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 Joint Study Session 1 October 16, 2023
SPECIAL MEETING for
JOINT STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION October 16, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on October 16, 2023 at 7:13 PM 7:00 PM - OPEN JOINT STUDY SESSION OF CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION Call to Order
Mayor Bigstyck called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Present
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor pro Tem Absent
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Remote
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call of City Council. She stated that Councilmember Bier is participating remotely pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 which allows remote participation for Just Cause.
Councilmember Bier confirmed she was requesting participation under the Just Cause provision.
City Clerk Coffey asked her to describe the circumstances relating to her need to appear remotely.
Councilmember Bier stated that it is due to a contagious illness that prevents in-person participation.
City Clerk Coffey added that, under AB2449, she was required to identify if any other individuals, 18 years or older, are present in the room at the remote location and identifying the general relationship.
City Council Joint Study Session 2 October 16, 2023
Councilmember Bier stated that no one was in the room with her.
City Clerk Coffey added that no vote is required due to her remote participation due to Just Cause and she is required to participate remotely through both audio and video technology and any vote at this meeting will be conducted by a roll call of Council and Planning Commission.
City Clerk Coffey added that Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus is absent. She then took a verbal roll call of the Planning Commission.
Planning Commissioners Present: Chair Samantha Hauser; Vice Chair David Leal; Commissioners Greg Wright, James Godwin, Alex Ferguson, Daniella Devine, and Lauren Berman.
Staff Present:Yulia Carter, Acting City Manager; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner; Tara Schiff, Economic Development Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bigstyck read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
CONSIDERATION
1. Continued joint study session of City Council and Planning Commission to consider and provide direction on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a presentation and provide direction regarding outstanding items on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan.
Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
Mayor Bigstyck was amazed at the amount of work that went into this. He asked Planning Director Murdock to introduce all the staff and consultants present who are working on the Housing Element.
Planning Director Murdock introduced Asst. City Attorney Karen Murphy, Acting City Manager Yulia Carter, Sr. Planner Brianne Harkousha, and Good City Co. consultants Sandy Council, Aaron Aknin, Carol Johnson, Sabina Mora, and Nicholas Hamilton (via Zoom).
Councilmember Boles stated she was trying to understand the map and all the different aspects and asked what the sites with white letters represent.
Planning Director Murdock thought it is used to distinguish the sites bolded with the black outline which are the designated lower income capacity sites. He stated that Consultant Council can expand on the explanation if necessary.
Consultant Sandy Council stated that was her understanding.
Planning Director Murdock stated he wasn’t clear that, if in all instances, only the lower income City Council Joint Study Session 3 October 16, 2023
sites have the white lettering. He stated that it is the bold outline of the parcel boundary that will indicate the legend of sites with lower income capacity.
Councilmember Boles anything not circled black would have white numbers, and those are not low income sites.
Planning Director Murdock thought that the black letters are sites with lower income designation.
Councilmember Boles referred to Site 33, the US Bank site. That is all above moderate and, if they build the 14 units, some of those would need to be affordable as part of their inclusionary ordinance and she asked if there is a reason why they aren’t including a few as lower income on that site.
Planning Director Murdock stated, for planning for our lower income levels in the RHNA, HCD discourages the use of below market rate inclusionary zoning and often, such as the case in the sites they have analyzed them in the sites list, are not suitable to be lower income sites in their entirety. They have to demonstrate sufficient capacity for lower income based on the various site parameters such as half acre minimum size, etc. They could pick up pieces that might ultimately count towards lower income housing that is approved and built, but for purposes of demonstrating accommodating the RHNA for planning purposes, they aren’t relying on those in the sites list and that reflects what she is saying.
Councilmember Boles thought they could ask for a certain percentage if a project comes through.
Consultant Council stated that the sites list is a study in the capacity and suitability for each income, but not dictating that will happen. She stated that they can think of it another way, i.e., every time any project comes in, you’re going to get a little low income and that adds to their buffer a little bit. For simplicity of calculating the three categories, you put one of each category for each site.
Planning Director Murdock added that they can count them towards their annual progress report and inclusionary zoning or BMR units that come out of the 15% required share. Those may, in some years, be many, if not most, of the below market rate or lower income units produced and they can count them toward their production and satisfaction of RHNA on the production and approval cycle.
Councilmember Boles referred to AB 2011 projects and asked if there are some in the pipeline but aren’t on their specific list, would the AB 2011 bonuses still apply even though they aren’t specifically listed.
Planning Director Murdock stated that a project that would otherwise qualify under AB 2011 can propose their project to construct pursuant to those allowances, i.e., up to 60 dwelling units per acre. They could count all of those units in their production figures each year in their report.
They are asking, for purposes of demonstrating the RHNA and complying with our obligations in passing HCD’s review, to do the rezoning now that would otherwise be assumed to the density of 60 dwelling units per acre under AB 2011 so they can satisfy HCD’s comment.
Councilmember Boles asked if they are rezoning any pipeline projects already in that area if need be.
City Council Joint Study Session 4 October 16, 2023
Planning Director Murdock stated that there are potentially other sites than were initially proposed that could qualify for AB 2011 but they also put them through the filter of the community values they heard in the planning process. They tried to pick AB 2011 sites that would correspond with the planning priorities that our community has provided to them. He stated that there could be other sites not on the list that could qualify for AB 2011, but they haven’t received any AB 2011 applications to date.
Councilmember Boles asked if AB 2011 has to back directly onto Highway 1.
Consultant Council stated the site needs to be on the street that qualifies which is fronting the roadway, which would either be the highway or some other major street.
Councilmember Boles asked, thinking of the area between Rockaway and Vallemar, about the projects they have already approved that are under construction, such as 801 Fassler. She asked if those units in that total 180 or do we have extra capacity we don’t know.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they aren’t included in the Housing Element, given that they have already counted them towards a prior Housing Element period in the annual report.
Councilmember Boles asked if there is an infrastructure issue.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they have accepted those as part of the baseline and to his knowledge the Sewer System Master Plan included all those previously approved pipeline type of projects in its estimations. The capacity they are referring to, to the best of his knowledge, acknowledges everything the city had approved or expected to be imminently approved through the 2021 date in the analysis of that report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was specifically looking at the RHNA capacity analysis and she asked if they can point her to an inventory of what is included in a specific pipeline.
Planning Director Murdock stated the simple answer is that they have the list but haven’t reproduced it publicly. That will go into the next updated draft released to the public.
Councilmember Beckmeyer understood.
Commissioner Devine referred to them saying that the sites along Highway 1 need to be at the frontage road and asked if that includes the setbacks in the design standards that the Planning Commission has established. She asked if, generally speaking, as projects get proposed for this corridor and they want to attempt to qualify, will their design standards be included in that qualification or be pushed to the side in the need to qualify.
Planning Director Murdock stated he would say, if you are interested in retaining as much control as you can, doing the rezoning they have proposed is the better way to do that. If a project qualifies under AB 2011, they will be able to avail themselves of the allowances of that state law and not necessarily be required to comply with all the lawful zoning provisions. He added that there are other hoops they need to jump through under AB 2011 that a developer, given both options, may choose to do the local process, in which case we would retain a greater amount of local control. The maximum amount of control that the city can reserve would be preserved by doing the proposed rezoning rather than an AB 2011 project if one were to qualify.
City Council Joint Study Session 5 October 16, 2023
Councilmember Bier asked if it was still possible to have a discussion about the Sea Bowl site, considering the public comments they received.
Mayor Bigstyck responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Wright would appreciate if staff could speak to how they addressed the community’s concern about traffic.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they are well aware of the traffic issues that are experienced on Highway 1 through the Fassler and Reina del Mar corridor, and that line of thinking would weigh in favor of trying to put all of the new Housing Element sites north of that location to try to minimize new vehicle trips through the central part of town that fairly will have the potential to contribute to increased congestion at some point in time. However, there are other requirements of the Housing Element process that make it impractical, if not impossible, to do that type of concentration, not least of which is our obligation to avoid over concentration of lower income units and to encourage opportunities to locate lower income and moderate income housing in areas of high opportunity, which include areas in the central and southern parts of our community. They would run afoul of other imperatives in state law and the HCD review process if they were to try to push all the units to the northern part of town which has some of the greatest indicators for disadvantaged, disabled residents in areas where additional housing opportunities for people in those communities are needed. They do not have the ability to move all the housing units north of Reina del Mar Avenue to avoid potential traffic concerns and the sites list they prepared reflects that balancing act.
Commissioner Wright stated that Planning Director Murdock had suggested that they were trying a different approach in a number of other considerations to resubmit, and he assumes that he did that with the help of the consultants. He asked if they have past experience in this new approach and is it typically successful.
Planning Director Murdock asked if he is referring to the 100% non-residential policy.
Commissioner Wright responded affirmatively.
Consultant Aaron Aknin stated that everything this round is a new experience with HCD because some of their comments changed as the rounds changed. In general, the more you can point to developments that have actually happened here in Pacifica, as well as in the north peninsula area, where there have been mixed use developments that have been approved, developed and are making money now and are out there from a market standpoint, the more successful you’ll be. He thought their approach, pointing to the fact that developments have happened and they are increasing density which increases the market incentive to build, will be a successful approach overall. Nonetheless, HCD could come back and want more information and data.
Commissioner Wright stated they were adding Site G and he was wondering what feedback they had from the owner of that property.
Planning Director Murdock thought he was referring to site G. That site is owned by the State of California. They have not had specific conversations with them about the site at this time, but there was direction given, including the governor’s executive orders, looking to maximize opportunities for housing development on excess state land. There is a precedent for having those kinds of conversations with the state and they will do if it ends up in the site list to push City Council Joint Study Session 6 October 16, 2023
forward on aligning a project to be undertaken.
Commissioner Wright stated thanked them for their tremendous amount of work.
Councilmember Boles asked about the work the Planning Commission had done on objective design standards, which would be incorporated as part of the Phase 1 rezoning. She asked when that happens.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there are a couple parts to the explanation: One, there was an attempt with some of the figures in Appendix F of the draft Housing Element to at least include some polygons around some of the sites to identify the subareas of the bigger parcels that are intended to be the Housing Element sites. They may have an opportunity to add more of those polygons to the initial draft Housing Element adoption. He stated, immediately following the Housing Element adoption, the Phase 1 rezoning is intended to incorporate the required rezoning to accommodate the RHNA. The theory in the process has been to try to front load six key objective development standards in that Phase 1 rezoning so at least there is a basic framework for development, were it to come in between that completion of the Phase 1 rezoning and the much longer extensive Phase 2 objective standards development process, which is going to take a year or more to work through in the type of detail needed to have a successful process. He did not think it is likely that they will get those six subjective development standards in the Housing Element adoption but they hopefully will be part of the Phase 1 rezoning. That is still a work in progress and the three meetings Planning Commission has had thus far have not completed that work, even for six basic objective development standards. They have heard all the good ideas they have but have not yet synthesized that as well as the realities of that input. Ultimately, they need to allow the density identified in the Housing Element sites list to be constructed. If heights are too low or setbacks are too substantial, it may be that they cannot clearly demonstrate that the sites can accommodate that density and they need to change those objective development standards.
Councilmember Boles referred to the question about percent commercial. Because they are not giving any numbers now, she asked if doing 100 square foot commercial would satisfy what they are asking for in the Housing Element they are submitting, until those objective design standards get further fleshed out.
Planning Director Murdock stated that could be the case. The interim period between Housing Element adoption and Phase 1 rezoning is a risk and unfortunately there is not a practical way to head that off.
Chair Hauser stated that all the sites on the Housing Element that are in the core got rezoned and she thought that the buffer sites on the Housing Element also got rezoned. She asked if that is incorrect.
Planning Director Murdock stated a significant share of the buffer sites also require rezoning.
Chair Hauser concluded that any site that is on the list, core or buffer, will get rezoned with the Phase 1 rezoning.
Planning Director Murdock stated that is mostly true, as there are very few sites that meet all the various criteria while also having the existing capacity. He stated that there are a few, but it is the great minority.
City Council Joint Study Session 7 October 16, 2023
Chair Hauser stated that answers her question.
Mayor Bigstyck thought they will go through one by one when they get to deliberation.
Commissioner Devine was noticing a lot of literature from other cities about local hiring policies and she asked if they will get into that later.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that, at this point, she didn’t believe there was anything in the Housing Element on local hire policies that would impact the sites and that may be an issue for further discussion.
Commissioner Devine stated that all the cities had one thing in common, i.e., the local hiring, and she thought it was relevant to this meeting.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it may be a relevant policy discussion, and he wanted to communicate that they have structured the study session to be policy direction on responses to HCD comments. Since local hiring was not in the previous draft, there is no comment from HCD on it. If there is a desire to have this policy discussion, he would ask to do it in a different study so they can prepare, analyze, and offer any options for Commission and Council.
Chair Hauser stated one of the items they were given at this time was a request from the community to add an additional site, but she asked if they were past the point where they can do that because the CEQA report is underway.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in response to HCD’s comments, they have had to pause the EIR process for the Phase 1 rezonings. There is an opportunity to add sites or modify the sites list, given the relatively meaningful changes that HCD asked for that would affect densities as well seeking confirmation from the decision makers about ongoing inclusion of certain sites.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked about a hard copy document provided to them.
City Clerk Coffey stated that the document was provided by one of the persons who submitted a yellow speaker card for public comment.
Commissioner Devine stated the document was related to her question on local hiring policy.
Commissioner Wright asked about the order of public comment on the agenda.
Mayor Bigstyck wanted to be sure questions were covered before he goes to public comment, to the satisfaction of the panel before they move on. Not seeing any questions, he opened public comments.
Kirk Miller, Pacifica, stated he is an architect, planner, project manager for Rockaway Highlands between Fassler and Reina del Mar. He thanked them for putting a portion of their site, No. 38, in the Housing Element and shared his thoughts on several sites.
Jaime Vasquez, Pacifica, stated he is a representative from the North County Carpenters, Local 217, and he shared his thoughts on implementation of labor standards in the Housing Element, hoping Pacifica will be on the same page with other cities.
City Council Joint Study Session 8 October 16, 2023
Ken Miles, Pacifica, shared his thoughts and concerns on several sites.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated our community is very active and vocal about everything, and shared her thoughts and concerns on the process for affordable housing.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated appreciated all the hard work on this, and shared his thoughts on the Housing Element issues in addition to thoughts on the need for hotels and their contribution to city income, as well as traffic issues.
Rob Connolly, Pacifica, stated he is representing Toll Brothers. He addressed his company’s pre-application to Pacifica for a residential project at the Sea Bowl site and requested they add the site back to the Housing Element.
Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments. He then referred to former Councilmember Digre’s points and asked that our community to send ideas to our representatives, State Senator Josh Becker and Assemblymember Marc Berman; both have expressed frustrations that they are having trouble with their colleagues in trying to find solutions that might be beneficial to us locally and they would welcome any suggestions that might help them further that conversation in Sacramento. He asked if there were any questions.
Chair Hauser referred to the commenter speaking about the Rockaway Highland project and asked if this is in the same sanitary sewer catchment area that they were looking at before.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Chair Hauser asked how many units are currently on Site 38.
Planning Director Murdock confirmed 61.
Chair Hauser asked if the request for an increase 119 units in the catchment area is counterproductive to what they talked about in light of policy B.3.9.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was probably best not to add more units to this catchment area for Housing Element purposes. If there was a strong desire to add a particular site, he thought the best thing from his perspective is to see if there is a corresponding site that could be removed or reduced in density. He stated that the last option would be to add it as a buffer surplus site so it is not a core RHNA site. He stated that the same swap thought process could apply to the core RHNA sites but they wouldn’t want to go over the 180 units they have analyzed for wastewater capacity in that catchment area at this time.
Chair Hauser asked, if they are rezoning all of them, what the practical reason was.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the first instance, it’s showing HCD where the sites are that have gone through the most rigorous analysis for accommodating the RHNA. If they had additional sites that don’t meet all the criteria, outside of infrastructure constraints, in terms of building age, site coverage, FAR, it is their perspective that they are not going to be held to the same standard in our analytical review for those sites with HCD as they will be for the core RHNA sites.
Chair Hauser concluded that functionally they are all rezoned.
City Council Joint Study Session 9 October 16, 2023
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating the outcome is going to be the same in terms of the rezoning process. For purposes of complying with the Housing Element requirements and HCD certification, they are putting more analytical effort into the core RHNA sites.
Councilmember Boles asked if he can confirm the ownership of sites 10 and 11.
Planning Director Murdock stated that both those sites are in private ownership.
Councilmember Boles concluded that none of them are likely to develop to all lower income.
Planning Director Murdock stated it was hard to say.
Councilmember Boles asked if sites 12, 34, and 35 were also in private ownership.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bigstyck stated, if no further questions, they can go through the items one by one.
Chair Hauser stated last time they had B.3.1 and B.3.2.B left and they had mostly discussed B.3.9. She thought B.3.2.C was the last one.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that their hope was to close out the program comment, and spend as much time as Council and Commission needs on sites. He confirmed the guidance of the two-part change in response, with the first part showing all the various mixed use sites that have developed. The minority of projects in recent past have been all commercial so they have a number of good examples from their perspective to show where mixed use development is actually occurring, even when 100% commercial projects would be allowable, supplementing that with the additional economic incentive given our market where residential is more valuable than commercial in most cases. He stated part 2 is ensuring the General Plan and zoning require mixed use, not simply allow it. He stated included in there is to refine those objective development standards and ensure the right amount of commercial in the right locations, trying to effectuate as much of that very detailed Planning Commission input they received so far while trying to balance achieving the density they need.
Mayor Bigstyck suggested that he and Chair Hauser scan for initial questions.
Councilmember Boles stated that, when he said clarify the zoning designations for mixed use will require commercial and residential, there is still a commercial requirement and people can’t go 100% residential in these sites.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they cannot in the revised proposal.
Commissioner Ferguson appreciated staff’s efforts on this as this was exactly the compromise and concession he was looking for.
Chair Hauser agreed and she feels that staff really listened and came up with a very creative and thoughtful way of doing that. She asked if the commercial specifications that the Planning Commission discussed would potentially be guiding these, pending the discussion Planning Director Murdock alluded to about needing to take all of Planning Commission’s feedback and analyze it.
City Council Joint Study Session 10 October 16, 2023
Planning Director Murdock agreed.
Chair Hauser thanked him.
Mayor Bigstyck echoed the sentiments of Chair Hauser and Commissioner Ferguson.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked the Planning Commissioners for their advice. She stated that the careful deliberation they undertake in meetings they have been involved in and the work they have done is much appreciated.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, on the next item, they do not need any specific policy questions answered as there are a lot of changes in response to HCD’s comments, improvements, refinements, incorporating input from the decision makers; it is a global question about the sites list and the types of sites. He stated that they can work through it or answer more questions about the specific changes or they can leave it as a placeholder and come back to it if some other more particular questions bring them back to this point.
Commissioner Wright sees 121 units giving them 2.8% of their low income housing and 1,505 units giving them 78%. He asked if that was about the same proportion.
Planning Director Murdock did not think so, and he thought they will get a lot more 100% lower income sites in the rezoning program at the densities that are needed for that.
Chair Hauser suggested they start with the easy ones and end with the one on the screen.
Mayor Bigstyck agreed.
Planning Director Murdock gave a brief recap on AB 2011.
Commissioner Ferguson asked if there are any they departed significantly from the 60 units per acre when they were doing objective design standards.
Chair Hauser stated that the 60 has not changed from what they reviewed.
Commissioner Ferguson understood the question and was wondering if, when they went through the sites, whether there were any they lowered from 60. If not, he sees no issue.
Planning Director Murdock stated Pacific Manor Shopping Center is one example, site 27; that is a site with a polygon, and very particular feedback was given about the interface along Palmetto Avenue and Bill Drake Way.
Commissioner Devine asked what the density was changed to or recommended for that site.
Planning Director Murdock did not recall a density change or number of unit recommendation change, but there was a suggestion to expand the polygon further south and to incorporate some corner commercial and questions about minimum commercial depth, that built-in interface with Palmetto, given the business of the street with children and pedestrians.
Commissioner Ferguson thought, if they allowed 60 units per acre, that does not pertain just to the polygon areas where they described but for the acres of the whole site.
City Council Joint Study Session 11 October 16, 2023
Chair Hauser stated it was just in the polygon. She stated, for clarification, everywhere that 60 is shown on the AB 2011 listed sites, 60 was shown on the sites that they reviewed in the polygons or outside where there were no polygons. She asked, if not mistaken, whether Planning Director Murdock was saying that there were conversations about objective design standards that were had that could potentially require reexamination as they may not allow us to achieve the 60.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there was a very small share of the overall sites where the Planning Commission said they were not sure about the density or number of units. He did not recall this being one of those sites.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if there was anyone who feels they should not go this route.
Chair Hauser thought they were all for this route. She stated Pacifica has a 35-foot height limit through most of the city so there is nowhere that 60 units will happen, not just on the highway, but in referring to Commissioner Devine’s comment about setbacks and development standards, she thought this is a better path forward.
Commissioner Devine agreed. After all the work that has been done to contribute to development standards, it would be a shame to have to completely let go of any sort of control in that nature and she was in favor of moving forward in this direction.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, from her point of view, she is hearing the work Planning Commission put in; thinking of the public comment about listening to our community, incorporating the needs of our community, in her view that is what the Planning Commissioners are doing to the very best of their ability in light of the constraints that have been placed upon us. She appreciated their hard work to do that and give us as much local control as possible.
Mayor Bigstyck agreed.
Planning Director Murdock referred to comment B.3.9, Rockaway Sewer Pump Station, and stated they made some progress to remove sites 26 and 36 from the list at the last study session. They have made progress with their wastewater team’s consultant and confirmed that they projected the I & I reductions from the sewer main replacements in Rockaway Beach and Vallemar neighborhoods would be sufficient to create that corresponding capacity for the 179 units specifically for the core RHNA sites in this location. He stated the question is if there are further modifications, any site switches or replacements or density changes that would be needed due to infrastructure capacity constraints or generally back to the earlier global sites list.
Councilmember Bier thought it was important to talk about the Sea Bowl site. After reading the public comments carefully, she feels that, on the night they talked about it, she did not think they had enough time for conversation. She thought, if they can have that conversation at this time, she would appreciate it as she has more information now than she did then.
Mayor Bigstyck thought that was the interest she expressed earlier and he thought now was the time to follow through on that interest.
Planning Director Murdock stated, before they proceed, they need to have a disclosure about a potential conflict of interest with Commissioner Devine.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if they need to have her declare what the conflict of interest is.
City Council Joint Study Session 12 October 16, 2023
Commissioner Devine stated she owns real property in Rockaway Beach neighborhood and is unable to participate in the discussion of the Sea Bowl site. Commissioner Devine left the room.
Councilmember Bier recognized the desire to zone it so there is some recreational value to the site, but she was concerned with the letters they received from the owner of the property and the attorneys for the Toll Brothers who wrote the second letter. She also wanted to hear from her colleagues what they think about that, such as what could they do outside of what the owner would like to do. She asked what they are trying to achieve specifically by taking it out.
Chair Hauser thought that when Planning Commission discussed this site at their first meeting, there were several main points of topic: they all felt that this was an appropriate place for housing if there was a similar amount of neighborhood serving commercial space preserved on the site, additionally supported by the city’s Kosmont study that identified this as an important place to help bolster and corroborate the economics of Pacifica. They also spoke about how this was one of the places of all the sites they reviewed that they could easily see height without disturbing a lot of people and they talked about 55-foot height limits and how it would be a great site for affordable housing. One thing seemed to become clear to her is that this is a great site for mixed use that includes housing and the city’s preservation of discretion is an important way to facilitate the best product type. She concurs with the idea that the property owner does not have to sell this to a rock climbing gym or another bowling alley, but there are plenty of residential developers that build residential development and commercial spaces. She thinks the city deserves something that caters to people who need lower income housing, people who need neighborhood serving indoor commercial spaces, and a place that really provides indoor neighborhood serving commercial to Pacificans.
Councilmember Bier understands that and admires Chair Hauser’s ability to be able to see in such a wide view, but her concern is what they can do in reality. She felt what she said was great but, after reading the public comments and the letters that came in, she was concerned that if they take it out of the Housing Element what could they do.
Commissioner Berman agreed with Chair Hauser’s summarization of their initial discussion on this site. When they had that discussion, she thought this was an appropriate site for housing and they discussed how they could apply as many objective standards to the site to help guide the development. She was wondering if that could be the solution or will they run around in a circle and not get anywhere. She is trying to define as much criteria for development on the site to ensure that they have that visitor serving commercial that they would like.
Commissioner Wright thinks Chair Hauser and former Chair Berman put it very well, as they were very much in complete agreement on this one particular site and they made a lot of compromises in terms of offering height in order to preserve that commercial space. He thinks what they decided in terms of setting up some guidelines is important.
Commissioner Berman stated, if this site were removed from the Housing Element, it doesn’t mean that there can’t be housing built on it. She wants to be sure that is understood by everyone. She thinks it is beneficial to have it in the Housing Element as it gives more incentive to develop here. This is one of the largest sites in our city and a good opportunity for mixed use development, but to be clear, if it isn’t in the Housing Element, there could still be housing built there.
Planning Director Murdock thought he should provide some background. He agrees with City Council Joint Study Session 13 October 16, 2023
Commissioner Berman, but that would require, under the normal land use planning process, a General Plan amendment and rezoning. The site in the current General Plan does not allow residential development. He stated that there are some caveats to this explanation that aren’t appropriate to get into more detail about at this time in terms of the particular application being submitted for the site. They could undercut or change some of the explanation but, under the normal process, the developer would need to make the application and convince the Council that a General Plan amendment and rezoning is appropriate and that could often occur through a conversation, discussion, or negotiation with the city to ensure they have structured a project that looks like it meets the community’s needs in an appropriate amount of housing and appropriate amount and type of commercial development. He stated that putting it in the Housing Element, similar to the AB 2011 discussion, would probably cause the city to lose some of that negotiating power or ability to influence with local control the ultimate outcome of the site.
He stated that they can’t control some of the provisions of state law that might bypass that local process but, if they are interested in setting up the best local control process for the site, leaving it out of the Housing Element probably is the best way for them to do that at this point in time until it is more clear about what the community’s, Council’s, and Planning Commission’s ultimate desires are for the site. He added that to put this in the Housing Element and commit to doing a rezoning and General Plan amendment that would allow housing now would just advance that process closer to them being able to get approval for a project at some point, possibly before they have the time to do the more particular Phase 2 objective standards development.
Councilmember Boles thought it doesn’t include any commercial now.
Planning Director Murdock stated that was his understanding, and depending on how you look at the site, one could argue that it would be mixed use, given that the Pacifica Brewery is there.
There are varying perspectives on that point, but the specific development proposal, to his knowledge, would not include commercial use so that is a policy decision ultimately for the Council and Planning Commission.
Councilmember Boles asked if the Pacifica Brewery is a separate parcel.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is, but he is saying that if they look at the functional site, one could argue that the Sea Bowl site has commercial use on it.
Councilmember Bier thanked Commissioner Berman as she appreciated how she explained that. She wants to make sure they are able to have relationships with these developers so when it does come time, they can actually talk about community benefits with them and that is not going to just be out of their control totally. She wanted to make sure they are creating an atmosphere where they can have a relationship with them.
Commissioner Berman agreed.
Councilmember Boles also agreed. The Sea Bowl building is probably going away with the development, and they have to recognize that. She agrees that this is a site zoned commercial recreation and it is an important need in our community. The more control they can keep to have those conversations and have a more important seat at the table would be important.
Commissioner Ferguson is struggling with the way that this is being framed. He thinks this is a site that is currently zoned for no residential and they spent a lot of time and did a lot of thoughtful deliberation on how to allow residential as a concession to this property owner and to achieve a goal. He stated that the project he has seen come from public comment doesn’t do City Council Joint Study Session 14 October 16, 2023
that much to advance our RHNA needs and it takes away all of the thoughtful discussion they did and it is contrary to what any constituent in Pacifica would want from them. He thought they have talked about a lot of concessions already and, for the question to have everything and no commercial, he doesn’t understand the purpose of what they did in allowing mixed use developments, saying they have to have commercial and residential. He stated that this is the exact case study they are talking about.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy wanted to add and confirm in the record that they aren’t considering any specific proposal here or any application, but the question is whether they want to add the site back to the Housing Element to include any residential component in there.
Commissioner Ferguson thought this site is in the area that feeds into the Rockaway Beach pump station and they were looking for areas to remove from the list in that area anyway. As a group, they decided that this was a good one to remove, given the number of units and the capacity issue.
Mayor Bigstyck thought the direction they have given largely comports with their understanding, the public understanding, and the economic study. He was swayed by the sentiments conveyed by the letters they received, but he doesn’t understand why the developer could not help them with the need of our community while simultaneously following through on their desire. He thought, given the scope of what the developer seems poised to accomplish, it seems like they should be able to accommodate all needs.
Commissioner Ferguson added that he saw no compromise in their proposal.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, as the City Attorney pointed out, the proposal is not something they are considering at this juncture.
Commissioner Godwin wanted to add his comments that he supports Commissioner Ferguson’s position that he doesn’t see any reason to re-discuss this issue at this point.
Councilmember Bier wanted to make it clear that she understands the community’s need for recreation and commercial space, but she also wanted to make sure that those who sent in their letters, i.e. owners of the Pacifica Brewery and property owners, were heard tonight as any other public comment would be. She appreciated the conversation.
Mayor Bigstyck thanked her for bringing the feedback to the floor.
Chair Hauser thought it would be great to see the sites in the catchment area again.
Mayor Bigstyck called a recess. Commissioner Berman exited the meeting at 9:06 pm.
Mayor Bigstyck reconvened the meeting.
Commissioner Devine returned to the meeting from recusal.
Chair Hauser wondered if this would be the appropriate time to speak about the Rockaway Highlands project and the surplus buffer sites on the list. She stated it was site 38. She added that they were able to come up with development standards for site 35, but not site 34. She stated that they were able to come up the Rock across the lane at Vallemar Station, and she thought their core conversation centered around how they would access this site without having City Council Joint Study Session 15 October 16, 2023
a safety issue.
Councilmember Boles asked if site 34 under multiple ownerships.
Planning Director Murdock thought the site is owned by one controlling property owner.
Councilmember Boles stated site 38 is not currently an HPD in the General Plan. She knows the General Plan was going to include other sites that were steeper, 30% or 35% slopes. She wondered if they have any information.
Chair Hauser stated, if they add this site, her assumption would be that Planning Director Murdock would ask the Planning Commission to come up with development standards, like the same six objective standards for any added sites.
Planning Director Murdock stated, time permitting, he agreed. They are contemplating a process where they take this feedback and prepare an updated draft and work that through the adoption process. It may be in conjunction with that process that they might be talking about that site.
Chair Hauser stated that the only reason she asked that question is because there were a couple of other sites close to Pavilion of Flowers that also had grading issues where they did look at height limits that were potentially more telescoping to comport more with the natural grading.
Councilmember Boles stated that, looking at what they provided, there were setbacks. She would want those standards to be looked at very carefully before committing.
Commissioner Ferguson asked, if someone was to propose a development that is currently two separate parcels but one of them is in the Housing Element and they were proposing combining them into one parcel, whether it would fall under the core RHNA sites or a separate hybrid. If there will be a site where part of the parcel is in a RHNA site and part of it is not, and if they are combined to create one application, will they fall under the RHNA guidelines and objective standards they have set up.
Mayor Bigstyck added, if they were to add these other parts, would that become a site 39 under surplus rather than an add-on to 38 core.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, in order to answer the question, if an application comes in that includes two different parcels, one that is a RHNA site and has specific zoning assigned to it and another parcel that has different zoning assigned to it, it would be analyzed based on the zoning of the various components of the project. She stated each component of the site would be analyzed separately with respect to the zoning all as part of one application. She stated that, if there are two portions of a site and one portion is core RHNA, it doesn’t become core RHNA but still retains its underlining zoning General Plan designation.
Planning Director Murdock circled back to Councilmember Boles’ point about the General Plan and areas proposed for Hillside Preservation District. He does not see site 38 extension as being proposed as one of the new HPD designations. He stated that the Council does not need it to be in the General Plan as such to add a site to the HPD, but it is not currently identified in the General Plan for that purpose. He then circled back to a point made earlier by Commissioner Berman, i.e., a site need not be in the Housing Element for housing to potentially City Council Joint Study Session 16 October 16, 2023
be constructed and it is all the more true with respect to site 38 adjunct or addition. That parcel is already designated low density residential in the General Plan and some amount of housing could already go there. It is unclear what the density would need to be increased to in order to potentially accommodate this project and if it is something Council and Commission are interested in entertaining at this point in time.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if this is in a catchment area.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is. He stated that, if there was a desire to add it, while his first preference is not to add more sites to the catchment area, the second preference would be swapping a site for another and the third would be adding it but as a buffer site only.
Chair Hauser stated, if they add this to surplus and replaced site 34, Vallemar Station site, and if they are sticking to the 180 units, they could also take off the Rock at site 35. She thinks that feels better to her, but she hasn’t analyzed it.
Councilmember Boles had an issue with the Rock site as well, as that is also recreation or visitor serving commercial. That is a great place for a restaurant and that could bring some money in, and she was open to that. She was also thinking that their drawing also has a possible building on the church property and she appreciated that they are talking to the church, and now that SB 4 has passed that allowed affordable housing on church property, that could also potentially be added into the fifth project.
Commissioner Devine didn’t know if it was possible to make those changes, but that feels better to her as well. She had a problem with site 34 as it seems completely unreasonable. She has voiced her frustration on this in the past, as it is a massive safety problem. She cannot visualize a development which would make sense there, but she understands the need to figure out a way to replace those units in some shape or form. She stated that, if it looks like extending site 38, that looks better with this turnaround and proposed conceptual site plan.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if it is possible to break it up into two sites, i.e., the other two parcels that aren’t currently included, and calling it site 39.
Planning Director Murdock believed it would be possible.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, if they are swapping out surplus for surplus, he would think that would be the easiest way to go about it (keep 38 as core and surplus as 39).
Commissioner Ferguson thought that was where they were going too, and it was his suggestion also, i.e., a new site and remove site 34.
Councilmember Boles thought anything there will need CEQA review.
Chair Hauser confirmed that all the sites on there, including any that they add, need CEQA.
Councilmember Boles asked if the units work out.
Commissioner Wright would like staff to address one potential concern of his in thinking about this. He understands they had concerns with the Vallemar Station, and the advantage of Sea Bowl is that there was a light there to control the flow of traffic, so it eliminated part of the traffic concern. He sees in the diagram that there is a nice deceleration lane for exiting the highway to City Council Joint Study Session 17 October 16, 2023
get into the unit but he had the same safety concern about how they are going to enter the highway, particularly at peak traffic times. He was wondering if staff’s opinion is that we could handle that in a safe way.
Planning Director Murdock wasn’t sure he could offer an opinion about that level of traffic design as this point. He stated that people access those sites to the south of Vallemar Station from the south. Access can be provided safely but the degree to which it might cause congestion or delay, he doesn’t know.
Commissioner Wright asked if he sees any noticeable difference between this site and the sites that they expressed concerns from a safety perspective.
Planning Director Murdock stated that his sense was that moving the site away from the intersection probably reduces some of the congestion and vehicle conflicts that might arise, but that is a preliminary, non-traffic engineer opinion. He thought pulling it away from that very busy congested intersection might be a benefit.
Commissioner Wright stated that, other than that, he was completely in concurrence with the rest of the consensus.
Chair Hauser thought the site has a bigger frontage and more acreage; the configuration of the property lines alone, without looking at the site plan, provides for a better opportunity than Vallemar Station. She asked if losing 10 units in the buffer would be okay.
Planning Director Murdock stated it was not clear that they will get a comparable number of units overall by swapping two sites for the one in question, but it does reduce the impact of removing one or both of those sites. He stated that, if they were to remove one and not two, that would be easier in terms of numbers, but they think they can probably make it work. They would yield 73 units if 60 units per acre were to be applied to this new site.
Vice Chair Leal stated his comment is around access to the sites 34 and 39. He stated that access will be tough and it will be something they have to consider for any project on any of these sites around Highway 1 and Fassler. He wanted them to consider access and challenging sites. He thinks Vallemar Station is better accessible than this site, but he would suggest removing site 34 and replacement of this for other considerations.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there was one other variation brought up by the public commenter: to consider the Lutheran Church site as well and perhaps a polygon for a subset of that giving them some additional acreage. The development concepts are already somewhat evolving in that way and it would minimize potential unit losses, even to the buffer units which are important. Having more area to work with and a broad guidance along that line would give them some additional units they could try to offset with that trade.
Chair Hauser stated, for clarification, she was including the church property in site 39 as well thus including all three parcels in the polygon, one being 38 and two being the new 39.
Planning Director Murdock understood.
Chair Hauser asked if they all agree with that change.
Councilmember Boles asked if that gives them enough units to take out both of those sites and City Council Joint Study Session 18 October 16, 2023
both of the other sites were all affordable units but the developer said that is not his intention.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they would need some more time to try to do that calculation. The site is big enough in terms acreage at the church site and even with half of that site, at the upper half, he thought they could probably get very close, if not equivalent, in the number of units and try to match the income levels as closely as possible.
Mayor Bigstyck wanted to point out that they are talking about surplus buffer sites. He was willing to go along with consensus assuming the lack of loss from staff’s side.
Chair Hauser asked what if they left site 35 to staff’s discretion and if they need it, then they could make that assertion.
Councilmember Boles suggested that reducing some of the units and leaving some commercial space.
Chair Hauser asked if the 32 units on site 35 is based on the current zoning.
Planning Director Murdock stated that site 35 is a unique site and there is zoning there that requires a public vote to rezone. They have assumed the site under the current zoning without a public vote and that is limited to the 21.8 units per acre. It is artificially lower density than they might otherwise contemplate for the site. He stated that very issue adds some complexity and, if they are adding another site where they could potentially make up those units, his first preference would be to try to find a way to remove site 35 just to simplify the access concerns, commercial preferences, etc., If they just come up short during their other calculations, maybe they would keep a nominal number of units on the site.
Mayor Bigstyck agreed to leave it at the direction of the director.
Chair Hauser asked if they adequately removed units from the pump station area.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the net number is the same and they would all be buffer sites and he thinks, analytically, they would be in a good position as well.
Chair Hauser asked if they have appropriately reached 180 units in the area.
Planning Director Murdock stated that is correct. If they leave site 38 alone without changing it, they would have sites 10, 11 and 38 as the core RHNA units with 179 total. They have analyzed capacity with the sewer main capital project and no need for any change there from staff’s perspective.
Commissioner Devine thinks it is a more than fair compromise and she thanked Kirk Miller.
Chair Hauser stated there were no changes to the core RHNA numbers (sites 10, 11 and 38).
Of the surplus buffer sites, site 12 is staying, site 34 is coming off, and site 35 will be at the discretion of Planning Director Murdock if they need it. They are adding two parcels behind and adjacent to site 38, and those will be the new site 39 in the surplus site list.
Councilmember Bier understood.
Planning Director Murdock stated that leaves them with the overall sites list topic. He stated City Council Joint Study Session 19 October 16, 2023
that, in the restructuring the prioritization of the sites of core RHNA versus buffer surplus, much thought has gone into that for various criteria that HCD applies to analyze the Housing Element sites inventory.
Councilmember Boles referred to site 23.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if they were talking about Sanchez Art Center.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she will need to recuse herself because she owns real property in the vicinity of site 23. Councilmember Beckmeyer left the room.
Councilmember Boles asked why they think it is best for it to be a buffer site instead of a core site. Sites that the city owns are easier and more likely to be developed for affordable housing and this is our biggest one.
Planning Director Murdock stated it does have some potential challenges to future redevelopment, in part trying to preserve an equivalent amount of community art space, integration with the sports field, etc. He thinks it may be best as a buffer site, but there is nothing clear and convincing as to why it should not be. He stated that, similar to one of the other sites (site 37), site 23 is zoned agriculture and would be on par with other discussion about farmworker housing and that would be the priority use for the site. To have different housing would require a vote of the people to rezone the site.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if developing site 23 would have to go to a vote of the people.
Planning Director Murdock stated not developing it but to rezone it to something other than agriculture, to have a housing type other than farmworker housing. Anything more than one unit would require that public vote.
Councilmember Boles thought there was a much greater need for affordable housing that is broader than farmworker housing. It would be her preference to have that available for more portions of the community.
Planning Director Murdock stated that would be an argument in favor of keeping it as a buffer site because of the potential voter approval constraint related to rezoning it to some other housing type. If they were inclined to consider it as a farmworker housing site, a transition to core RHNA might be more sensible; to think about a different housing type, we should keep it as a buffer site.
Mayor Bigstyck asked, if moved to a core site, would it have to go through SLA immediately.
Planning Director Murdock stated, with all the public sites that are indicated in the report, they are committing to a program to aggressively undertake the Surplus Land Act process.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if it was inclusive of buffer zone sites.
Planning Director Murdock stated we have a city owned site program that is irrespective of the core RHNA or buffer surplus.
Commissioner Ferguson was curious if developing it as deed-restricted farmworker housing would require any vote, even if the agricultural practices weren’t happening on site. As the land City Council Joint Study Session 20 October 16, 2023
is zoned agricultural, he asked if it includes some kind of housing for agricultural purposes, even if there are no agriculture happening on site.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that would not require a vote of the people. Any property zoned could be used for housing, but it would have to be used for farmworker housing. Her understanding is that there are two sites that have that constraint, one of the sites in the core RHNA and one included as a buffer.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the other one is an existing capacity site on that basis and associated with St. Peter Church.
Chair Hauser stated asked, if they go through an SLA process and get a developer that is going to do market rate housing at 25% below market rate which is the minimum, do they have to sell to them.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that it depends on what is put in the notice of availability in terms of what sort of project we want, assuming that HCD approves the form of notice. If there is a project that is proposed, they have to engage in good faith negotiations with the developer.
Chair Hauser asked, if they say they want 75% deed-restricted affordable farmworker housing and 25% above market rate with a ground floor community space, and then no one showed up for that except a market rate developer to do the 25%, that wouldn’t meet the criteria of the notice.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated one thing to keep in mind is that there are some exceptions to the Surplus Land Act for certain levels of affordability. If it really is intended for the city to work with the developer to develop an affordable housing complex, with that level of affordability, they may not need to go through the full notice of availability process. There are various exceptions that they would have to look at all on a case-by-case basis. She stated that, if no one responds to the notice, the city can develop outside of the SLA process but still with the deed restrictions.
Commissioner Wright asked, if that was the case, would it endanger our ability to maintain the art space, soccer field, etc.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that there are ways to protect that, such as through the form of the notice and what portion of the site would be available to develop. Those would all be things that the city would consider as we go through the process.
Commissioner Wright stated that the Planning Commission went through extensive work looking at that particular site, outlining exactly what it was that we would like to see.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy understood those are things we will need to consider as we go through the Surplus Land Act process. She added that we don’t need to include the entirety of the parcel and can be a portion of a parcel.
Chair Hauser thought the polygon was defined on this one. She referred to the original question from Councilmember Boles, which was do we want to keep it a buffer site or do we want to make this a core RHNA site.
Councilmember Boles stated, after hearing Planning Director Murdock talk about the vote of the people being required if we want something other than farmworker housing and that being City Council Joint Study Session 21 October 16, 2023
better as a buffer, that is where she would rather keep it.
Chair Hauser asked what happens if somebody buys or rents this unit as farmworker and then changes jobs, do they lose their housing.
Councilmember Boles added what is the definition of a farmworker.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, typically for affordable agreements, if someone’s income does go up, there is a certain period of time where you’re allowed to stay and there are terms that are negotiated in terms of affordable housing agreement but in certain circumstances, that would require someone to move into market rate housing.
Commissioner Ferguson thought farmworker housing is typically leased by the agricultural operation of the individual farmworker.
Planning Director Murdock stated he doesn’t have enough knowledge about the particular operational arrangements of farmworker housing at this point. One of the things that was directed at the Sept. 25 meeting was to engage with those regional partners that are familiar with farmworker housing and their needs and to figure out how that might be structured successfully if this or the other site were to be developed.
Consultant Mora stated that HCD’s requirements for the farmworker housing were that they have to analyze the need for farmworker housing in our community and, if there is a need, provide for programs or policies that support allowing that type of housing to develop in your community. With their initial assessment of farmworker housing needs in Pacifica, they used census data provided by 21 Elements. It is a very small, minimal need, and the initial approach to answer the question for HCD was to talk about farmworker housing in the same way they are talking about housing for extremely low income households and incentivizing and supporting extremely low income units. They would also be providing housing for farmworkers who are typically lower income. HCD’s comment to them was that we needed to strengthen policies or programs to allow for farmworker housing. One of the things they need to do is make sure that local zoning code conforms with regulations that define employee housing and farmworker housing in the code and make sure that these types of housings are allowed and not being constrained. She stated that they don’t necessarily need to define a specific site for farmworker housing. They just need to allow for the capacity of that type of housing that would meet that need to develop.
Commissioner Wright asked if she can shed some light on who counts as a farmworker.
Ms. Mora stated she would have to look into that.
Councilmember Boles thought ranches count, such as Shamrock.
Ms. Mora stated it is based on census data so it is not the most localized data. That is the standard all communities are using to analyze this specific population. HCD did not have an issue with the measure of the need, but more making sure that local zoning allows this type of housing to develop.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy thought these were really good questions and as they are implementing programs from the Housing Element they were all things that will be considered.
City Council Joint Study Session 22 October 16, 2023
Chair Hauser thought it would be interesting if they could broaden the definition of a farmworker to be more consistent with that extremely low income and figure out how to get the people who need the housing into the housing.
Councilmember Beckmeyer returned to the meeting from recusal.
Chair Hauser asked to speak about site A briefly, which is the church. She wanted to talk about this is because, even though the whole space is shown in the diagram, there was an image shown and that equates to potentially 23 homes on the site, which is 4 or 5 acres. Considering all of the opportunities happening with state law and religious sites, and the fact that when religious sites tend to redevelop housing, they usually draw a lower income level, she wondered if it would be a good idea to increase the polygon on this one to potentially include half the site or even the whole site, the latter of which she would be supportive of, with the thought that they can get some high-quality lower income housing there.
Planning Director Murdock stated, from the staff’s perspective, this site is different than the other two religious sites, the first being the St. Peter Church site that was already on the list and the potential addition of the Lutheran Church site. He stated that both of those are identified as potentially exist for areas of this site that are undeveloped and not in some other particular use to serve as the site. He stated that this site A is unique in that the entirety of the site is put to some intentional use at this time, either the church building or the parking lot. He stated that one concern he has is the realistic assumptions related to that if they say half the site or the building needed to be redeveloped. The other part of the response is that there would be nothing preventing them from saying that, if they are going to 0.9 acre share of the site, why not do the whole thing; seeking approval for that is part of a development process or availing themselves of some entitlement in state law as part of a religious site. He stated that those are his reactions, but they can explore the options for how to increase the polygon.
Chair Hauser asked if the site is still a buffer site.
Planning Director Murdock stated it is a core RHNA site.
Chair Hauser stated what she likes about the site is that it is off of Sharp Park and doesn’t have a traffic issue. It is in an area of Pacifica that doesn’t have a lot of other housing sites clustered around and is surrounded by housing on three sides which makes for good urban planning.
Consultant Council stated that she doesn’t know how utilized the parking is which is key when you’re trying to do both church and housing because on Sunday mornings, everyone needs parking. She stated that they have a ton of parking, and she would be inclined along her line of thinking of expanding the polygon so they get 50 units and make it a more feasible project.
Chair Hauser concurs with the idea that the site geometry and low unit count are probably not as attractive as 50 units with a better polygon.
Planning Director Murdock stated that another option aside from or in concert with changing the polygon is considering whether a higher density would be appropriate as well, as it is currently proposed at 30 units per acre; 40 to 60 would also fit in line with the overall Housing Element construct and may able to split the difference in those constraints.
Commissioner Godwin thought, if they try to combine anything with the property that the Latter Day Saints have an interest in, they will find them relatively unwilling to communicate with them City Council Joint Study Session 23 October 16, 2023
and it will be a quite difficult process of getting that combined with another parcel. He recommends they increase the density to the extent they are going to interact with that group and leave it as a unique interaction.
Councilmember Boles stated she was all for increasing the density to a project that might be able to get built, with this being a good place for affordable units.
Chair Hauser agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated she was proposing this as an addition to the numbers they have.
Commissioner Wright would be in favor of enlarging it and adding density to make it more likely to be developed and make it realistic to do multiple floor parking to accommodate multiple uses.
Planning Director Murdock clarified that they did take detailed note of the Planning Commission’s suggested revised polygon. It was an oversight that the polygon was not reflected here, but they do have one.
Commissioner Wright and Chair Hauser suggested the polygon include the whole lot.
Councilmember Boles asked if there was an access on Sharp Park Road directly.
Commissioner Ferguson stated no.
Councilmember Boles asked if it was on the south side.
Planning Director Murdock stated it was on the northeast side.
Councilmember Boles agreed with not confining them to a rectangle as they may not want the circulation going through their site.
Chair Hauser thought they may want to rebuild the church and provide housing to the people who work there or housing for their parishioners. She stated that it increases their property value and does not require them to build it.
Commissioner Wright asked if Planning Director Murdock would be opposed to the whole parcel and 60 units per acre.
Councilmember Boles stated going to 60 would mean a much taller building.
Chair Hauser stated she was comfortable with the whole parcel, but also staying closer to 40 is more consistent as it is surrounded by single family homes and on a hill.
Mayor Bigstyck thought he would probably be more comfortable with that also, but he would like to hear staff’s insight as to Commissioner Wright’s question.
Consultant Council stated that they would have to make the case that there is some basis that they would be willing to redevelop the actual church that’s there, and she thought that was farfetched, and she would be more comfortable taking a larger part of the parking lot. She stated that they have to tell HCD why they think that the Latter Day Saints are going to rebuild their church. While they might, she didn’t know what they would use to achieve that, as they City Council Joint Study Session 24 October 16, 2023
haven’t talked to them about it.
Mayor Bigstyck thought it would be easier to form a two-story parking structure on the lot which might facilitate building the housing that would facilitate their aims. He thought it was counterintuitive to pursue robustly the notion of trying to assign the entire lot.
Chair Hauser and Councilmember Boles discussed suggestions to the polygon, and Planning Director Murdock asked clarifying questions.
Consultant Council asked if they wanted to have a polygon or just leave it flexible and say one acre of the parking lot without defining the polygon.
Chair Hauser would say 2 to 2-1/2 acres of the parking lot based on what they just talked about.
She was flexible about the polygon.
Consultant Council stated it would be more flexible if they didn’t have a polygon, but she knows that they wanted polygons in other sites.
Chair Hauser thought the rationale for the polygons in other sites is because of mixed use. She stated that things that were of value were specifically left out of the polygon.
Consultant Council asked Planning Director Murdock about no polygon, just saying two acres.
Planning Director Murdock asked for a moment to do approximate measurements and better quantify the land area they are talking about with the polygon and get their direction on whether to include the polygon or assume that acreage of the overall site. He then stated that a polygon of the type described would be roughly 1.6 acres. They can either keep the polygon concept to show that full redevelopment of the site is not assumed, which might help their argument, at least to visualize that with HCD, or just say of the over four acre site, only 1.6 acres is assumed in calculating the site potential.
Chair Hauser thought that made sense. There was consensus.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the other point to discuss briefly is, if they are assuming
1.6 acres overall without a polygon, and if there is a desire to try to get to 50 units, he is figuring out what the density for that would be. There was some discussion earlier to try and get a 50- unit project there to increase chances for affordable housing, and 30 dwelling units per acre does not fit there.
Chair Hauser, Councilmembers Boles and Bier, and Mayor Bigstyck were in favor of 40 dwelling units per acre. There was consensus.
Chair Hauser asked if anyone had any other sites to discuss within B.3.1, the reorganization of housing sites.
Commissioner Ferguson thought they will be removing from this map site 36 and site 34.
Planning Director Murdock stated 36 was already removed, and site 34 and 35 removal was what was discussed at this meeting.
Commissioner Wright thought 35 was at Planning Director Murdock’s discretion.
City Council Joint Study Session 25 October 16, 2023
Planning Director Murdock agreed, if needed, with the priority to add the two sites peripheral to site 38.
Commissioner Wright stated that they have the sewer capacity to handle that.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that this adjustment would not change the overall core RHNA number of units, which they have confirmed that there would be sufficient sewer capacity to accommodate with incorporation of the Rockaway Beach and Vallemar sewer main replacements; the additions would be surplus buffer sites and would not be applicable to the core RHNA.
Chair Hauser asked Commissioner Ferguson if he was responding to the fact that the map that was shown tonight still has the Sea Bowl.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that they clarified and acknowledged in the staff report that they will remove it once all the guidance is confirmed this evening.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that, going back to the Rockaway sewer pump station, he asked if the pump station in Linda Mar pump up and over to the Rockaway pump station, which then feeds to the wastewater treatment plant. He stated that they are only looking at this area feeding into the Rockaway Pump Station but he thinks there is a reasonable chance that all of south Pacifica feeds through the Rockaway Pump Station as it is the last pump station in line for the treatment plant. He stated that they might have placed this polygon in error.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the wastewater division staff have provided the catchment area boundary for this Rockaway Beach pump station and they have not identified flows from Linda Mar pump station.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that it looks like there is a sewer line depicted on this passing through there, but it could be storm drain versus sanitary sewer and it’s not delineated.
Councilmember Boles agreed that the diagrams are a little confusing.
Chair Hauser stated that Planning Director Murdock mentioned for the B.3.9, Infrastructure Constraint, at the last meeting on the Sept. 25, they did not have that information about whether the 180 was an accurate number. She believes what they presented at this meeting was that in further conversation, 179 units, rounded up to 180, were appropriate and just in this area.
Planning Director Murdock confirmed the analysis was done by the city’s consultant. The capacity that would essentially be gained by reducing the I & I through the sewer main replacements would allow the 179 units to be added to the Rockaway Beach catchment area.
Mayor Bigstyck stated it almost looks to him that the forced main doesn’t need to go through the Rockaway Pump Station in order to keep going and it looks like what comes up from the Linda Mar and Anza Pump Stations over the hill could bypass for the force main. He asked if it looks like it needs to stop at the Rockaway Pump Station or to continue through.
Commissioner Ferguson stated his guess is that the capacity issue is in the gravity collection systems for these neighborhoods and not the force main.
City Council Joint Study Session 26 October 16, 2023
Chair Hauser asked if they should assume there is not a problem and ask staff to confirm.
Planning Director Murdock stated their wastewater staff have not identified flows from the Linda Mar Pump Station going northward to the plant to be a capacity constraint and they focused their analysis on the Rockaway Beach Pump Station catchment area.
Councilmember Boles added there are several I & I projects in the Linda Mar area in the works.
Mayor Bigstyck confirmed they are through with the sites.
Councilmember Boles asked staff to explain changes made to the diagram of sites 29 and 28.
Planning Director Murdock explained what they did is map the assessor parcel boundaries. In some cases, there is a different assessor parcel in the middle of the site. The proposed Housing Element site does not extend into that parcel and, to be more precise in terms of the assessor parcels in question, they removed it from the map.
Councilmember Boles asked if those were buildings or parking lots.
Chair Hauser stated it was a parking lot and this was her confusion on Sept. 25. The Fairmont Shopping Center and Linda Mar Shopping Center specifically have random APNs over just parking spaces. The polygon does not overlap with that APN and listing it as a Housing Element site is kind of misleading. The polygon makes more sense than the list.
Councilmember Boles asked why it was done for those two and not Manor.
Chair Hauser thought the difference for Manor was that the parking lot parcel was specifically encroached upon by the polygon and that was intentionally in there.
Councilmember Boles thought it would be nice to just show on the maps the part of the parcel that they are talking about, especially for the school sites.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. They are trying to strike a balance of being accurate, but also at the scales they are talking about, some of the parcels or sites would be so small they might not be evident on the map. He stated at this stage the contents and substance are important and they can continue to think about better or more accurate or more understandable ways to map as the Housing Element process evolves. For now, they are trying to be very clear about where the sites are and not spend too much time with the cartography side of this process because they know so much is in flux with sites but they can do their best to try to dial that in with a final map at some point.
Chair Hauser stated that one thing Planning Director Murdock and she talked a lot about was making sure that included as part of the Housing Element were this appendix which includes these polygons and the notes on the site map diagrams which state the housing sites are specific areas and shown in the appendix.
Planning Director Murdock confirmed.
Councilmember Boles thought that would be helpful.
Commissioner Wright would like to recognize staff and appreciate what they are doing to try City Council Joint Study Session 27 October 16, 2023
incorporate all their different ideas through this whole process. He is proud of our staff and how well they have done at handling this big list after many other big lifts.
Chair Hauser echoed that and thanked them for all the objective standards work they are synthesizing for them and all the research that went into it.
Councilmember Boles echoed that with all the work they are doing in parallel with all the projects, Local Coastal Plan, Quarry, etc. She stated that, if they feel there are things that are important, such as the objective design standards, and if they need a little more capacity and consultant fees, she hopes they come to them to ask for that.
Planning Director Murdock thanked her and appreciated that. He thought they are trying to trying to be systematic and programmatic regarding focus on the Housing Element. As much as they would like to try to front load more of that, even if they had unlimited money, he was not sure if they could do it while undertaking the Local Coastal Land Use Plan work, etc. He stated that what they are trying to do now with objective standards is to keep that limited number and get them into the city’s regulations as soon as possible as part of the Phase 1 rezoning program. The stop gap in between is getting these polygons into the Housing Element in the appendix. Each step they take, they are further refining and clarifying because they cannot do it all at once without other undesirable consequences.
Mayor Bigstyck stated it was extraordinary how much work has been done over the last several years. At any given moment in time, he feels the constraints between staff’s needs and community’s needs. He sees how staff come back with a solution. They have the output from staff waiting for them so they can work from that point rather than where they left off. He thought it was extraordinary to see that process at work. He thanked all of them as this is a team effort and he knows those in front of them are not the entirety of the team. He then asked if staff has the direction that they need.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they do, and he thanked them for the thoughtfulness at this time as well as on September 25.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
ADJOURN
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 10:31 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 11/13/2023
__________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor