airport Roundtable had a discussion about the FAA reauthorization and one of the things they are fighting for is local control for decisions about drone package delivery air taxis. She attended the San Mateo County Democrats picnic and they are going to be doing voter registration at Fog Fest.
Councilmember Bier encouraged everyone to see the Broadway play, Tina, or to Aladdin or Lion King because a portion of the proceeds is going to Coast Pride as they have a partnership with SF Broadway. They are bringing lots of programs into our city from Pescadero to Pacifica, and she asked them to support Coast Pride.
Councilmember Beckmeyer traveled to a conference called California Adaptation Forum and she had the honor of participating in a panel discussion on adaptation and sea level rise and phased approaches. She is working on a number of stakeholder meetings with different cities and counties on their experiences and needs around determining how they will approach sea level rise.
Mayor Bigstyck attended the following meetings and events: PRC meeting, Relay for Life, PCE surplus money subcommittee, LAFCO, the Bruce Latimer Show's 1000th episode, Peninsula Clean Energy, the Council of Cities in East Palo Alto and in San Mateo, and CalCities Mayors' Roundtable. They released the first episode of The Mayor’s Office. He went to a meeting at the Free Masons Lodge honoring first responders, and he was grateful to attend that with Captain Clements and fellow officers.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse had a couple of brief updates. One is that he attended Rotary last week and presented on project updates, budget and strategic plan. They issued a press release today about the new Economic Development Manager Tara Schiff, who will begin next Monday with the city.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
22. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Permit for Site Development PSD-857-22, Use Permit UP-130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22 to demolish and replace portions of the existing North Coast County Water District Headquarters site, and City Council Regular Meeting 7 August 14, 2023
construct a new two-story administrative building and other site improvements at 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) (File No. 2022-007); and finding that North Coast County Water District, acting as lead agency, has determined the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD Planning Commission approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Permit for Site Development PSD-857-22, Use Permit UP-130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22 and finding that North Coast County Water District, acting as lead agency, has determined the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution.
Mayor Bigstyck asked Councilmembers to disclose any conflicts of interest or ex parte communications.
Councilmember Bier stated that she has had ex parte conversations partly as an ad-hoc committee member and then discussions with Adrianne Carr and Tom Piccolotti and most people at the Water District.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated she visited the Water District, walked around their site, and talked to them about the improvement.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she visited the site also and met with General Manager Carr and with Board Director Anne DeJarnatt and had a phone call with Board Vice President Joshua Cosgrove.
Councilmember Boles stated that she also toured the project with Adrianne Carr and Anne DeJarnatt and spoke on the phone with Joshua Cosgrove and some email communications back and forth with Adrianne Carr.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, along with Councilmember Bier as an ad-hoc member, they have had extensive conversations with members of the North Coast County Water District board. He also spoke with former member Tom Piccolotti, Adrianne Carr, Jack Burgett, Josh Cosgrove and various members of the community.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he was going to turn it directly to Senior Planner Cervantes and Planning Director Murdock. Mayor Bigstyck also welcomed Planning Commissioner Wright.
Senior Planner Cervantes presented the staff report.
Mayor Bigstyck stated two main concerns, that of the diagonal parking and the third driveway.
The first question of concern on his mind is to establish whether or not diagonal parking there is safe. He asked staff, in the simplest terms possible, why should he think it is either safe or unsafe to put diagonal parking in that spot.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they will invite PW Dep. Director Yip to explain the analysis from the Public Works Department related to the proposed angle parking configuration for the project.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, in staff’s opinion, recommendation against angled parking is due to the limited visibility while backing out onto oncoming traffic; as previously mentioned, City Council Regular Meeting 8 August 14, 2023
regardless of the classification, they have cited some numbers from AASHTO that show that angled parking is determined to be unsafe. The city’s most comparable street with angled parking is Palmetto and Manor. Due to the dynamics of the city, a lot of traffic runs north to south; traffic on highway 1 will get diverted onto the north/south bound streets in which Francisco and Palmetto are similar and have connections to the highway. Thus, they felt Palmetto was comparable and it is on the high injury network whereas Francisco is not. They have data regarding the angle parking in Pacifica with the collisions within our city and citing the Fehr & Peers report. From the Oregon Department of Transportation as well as AASHTO, the increased number of collisions occur because of angled parking.
Ingrid Ballús Armet, Fehr & Peers Consultant, added that research in the industry has shown that, when you convert on-street parking from parallel to angled parking, the risk of crashes increases by more than 50% and that is regardless of the type of roadway they are discussing or any other conditions.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he thought it seems like the difference between arterial and collector might have something to do with the speeds by which a car is going down the road. He asked her to confirm that accidents in general go up by 51% percent no matter what kind of road it is because of limited visibility when engaging in parallel parking.
Consultant Ballús Armet agreed and stated PW Dep. Director Yip mentioned some of the studies that have shown that, such as the Oregon Department of Transportation and AASHTO.
Mayor Bigstyck stated he now has a simple understanding from his perspective that accidents occur over 51% consistently, no matter what type of road it is, because of limited visibility.
Consultant Ballús Armet responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bier asked PW Dep. Director Yip to confirm the classification of the street.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated, in their Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (PTAP) where they have the assessment of the pavement and the pavement condition indexes in the city, as well as the street saver management system, the classification is an arterial; it is also arterial by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and by the California Road System (CRS). There are some classifications within our General Plan classifying it as a collector but regardless of what is in the General Plan and the use of the General Plan, the collector and arterial systems still recommend multi-modal uses for this street. For the purposes of P-TAP, the classifications are used for roadway reconstruction treatment.
Councilmember Boles asked what the typical speed on an arterial versus a collector street.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the speed limit posted on Francisco is 25 mph. He referred to applicant’s traffic study on the higher ranges of the speed on the road, which shows that 68% of drivers drive above the posted speed limit and the speeds were 40-45 mph on Francisco.
Councilmember Boles thought that might indicate they need some traffic calming measures.
She has read that angle parking can be considered a traffic calming measure, and she asked if that is correct.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated he would like to clarify the traffic study and recommendation and summary. He read it verbatim, and then it does not explicitly say the angle parking is a traffic City Council Regular Meeting 9 August 14, 2023
calming measure.
Councilmember Beckmeyer followed up by asking if a 12-foot lane is from the end of the parking places to the center line.
PW Dep. Director Yip responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles wanted to ask more about the studies they are quoting. She asked if he has any information on what data was used for the AASHTO study.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated he would have to defer to Consultant Ballús Armet if she has that information. Consultant Ballús Armet stated she would need to go back and read the study again in detail.
Councilmember Boles wanted to follow up with a question about the other Oregon study. She thought it seems to be saying that it’s based on increased use that there are more accidents, not that one type of parking is more dangerous than the other necessarily, and she asked if they can confirm that.
Senior Planner Cervantes stated that the study mentions that it is likely due to the increase of parking rather than the characteristics; essentially, with angled parking, you can fit more parking space in that same space than parallel parking and thus there is more parking available and because it is used more, there is an increase in higher rates of crash. That is essentially what is being proposed on Francisco Blvd., now, i.e., trying to increase the number of on street parking spaces which will increase the chance of collisions if the angled parking is in place.
Councilmember Boles concluded that it is frequency and not based on the type of parking. She thought the bikes are a different question.
Planning Director Murdock understands that statement in the report regarding vehicular collisions, not necessarily related or limited to bicycle-related collisions. He thought, regardless of the causation, the outcome is the same which is less safe conditions and that has been the focus of staff’s analysis in that regard and whatever the causation, the condition is less safe than with a parallel parking condition.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus referred to the angled parking and stated, if she is driving a big truck, the sidewalk access is very small there. She asked if the angled parking make the sidewalks much smaller so people in wheelchairs don’t have as easy access.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the Water District responded to this concern and said they were willing to move the project limits further in to allow them to have a 5-foot wide sidewalk.
Planning Director Murdock stated that wheel stops could be installed, they are a stationary feature and they may not accommodate vehicle types of all sizes in the same fashion. While it may work for a typical vehicle, a potential would remain for a particularly large vehicle to encroach into the sidewalk even with the adjustment that PW Dep. Director Yip mentioned.
Councilmember Boles asked if, other than Manor and Palmetto, are there other areas in the city with angled parking that were identified in the high injury network.
Senior Planner Cervantes stated that the appellant provided several examples of angled parking City Council Regular Meeting 10 August 14, 2023
on existing streets and the city looked at all the examples provided and they determined that of all the streets provided, only two were not on the high injury network, Bill Drake Way and Beach Boulevard; Palmetto, Manor and Clarendon are on the high injury network.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if Rockaway was also on the high injury network, and Council asked clarification questions regarding the high injury network figures. Councilmember Boles stated that, if you decide that one section of the street is a high injury, the whole street is marked red and that doesn’t give specific information about what the injuries are at the parking areas.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought the term might be street segments, and is there a more refined figure. Councilmember Bier asked if it was possible to see this map zoomed in.
Councilmember Boles stated she has some more questions about the bicycles. She referred to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that was approved by Council in 2020 does not show Francisco as a future bike route. She asked if they can explain why they think Francisco should be a bike route when it isn’t identified as such on the map.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, when the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was created in 2020, the Sharp Park area had not yet become a priority development area. Had it been, then it would have been under consideration for them to make it more accessible for multi-modal. It is a living document, and they are constantly going to have more bike routes that change around the city. The General Plan notes that we want to have multi-modal within the city.
Planning Director Murdock added that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is prioritizing certain projects which helps for pursuing funding and guiding certain decision making but, as an overarching policy matter, as mentioned, the General Plan requires what they call complete streets, requiring development projects to ensure that their design incorporates all modes of transportation, not simply vehicles, which has been the tradition for many decades. That includes ensuring routine accommodation that fits the language used in our General Plan of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In this instance, staff’s analysis is that the construction of angled parking would almost certainly preclude future construction of bicycle lanes which would not result in the routine accommodation of multiple modes of transportation. He stated that it is with that overarching General Plan policy that they are trying to implement the intent of longterm vision for all modes of transportation being accommodated.
Councilmember Boles stated that she looked at San Francisco’s map and their bike routes.
They have a grid so they alternate. She asked if not having a bike path meant that we aren’t meeting the multi-modal definition.
Planning Director Murdock thought the answer to her question is no, every street does not need to have a dedicated bike lane or be mapped in a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. He stated that the General Plan has demonstrated by policy that the effort still must be made for the routine accommodation of multiple modes of transportation. To take a key project element and to preclude future bike lanes, in staff’s assessment, would not be consistent with the General Plan. He added that, regarding her point about identification in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for a particular type of improvement, even without a dedicated bike lane, it would still result in a less safe accommodation of bicycles operating in the vehicle travel lane with the angled parking design. From those two angles, it would not uphold that General Plan policy related to multi-modal accommodations.
Councilmember Boles stated that she met with a member of Public Works to discuss the possibility of bike lanes on Francisco in terms of the street itself. Staff was suggesting that we City Council Regular Meeting 11 August 14, 2023
could add separate bike lanes so they would not be in the path of travel if they went to 10-foot travel lanes with 5- and 4-foot bike lanes on the road. She asked if this was something they would consider if they were to put bike lanes here in the future.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that was the configuration they were considering, the 5-foot/4-foot bike lanes and reducing the travel lanes to 10 feet which would be a traffic calming measure to reduce speeds at this location by narrowing lane widths; this would be within the 50 foot right-ofway and something doable because of the landscaping that is on the East side of Francisco Blvd.
Councilmember Boles stated that, as part of the Local Roadway Safety Plan, on Crespi, instead of having two lanes of bikes in opposite directions that went with the flow of traffic, they put the two lanes together. She asked if it would not be possible to put the two bike lanes on the east side of Francisco where there are no buildings and no driveways as it seems it would be a safer place for bikes to have two-way travel on one side of the street.
Councilmember Bier stated she also had that question and if it could be a sharrow.
Consultant Ballús Armet referred to the question of the two-way bike lane on one side and putting it on the side that is not fronting the site; the biggest challenge with something like that is access to that bike facility. Of someone is biking on a perpendicular street and trying to access it, that connection becomes really difficult; cyclists who are using that facility are not getting direct access to any land uses and it would only be going north/south and accessing those connections to land uses would be difficult. She stated the major concern she would have would be cyclists trying to access land uses mid-block and when they are halfway down the block and trying to cross two lanes of travel from that two-way bike facility that is on the opposite side of the street from where they want to be going.
Councilmember Boles stated that was interesting because they didn’t talk about that at Crespi.
Mayor Bigstyck thought they were talking about hypothetical bike lanes. He asked if any discussion of bike lanes appear in any plan on the books at this time.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that bike lanes are not on the plans for Francisco at this time. He stated that it is on the General Plan and the introduction of the angled parking would prevent any future bike lanes behind the angled parking if they want to put it on the west side.
Mayor Bigstyck and asked, when he says it is on the General Plan, what that means.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the General Plan designates the classification of a collector or arterial street and Francisco is designated as those streets on the General Plan. For those classifications, it designates that all uses of modes of transportation are equal and none shall dominate; pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicle travel should all be accessible and it has to have multi-modal transportation on that street.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if he has the policy number from the General Plan readily available.
City Clerk Coffey provided an image of the high injury network from the Local Roadway Safety Plan per earlier request.
Councilmember Boles asked if they could also see where the collisions were on the street, and City Council Regular Meeting 12 August 14, 2023
Councilmember Bier noted difficulty with reading the map.
Planning Director Murdock clarified the image. In addition, he pointed specifically to Circulation Element Policy CII3 from the General Plan, in response to Mayor Bigstyck’s question. It talks about complete streets in the project development process and it includes the language “routine accommodation” of bicyclists and pedestrians in planning and design for projects. In staff’s assessment, the construction of angled parking would preclude that routine accommodation of bicycles in particular. He added that there is a table in the General Plan from the circulation element; the boxes, squares, and X’s talk about different levels of accommodation of the mode of transportation on a particular type of roadway. He stated that, for both arterials and collectors, bicycles and pedestrians must be accommodated, along with automobiles, so none of those modes are intended to have priority but they are required to be accommodated in those roadway segments. He stated that the table combined with the complete street policy of the General Plan provides an overarching framework for thinking about transportation in relation to the development project, ensuring that no project feature is going to preclude the routine accommodation of any of those required modes of transportation.
Councilmember Bier asked if bikes can be accommodated on an arterial or collected street with a sharrow.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that coalitions and people are encouraging local agencies to put in something better than sharrows, such as bike boulevards. It is becoming more and more a preference to bike in the bike lane versus sharing the road with a sharrow. They still would not be able to introduce a sharrow if the angled parking were there as the visibility would be prevented from the angled parking and they would still be backing up onto an oncoming bicyclist with that limited visibility. He stated that the safety concerns would be the same whether or not there is a bike lane or sharrow there.
Councilmember Boles stated that as they expanded the bike paths in the master plan, she asked if the side residential streets would also have shared bikes.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that local streets would have sharrows.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if he could give a quick definition of what complete streets means and why these General Plan policies are something they might consider at this meeting.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the General Plan glossary, there is a description of complete streets as a term, i.e., complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe, attractive and comfortable access and travel for all users, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, seniors, individuals with disabilities and users of public transportation. He stated that, taking that as a framework and concept, applying the table to help delineate between different road classifications, recognizing that for purposes of bicycle and pedestrian accommodation, there is no functional difference in the General Plan between arterial and collector street. Drilling down to the specific implementing policy and the circulation element for development projects to ensure the routine accommodation of those various modes of travel, they have multiple points in the General Plan that point to ensuring that there is no project characteristic, for example, that would preclude the routine and safe accommodation of any of those prescribed modes of transportation.
Mayor Bigstyck thanked him and asked Council if they have further questions on diagonal parking at this time.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 August 14, 2023
Councilmember Boles stated that she has seen in some cities where they are putting the bicycle path next to the sidewalk and then the parking outside that. She asked if it was possible to have a separate bike path that could be inside the parking.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that it was more common to have parallel parking to be the buffer between a bike lane. They would have to do more research, and some of the overhang is also still a concern. He stated another concern would be, if they wanted to do a bulb out at that location, they would need to do a cutout across the bulb out and that would prevent bioretention area and there would be a conflict zone between pedestrians and bicyclists. He stated that those are some of the challenges and they haven’t looked at that design that closely yet, but it has been done with parallel parking a lot more commonly.
Planning Director Murdock added that, even in that circumstance, that wouldn’t be the angled parking arrangement that is proposed and hypothetically would be constructed if the project were approved as the appellant has proposed it. He thought it was a hypothetical that would require multiple reconfigurations of that parking design to shift it in the manner she is describing and could add cost and complexity to that hypothetical future project.
Mayor Bigstyck asked Commissioner Wright if he had any recollections from the Planning Commission that he wants to share regarding deliberations around diagonal parking.
Commissioner Wright stated that his role at this meeting is to be a liaison between the Planning Commission and Council. He stated that the Commission gathered input from multiple sources prior to consideration of any motions. They had a lot of public input, heard a presentation from the petitioner, and they had a presentation from staff as well. After that process, the Commission went through a lengthy question and answer period where the Commission had multiple questions for the petitioner who had additional time to have additional input and additional clarifications into what their concept was. They also questioned staff. After that process, they went into deliberation where they tried to prioritize and figure out what was important. Some of those considerations were things such as parking, safety, and a number of different conditions to be applied to this project. Eventually, there was a motion that was made and seconded and all those conditions in the document passed.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he was wondering if he had any particular recollection of dialogue around the parallel parking issue specifically.
Commissioner Wright stated a number of them, and it seemed to him that safety was the big concern. He stated that he can only speak for himself and it seemed it was set up as there were two conflicting opinions and there was consideration of those two conflicting opinions and it appears that the Planning Commission sided with staff’s opinion on that matter.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if any Councilmember would like to ask a question not having to do with diagonal parking or should he ask another general overview question.
Councilmember Beckmeyer would like to have some reminder about the equity priority development area, as she thinks that overlays with this, and how that does or does not pertain to this particular appeal.
Planning Director Murdock thought she was referring to priority development area (PDA) and that is a nomenclature through the Association of Bay Area Governments, our region wide City Council Regular Meeting 14 August 14, 2023
planning agency. It is a tool that they offer to local governments to designate particular areas within their jurisdictions where development and investment is intended to be focused. The city has a couple of different PDAs, the Sharp Park area being one of them, and it is a model through which regional transportation and planning funding can be directed to help prioritize those kind of regional planning priorities like infill development, affordable housing, reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions through funding projects such as bicycle lanes, roadways, retrofits and other projects to improve pedestrian and roadway safety. He stated that, in and of itself, it is not a particular reason not to allow angle parking for example, but another layer on which to understand that, through the Council’s designation of a priority development area in this location, General Plan policies, Sharp Park Specific Plan policies, all aimed at improving safe non-vehicular transportation-walkability, bike-ability-that, precluding the construction of a dedicated bike lane by allowing angled parking would not fit, in staff’s assessment, within that framework.
Councilmember Beckmeyer had another clarifying question, i.e., on the map that showed the angled parking, there is an indicator that says electronic charging stations, but she could not tell if there was one or two or all of them or how many there were. In terms of greenhouse gas reduction, she asked that they clarify that for her.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they will try to confirm the site planning and number.
Councilmember Bier asked if the Sharp Park Specific Plan was an equity priority area or equity focus area or equity priority community.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he isn’t familiar with that term.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated, with confirmation from Consultant Ballús Armet, that the name equity priority areas were changed to communities of concern.
Councilmember Bier stated she will look out for the new name.
Councilmember Boles stated that, on the Local Roadway Safety Plan, this area is an equity priority area.
PW Dep. Director Yip mentioned the fiscal significance of being a PDA or a EPA is that it opens up, as mentioned in the previous Planning Commission meeting, a lot more grant opportunities in the area.
Mayor Bigstyck doesn’t want to belabor projects that may or may not be in the future except to say that they comport with the General Plan policies.
Councilmember Boles stated, in response to the map of collisions from the Local Roadway Safety Plan, if staff could opine on the location of collisions as well as the location of the high injury network for Francisco Blvd.
Mayor Bigstyck wanted to ask staff the questions around the third driveway as it seemed like, at the Planning Commission meeting, staff was trying to find solutions up to and potentially including the third driveway. He asked staff if there are any recommendations at this time.
Senior Planner Cervantes stated that, during the Planning Commission hearing, they had a lot of discussion regarding different potential design options for the third driveway. As was City Council Regular Meeting 15 August 14, 2023
mentioned in the report as well as her presentation at this meeting, staff did meet with SamTrans on June 12, which was the day prior to the Planning Commission hearing, to discuss the potential permanent relocation of that bus stop. It is a possibility, as last week the appellant stated that they had engaged with Caltrans to obtain approval for the permanent relocation of that bus stop but that has not occurred. At this point, staff evaluated the different potential options that would be available if the third driveway was allowed, as well as the permanent relocation of the bus stop. They have determined that it would allow additional on-street parking to be located on Clarendon Road, but they have not received an official resubmittal of the project plans at this time or an approval for the permanent relocation of the bus stop.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if condition of approval No. 51 was the consideration of moving that bus stop only in terms of allowing two extra parking spots or if it would make it easier to include the third driveway.
Senior Planner Cervantes stated that one of the main concerns with the third driveway was the line-of-sight issue with a parked bus located at the existing bus stop. She stated that, with removal of that potential bus stop, there is a possibility that the line-of-sight issue is no longer an issue. There would still be parked vehicles there, and they would need to make sure there is sufficient distance between the driveway and the first parking spaces. She added that they do have sufficient space between the existing and proposed driveways that would allow for additional parking. That is one of the things that staff was concerned about with the third driveway as proposed by the appellant: Having the bus stop removed all the on-street parking on that road because they did need space for the bus stop to be able to safely exist there. If the bus stop is removed, it does allow for on-street parking to be located on that roadway.
Mayor Bigstyck asked, if they want that third driveway, whether an additional approval make it contingent on Caltrans giving approval.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles stated, if Caltrans does not give approval, the analysis was based on a car exiting in front of the bus and, if the circulation was changed where it entered where the bus is and came out behind the bus, was that a safer line of sight.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that would be a safer alternative and was proposed during the Planning Commission meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to make sure they answered questions about the Local Roadway Safety Plan diagram. He noted they can see in more detail the types of accidents or injuries that have occurred along Francisco and Clarendon and this data is based on the current conditions of Francisco which don’t include angle parking.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that it was helpful and noted if, sometime in the future, a similar map could be drawn with more visual clarity.
City Manager Woodhouse understood, adding to that point that they have worked with Fehr & Peers, as well as responding a Council question regarding actual injury data which is a much bigger research project to pull all that together and present that information.
Councilmember Boles wanted to confirm, based on the maps, they couldn’t say the injury network is because of the angled parking necessarily based on this data.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked if staff stated earlier that, thus far, Francisco is not considered a part of the injury network.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, stating that Francisco currently is not on the high injury network but Palmetto and Manor are.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there is not angled parking on Francisco and this report shows the existing conditions without angled parking.
Mayor Bigstyck wanted to confirm that what they are suggesting is that, where there are angled spots, there are injuries that are occurring in those spots.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated the data for Palmetto and Manor included a vehicle fatality at that intersection and the angled parking did contribute to Palmetto being on the high injury network.
Mayo Bigstyck noted that business sites on Palmetto and Manor and asked about injuries associated with additional locations along the streets.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated there are angled parking spaces in those frontages and there appear to be collisions on Manor in that area as well.
Mayor Bigstyck suggested that they go through the awning over the gas fueling station. He would like them to repeat why it is that they are asking the Water District to add that.
Senior Planner Cervantes stated, based on staff’s calculation of the impervious surface areas proposed, the site is affecting over 50% of the existing area which triggers the C3 requirements based on the municipal regional permit. She referred to the June 2022 submittal showing the total impervious surface replaced or created and stated that after this submittal, there were additional changes to the site plan inside the corporate yard. She pointed out the comparisons over the summer, showing the different areas where they are proposing compared to the site plan that was submitted in September 2022 which showed additional site area that will be affected. That is what staff based their calculation and is over 50% of the project site.
Mayor Bigstyck thought the project site is their entire property.
Senior Planner Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bigstyck stated, if it is more than 50%, which law or code requires them.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is essentially law at every level, as this is falling from the Clean Water Act which goes to the state and goes to the regional water board and goes to county level permits of which each local agency in San Mateo County is a permittee. It is hard to give a simple answer other than that it is the law and those are the permit guidelines that implement those storm water quality improvement measures.
Mayor Bigstyck understood it doesn’t matter that the area is not being touched by construction but merely a matter of the fact that exists on the land that is substantially being developed.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that it is essentially a trigger. Once you go over the 50% threshold, you need to redevelop the whole site in the currently compliant manner; if less City Council Regular Meeting 17 August 14, 2023
than 50%, you are allowed to only design the portion they altered to meet the current requirements. He stated that, in the event the appellant gets to a building permit level design on this, assuming the project is approved at this meeting, and they come in at 49.9%, they would reevaluate and ensure that only the 49.9% of the area is required. If this fuel-covered area was not within that area of alteration, they could potentially remove that as a requirement. Currently, it is a requirement because the entire site needs to be designed to meet the current storm water control requirements.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she was correct that the recommendation which would cover the fueling area was the mitigation for the larger amount of impervious surface.
Planning Director Murdock stated if you were to build this project from scratch today, you would have to cover the fueling area to meet the storm water permit requirement. Because this project would exceed 50% of removed or replaced or new impervious surface, they have to treat it like it’s a new development project and meet all the current criteria.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated covering the fueling thing is one way to handle it, and she asked if there were alternatives to handling the storm water requirements.
Planning Director Murdock was not aware if there is another readily available way to satisfy this requirement. The requirement to cover the fuel area is an explicit provision in the permit and it’s not clear what latitude the city would have unless there was some question of infeasibility. He stated that it appears feasible to cover this and thus they haven’t explored alternatives further than that.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he noticed that the COA says that, prior to final inspection, they will install the cover, and it doesn’t say contingent on whether or not that, in the final analysis, the 50% threshold has been crossed. He asked if the COA needs to be amended to indicate that, if there is a shift, they do not need to do it.
Planning Director Murdock didn’t think it needs to, but it would probably be advisable to do that to provide some clarity. That is a post-approval, reasonable discretion kind of interpretation that he and the city engineer would need to make when evaluating and attempting to approve a building permit application.
Mayor Bigstyck referred to the asphalt to the center line, and he asked if they asked the school district to accommodate that condition of approval when they permitted the Oddstad development.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed that it is a standard condition of approval from the Engineering Division. He stated that it was not an accommodation for the Oddstad school project, and was an oversight by the Engineering Division on this one due to the lack of staffing during this time for the project approvals. He stated that the Oddstad Road is in better condition than Francisco Blvd., and Francisco’s PCIs is in the 50s and they also imposed this condition on the city’s own project for the Civic Center; that project will also be repaving the roads on all the frontages for their own project.
Mayor Bigstyck thought they had every intention to do so with the school district project, and when it came to their own Civic Center project, the compiled with the exact same thing they ask every other applicant to do.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 August 14, 2023
PW Dep. Director Yip responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was also hearing that the PCI in the vicinity of the Oddstad project is different than the PCI in the vicinity of the city’s project and NCCWD’s project, and she asked if that is correct.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, adding that the PCI at the NCCWD’s project is in the 50s and there is a threshold when you drop below 50 where the treatment is different. When you are above 50 in the PCI, you are still able to do maintenance like slurry seals. The utility cuts and the construction trucks that will be used for the project will drop the PCI below that threshold for them to be able to do slurry seals.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that it already started lower anyway.
Councilmember Boles asked if they have an idea of approximately when the Manor area would be scheduled to be repaved.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they are still working on the five-year master plan and they don’t have a schedule as of this date.
City Manager Woodhouse responded the new five-year master plan would come in 2025.
PW Dep. Director Yip responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he had one last question for Planning Commissioner Wright. He recalled that he was the dissenting vote when the vote was taken at the Planning Commission meeting and asked for his perspective.
Planning Commissioner Wright stated that that was outside his role as liaison.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, for the record, Commissioner Wright was about to say that his role here as liaison was to represent the majority position of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Bigstyck understood and retracted the question. He then stated, with no other questions, he would begin the public hearing. Mayor Bigstyck welcomed Adrian Carr and asked, before her time began, if they can allow her the opportunity for introductions.
Adrian Carr, NCCWD, introduced their Board President Jack Burgett, VP Joshua Cosgrove, Director Anne DeJarnatt, Director Ron Ash and Director Will Hauser. She stated that they also have their architect team, Scott Salge and Amy Watson; traffic engineering team, Ron Sanzo on Zoom and Jeff Setera in person; and their attorney, Patrick Miyaki.
General Manager Carr thanked everyone for attending their district meetings at their district.
She stated that they are asking City Council to remove condition No. 12, explaining their proposed plan to narrow the roadway and safer crosswalks for pedestrians, and encouraged angled parking, etc.
Councilmember Bier suggested that they take a five-minute recess, in response to technical difficulties.
Mayor Bigstyck agreed. Following the recess, he reconvened the meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 August 14, 2023
General Manager Carr compared the various locations with angled parking. She then explained the importance of their recycled water fill station and referred to the possibilities of the Caltrans bus stop change and their input on additional driveway proposal. She then turned it over to President Burgett.
Jack Burgett, NCCWD, shared their reasons for this new headquarters for employee safety, helping Pacificans with potable water, safety of diagonal parking, and safety of a third driveway.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if Council has any questions for the appellant.
Councilmember Boles asked for an explanation of why the diagonal parking is important to the district safety in terms of customers.
General Manager Carr stated that it beautifies the neighborhood and adds parking along Francisco. They are moving their entrance from Brighton Road to Francisco Blvd., as that is the commercial center. They are currently in the residential area, and they have a lot of customers that park on Brighton when they arrive to pay their bills; it would be best if they parked on Francisco and not disturbing the residential neighborhood as Brighton doesn’t have the same capacity and safety considerations as Francisco. They feel it is a convenience to customers and residents in the neighborhood to have that parking moved to Francisco.
Councilmember Boles asked about the short-term parking on Brighton.
General Manager Carr thought those will only be the three parallel spots on Francisco.
Councilmember Boles concluded that those on Brighton would no longer be short-term.
General Manager Carr responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles wanted to hear from the traffic engineer about studies referenced.
Jeff Setera, Engineer, stated that they looked at many studies comparing parallel parking and angled parking conditions, and there is no difference. The movements are similar when backing in and out of a spot, and the potential conflict with door opening between bicycles and the car door exists with parallel but not with angled.
Councilmember Boles stated that the report she is most concerned about is the AASHTO that over 50% is more dangerous to have diagonal parking. She would like to hear his rebuttal and if he has a specific report that says otherwise.
Mr. Setera stated that, in that 2001 Oregon report, it states specifically that, when you include the fact that angled parking is favored and more highly used, and you look at those in comparison, there is no difference between angled. He stated that he knows of no study by AASHTO that says angled parking increases accident rates by over 50%.
Councilmember Boles stated that she is hearing vague information that their studies say it is not more dangerous, and she would like comments particularly on the AASHTO percentage.
Ron Sanzo, Engineer, referenced the Oregon report which, by and large, was what was used.
He stated that the two key takeaways were that none of the studies included sites where the City Council Regular Meeting 20 August 14, 2023
parking was changed from parallel to angled; all the data was either going from angled to parallel, the opposite way, or just looking at cross sections. He stated that the other key information noted is that recent research of a before and after study was conducted and the researchers found no evidence of the difference between crash rate of angled and parallel parking when the increased parking was included in the analysis. He thought they were seeing apples and oranges where there may be a higher volume of accidents because the angled parking is seeing higher volumes.
Councilmember Boles asked if he can tell her what AASHTO is and is it an important design standard that they typically look at for analysis.
Mr. Sanzo stated that AASHTO is the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, and they have a series of design guidelines and regulations.
Councilmember Boles asked if he can talk about bicycles behind angled parking versus parallel.
Mr. Sanzo said he could, adding that General Manager Carr touched on it in her presentation.
He agreed that it could be tough to get a class 2 bike lane into this area, and a class 3 bike facility is the sharrow where the bike and vehicle are using the same area. He thought that would be possible as there is nothing restricting those two types of facilities, and there is nothing that says they can’t have diagonal parking and a class 3 facility. He stated that, at some point, if a bike facility was desired in this area, a class 3 would likely be what would be, and the type of roadway it is would be consistent what they potentially see at this type of facility.
Mayor Bigstyck asked which studies Water District referenced that state diagonal parking could be used as traffic calming measures.
Mr. Sanzo stated that he thought these tend to be similar to the 2001 Oregon study. They can provide a list of reference studies that would look at the benefits of angled parking, and that is generally going to be the overall transportation environment where you are seeing lower speeds and slow down with traffic. In addition, the particular location where this angled parking is going to be is right before a stop sign.
Councilmember Bier asked if they could talk a little bit more about the conversations they had with SamTrans and if they have anything in writing.
General Manager Carr stated she had confirmation in writing that they met and it would be feasible. She stated that PW Dep. Director Yip and Senior Planner Cervantes were there at their meeting and they heard what they can move the bus stop and it is a fine location and would meet the ADA requirements. She stated that they brought a bus and parked it there and there was plenty of room with even two lanes of traffic room and if a bike lane were to be on Clarendon in that location, they could definitely accommodate a bus stop, bike lane and a traffic lane in that location. She also shared some figures of the data on accidents from the Local Roadway Safety Plan.
Councilmember Boles asked if the architect could speak to the C3 calculations.
Scott Solge, architect, stated the spirit of the strategy for the site was to repair and replace portions of the site as best they could and to be below the 50% calculation. He stated that obviously the city’s calculation versus theirs are very close and they were happy to go back and look at the area they touched to preserve that they are under that 50% threshold, but overall, City Council Regular Meeting 21 August 14, 2023
their spirit is to maintain as much as they can on the site and rebuild the pieces that will benefit the district.
Mayor Bigstyck asked how onerous is the cover on the fuel station, i.e., cost, work, design.
Mr. Solge stated that it depends on the overall size of the area they need to cover for the fueling station and adjacent to cover vehicles. They would have to build a structure foundation support that is tall enough for large vehicles to get underneath it and is a significant structure that they weren’t looking at as part of their scoping for the project. They have to consider seismic impact of building a free-standing cover on the site as there are a lot of calculations and structural analysis that they would have to perform.
Councilmember Boles asked about condition of appeal No. 11 about the temporary parking space and, from what she understands, it is the city’s responsibility to move it and the staff report said that. She understood NCCWD’s only responsibility would be to write a letter to let the city know about their pre-construction activities.
General Manager Carr thought that it was confusing about when and how that process occurs.
They believe it is just the city’s responsibility and the city has before it the use permit and perhaps the city could say, as part of the permit approval, they approve the moving of the vehicle and it moves when the construction begins. She stated it was confusing about the way they have to ask for it in a legal framework and they didn’t understand how they have responsibility for that.
Patrick Miyaki, NCCWD attorney, stated that they have been asking to try to relocate the RV spot for a long time and it is clear that it isn’t within their authority because, if it were, they would have moved it. He stated that the concern about the condition is that they need to ask and it is up to the city in their sole discretion as to whether they are going to move it or not, which could potentially delay the construction for an unspecified time and every delay costs the district and the citizens of Pacifica a lot of money as the delays continue to add up. They would like it moved by a certain date so that they can plan their construction activities if it’s not way out in the future. That is their concern with that condition.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked about charging stations.
Senior Planner Cervantes stated that, based on the site plan, they are proposing five EV chargers within the corporate yard and on their site.
Amy Watson, architect, stated that it is potentially five double chargers and one single charger and are all inside the corporation yard.
Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments.
Bart Pantoja, San Mateo, stated he is the business manager of San Mateo County Building Construction Trades Council and is representing 10,500 men and women working in construction trades, many who reside in Pacifica. He expressed their support of the upgrade project appeal.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that he supports the Water District’s appeal and shared his thoughts on the various aspects of the project appeals.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 August 14, 2023
Jennifer Barba, Pacifica, stated that she offered her full support for the Water District’s upgrade and shared her thoughts on the various aspects of the project appeals.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that he thought Councilmembers got his emails with his stance on the appeal, and he felt Condition 24 was the only negotiable condition.
John Keener, Pacifica, stated that he was in support of the Water District’s appeal, especially the drive-through recycled water driveway and angled parking.
Brent Turner, Pacifica, stated he urged Council to uphold the Water District’s appeal and approve the project without conditions.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated that she encouraged Council to uphold the appeal and she shared her thoughts on the various aspects of the appeal.
Mayor Bigstyck closed the public comment portion.
City Attorney Kenyon reminded them that they have three minutes for rebuttal.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if General Manager Carr could elaborate on Labor’s being tasked with creating this building.
General Manager Carr stated that they are going to be collaborating with Labor in order to build the building and they recently reached out. They don’t have an agreement yet, but they are working towards that.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if the Water District wanted to take their three minutes.
VP Joshua Cosgrove appreciated the opportunity to present their project and thanked them for considerations, questions, comments, and he appreciated what he heard as he wanted to see this as a partner which they wanted from the beginning. He wanted to emphasize that this project, as designed, was driven by the Board of Directors as they live in this community and care about the community and would not present a project that was not safe and this improves the community. He stated that they reached out to the community and talked to them, as it is so important focusing on the diagonal and third driveway which is so critical to this project as they are moving parking from the residential area. He thanked them for their consideration.
Mayor Bigstyck asked the City Attorney, if they have questions for the appellant on the other side of public hearing, whether they will have to reopen the public hearing.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they can reopen the public hearing to ask questions of the appellant.
Mayor Bigstyck then closed the public hearing.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before Council enters into deliberation, he wanted to take the opportunity to have staff talk about a couple of points they heard during the presentation as well as to reiterate what staff’s job is here, related to development projects and to appeals. He stated that Council and city staff are very excited about the Water District’s reconstruction of their headquarters. To have Francisco Blvd., with a new Civic Center and a new Water District is a key collaborator for water as former Councilmember Digre mentioned; the collaboration that City Council Regular Meeting 23 August 14, 2023
staff has in the operational aspect is critical to the community. They are very excited about this project. He then stated that the city’s role is to provide Council with their best professional and technical expertise and recommendations about conditions on projects with public health and safety of the entire community taken into consideration. He stated that what they hear are staff’s technical and professional expertise to provide information to Council who then deliberate about decisions on the basis of the appeal. He stated that there is no position other than providing that technical expertise for consideration. He stated that, at times, on complex projects, there may be professional disagreement. He stated that one point he wants to make and will turn to staff to clarify is, the traffic reports that were cited.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he has some clarifying questions for staff.
Planning Director Murdock referred to the ongoing contention that there is a key distinction between the collector versus arterial distinctions. The General Plan has indicated that the requirement to accommodate the multiple modes of transportation is the same modal accommodation between the two, and there is not a difference for multi-modal accommodation.
He thought the appellant was trying to draw a distinction of arterial versus collector in the sense of the supposed travel speeds, but they have data showing that, the posted speed limit on Francisco is 25 mph, well over half of the observed vehicles on Francisco were traveling above the posted speed limit and, in some instances as high as 40-44 mph. He stated that there are other interventions that could be taken, but the reality is those measures are not fully in place and that is the existing condition with respect to the construction of angled parking, were it to occur today if the project were approved. He stated that those safety conditions as identified by staff are and will continue for the foreseeable future to be present. He added that, regarding the question of the appellant identifying many studies showing the safety of angled parking, he stated there were comparisons about parallel versus angled parking and is one safer than the other, but he thought what they have demonstrated through staff’s citations is that angled parking is less safe than parallel parking and he doesn’t know that they have had any compelling data that says parallel parking is less safe than angled parking. He stated that they want to keep pointing back to the studies that staff has identified that shows increased safety risks with respect to the angled parking configuration.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated he would like to address some of the differing opinions that they are hearing from staff and the Water District. In the previous meeting, he made a statement that NCCWD’s traffic study has only stated that it was safe to physically come out of the angled parking without entering the northbound lane and this was not rebutted in the last meeting or in their appeal letters. He stated that the applicant’s traffic engineer did say during that meeting that there are safety concerns with the angled parking similarly to the bike lane if you were to put a class 2 bike lane behind the angled parking. He stated that the report doesn’t specifically say that in the report that the angled parking is a traffic calming measure. He stated that staff has provided significant data and has provided data to address the concerns about the classification of the street. Regardless of the classification, there is still going to be safety concerns and Francisco falls within the daily trips in the staff report and that falls into the concern for safety for angled parking. They mentioned top speed for the street is 44 mph and the sharrows they mentioned before was best for 25 mph. He stated that typically, cars don’t stop until they get close to the stop signs and there are parking spaces along the frontage of the street and they aren’t going to be slowing down until they get closer to the stop signs. There are no accidents on Francisco and it confirms their data that was used from TIMS for our Local Roadway Safety Plan that Francisco is not on the high injury network but Palmetto is. There are collisions on Palmetto in front of the angled parking.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 August 14, 2023
Consultant Ballús Armet stated that Francisco is currently not on the high injury network, but Palmetto and Manor Drive are currently on the high injury network, and the angled parking is one of the contributing factors. She stated that, professionally, they avoid repeating roadway characteristics from high injury network corridors on streets that are not on the high injury network and that is one of the main reasons they would not be recommending angled parking on Francisco Blvd. unless it is absolutely necessary.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, on that point, as City Manager Woodhouse pointed out, to some extent there are different expert opinions and it is Council’s job to weigh the evidence.
He stated that staff has tried to make a compelling argument that their position and opinions that angled parking would be unsafe is supported by substantial evidence and, if Council were to reach that conclusion, there would be sufficient evidence to support that action. They may consider other viewpoints and data as presented by the appellant as well.
Consultant Ballús Armet stated that they made a statement that angled parking is a traffic calming measure and, as a professional, she has never seen that on the list of traffic calming measures. Traffic calming measures are like a speed hump or a median island or raised crosswalks which force people to slow down that are traveling on the corridor.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that the comparison between that intersection on Palmetto and Manor doesn’t resonate with him as similar circumstances. He stated that a point was well-taken by one of the speakers that another difference is that you are actually speeding up when you are going past that intersection behind those diagonal spots whereas on Francisco, if there are diagonal spots there, you would be slowing down because there is a stop sign that you are going toward. He thought he heard staff say that you wouldn’t be stopping or slowing down until too late and he was hoping they could elaborate. He stated that the point was well taken by the commentor that somebody heading in that direction would be slowing down rather than the intersection where one would be speeding up. He asked staff to help him navigate that.
Consultant Ballús Armet stated that the speed survey showed top speeds of 40-45 mph even though there is currently a stop sign there. She thought that would show you that people will not stop or slow down until they are close enough to the stop sign and the angled parking is proposed for the entire curbside.
City Manager Woodhouse believed the point was that, even though there is a stop sign at Francisco and Clarendon, the speed survey data shows speeds over 40 mph, despite there being a stop sign that cars need to stop.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that there is another comparison which would be Mazzetti’s because those people are slowing down to stop and that is angled parking there. It would be similar to this in the angled parking with people also making U-turns and people would do the same there on Francisco.
Councilmember Boles stated that they don’t know if the accidents are because of the angled parking or the intersection.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that the Mazzetti’s angled parking is before the intersection.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding that comparison, on Manor, you have a stop sign at each end of that block so people are coming off of a stop sign, going one block and then a stop sign and most of the speeds are going to be a lot lower on that one particular block, City Council Regular Meeting 25 August 14, 2023
whereas on Francisco, cars get up to a high speed.
Councilmember Bier stated that people are driving down that street to go onto the on-ramp.
She didn’t think it was a very good comparison.
Councilmember Boles stated that the other issue there is that those are all compact spaces.
She asked if Consultant Ballús Armet could tell her more about AASHTO. She asked what the report was studying, such as what types of roads and types of applications. She is hoping for more detail and she is trying to understand what is 50% more dangerous about the angled parking in that report.
Consultant Ballús Armet stated that the report is from AASHTO highway safety manual, which encompasses all types of roads. It is used for a national guiding document that they use to calculate the effects of different types of designs and different types of roadway characteristics on crashes. It looks at, if you put angled parking instead of parallel parking, how it will affect your crashes.
Councilmember Boles thought it was a general recommendation.
Consultant Ballús Armet stated that it does have a lot of details and has different factors and numbers for different types of streets and different land uses, and you can do the calculations for your specific location to get to a final number.
Councilmember Boles stated that this particular street, with 2,000-3,000 cars a day, up to 45 mph, would be 50% plus more dangerous, according to what you’re reading.
Consultant Ballús Armet believes that is the calculation from her colleague.
Mayor Bigstyck had a concern when he heard the notion that the Water District never got feedback on their first three applications, specifically in terms of the third driveway.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated in April, July and September of 2022, NCCWD had received an incompleteness item asking them to remove the angled parking.
Mayor Bigstyck specified the third driveway.
Senior Planner Cervantes stated that Planning staff that reviewed the application during that time is no longer here and she can only speak to what she sees as part of the official record.
She stated that during the first and second review, Planning staff only provided items that were needed to deem the application complete or other similar items regarding design or policies that were not needed to deem the application complete but were still of concern. The third driveway was put as a condition of approval from the first review in April 2022 and it doesn’t seem that the draft conditions of approval were provided to the applicant as staff was reviewing each review.
She isn’t sure as to why that was done and why the draft conditions of approval were not provided to the applicant during those first two reviews but that is what occurred.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, in other circumstances, it would be preferred to give feedback then.
Senior Planner Cervantes stated that typically, if staff had conditions of approval from other departments, they put them on those completeness letters for the applicant to know as soon as possible what their draft conditions of approval may be, but unfortunately that did not occur.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck stated that there was some question around condition of approval, No. 11, which has to do with moving of the RV spot, and there seemed to be some confusion around it and he wanted to give staff an opportunity to clarify that condition of approval.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in his assessment, this condition clarifies that there is a connection between the project and the existence of the temporary safe parking space and it acknowledges that a construction of the project would have adverse impacts on the occupants of that space and the conditions are met to need to relocate the space during the course of construction or pre-construction activities that may need access to the area around the vehicle that is parked in that space. The appellant needs to write a letter to the City Manager requesting the space to be relocated. He thought the way it is written is appropriate and flexible enough so the city doesn’t need to monitor the progress of the Water District’s project if it were to be approved, but when the Water District knows it is about to commence on any of these qualifying activities it can submit the request the City Manager. He thought it strikes the right balance of addressing the project-related impacts on the space and giving the Water District control of the timing of when they would be ready to proceed to preconstruction or construction activities to ensure that the request is timely filed at that point in time.
Mayor Bigstyck reopened the public hearing to ask a question of the appellant.
Councilmember Bier stated in her question for the Water District that it appears to her that they have deliberately moved in the angled parking. She asked if General Manager Carr can explain why and how far and what does that do to the sidewalk.
General Manager Carr stated that the end of the vehicle would align with the same kind of side door of the vehicle in a parallel space and that is the distance that they moved the sidewalk in.
Councilmember Boles stated that the back edge of the car is, whether they are parallel parked or angled park, it is the same line up and down.
General Manager Carr agreed, stating that the back of the car wouldn’t be sticking out any further than a car that was parallel parked would be sticking out.
Councilmember Bier asked if it gives it more room when it backs out.
General Manager Carr agreed, stating that giving it a more generous length than required would most likely be further off the street than the other cars that are parallel parked.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus referred to her concern earlier about the sidewalk.
General Manager Carr stated that the sidewalks are the pinch point at each corner of the diagonal parking and would be 4.5-feet wide and the current sidewalk is 6-feet wide in that location and would be pinched down just at the corner where that spot is located. The mandated width for a sidewalk would be 4-feet and 3-feet is the pinch point for an accessible wheelchair. She stated that, at the corners, they are going to get a lot more pedestrian space because they have those bulb outs and it will be really friendly at the intersection and they make it a lot safer for pedestrians. She is sure people in a wheelchair would appreciate the larger places to get across the street and is something that doesn’t currently occur at that intersection.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if you don’t think about the bulb outs, especially the one by City Council Regular Meeting 27 August 14, 2023
the entry, she was looking at exactly how the cars lay out. She asked if they approve the angled parking today and it became an issue, it seems like it would be fairly easy to convert back to parallel parking. She didn’t know, from a legal point of view and project approval, thought of it physically and architecturally.
General Manager Carr didn’t think it would be precluded.
Mayor Bigstyck closed the public hearing, and asked if any further staff questions or deliberation. He had a question about reverting it to parallel spots if they find there is an issue.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if he means whether or not the city could revert it.
Councilmember Boles clarified the question about process.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the city would have no control over that and if the discretionary permit were approved at this meeting and they allowed angled parking, the only way that condition would be changed is if the applicant unilaterally voluntarily came in to change it. The city would have no control over whether or not it would be modified at a future date.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, if there are no further questions for staff, they can feel free to go on to deliberation. He stated that Councilmember Bier suggested they go item by item.
Councilmember Bier began with No. 11. She thought what they are talking about here is not just moving a vehicle but moving a person who is in one of our safe parking spots that we are responsible for. She stated that the Water District has been great at considering various places, and she appreciated all their ideas and willingness to do that. She feels it is very important that, in order to make sure that they are taking care of this person who is our responsibility, we work together as a team. Whatever the language is that needs to be included in this condition, she would love to hear what her colleagues have to say about it. She feels they have worked incredibly hard to create a partnership with the Water District and she thinks all of the things that created all of this issue gave them an opportunity to have a relationship with them that they never had before, and she is very grateful for that.
Mayor Bigstyck noted that he has been engaging with her in that ad-hoc committee and he can share her perspective. He stated it seems that they have put into words in order to make happen ultimately the safety of someone who otherwise will be impacted by this construction.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed with Planning Director Murdock that it is clear and she doesn’t believe it is vague or ambiguous.
Councilmember Bier asked if they can discuss a more collaborative approach.
Councilmember Boles stated that it doesn’t seem to say that it’s the city’s responsibility to move the space and their contention is that they can’t move the space and the city has to do that.
Mayor Bigstyck asked the City Attorney if she would like to help clarify it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, normally, when talking about conditions of approval on a project by a developer, it is the developer’s responsibility to address all impacts associated with that project and this clearly is the only reason the city has to move that spot is because of the district’s construction or remodeling of the headquarters. This condition is drafted as it would City Council Regular Meeting 28 August 14, 2023
with any other project that came before the Council. If the Council chooses to treat this project differently than all others, for whatever reason, they can do that. It is normally not the responsibility of the city, but if the Council feels that it should be, then provide that direction.
The reason it’s not in there is because that is not the normal practice or the city’s responsibility to fulfill conditions of approval but is the responsibility of the applicant.
Councilmember Boles understands for more construction related things, but they would not have the ability to move the space on their own without Council saying it was okay.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that is what the condition of approval says is that Council will say it is okay and the mechanism by which they will have the opportunity to say it is okay is the letter they are asking them to write when the time is right.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the condition as it’s written provides flexibility. Either party could end up accomplishing the relocation, but it does need to start with the request by the Water District to the City Manager so that the timing and need for the relocation is clear and known. As City Manager Woodhouse mentioned, the city staff is very much supportive of this project. As they would with any other public agency, they will do everything they reasonably can to make their project successful when they get to this point in terms of a need to relocate this space. As the City Attorney mentioned, in the first instance the burden is on the applicant for the development project that is causing the impact, and from there the city can work with the applicant to result in the best outcome for the relocation.
Councilmember Bier asked if they can add that language.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they have been working with the District cooperatively to resolve this. In those discussions, she would say that both the district and the city have made it clear that the responsibility to move it is not entirely with the district. Her suggestion is, if Council wants to have the responsibility to move this vehicle, they can put that language in there and there is nothing preventing them from doing that, but to talk about how they are going to work together, that is not appropriate unless they have vague language. They could have some vague language that would say that the city will work with the district to determine how best to relocate. As the Planning Director says, this condition is flexible to allow that. They have been working cooperatively with the district in separate discussions. They could put more language in there that says the city will work with the district in relocating this spot. She stated that, if that satisfies Council, they can add that to the condition.
Councilmember Bier stated that, because our community isn’t understanding how much we have been working with the Water District, it does not appear that has been happening. She also wants our community to understand how hard they have been working to work with them.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, for her, the most salient reasoning that made a lot of sense to her about why the letter needs to come from NCCWD was made by Planning Director Murdock when he stated that it would be removing what would otherwise be a requirement of the city to track the project timeline, to know and make a decision about when is the exact right time to do this. That is the basis for writing the letter of request. She stated that was the justification for why this is necessary. She stated that they can amend it, but allowing it to stay is her position, whether amended or not.
Councilmember Boles agreed that a letter is necessary so they know the schedule and they are very optimistic about their building permits but things can take a lot longer and they don’t want City Council Regular Meeting 29 August 14, 2023
to move someone until they have to as it is an expense and disruption. She wondered if it would be possible to clarify the exact objection to the condition of approval.
Mayor Bigstyck felt they had the opportunity to hear what the objection was and he thought what he heard was they were asking for clarity. He is of a similar mind with Councilmember Beckmeyer and would vote to deny that part of the appeal. If there is more confusion, he can reopen the public hearing to try and alleviate it.
Councilmember Bier stated that the letter is fine, but she asked how they can address NCCWD’s concern about having power to move the space.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he hears the Water District’s concern but he believes they are suggesting the mechanism by which they are empowering the process of moving that space, which begins with a letter from the Water District and ends with the approval of City Manager.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus wondered about the relationship between the angled parking and the Temporary Safe Parking Program.
Mayor Bigstyck suggested that gauging intentions may not be helpful for Council’s deliberative process. He stated that so far, Councilmember Beckmeyer and he are coming to the conclusion that it is worth denying that particular basis of appeal because, after addressing the concern they heard from them tonight that there was confusion over the wording, they think that it makes sense to Council at this point.
Councilmember Bier stated that the City Attorney did say that there was a possibility of adding some language if others were agreeable to that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer proposed adding a few words to clarify the actions: “Applicant shall submit a request to the City Manager’s office for the city to work with the district to relocate the TSPP space to another location deemed suitable in the City Manager’s sole discretion.” City Manager Woodhouse stated that her proposed language is fine.
City Attorney Kenyon thought that language is fine and provides more clarity.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m., seconded by Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus.
MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Mayor Bigstyck stated that this brings them to No. 12, the angled parking. He is trying to understand in a clear way whether he thinks diagonal parking is safe because he cares and it weighs heavily on him. He stated that limited visibility is the simple version. They have clear General Plan policy that suggests that we are trying to have bicycles go down that road. What concerns his sensibility is that he hasn’t heard a compelling argument that our safety concerns from the city level are to be easily disregarded.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 August 14, 2023
Councilmember Boles stated this is the hardest one for her, and she didn’t think she got enough data from either side. She stated, on reading that Oregon study, she didn’t think there was a difference between the safety between the two but just a little more unsafe because there is more people and it has nothing to do with the safety of the spaces themselves. She stated, in terms of the beautification, she appreciates the bulb outs and the landscaping, etc., that came with the angled parking scheme. They talked about adding separate bike lanes and the possibility on that block where they have a little bit more width, but if they pull up a map of all of Francisco, as they head further north, they don’t have that extra width and maybe Public Works can comment on that.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that it would take some time to figure out where exactly the roadway is in this location once they are northbound of Paloma. He believes, if Caltrans were in this area, they would have to seek approval in order to continue to extend that and get some public access.
Councilmember Boles is looking at the north part of Francisco, right before Paloma, and didn’t think there is room for separate bike lanes there.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they would need time to look at the dimensions there but the right of way on Francisco is consistent at 50 feet. If it is in the center line, they will have 50 feet on both sides.
Councilmember Boles thought the property line in the right of way may be the same, but the bridge guardrail restricts the width.
Councilmember Bier stated this is the hardest one. She sits on City and County Association of Government Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), and the data that she saw wasn’t enough for her to really see how dangerous it is. She stated that, when it does come to future funding, all the scores and the points for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), you lose points for places that aren’t as safe. She stated that there would be a concern that, in the future, we could lose points on grant applications. She stated that future funding for a priority development area could be affected by that, but when she looks at the renderings, she feels that there was space that was created to make more room to pull out. She stated that she was leaning towards being in favor of the angled parking.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus agreed that, on the renderings, it looked like the people had the same amount of space to back up as you would if you paralleled parked. She agrees with Sue Digre that she has issues with the angled parking. She is concerned about safety and furthermore apologized for her earlier comment. She stated that it was not in the sense of cooperation.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she likes the look of the angled parking. She struggled because she didn’t feel that she had enough to go on. She referred to Councilmember Boles’ point about the frequency of the number in the Oregon study which makes sense to her. She favors angled parking. She also has a question for the City Attorney regarding the language in the resolution.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the Council doesn’t need to worry about that, just how they want to rule on the specific appeal items. Once they rule on the items, they will take a break and she will work with the Planning Director to see what kind of revisions need to be made to the resolutions. Until they know exactly where Council is going on all of these issues, they can City Council Regular Meeting 31 August 14, 2023
deal with the resolution language later. She stated the first task they are doing now is giving them a straw vote on how they are going on each one of the appeal items.
PW Dep. Director Yip referred to Councilmember Boles’ question about the bike lanes on Francisco. He stated that, in this scenario, they would remove the parking in order to get a dedicated class 2 lane in there.
Councilmember Boles stated that parking is really well-used on that corner at Paloma and Francisco. She asked if that was in the coastal zone.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it has a potential to implicate a Coastal Development permit requirement but does not mean the city couldn’t approve it, but it may be more complex than areas outside of the coastal zone.
Councilmember asked if PW Dep. Director Yip was saying that they would not do a sharrow on this street.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they would not be able to just because of the traffic speeds there and the sharrows are more appropriate for 25 mph, but there are speeds are approaching 40-44 mph potentially on Francisco.
Councilmember Boles stated that leads her to believe this would be a much more expensive and complicated approval process to put any bike lanes on the street.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated he is in agreement with Councilmember Bier that the grant opportunities here would be impacted, potentially not being able to do projects without the bike lane. The bike lane types of projects are the most abundant out there; they could potentially get grants to do this project, and they have been able to get grants for their Sharp Park Resurfacing Project and Sharp Park Pedestrian Improvement Project after they were designated as a PDA.
Mayor Bigstyck had a clarifying question. He stated that, one of the data points they have is the reported and they are about the speed limit. He asked, at what point on the road, the Francisco frontage of the Water District building, was the speed recorded.
PW Dep. Director Yip assumed that it is near Brighton and Francisco as that is where they were trying to use the warrants for a stop sign and they needed that speed for a line-of-sight distance.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they have a nod from the Water District Manager suggesting it was at Brighton and Francisco.
Councilmember Boles stated that the bike lane is leading her to say okay to the angled parking.
Mayor Bigstyck stated, what they are understanding is that, with or without the angled parking, it would be a really hard to put a bike lane of any kind there. He counted three in support of the angled parking and two who are having difficulty but have not clearly made a statement.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to clarify the line of discussion on this last question.
Councilmember Boles stated that PW Dep. Director Yip was saying that a sharrow lane that the bike would share the traffic lane was not acceptable there because of the speeds and there isn’t room at that lot by Paloma without taking out parking. There is not another way to put bikes.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck stated he was trying to clarify it. His understanding is that, as it is, with parallel parking, it is already fairly dangerous for bikes down that road and it would preclude ever developing a bike lane there. He stated that it is still the question that he can’t see the car coming toward him, but, on the other hand, that is where the conversation about arterials and collectors, as our traffic study clearly shows that we’re going too fast and the damage going to be done is not 25 mph damage.
Planning Director Murdock stated that several councilmembers referred to the beautification component that they perceive in relation to the angled parking configuration. Based on the renderings, a lot of that flush landscaping density is coming from those small square plantar areas in which the appellant has proposed to plant trees. He is not seeing anything that would preclude those planters to be there in essentially that configuration while retaining the sidewalk.
He stated that there is currently a planter area that runs in parallel to the Water District’s property in that location. The same landscaping effect could result from keeping that small planter area as proposed and the parallel parking spaces.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if he is saying that those planters there are proposed to be trees.
Planning Director Murdock confirmed, based on the proposed landscaping plan, and that is what he thinks is demonstrating the visual lushness of the landscaping as part of the beautification component. He thought that seems like a notable one that could be in either configuration without much difficulty.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if there is a COA necessitating that it be trees.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there is a landscaping plan proposed and based on the angled parking configuration. If the project were ultimately approved as approved by the Planning Commission where the parallel parking spaces would be there, the applicant would still need to put together a landscaping plan substantially consistent with this, meeting the minimum zoning landscaping requirements. He thought something substantially similar with multiple tree plantings would be there.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if there was a condition to the satisfaction of the Planning Director\.
Planning Director Murdock stated he would check as typically there is a final landscaping plan improvement or submission requirement. He thought it was condition approval No. 9.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, if they keep the angled parking, he would love to tweak it to make sure foliage doesn’t become an issue. He stated, if any suggestion to make sure that there is a bump or something for most average tires so the length of the car doesn’t go over the sidewalk would be helpful if that language is needed to do their best effort. He then referred to mention of final landscaping plan for approval by the Planning Director.
Planning Director Murdock asked him if his concern was about including language about maintenance relative to sidewalk accessibility.
Mayor Bigstyck responded affirmatively.
Planning Director Murdock could add language in the last sentence of condition No. 9.
City Council Regular Meeting 33 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked about directly putting what kind of landscaping is supposed to be there.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is within the Council ‘s purview to specify that as long as there is some relationship to a project component or impact.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that that would make it easier on everyone.
Planning Director Murdock asked for time to determine the language specific to the tree.
Mayor Bigstyck wanted to check with Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus regarding angled parking.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated she has shifted quite a bit from her original thoughts on it. The lack of being able to use it for bikes makes a big difference. She still thinks there is a safety issue with angled parking and the speeds people are going. She noted that she would agree with the third driveway as long as they have approval to move the bus.
Mayor Bigstyck agreed with her wholeheartedly as long as Caltrans signs off on it.
Planning Director Murdock stated, going into the Planning Commission’s staff report that was published, the main concern was the conflict between the new driveway and the SamTrans bus stop. SamTrans at that time had commented on their objection to the third driveway.
Subsequent to that comment, the day prior to the hearing, city staff met on the site with SamTrans staff, determined they were open to a relocation of the bus stop. That addresses staff’s significant concerns and, if all appropriate written approvals could be granted, including from Caltrans to relocate the stop, staff has no objection to that. They just ask that the city receive proof of that in written approval before construction of the third driveway.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they are conditioning the third driveway on Caltrans signing off on it.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is all public agency approvals, including Caltrans.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that the reason he jumped straight to Caltrans as they seem to be the main one to get the approval.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is in the CalTrans right-of-way. He stated that, to effectuate that, they would need to delete condition of approval No. 24. They would then need a new condition of approval No. 51 regarding written granted approvals: “Applicant shall demonstrate to the city in writing that all required approvals to relocate the bus stop have been granted prior to construction of the new third driveway on Clarendon Road.” Mayo Bigstyck stated, if Caltrans doesn’t sign off on it, if it would revert to two driveways.
Planning Director Murdock stated, as that condition is written, he believes it would. There may be other ways to design the project to provide a self-service recycled water access with the two existing driveways. The appellant noted that, at the Planning Commission hearing, they weren’t in favor of that and they hope that Caltrans will write the approval.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if they need to consider which direction the driveway goes.
Councilmember Boles stated she was going to ask, if the flow changed and Caltrans did not say they can move the bus stop, is the bus stop okay there. If it is, maybe the condition can just be City Council Regular Meeting 34 August 14, 2023
that they change the flow and they can move Caltrans and they get two more parking spaces, but it isn’t necessarily a part of the condition.
Mayor Bigstyck thought that was a good question.
Planning Director Murdock stated that reversing the travel flow was one of the options discussed at the Planning Commission to help address some of the concerns and was just one of several topics discussed.
PW Dep. Director Yip believes there is still a desire to have the third driveway regardless. The proposal to reverse the flow was to reverse it so they can have two driveways.
Councilmember Boles stated that she is asking for a third option, i.e., leave three driveways but reverse the flow. She asked about site line issues if the bus stop stayed with the flow reversed.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that the driveway would go east rather than west but would still be a third driveway.
Planning Director Murdock suggested additional language for condition No. 9 in the meanwhile:
“Specifically trees shall be installed along the Francisco Blvd. sidewalk to ensure disabled access is maintained” and condition would end “landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in healthful condition and replaced when necessary as determined by the Planning Director.”
Mayor Bigstyck approved and asked if they need to get those wheel bumps in front of the spaces and do they need a COA for that.
Planning Director Murdock didn’t know and would need the city engineer’s input on that. He doesn’t know what other potential right-of-way issues those could present if installed.
Councilmember Boles stated the repaving across the street was a condition of approval at her house and when they got to that point in the project, she met with Public Works and found out they were just about to repave Monterey and they didn’t make her do it. She stated that was why she kept asking when it might come up and it might still come up but it is a typical condition of approval.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that the Water District was suggesting that it might be a breach of agency to agency, given that the school district was a place they dropped the ball. On the other hand, it has a new road next to it and, at the end of the day, what sways him is that they aren’t asking the Water District what they don’t ask of ourselves as we do the remodel of our campus.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that there was a question about the wheel stops if they are needed or not. He believes they will still be needed regardless of how much they are going to push in, unless they provide so much space that is going to push in for them to know that, no matter what size vehicle is parked there, it will not overhang even with the wheel stop. They will have to do a calculation to see what that dimension would need to be in order for them to not need a wheel stop there, but he thought it would be significant.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if they are saying that they need a condition of approval to ensure that PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they will need to condition it.
City Council Regular Meeting 35 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that they will need a condition of approval.
PW Dep. Director Yip responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles asked if the condition can be that they work with him to find an acceptable solution in dimension.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed that they can.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that there is definitely a wheel stop and if they have a consensus.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there was one other minor revision needed to accommodate the third driveway and noted language for condition No. 26: “Applicant challenged all new driveway approach” would need to be modified to read as follows, “applicant shall install new driveway approach on all driveways (the three driveways on Clarendon Road) which must be ADA compliant with no more than 2% cross slope for width of at least 48 inches.
The transition from 2% out slope to the in slope on the driveways shall be sufficiently gradual to avoid vehicle bodying out where the vehicle undersized scraped the pavement at the grade breaks.”
Mayor Bigstyck asked why they are modifying the driveways that are already there.
Councilmember Boles added are they potentially compliant already.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated the current standards are going to require certain width behind the driveway apron and it doesn’t look that they are going to meet that with the current existing driveways now.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if there are particular laws they are following by necessitating that.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they would at least have to meet the minimum width for ADA path of travel behind the driveway so the driveway is not considered ADA and will have close to 15-18% slopes on it and the area behind it needs to be at least 3-feet, but in our standards we require more than that.
Mayor Bigstyck asked for the legal triggers that necessitate it.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated they would trigger that for the new driveway.
Planning Director Murdock thought the connection that staff identified when preparing the condition was the significant project on the site and trying to increase disabled accessibility through and around the project site. A lot has been said about ensuring access for their customers to the new modified building and improving accessibility with replacing those driveway approaches would expand accessibility in line with the city’s standard plan. He stated he didn’t know if we had a quantitative trigger to offer to them now.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that there is enough nexus that they can put the COA in.
Planning Director Murdock stated that was their opinion and they are making a readily achievable improvement there relative to the overall project to improve accessibility.
City Council Regular Meeting 36 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck stated he was okay with it.
Councilmember Boles stated, since they don’t know exactly what is there and are guessing a little bit with looking at pictures, etc., and instead of saying that they have to replace the two driveways, can they say work with Public Works to ensure they meet car standards and accessibility standards.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that works for him.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they have not discussed No. 32 which is the covering for the fuel station. He understands that there are state, county, local laws.
Councilmember Boles thinks they need to leave it in there because it is a requirement generally of building code and through the process there is possibly the opportunity of altering their current plan to reduce the coverage and then letting the Water District work it out through the building permit phase with the approval of Planning.
Mayor Bigstyck stated he suggested earlier making sure to put it clearly in No. 32 that that is what necessitates No. 32.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was what she was going to say.
Planning Director Murdock understood, adding that in relation to that, if Council wanted clarity, he would propose adding to the end: “Prior to final inspection, applicant shall install a cover for the fuel area, however, if the city engineer determined during building permit review that new and replaced impervious surface is less than 50% of exiting impervious surface, this condition shall not apply.”
Mayor Bigstyck asked if they have fully given direction at this point.
Councilmember Boles thought they were still waiting on the driveway site line answer if the bus is still there.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that, if the bus is still there, there will still be a site distance issue unless they reverse the flow of the traffic.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, either Caltrans approves or they reverse the flow of traffic, is what he is hearing.
Councilmember Boles stated that they were okay reversing the flow of traffic.
Mayor Bigstyck said that the one slight concern is the idea that if the bus stop remains, that is two parking spots that are not there.
Councilmember Boles stated that they all want the bus stop to move, but she doesn’t want them to lose their drive-through if the bus has to remain.
Mayor Bigstyck really likes that amenity and thinks it is brilliant.
Councilmember Boles thought she heard that the corner buildout needed to be amended.
City Council Regular Meeting 37 August 14, 2023
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that there is a concern with the bulb out also as it is preventing parking there. If they were to amend it and remove the bulb out, that means that parking returns to that location. He stated that, if they were to amend it and remove that bulb out, that parking space would potentially return and now a vehicle parked there is preventing some line of sight to the vehicles that are coming out.
Councilmember Boles asked if we would allow a parking space there so close to the corner.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that they would have to review.
Councilmember Boles thought it could be sorted out between staff and Caltrans.
Mayor Bigstyck understood that, once they give the fullness of their direction, staff will need a few moments to figure out the conditions and the findings.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she would like to go back over all of them to get clarity on exactly what Council is directing in terms of modifying conditions of approval. Once they get clarity, they will take a break and she can work with the Planning Director to determine what amendments need to be made to the resolutions and conditions of approval.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if he should go through and tell her to deny, modify, hold.
City Attorney Kenyon stated to go through the way they started, i.e., condition No. 11.
Mayor Bigstyck stated, for No. 11, they have to deny.
City Attorney Kenyon stated “deny” with added language to that condition of approval to state:
“Applicant shall submit a request to the City Manager’s office which requests that the city work with the applicant” and then go back to the other language “to relocate the TSPP space.” Mayor Bigstyck agreed.
Planning Director Murdock stated condition No. 9, the last sentence just preceding, they would add a new second to last sentence: “Specifically trees shall be installed along the Francisco Blvd. sidewalk to ensure disabled access is maintained” and the condition would conclude as written, “currently landscaping on the site shall be adequately maintained in healthful condition and replaced when necessary as determined by the Planning Director.” City Attorney Kenyon stated that sounds good.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, on No. 12, they are upholding the modifying.
Planning Director Murdock stated that condition currently required removal of angled parking from the plan set and they would simply delete that condition of approval.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it would be deleted entirely.
Mayor Bigstyck moved on to No. 21, and he stated just flatly denying 21. He stated No. 24 was the one that they were deleting and there is going to be a new condition on the back end.
Because they are deleting No. 24, they are also modifying No. 26 to make it for all three City Council Regular Meeting 38 August 14, 2023
driveways rather than just the new driveway.
Planning Director Murdock stated he has the language but he isn’t sure he completely grasped Councilmember Boles’ requested modification about working with the applicant.
Councilmember Boles thought, when he first read it, he said replace all the driveways and she wanted to leave room that they may not need replacing if they are found to be compliant.
Planning Director Murdock understood.
Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested to the satisfaction of the engineer.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if the only change to No. 26 is what Councilmember Boles is suggesting, which is applicant shall ensure that all driveways meet accessibility standards.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there are two parts. They need to update condition 26 to reflect that there are going to be three driveways, and he will read that first: “Applicant shall install new driveway approach on all driveways (the three driveways on Clarendon Road) which must be ADA compliant with no more than 2% cross slope or a width of at least 48 inches. The transition from 2% out slope to the in slope on the driveways shall be sufficiently gradual to avoid vehicles bottoming out where the vehicle underside scrape the pavement at the grade breaks.” They would add another sentence: “However, new driveway approaches shall not be required at the existing driveways if they meet ADA requirements as determined by the city engineer.”
Mayor Bigstyck noted changes to No. 32.
Planning Director Murdock added a new sentence after the conditions as it is written: “However, if the city engineer determined during building permit review that new and replaced impervious surface is less than 50% of existing impervious surface, this condition shall not apply.” Councilmember Beckmeyer thought he said there needed to be a new condition about outside agencies approving moving the bus stop.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there would be a new condition: “Applicant shall demonstrate to the city in writing that all required approvals to relocate the bus stop have been granted prior to construction of the new third driveway on Clarendon Road. In the event all required approvals cannot be obtained, applicant shall reverse the traffic flow in the recycled water filling area.” There was also a new condition of approval related the angled parking:
“Applicant shall install and maintain wheel stops at all angled parking spaces to the satisfaction of the city engineer.”
Mayor Bigstyck stated that is everything he had.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that now they need a break.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, before they take the break, he wanted to say that he is truly charmed by the efforts made by the Water District and the city. He thinks that they did due diligence listening to one another by the end of the day and that they made a good faith effort to ensure that all of their mutual concerns were addressed to the best of their individual capabilities. He stated that, before they take a recess, their last motion was to extend until City Council Regular Meeting 39 August 14, 2023
midnight and he didn’t know if they need help from staff as to whether or not our other items can be pushed off to a different meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he needs to check with Chief Sarasua about the police military equipment in case there are specific notification requirements but the meeting minutes item can be pushed to a later date and during the break he can check with her.
Mayor Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 AM; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 12:30 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Mayor Bigstyck called the break and then reconvened the meeting.
City Attorney Kenyon thanked them for their deliberation and clarity, and she and the Planning Director have worked and come up with some amendments. She will be reading the amendments to the general part of the resolutions and Planning Director Murdock will recite the actual changes to the conditions of approval which are in the resolution. She stated that this is all one motion that somebody will be making and the motion will just be as amended per staff and city attorney. With regard to the resolution, they will be amending the title slightly to say, “A resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica denying in part and upholding in part the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit” and the rest of the language stays the same. When they go to the second “be it further resolved,” they have all those bases for denial, they will be retaining basis 1, will be striking basis 2 in its entirety, retaining basis 3, eliminating basis 4, retaining basis 5, and adding an additional resolve clause: “Be it further resolved that the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby grants the appeal with regard to conditions of approval Nos. 12 and 24.” The remainder of that portion will stay until they hit the actual conditions of approval.
Planning Director Murdock stated the condition No. 9 is the first condition that would be modified by the City Council and they would add a second to last sentence: “Specifically trees shall be installed along the Francisco Blvd. sidewalk to ensure disabled access is maintained.” Condition of approval No. 11 would amend the sentence at the beginning: “Accordingly, prior to commencement of any construction activity on the project site or commencement of any preparatory work prior to construction activity that requires access to the physical location of the TSPP space located on Francisco Blvd., adjacent to the project site, applicant shall submit a request to the City Manager’s office for the city to work with the applicant to relocate the TSPP space to another location deemed suitable in the City Manager’s sole discretion.” The remainder of the condition would remain as drafted. Condition No. 12 will be deleted in its entirety. Condition No. 24 would be deleted. Condition No. 26 would be modified to read as follows: “Applicant shall install new driveway approaches on all driveways (the three driveways on Clarendon Road) which must be ADA compliant with no more than 2% cross slope for a width of at least 48 inches. The transition for 2% out slope to the in slope on the driveways shall be sufficiently gradual to avoid vehicles bottoming out where the vehicle’s undersides scrape the pavement at the grade breaks. However, new driveway approaches shall not be required at the existing driveways if they meet ADA requirements as determined by the City Engineer.” Condition No. 32 would be modified to add a new sentence: “However, if the City Engineer City Council Regular Meeting 40 August 14, 2023
determines during building permit review that new and replaced impervious surface is less than 50% of existing impervious surface, this condition shall not apply.” Then there would be a new condition of approval: “Applicant shall demonstrate to the city in writing that all required approvals to relocate the bus stop have been granted prior to construction of the new third driveway on Clarendon Road. In the event all required approvals cannot be obtained, applicant shall reverse the traffic flow in the recycled water filling area.” There would be a new condition of approval: “Applicant shall install and maintain wheel stops at all angled parking spaces to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.” There would be a new condition of approval: “Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall execute an agreement with the city to provide public access rights for the realigned sidewalk and angled parking spaces along Francisco Blvd. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney.” City Attorney Kenyon stated that the explanation for that is now they are actually moving the sidewalk onto district property so they need to continue to allow right-of-way access to the public in order to use the sidewalk.
Mayor Bigstyck thanked her for the explanation.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the motion would be as follows: “Move to deny the appeal in part and uphold the appeal in part which upholds Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-435-22, Permit for Site Development PSD-857-22, Use Permit UP130-22 and Parking Exception PE-194-22, and finding that North Coast County Water District, acting as lead agency, has determined the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A as amended, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution as amended.
Councilmember Bier so moved; seconded by Councilmember Boles.
AGENDA ITEM #22
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Mayor Bigstyck asked the City Attorney if they shall amend their agenda for the last two agenda items before they continue.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they don’t need a motion if they aren’t going to take any action unless they want to move it to a date certain which she understands from the City Manager that they don’t have a date.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they are going to do public comment and they will not be taking action on the consideration items at this meeting but they will have public comments, any Council comments and staff comment.
ADJOURN
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to acknowledge all that Rudy Mazzetti did in building Mazzetti's Bakery and what an impact it has on so many Pacificans, regarding birthdays, weddings, etc. She stated that the spirit he used to create that business will go on, and it is a tragic loss at a young age and their hearts go out to his family.
City Council Regular Meeting 41 August 14, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 12:29 a.m. in honor of Rudy Mazzetti.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 4 - 0; 8/28/2023
__________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor