CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 August 26, 2024
August 26, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Off-street parking is allowed by permit for attendance at official public meetings.
Vehicles parked without permits are subject to citation. You should obtain a permit from the rack in the lobby and place it on the dashboard of your vehicle in such a manner as is visible to law enforcement personnel.
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES DURING MEETING
Alternative Ways to Observe and Participate in the Meeting:
The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is in-person at the meeting location published in the meeting agenda. However, there are alternative ways to observe and participate:
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • Watch on TV on Comcast channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv
• Live Remote Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • OR Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | Webinar ID: 811 5615 8241 o Press * 9 to raise your hand to request to speak.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone #. • When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, raise your hand in Zoom. You will be called upon my screenname or last 4-digits of phone number if dialing in. Please mute any background sound and state your full name at the start of your comment.
Please note that Alternative platforms for participation are subject to underlying technology functionality and may be modified or interrupted at any time without notice. • Written Public Comments:
BEFORE THE MEETING: Written public comments may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected]. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Public Comment on Item Not on Agenda” in the Subject Line
• Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date will be provided in their entirety to the City Council and posted to the City’s website prior to the meeting but will not be read verbally at the meeting.
AT THE MEETING: Materials in writing provided at the meeting should provide seven (7) copies to provide for each Councilmember, City Clerk and City staff.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 26, 2024
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - National Preparedness Month - September 2024 B. Commendation - Chris Redfield
CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.
Public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on consent agenda items must relate to that specific item.
If comments do not relate to a specific agenda item, then City will provide you with an initial warning to stay on topic. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.
Items on the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion unless a Councilmember requests, before the vote on the motion, to have an item discussed. Time limit on comments is three minutes or less.
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the June 24, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
2. Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for Providing a Spare Rotating Assembly
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution that authorizes the City Manager to award and execute a Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for a sole source purchase of one spare rotating assembly in the amount of $180,500 for the centrifuge in connection with the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant biosolids handling process.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 26, 2024
3. Resolution Authorizing a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Freyer and Laureta, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $940,300 for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project. Approve budget authority in the amount of $1,081,345 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $141,045.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Approve a Resolution Authorizing a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Freyer and Laureta, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $940,300 for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project; Approve budget authority in the amount of $1,081,345 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $141,045; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
4. Notice of Completion for the FY 2023-24 Resurfacing Project PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the FY 2023-24 Resurfacing Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
5. Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project PROPOSED ACTION: Reject all bids for the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project.
6. Resolution Authorizing the Support and Submittal of Applications to the SMCTA Cycle 7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the support and submittal of applications to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Cycle 7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding for the Oceana Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
This portion of the Agenda is available for the public to address the City Council on any issue that is not on the Agenda. Any person wishing to address the Council shall be recognized by the Mayor during this time, provided, however, that only items not on the Agenda for that meeting may be addressed. Comments on non-agendized items must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. If comments do not address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City, the City will provide you with an initial warning to stay within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.
Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Public Comments on Items Not on the Posted Agenda. A maximum of three minutes will be allowed for any speaker.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Council Communications is for Councilmembers to inform each other of items of potential interest to other Councilmembers, such as interagency meetings.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 26, 2024
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Staff Communications is for the City Manager to offer announcements as appropriate.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
7. Short Term Rental Study Session
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive updates on the Short-Term Rental Program and provide direction on potential revisions to the City’s Short-Term Rental regulations.
ADJOURN
NOTICE: If you challenge a city's zoning, planning or other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Judicial review of any city administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period for litigation, in certain cases 30 days following the date of the final decision The City of Pacifica will provide assistance for disabled citizens upon at least 24 hours advance notice to the City Manager’s Office (650) 738-7301, or send request via email to:
[email protected] if you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary. All meeting rooms are accessible to the disabled.
The Pacifica Municipal Code is available online at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode);
HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:
Agendas are posted no later than Friday prior to the City Council meeting date, at the entrance to the City Hall location at 170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica.
View on the Internet:
Follow the link to Council agenda, at www.cityofpacifica.org E-mail subscription:
Send a request to Sarah Coffey, at [email protected] City Clerk’s Office/City Manager’s Office
City Hall, 170 Santa Maria Ave.
Council meetings:
Agendas are available at the City Council meeting
HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313 • Assembly Member Marc Berman, 721 Colorado Ave, Suite 101, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 324-0224 • Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, 698 Emerson Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 323-2984 • Senator Alex Padilla, B03 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 • Senator Laphonza Butler, SD-G10 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3841 • President Joseph R. Biden, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500 City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 26, 2024
CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Sue Vaterlaus, [email protected]
• Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mary Bier, [email protected]
• Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck, tbigstyck@ pacifica.gov • Councilmember Christine Boles, [email protected]
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/26/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to approve the minutes for the June 24, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
STAFF CONTACT:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Move to approve the minutes for the June 24, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting (Attachment A).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Within budgeted operational expenses.
ORIGINATED BY:
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 6
CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 June 24, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
June 24, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on June 24, 2024 at 5:08 PM 5:00 PM - STUDY SESSION
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present, and announced that the Council would meet in Study Session.
Short Term Rental Study Session
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive updates on the Short-term Rental Program and provide input on Short-term Rental provisions.
City Manager Woodhouse introduced the other team members on this study session: Yulia Carter (Asst. City Mgr.), Kavitha Kumar (Interim Community Dev. Dir.), Stefanie Cervantes (Acting Comm. Dev. Dep. Dir.), Brianne Harkousha (Sr. Planner), and Gwen White (Sr. Code Enforcement Officer), Alan Cohen (Asst. City Atty.), Maria Sarasua (Police Chief) and consultant Bret Harmon (HdL).
City Manager Woodhouse gave a brief introduction and then turned it over to staff.
Asst. City Manager Carter and Sr. Planner Harkousha completed the presentation.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he understood, prior to the Coastal Commission hearing on our ordinance, a permit could be issued for more than one unit, but during the Coastal Commission hearing staff said it was one unit per permit. He asked for clarification.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that staff researched the initial policy closely with HDL to clarify it and the data we are reporting today is one permit for one unit, which is how it has been from the start of the STR program.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that a cap of 150 permits means a cap of 150 units.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated he was correct. She clarified that, if you have a building of six units, each one of the units will have to have an STR permit.
City Manager Woodhouse added that part of the complexity is the three-fold aspect to the permit. He stated that you have to have a business license and those licenses are different; a multi-unit operator has one business license but multiple units, and thus, if operating STRs, they
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 2 June 24, 2024
have to have an STR permit for every unit which was a complicating factor in our early discovery phase.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that was why we revamped this whole workflow for the process and why the STR permit is the last step in the process; the unit must comply with all the requirements and then the STR permit is issued per unit.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we have a sense of the amount of transit occupancy tax for the coastal zone short-term rentals versus how much for the non-coastal short-term rentals.
Consultant Harmon stated that he will come back with that number.
Councilmember Boles referred to the slides that showed the economic and revenue being generated. She asked for an explanation of the 73% vacancy rate.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that this is an estimate of what average spending may be.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that what is meant is occupancy rate (not 37% occupancy, 73% vacancy). He stated that the hotels have performed through COVID-19 well and recovered very quickly after COVID-19 compared to other jurisdictions and that is a high occupancy rate for hotel systems.
Councilmember Boles asked if it is something HdL tracks as we know how many nights a particular unit is renting. She asked because there was an analysis done for San Francisco about vacancies mid-week vs. a person residing at the address and the associated tax revenue portion. She also asked if the sales tax amount on the slide was a real number.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is an assumption that we can project for the STR’s.
She stated this means people spend money here locally which contributes to the sales tax.
Consultant Harmon stated that, going back to the first question of the TOT difference between coastal and non-coastal, from the coastal side, we are estimating for this fiscal year about $781,000 and from the non-coastal, about $668,000, about $1.4 million in total. As far as whether or not tracking occupancy, HdL is able to drill down and look at a specific location and search prior history to see occupancy; however, it is something HdL gathers and tracks on a day-to-day basis by individual location, thus, not an aggregated summary, but one that can be accessed for specific locations as needed.
Councilmember Boles understood the transit occupancy tax and the business license tax. She understood that we raised the STR permit fees primarily to counter the cost of enforcement and she believed, in the budget, we are saying that this does not cover our cost of enforcement with an extra $40,000 or so extra to pay.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, when we adopted the budget, we had an estimate based on 150 units and our enforcement takes more depending on activity level; when we started covering all the costs of responses to gatherings, etc., and it was very likely that the cost is higher. She wanted to clarify that we put $240,000 in the budget and we collected more. The reason for that is back to the 60 properties that we closed; sometimes we issue the permit and then close the permit, hence a fluid process.
Councilmember Boles noted that, if the permit fees are mostly covering enforcement and the
1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 3 June 24, 2024
sales tax, we would be earning sales tax from people who live here and those may not be a fair addition to the revenue that we ae generating, if we look at what we are losing by potentially restricting them.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed. She also highlighted that, if we did not have this program in place and all the STRs were banned, that would not eliminate having STRs and having to enforce them anyway. She stated if all of them are illegal tomorrow, we still need to ensure that they are not there and that takes time and effort to do.
Councilmember Boles thought the enforcement process if someone does not have a permit is easier than that of trying to bring someone into compliance. She thought she read in the report that Airbnb collects TOTs directly but what happens with the other vendors.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we do get remittances on TOT from Airbnb directly and HdL helps us to track TOT liability for all the other platforms, like VRBO; when HdL quoted these numbers, we have a breakdown between what we get from Airbnb which is a majority of the revenues and additional revenues that HdL helped collect that we were missing before we engaged with HdL.
Councilmember Boles concluded people were not paying voluntarily through other platforms.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated no for other platforms. There was only a voluntary agreement with Airbnb.
Councilmember Bier asked if the units from the other platforms were included in this unit count.
Asst. City Manager Carter responded affirmatively, adding that it is comprehensive.
Councilmember Bier wanted to clarify that it was one unit per STR permit, but one person can have more than one permit, such as apartment buildings.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated yes, under the current stipulations.
Councilmember Boles asked how long is the oldest non-compliant one. She stated that the chart said more than 4 months and she has heard from some members of the public that there have been issues for over a year on certain units.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we issued 17 Notices of Violations in December and we are still working on some of them. For how long they were non-compliant before issuing the Notice of Violation, she would have to check with HdL. She clarified that we did not have a very strong process before but we do now; those notices went out in December and now we are doing them in batches. With those notices, we have 12 remaining properties we still need to address from legal perspective and then a new batch will come in and the process time resets itself. There is the notice of violation and some do comply and some do not comply and we go from this point.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if non-compliant means no license or STR permit or if the STR causing issues in the neighborhood.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated, for the purpose of this presentation, it is non-compliant from the tax perspective. That is why they are separated into different buckets, as code enforcement
1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 4 June 24, 2024
is a separate process.
Councilmember Boles asked about the process of revoking a permit.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the way we would handle that for any revocation of a permit, because it implicates vested rights and due process rights, we have to make sure our processes and due process procedures are handled correctly; staff would highlight the issue to the City Attorney’s Office, if the STR has violated a condition of approval or permit for any reason. If they have, we would go through a process of determining what is the violation and we would initially send them a Notice of Violation and warn them in the same manner we are warning them now but telling them that the implications are that we will revoke their permit. We would have to hold a formal hearing in order to determine whether or not a revocation proceeding has happened. It requires a formal discretionary hearing for the body to make that determination as to whether or not they have violated and it requires findings and hearings which is a detailed process that we need to follow if, in fact, it is proven that they have violated a term of the permit.
Councilmember Boles stated that it sounds complicated, lengthy, and expensive.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought that 60 have been revoked.
Councilmember Boles did not think we had revoked any.
City Manager Woodhouse stated what often happens in code enforcement proceedings in those violations is that they either leave the program voluntarily or they come into compliance, and that is a more cost-effective approach and typically how the philosophy of Pacifica has been regarding code enforcement matters that they seek compliance.
City Attorney Kenyon added to the question of how long have we been doing this enforcement.
She stated that we did not get into active enforcement until recently which is why Asst. City Attorney Alan Cohen is present because that is what he has been focusing on. The City Manager and staff requested the City Attorney’s Office to put together an enforcement program, and that has never been undertaken. She stated that we have found a lot of success in our active enforcement.
Asst. City Attorney Cohen stated that we started actively enforcing closer to the end of January 2024. The city issued Notices of Violation back in December 2023 and he was brought on towards the end of January to work together to come up with a more comprehensive enforcement scheme designed to persuade, through fines and penalties, etc., those not complying with the Short-Term Rental Ordinance to comply and there are additional options beyond that which could include litigation to mandate enforcement. He stated that we have seen over the course of the last few months some real success in getting a number of the shortterm rental properties who have not taken out permits to shut down.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that we have always enforced complaints and noise violations for the program and he thought it was before COVID-19 when we had a Notice of Violation and administrative hearing regarding an STR in Pedro Point and then it was appealed and they came into compliance, which was a long process. He stated that we have a more aggressive enforcement program and all the tax compliance. On the safety and public nuisance aspects, Police have been doing calls to noise complaints since the program began.
Asst. City Manager Carter added to the permit revocation question that the legal side of it is
1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 5 June 24, 2024
complex but, since we have a cap now, this process is annual. Once the cap is reached, any non-compliant property or problematic property will not get the permit next year. Once someone has the permit, it can be easily lost without going through revocation of the permit.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she will open public comments.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if anyone does not raise their hand now, they will not get to speak.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed, clarifying that we will give them five minutes to raise their hand and, after those 5 minutes, no additional raised hands will be permitted.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, in five minutes, if we have already given a time restriction, we will not be able to limit that time. She suggested telling people to raise their hands now if they intend to speak, and after they are raised, she can make a determination as to how many minutes they have.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, based on the amount of public comment, to limit it to two minutes, and received a consensus from Council. She opened public comments.
Russell Jones, Pacifica, explained his personal flexibility situation which allows him and his husband to open their home for rentals when they are not home and it adds positive value to their property.
Connie Menefee, Pacifica, shared her negative experience with investors in a home in her culde-sac and her thoughts on this issue.
Leo Leon, Pacifica, shared his negative experience in his neighborhood and his concerns on our city going forward with this issue.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on the status of our city because of this issue.
Michael Kahn, Pacifica, shared his positive support of the recommendations of organization called “Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels” and his thoughts on ADUs.
Gary Furlong, Pacifica, shared his thoughts and concerns on this issue regarding status of neighborhoods with many STRs.
Greg Gahagan, Pacifica, shared his thoughts and concerns on STRs in our city.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, shared that he is associated with an STR and shared data on STRs.
Bob O’Donnell, Pacifica, shared his concerns on this issue because of the problem for neighbors.
Gary Chinca, Pacifica, stated he is against short-term rentals and shared his concerns and suggestions regarding this issue to help residents living near STRs.
Don Creasman, Pacifica, stated he is an Airbnb host and shared his thoughts on hosted and non-hosted issues.
1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 6 June 24, 2024
Jen Hansen, Pacifica, stated she has been collecting data and shared her information regarding STRs processes with hosted and unhosted homes.
Elda King, Pacifica, stated being an unhosted short term rental home and shared her thoughts on being connected with her neighbors in a positive way.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns for the STR issue suggesting stronger ordinances, etc.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, echoed all comments in favor of a robust STR ordinance amendment, and shared her thoughts and suggestions on this issue.
Michael Vernazza, Pacifica, thought he would say no to this issue, and shared a different approach on his thoughts on this issue.
Peter Garenani, Pacifica, requested Council not to limit their time in light of large attendance.
He then shared his thoughts and concerns on the cost of getting data on this issue.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, supported all the former commenters, and then shared his concerns on this issue and suggestion of looking at Half Moon Bay’s project.
Brian O’Flynn, Pacifica, stated he was in favor of the proposed STR program, and shared his thoughts and suggestions on this issue.
Carlos Carbajal, Pacifica, stated he helps with STRs, and shared his thoughts on this program and suggestions going forward.
Jeff Jones, Pacifica, stated he has an Airbnb next door to him, and he shared his concerns regarding safety issues.
Cheryl Greene, Pacifica, shared her concerns about the report stressing financial benefits instead of a working session to get things done.
Noah Suarez-Sikes, Los Angeles, stated he is an organizer of Better Neighbors LA and shared his thoughts on strengthening STRs in Pacifica.
Janeen Marquardt, Pacifica, shared her personal involvement of STRs to help her family financially and shared her thoughts on hosted homes going forward.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, supported all the comments, and shared his thoughts on the importance of determining hosted STRs and unhosted STRs and supports the Half Moon Bay ordinance.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on the commenters’ suggestions being a reasonable balance.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated there were two additional in-person commenters.
Kathleen McGuire, Pacifica, stated she supports those hosting the BnBs but not unhosted, and shared her thoughts on the issue.
Alex Vardalcostas, San Francisco, stated he feels for what residents have been going
1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 7 June 24, 2024
through and he shared that he has some Airbnbs and he shared his efforts to make it safe for close residents to their facility.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted clarification on what the Coastal Commission was asking for regarding stating Pacifica should have a moratorium.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that a moratorium would be a total ban while the city is in the process of considering a zoning change. She stated, regarding Council asking if we can impose a moratorium on STRs, we had not looked into it at that time and she could not give a definitive opinion other than, in general, there are a lot of findings that must be made in order to impose a moratorium. She did not do that research as it was determined that we would move forward with a cap, not a moratorium. She stated, if Council wants to research the ability to impose a moratorium, we would need to do more research in terms of legality and efficacy and then bring it back to Council.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought that would be helpful. She also asked for a reference from staff on the issue of ADUs versus junior ADUs and what our ordinance states.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the city ordinance currently prohibits STRs from operating from an ADU or a junior ADU which was done in an effort to preserve that type of housing for long-term housing.
Councilmember Bigstyck wanted to talk about what we want to implement. He stated, in response to one of the speakers, he finds it unconscionable when an outside operator owns a 6- unit apartment complex and is operating it as STRs. He has interest in housing stock being housing stock and, if one wishes to run a hotel, we have a Planning Department to facilitate them finding the land and building a hotel. He has substantial interest in defining what hosted versus unhosted means and he was in full support of hosted STRs with someone on site and watching over their property. He could agree to the 60-day cap on unhosted STRs. He stated, when he listened to the Coastal Commission deliberate on our 150-cap that the term one STR per natural person was recommended by the Coastal Commission and he has interest in following up on that term. He added having a primary residence a requirement. He stated that there have been suggestions coming in from the public about limitations on the number of guests per room, occupancy limit, number of vehicles, etc. and he did not know what increased fines and penalties could be but he was willing to explore it. He stated city staff recommended allowing the city to issue an administrative subpoena and recommended increased fines and penalties. He also mentioned a unique comment that said “all advertising must have a cityissued short-term rental registration number attached to it before they are capable of advertising in any fashion”. Those are what he thought were good ideas.
Councilmember Bier agreed with everything he said. She stated that she appreciates getting information on Pacifica broken up into different neighborhoods and it matters when we look at the data to see how many permits we have in each neighborhood, especially where there are multi-unit apartment buildings. She stated that the apartment she lived in for a long time is now an STR, as is the whole building. She does not think that is right or fair and multi-unit buildings should not be included in the STR ordinance. She stated that naturally affordable housing is going away and that bothers her. She completely supports hosted STRs with property owners.
She appreciates the person who spoke about going away with his partner and being able to rent his own property and she thinks we should limit guests per room and the amount of vehicles.
1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 8 June 24, 2024
She stated that “one STR per natural person” is important. She did not know if it was possible do retroactive work on any of this, but she was interested in learning more about that as well.
Councilmember Bigstyck has a question on that concern and asked if his understanding of the report that they re-up permits on an annual basis in October is correct.
Asst. City Manager Carter answered affirmatively, adding permits are reviewed every October together with a business license renewal process.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it occurred to him that in October everything takes effect and gives those who are operating something in lieu of a grace period to find their way on how they would like to dispense of their operations in accordance with our new ordinance and there is no grandfathering of anything except renewing applicable permits.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked for definitions from City Attorney on vested rights and due process. She thought vested rights and due process have extreme legal implications for the city and she needs to understand that better when the time is right.
Councilmember Boles agreed with what everyone said, and she read Half Moon Bay’s definition of hosted versus unhosted. She first read, “A short-term rental is a residential or mixed use property that contains a dwelling unit or habitable portion thereof that is offered to be rented for periods of 30 consecutive days or less. What is an unhosted STR? An unhosted STR is a shortterm rental where no resident is present in the rental. An unhosted short-term rental in Half Moon Bay shall be operated no more than 60 nights per calendar year within residential zoning districts. What is a hosted short-term rental? A hosted STR is a short-term rental where a resident, who is the operator and acting as a host, occupies one or more bedrooms in the dwelling unit while other areas of the unit are being rented for the purpose of transient overnight lodging. There are no limitations on the number of nights a hosted STR may be rented.” She agreed with that for the most part. She would love to rent her house out when she goes on vacation to make a little money to offset costs. She stated that, whether that counts as hosted or unhosted or a certain number of nights that can be unhosted, it is important to keep that in the ordinance. She wanted to talk about ADUs. She knows the city’s intention of not having ADUs is to keep those as rentals that are less expensive housing and she thinks that is a good intention, but she stated that we have no information about the number of ADUs being used that way. She would like staff to come back with some analysis of that.
Councilmember Bigstyck clarified that he wanted them retained as housing stock, not specifically as rentals, and many people with ADUs use it in order to have more family on premises than otherwise possible.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they used to be called in-law or granny units.
Councilmember Boles stated that every ADU she designed for her residential clients have been for extra space for their family and not a single one has been rented. She thought that is what we mostly find. She stated that we need inspection by a building official before we grant any permit to go to the place. She thought we have no idea now and are trusting what they put in their application.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer supports that.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has been in short-term rentals that are not code
1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 9 June 24, 2024
compliant, illegal, and dangerous for exiting, fire safety, etc. She stated that is protection for the people staying there. She has some comments about San Francisco. She sent some information on a lawsuit that she learned about, i.e., San Francisco was sued by Airbnb, partly because they wanted to put the numbers of the permit records on the website Airbnb was arguing privacy and not wanting to get the data; what changed midway is that San Francisco changed their ordinance a bit. She stated that the loophole they ended up getting them on was that Airbnb and others cannot collect their own fees on rentals that are illegal. She recalled that, if San Francisco caught them on collecting fees on an illegal STR, they could be fined $10,000. She stated that Airbnb cleaned up all the illegal STRs themselves. She stated that, if we can get the companies to do it themselves, that would be good.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she also had a question that centers around the issue of fees in general, and she does not know where Pacifica has authority to extend fees and what the limits are. She knows we have covered this point in the past with regard to fireworks, etc., and she does not know how much of the fees we can charge and levy against people and where the limitations are. She agreed with the principle of having the registration number included and whatever legal means we need to explore to make that happen.
Councilmember Boles stated that Half Moon Bay prohibits STRs in multi-unit buildings and that is something we should consider. She stated they also have a prohibition against STRs and low-income deed-restricted units. She stated that she would like to consider limiting the number of people in a house if in a residential zone and we could limit the cars, etc. She suggested limiting the time of visitors or a certain number of visitors, which some cities do. She thinks we are trying to ban parties and asked how we do that. She stated that there were emails sent that we have units rented by the hour in Pacifica.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated one staff suggestion was making it a 2-3 day minimum that someone is in the STR. He thought we could make it a one-day minimum at least.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought 2-3 days as a minimum as that prevents people from renting just to have parties.
Councilmember Boles asked the City Attorney about stopping hourly rentals now.
Asst. City Attorney Cohen stated that we would have to have a regular public meeting and go through the process of amending the ordinance.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested to the Mayor that, before we wrap up, we go through and list all the things.
Councilmember Boles stated there were comments about the permit fees and she knows we raised those fees to cover the enforcement, but she thought it was not fair that we are charging the same fee for people who are doing the right thing and those with violations. She wanted to be sure we are charging the people with violations separately for more money. She asked about process with noise complaints. If it is the same problem at the same Airbnb repeatedly, she asks if it starts over each time or is there some way we are contacting the owner with the problem and fining them; when she goes to Airbnb, there are strict rules and we do not know what the owners are telling the people who are renting and they can be very strict about communicating quiet hours, etc., as part of their rental contract. If we are not telling them that there has been a violation, because it is only going to the people staying there, that is being lost.
1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 10 June 24, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated one option in the staff report was as follows: “Due to a recent change in state law, cities can now establish increased fines and penalties for violations of the city’s STR ordinance where the infraction poses a threat to public health or safety at $1,500 for a first violation, $3,000 for a second violation, and $5,000 for each violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.”
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we can add quiet enjoyment to that.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought the attorneys can figure out well-being and peace of mind.
Councilmember Bier added, if we do not allow unhosted anymore, that might get rid of all that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that one other option could be to charge higher permit fees for unhosted versus hosted, and that addresses, to some extent, Councilmember Bole’s issue with regard to people who do not reside there and are using it as an STR, that they should pay more.
She stated that we have heard tonight that the enforcement aspect of the unhosted STRs seems to be more burdensome than those when they are hosted, and that is also an option.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to the Half Moon Bay model, and stated what is largely suggested is a 60-night cap for unhosted, but he wondered if, in a definition of hosted, it can be somebody who occupies residency for 305 days of the year or more. He stated that could define unhosted out of the equation.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, for the people who do not have quiet enjoyment of their own properties, they are entitled to their quiet enjoyment and she is sorry for everyone who lives near non-compliant STRs. She thought that, if a person has been reported to the police several times for noise, parties, trespassing, etc., she believed we need to remove their licenses. She stated that there are many that are good and do not cause these problems, and a few causing lots of problems, which is not fair. She added that 60 days is too short and she thought we should limit the number of cars and number of people per bedroom. She stated that people can get around the number of cars by going to the airport and renting a 32-passenger van and bringing 32 people in one car. She stated that has happened. She thought there are many individual circumstances not being taken into consideration by saying unhosted and hosted.
She referred to comments on the cost, such as $2 million, and stated that $2 million is huge to Pacifica and asked where we will find that $2 million. She stated that there are ordinances that say that Airbnbs can only be in non-residential areas and that is all we have here. She thinks 60 days is too short, and she thinks we should be allowed to have people who are nonoccupied. She asked who will monitor all this. She stated that there is so much involved in this and, on the real estate side, she stated that she still has personal property rights on a property she owns, to rent out her property, but not to disturb neighbors. She stated that there is so much involved in this and she does not think it can be taken lightly or done overnight. She stated that the fact it took them two years to get this far is a short time because we had to do a General Plan, Sharp Park Specific Plan, etc., that affects every person in this town. She stated that it is all important and we will get there and we care.
Councilmember Bier thanked her for speaking up as the mayor, and she asked if it was possible to require STR operators to enter data into a database to collect the data.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we can collect data but it is self-reported data.
Mayor Vaterlaus added that she owned an Airbnb in Arizona and her daughter managed the
1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 11 June 24, 2024
property. If anyone had a problem, they called her, and she asked if that was hosted or nonhosted. She described the benefits from the Airbnb that was unhosted.
Councilmember Bier stated that it was important to her that we are limiting the corporate entities coming in and having a whole bunch of different permits. If they can only have one permit for a person, that is going to eliminate a lot of those issues.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we can go through a process of reiterating the requirements we would like staff to bring back information about so we can make decisions on how the ordinance will be updated. She was hearing one permit per natural person as opposed to an unnatural corporation. She asked hosted or unhosted, and she asked about a limit on the number of days. She asked if we were okay for now at least unhosted with limits on the number of days and hosted with no limits on the number of days, as that is what is in the Half Moon Bay ordinance.
Councilmember Bier stated that it is also going to come down to the definition of how we are defining hosted and unhosted.
Mayor pro Beckmeyer stated she is hearing a limit on the number of people per bedroom which she thinks there are realty definitions.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated two people per bedroom plus one person is the minimum amount.
Councilmember Boles stated per legal bedroom and asked about people sleeping in family rooms and living rooms.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer confirmed the number of people per legal bedrooms. She added that we were talking about defining the number of vehicles and where they can be parked, as in garage or driveway.
Councilmember Bier referred to multi-unit buildings and stated she would like to eliminate multiunit buildings from being STRs.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he agrees with her but his one question is condominiums.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that those are individually owned so they are not multi-units.
Councilmember Bier clarified 3 or more units.
Councilmember Boles asked if a multiple unit building includes a 2-unit building.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated a duplex is a multi-unit building.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we are limiting it to one unit per owner, adding that a multifamily unit would only be able to use one.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there are many multi-unit buildings on the list.
Councilmember Boles stated that can be problematic.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it can or cannot be as some of them may never had any complaints
1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 12 June 24, 2024
against them.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated there are complaints and there is housing stock being bought up and flipped around for profit where a family could live there.
Councilmember Bier mentioned that if a single mother with her child wants to rent a house so her child can go to school in Pacifica, and that is an STR, they cannot do that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what we want to specifically say about multi-unit buildings.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she still has thoughts on the multi-unit buildings.
Councilmember Boles stated she has seen an option where someone limited it to one-unit in a multi-unit building.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, if a multi-unit building, but not talking about condos, he thought there should be a restriction of STRs there. He has issues if there are STRs in what would otherwise be a multi-family rental complex.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we do bit have to make the prescriptive policy direction at this time; identifying the question about multi-unit or not is good and we can research the permutations of that for a future Council discussion.
Councilmember Boles stated that someone mentioned that there were STR permits that were in process for buildings that are not built and are vacant lots and stated we should not be accepting those applications. She thought they should have to have something built before they can apply.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed with her. She referred to enforcement and permitting requirements. She does not understand how, if we know that we have four problem properties in town that account for half of the problems of the founded complaints to our PD, why they are still in business. She asked what is in our ordinance that lets them still be in business. She added she understands the process that HdL laid out, and she would like to know how to reduce that cycle time.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is 4 plus as it is four months to give us the information and how long does city staff take.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed it was too much and added that it gets into legal questions about due process and Notice of Violation, etc. She stated that there is something about giving people a chance to correct the error they have but she wants to understand if there is some way to limit in the ordinance itself. She stated that we can lay out very specific parameters that nullify their permit.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that staff can look into that and bring that back to Council.
Councilmember Boles stated that there was one good thing in their ordinance that was brought up at the Coastal Commission meeting which was that the property owner has to give permission; sometimes the tenant would apply for a short-term rental but they have to have the property owner’s permission.
1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 13 June 24, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, as renters do not own the property and are not taking responsibility for what happens in the property if they plan to rent out the property as Airbnb. She stated that renters are fine if they live there.
Councilmember Boles referenced the number of houses per neighborhood. She asked is it a percentage, and she stated that Beach Boulevard has so many just on one street.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought the biggest pass we made, identified around jurisdictional boundaries, is coastal zone versus not coastal zone. She asked if we need to bifurcate our ordinance so we can impose not coastal zone changes to our ordinance immediately even though whatever we propose and approve will need to be accepted by Coastal Commission.
City Attorney Kenyon believed what we would do, depending upon the amendment, is amend the ordinance and have a section that applied only in the non-coastal zone and as soon as that ordinance was effective, even if the coastal zone implications had not been certified, the provisions only related to non-coastal areas would go into effect as soon as we do it. She stated that the City Manager mentioned that generally Council does not need to state the specific policy language as her expectation is that, with Council’s general comments, if there is a consensus on Council to pursue that, staff will go back; if there is research that needs to be done, policy language that needs to be drafted, etc. staff can do it and give Council options.
She stated that Council should raise the issue and then tell staff what to explore and ask to bring it back with an amended ordinance.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that we want the community to understand that we are hearing them and these are the things Council wants to bring forward in changing and tightening up the ordinance. She asked if we talked about primary residence requirements. She is trying to understand it, but she thinks it means they cannot live out of the area and country and own the property that is being rented as an STR.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, when people mention primary residence, she assumes that they are wanting the person to reside in the unit for a certain period of time. She stated that we could put a requirement that they live full time so it would be hosted or impose a regulation that had temporary residential requirements, such as if you live there 300 days of the year, you could rent it out for 60 days. She stated that it depends on how we want to define “hosted”.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it include, before applying for an STR permit, the person has to be a resident in the property.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is required in order to apply for the permit.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively. She asked if we specified limiting the number of units operated per host.
Councilmember Boles stated one per natural person.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we can remove corporations. She stated that we cannot limit to whom the property is sold.
Asst. City Attorney Cohen stated we would need to research and come back to Council about whether we can make that legitimate constitutional distinction between a “natural person and a legal corporate entity”. He stated that he is dubious about whether we can make a distinction or
1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 14 June 24, 2024
not that decides a corporate entity has some rights versus a natural person.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she could be a single person and be incorporated.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought that is the reason why residency requirements come into play.
Councilmember Boles stated that maybe we do not need to say that. She stated that Half Moon Bay just says primary residence.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought it was a good opportunity to ask staff if all direction has been provided. He stated that he went to what specific policy direction Council is interested in exploring. He stated that there are two other questions.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there is also the grandfathering, such as are the people who have existing licenses allowed to remain.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought we have given direction to staff to look into that.
Councilmember Boles stated that, what staff was saying is that the permits are reviewed every year so, as the laws are changing, they would have to renew and comply with the law. She did not think we would be grandfathering if they did not meet any of these new restrictions.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, when they initially got their license, the laws were the laws.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed we could look into that. He thought an interesting thing we need to look into is the concept of a buffer or a certain number per neighborhood, and that would be complicated. He thinks staff has enough information to look into and put together to bring back to Council.
Councilmember Boles asked about timeline.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would tentatively put out that maybe we can return late August or early September with all of these fleshed out.
Councilmember Bier stated before October.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that raises an interesting point because, even if we make an ordinance revision, it does not go into effect for 60 days after and he does not know if the October renewal date is feasible for that. He added that we keep in mind that none of this goes into effect in the coastal zone until the Coastal Commission certifies it.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he wanted to take a moment to thank staff as it is extraordinary the amount of work that went into this and he thanked them for being detailed about what we have and for giving them options to contemplate; he thanked the community as we saw how many emails we got and we have been hearing them for the last two years, and if they were not continuing to give them every viable option, we probably would not have this fruitful conversation at this session.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked everyone and stated that we are going to close the study session.
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 15 June 24, 2024
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus reconvened the regular meeting to order at 8:18 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Alan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Kavitha Kumar, Interim Director of Community Development; Stefanie Cervantes, Acting Deputy Director of Community Development; Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner; Gwen White, Senior Code Enforcement Officer; Tara Schiff, Economic Development Manager; Louis Sun, PW Deputy Director (Wastewater); Roland Yip, PW Deputy Director (Field Services/Engineering); Chris Clements, Police Captain; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Deputy City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation: Parks Make Life Better Month - July 2024 Mayor Vaterlaus read a proclamation in honor of Parks Make Life Better Month for July 2024.
She then stated that Acting PB&R Director Scott Leslie will come forward.
Acting PB&R Dir. Leslie stated, on behalf of PB&R, PW Parks Division and PB&R Commission, he asked that Pacificans join them in July for many summer programs, activities, and events with many recreational opportunities, such as the 4th of July event. He thanked the hardworking and dedicated recreation staff for all their efforts in planning and preparing for the summer and applauded the PW employees who maintain their parks, fields, and facilities. He hopes everyone has a chance to come out and enjoy our many recreation opportunities.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked him for the summer programs that are happening. She thanked him for the mentorship he provides for the youth who work in those programs.
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 16 June 24, 2024
Councilmember Bier thanked him for stepping up and keeping momentum going as it has been a pleasure to attend meetings with him and work alongside him on projects.
Councilmember Boles liked the motto, "Parks Make Life Better." She appreciated the physical health as well as the mental health because physical activities help clear their minds better.
She thanked him for all he does for everyone of all ages in our community.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked him for making sure there are opportunities for healthy ways to recreate in our community of all ages. He thanked him for the important work done and the resources we have.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated her family has been heavily involved in PB&R and thanked him.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that when he had the pleasure to travel to Europe, the thing that struck him was seeing people in parks and shared his thoughts on the pleasure of enjoying nature.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if anyone wants to pull an item from Consent Calendar.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she had a question on item #5. She stated she was confused because of a timing issue about when the roof replacement project was first brought forward. She stated that it originally talked about Old Wastewater Treatment Plant Garage Roof Project and now it is talking about Annex Garage Project. She appreciated having clarification.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that it was originally budgeted as the Old Wastewater Treatment Plant Garage Roof Project and what is seen in the CIP report that is going to Council today. He stated that it was previously called that when it was budgeted and the Field Services staff has always called it the Annex Garage Project. He clarified that, as it was bid and presented it to Council, Field Services wanted to change it as that is what we called the project.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the physical location of the project is adjacent to the Council Chambers.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, stating the building was the same, just the name that Field Services staff has called it when it went out to bid.
Councilmember Boles thought it was a building off of Palmetto but behind the fence on the southern side of the old wastewater treatment plant. She asked what that building is used for and the approximate square footage.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the building is used by our Field Services staff to store equipment and vehicles and the square footage is not readily available.
Councilmember Boles stated that her concern was that it seemed like a lot of money for a small building that was used for storage and she knows our long-term plan is to redevelop the site.
She stated that was equipment that needs to be out of the weather.
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 17 June 24, 2024
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed that we need to get our equipment out of the weather because of being by the ocean and salt air which deteriorates metal faster. He stated that the reason that the more expensive cost is because the manufacturer, Garland Roofing System, typically comes with a 30-year warranty; their roofing systems cost more but they have a renowned reputation of coming back and doing any necessary repairs. They have a good product along with a good warranty which is why a lot of cities choose to use the Garland Roofing Systems.
Councilmember Boles thought it was a lot if we are not going to use it for 30 years, but she trusts staff to decide what is best.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to elaborate a bit. He stated that this falls in that category of when we do not maintain a piece of property for a long time, then it could cost more for it to be effective. Indoor storage space for our PW equipment is at a high premium in Pacifica so it is an essential space for that storage. He stated that we would like to have seen the bids come in lower on it and spend less money, but roofs on facilities like that are very expensive.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the May 28, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
2. Termination of Local Emergency related to the December 28, 2023, High Tide/Large Wave Event
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt Resolution Terminating Proclamation of Local Emergency related to the December 28, 2023, High Tide/Large Wave Event
3. Ratification of Proclamation Confirming Existence of a Local Emergency at Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution ratifying the Proclamation Confirming Existence of Local Emergency at Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive.
4. Notice of Completion for the Frontierland Park ADA Improvement Project.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file the Notice of Completion for the Frontierland Park ADA Improvement Project; and Authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
5. Fire Station 71 & Annex Garage Project Award
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Construction Contract with I & A Contractor Inc. in an amount of$541,706.00; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $622,961.90, which includes contingencies in an amount of fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amounts; Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 18 June 24, 2024
contingency amount; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the Fire Station 71 & Annex Garage Project.”
6. Sharp Park Priority Development Area Pedestrian Improvement Project California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) One Bay Area Grant 2 (OBAG 2) Funding Agreement
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution entitled “Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Funding Agreements for the One Bay Area Grant 2 (OBAG 2) with the California Department of Transportation for the Sharp Park Priority Development Area Pedestrian Improvement Project.”
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments on items not on the posted agenda.
Fallon Flynt, Pacifica, referred to the ceasefire proposal, and shared his concerns and thoughts on the issue, plus a personal request to Councilmember Bigstyck.
James MacLeod, Pacifica, referred to the Calera Creek situation, and shared his concerns regarding notification that the city would no longer maintain Calera Creek.
Jeff Moroso, Pacifica, stated he also is addressing the Calera Creek situation, and shared his concerns and suggestions regarding the city’s letter to the adjacent residents informing them that the city will no longer maintain Calera Creek.
Jane A’Hearn, Pacifica, stated she is talking about the Calera Creek issue and shared her concerns about the letter the residents received informing them the city is not responsible for the Calera Creek Park.
Aren Clark, Pacifica, stated that he has seen the subdivision maps for Vallemar and knows the reason the city is using to justify their position, and shared his concerns and thoughts on the process leading up to this decision.
Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, shared her concerns and thoughts on the issue of the city’s responsibility for Calera Creek Park.
Paul Totah, Pacifica, shared his concerns and thoughts on the issue of the city’s decision to stop the Calera Creek Park maintenance.
Shirley Gibbs, Pacifica, shared her concerns about banners along Highway One and suggestions that they be managed properly. She also shared her concerns about the Pacifica Historical Society’s situation regarding the building of the Pacifica Civic Center and conflicts they have with the RVs parked near their facility.
Kathleen McGuire, Pacifica, shared her concerns and suggestions about the large over-sized vehicles that park on Salada Ave. near their museum and cause complications for their events.
Sarah Gates, Pacifica, referred to the Calera Creek issue, and shared her concerns when the creek backs up with storm debris with no city maintenance.
Sandy Ayers, Pacifica, shared his history of working with the city at Calera Creek, and shared
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 19 June 24, 2024
his concerns with the letter regarding the city’s decision, asking for clarification and making suggestions.
Errol Hunter, Pacifica, expressed support for tcomments made by fellow neighbors regarding Calera Creek, and he shared his thoughts and asked for clarification on the issue.
Janeen Marquardt, Pacifica, stated that she lives at the top of Talbot Avenue, and shared her thoughts on the ownerships of adjacent lands, and concerns on various issues regarding a problem with the Overlook and suggested possible solutions.
Carlos Davidson, Pacifica, seconded the comments his Vallemar neighbors, and shared his concerns on the decision by the city regarding Calera Creek.
Amy Hoffman, Pacifica, shared her concerns about the city’s decision regarding their responsibility for Calera Creek, after she won against them in a lawsuit in the past.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he is stunned regarding Calera Creek, and shared his concerns and thoughts on the city’s decision.
Joshua Sha, Pacifica, shared his concerns and thoughts on the Calera Creek issue and suggested that they work together with the city, appreciating all the city does.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, after hearing the comments about Calera Creek, he hopes staff will respond during staff communication. He added that it was helpful that the document referred to by a speaker was sent to Council and we had the opportunity to review it. He knows staff is trying to figure out a best approach and he hopes staff can speak to this issue during staff comments. He responded to one of the public comments, provided context to his feelings of conflict, and commended Councilmember Bier for her bravery. He attended former Planning Director Murdock’s farewell; he will be sorely missed and it was nice to send him off the right way. He attended the webinar around the Center for Creativity which would be in lieu of an Art Center in San Mateo County. He attended the CCAG Legislative Session. He stated that we have gotten a lot of comments around ACA 1 and stated that it will be on the ballot; legislature passed ACA 10 which informs ACA 1 insofar as now what will be on the ballot is limited to not affect taxes but it will affect bonds. For example, if we were to pass the library bond measure, that would be influenced by ACA 1 and that would bring the threshold down to 55%. He stated that SB 1031 was summarily concluded for the year but will presumably be brought up next year. SB 915 has to do with autonomous vehicles and affects large cities and then smaller cities next to large cities. CCAG decided to oppose that bill unless amended. The other bill brought up was SB 1037 which is a Housing Element bill on bad actors. However, the Legislative Committee, feeling the feasibility was subjective, decided to oppose at this time. He then filled in for Mayor Vaterlaus, and they passed budget for the City and County Association of Governments and began talking about the Local Roadway Safety Plan for the number of cities who have not adopted their own. He attended the Library Joint Powers Authority meeting and they passed the budget. He stated that there is also talk about our library outpost over at Sanchez Library. He stated that outposts will be able to be extended to areas that do not have libraries. He took a Civic Center tour later that day with Councilmember Boles and he was very excited to see the new location. He was excited for the grand unveiling. He attended the OSPAC meeting on June 19, which revolved around what they are wanting to work on and how they are going to arrange subcommittees. He is happy to report that the County will be
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 20 June 24, 2024
supplying a sign for the trail head of Ahni Trail at the top of Fassler. He attended the farewell to city staff working in the Community Center. He took a Zoom call with the Peninsula Division of CalCities over an event around climate change and sea level rise that will be happening in September. He went to the program about the signage at the internment camp in Sharp Park around where the archery range is, where Italian, German, and Japanese people were interned during World War II. He learned that many of them were sent to Utah and was a first stop on the way to their journey. He thought it was good to hear that history and thanked the Historical Society for hosting them. He stated on Friday was the yearly Association of Bay Area Governments meeting. It was held this year at the Museum of California in Oakland. He stated, as far as ABAG business, it was the meeting to pass the yearly budget which was the primary function of that meeting. There was mention about the Bay Area Financial Authority (BAFA) bond measure that will be on the ballot in November which is a $20 billion bond measure for our area to get affordable housing up and running. He stated that many of the members had comments about HCD and that process in future cycles. He stated that there were several presentations after lunch around resilience. He stated their colleague from East Palo Alto, Councilmember Lisa Gauthier, serves on the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority and he thought it was good to see her give one of the presentations. He stated that the PRE Collective Executive Director Shalini Vajjhala gave an amazing presentation about collaboration to make resiliency happen. He found interesting is that coastal needs were not addressed in the SB 272 presentation put on by Larry Goldzband, Executive Director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) which is the Commission we do not work with because we work with the California Coastal Commission of which they do not have a member.
Councilmember Bier stated she was on vacation for the last couple of weeks. She stated she attended half of the North Coast County Water District meeting and it was always a pleasure for her to be there. She stated that the farewell to the Community Center was a fun event. She addressed one of the public comments and recounted their experience with the peace resolution. She stated, regarding her Vallemar neighbors, if someone does not live in Vallemar, it is hard to understand what a letter like that would do. She knows from living there most of her life that the one thing that always scared her was seeing the trees going back and forth when she was growing up and to know that some of that could be put on the neighbors bothers her a lot. She thanked them for coming out and continuing to come.
Councilmember Boles referred to Councilmember Bigstyck’s comments about SB 272 and the Coastal Commission and stated the Coastal Commission has the job of putting forth the policy guidance to distribute to cities on the coast by the end of this year. She stated that she met with Anita Rees and the Unhoused on the Coast group. She stated that the numbers from the homeless count have been issued and we had 161 last year and now have 180. She stated that we have the distinction of the second highest number in the whole county and the highest per capita. She stated that we are behind Redwood City which is a much larger city and they have done a lot in the last years to reduce their homeless counts. She stated that we have ten encampments in Pacifica, with the biggest being in Linda Mar and Manor on Esplanade. She stated that the County’s encampment grant was funded but unfortunately not ours. She stated that they have specifically excluded Pacifica as we had our own. She stated that she has reached out to County Supervisor Ray Mueller to see if there might somehow be some extra money we can tap into. She met with the Beach Coalition and she understands they are working on bringing a celebration of their Non-Profit of the Year status; they were celebrating all their graduating teams and they do so much work mentoring and bringing teams into leadership.
She stated that they are recruiting now. She stated, with the 4th of July coming up, the Beach Coalition is organizing beach cleanup of Linda Mar, Sharp Park, and Esplanade beaches. She
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 21 June 24, 2024
is hoping the City Manager or police officers can talk a bit more about enforcement, the rules, etc., on fireworks just to remind people. She watched the Coastal Commission meeting about our STR ordinance and it was heartening to hear their comments about the importance of preserving housing and understanding what that does to communities and encouraging us to work on a stronger ordinance. She had meetings with Congressional Candidates Sam Liccardo and Evan Low. The STR meeting at the fire house was terrific and she thanked all the community members who have been doing all that research. At the Emergency Preparedness meeting, one of the commissioners shared that the County Sheriff’s office uses drones to deliver life-preservers. She stated that Commute.org is taking applications for free yearly Caltrain passes to income qualified people and they were also talking about working with cities for TDM monitoring, i.e., Transportation Demand Management. She got to meet with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) with Cindy Abbott and Nancy Tierney on the Climate Action and Adaptation Task Force did. She stated that there are so many free resources available, educational resources, and technical resources for staff that are free in the division that NOAA provides. She thanked San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Aaron Peskin because he got the approval from San Francisco to put that panel up about the detention centers. She stated that it is so important for us to learn from our history. She met with the Partnership for the Bay Future on a session for financing for affordable housing. She mentioned her concern about AB 2560 that is going through the state now. It has gone through the Assembly and is going before the Committee on Natural Resources and this is for density bonus law in the coastal zone bypassing the Coastal Commission altogether. She was concerned about that as there is a lot that the Coastal Commission looks out for, in terms of environmental and hazards, etc., but also parking; if we start to lose the ability to review some of these things it could really impact our city and our Coastal Act. She stated that she wrote a letter t and Council might want to discuss it together to see if Council might want to comment as a city.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, after their last Council meeting, she was not able to attend Christian Murdock’s farewell as it conflicted with the Economic Development Committee meeting. They had a subcommittee analysis of data related to the Shop Pacifica Program and recommendations from the subcommittee about areas that the Economic Development department might want to explore and Council will hear more about all of that in the future. She stated that, on the next day, it was the Library Advisory Committee and we heard an update on the library kiosk at Sanchez Library. It was a very exciting time and there will be a ribboncutting and celebration taking place in late July. She stated that the committee members are working to update information about the Pacifica Library project in Pacifica. She thanked Cindy Abbott for doing great work in this area over time with the Library Advisory Committee and it is such a great and terrific resource for the new members of the Library Advisory Committee in terms of helping everyone understand what came before, how we got to where we are, etc. She stated she attended former NCCWD President Jack Burgett’s funeral, and it was a very fitting tribute to him with people of all ages, those who had been mentored by him as a coach, a big turnout of Water District folks, and a fitting processional or exiting parade. On June 15, Mayor Vaterlaus and Asst. City Manager Carter did a fantastic update to the Pacifica Democrats about the State of the City. She stated that the rest of her time has been about Local Government Working Group and a number of calls because we are doing listening sessions for updating our approach to the neighborhood scale adaptation approach which has been an ongoing effort.
She stated that she had an opportunity with the Mayor and City Manager and our Acting Deputy Director Stefanie Cervantes and others on a call with Senator Becker and Assemblymember Berman’s staff last week updating our coastal projects and coastal issues.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she met with Congressional Candidate Sam Liccardo twice and she
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 22 June 24, 2024
will meet with him again soon. She met with the Colma Creek Committee on the amount of work they have to do on that creek. She went to former Planning Director Christian Murdock’s going away party. She attended a Pacifica Legislative Group which is not related to Council but talks about all the things legislative in Pacifica. She attended former NCCWD President Jack Burgett’s funeral. She missed the City and County Association of Governments meeting due to transportation issues and thanked Councilmember Bigstyck for handling the beginning of the regular meeting. She attended the regular meeting where they had a bike pedestrian presentation and safe routes to schools and they voted to keep the executive officer. She did the State of the City at Democrats meeting, which included a presentation and Q&A. She did the Civic Center tour meeting and it was amazing. She mentioned the Fog Fest Board and Fog Fest will take place on September 28 and 29. She met with Assemblymember Berman’s and Senator Becker’s aides about the local coastal update. She went to farewell to the Community Center event. She did a Rockaway Beach cleanup the previous Friday. She worked at the Pacificans Care fundraiser. She stated that prior to the meeting she went to Redwood City for a press conference on reproductive care bills and the fact that the County passed an ordinance saying that we are a county that believes in reproductive care for women at all cost, which was led by Assemblymember Diane Papan and there were many elected officials standing.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned the SB 272 update. She stated that, at the time that the agenda comes out for the August meeting of the Coastal Commission, a draft of the sea level rise guidance update, according to SB 272 requirements, is going to be released and will be announced at that Coastal Commission meeting in August and will commence the probable 45- day public comment period. She states it will incorporate the 2024 OPC science update and lay out a process for us, as a coastal city, where we will work with Coastal Commission; under SB 272, all of our coastal cities need to have Local Coastal Plan Update completed by 2034 and that will lay out expectations and proposed cycle for that.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse began by providing information on the Calera Creek comments made. He stated that one thing he learned about land ownership issues on the coast and particularly in Pacifica is that they are very complex, particularly if related to pre-formation of the city, county ownership, and that transition. He stated his expectation of the city organization in the Public Works Department is that, when we get maintenance requests for land, we verify ownership of the land. He stated that is the basic function of the city organization. He stated that, in this case, Public Works did that work and with this complex issue he thought the letter was sent prematurely but that is hindsight. He stated that upon sending the letter, Mr. Clark who used to work for the city came and spoke with Director Petersen and brought to our attention the existence of this letter that he referred to. He stated that he will clarify the facts regarding that. He stated that is not a letter that proves ownership of the land. What Mr. Clark referred to is a letter that was written to the City Attorney, was not signed, and did not have any attachments to it, and the prudent thing for city staff to do is do further research to find the attachments. City Clerk Coffey and City Engineer Yip who went to the county recorder’s office to dig up the historical quit claim deed that was signed and Director Petersen told Mr. Clark in an email that we have done that research and submitted the documents to the City Attorney’s office for them to make a final determination on the facts in the case. He stated that a lot of the speakers who showed up at this meeting were not aware that staff had advised Mr. Clark that the City Attorney’s Office was researching this and a decision has not been made about the ownership and maintenance responsibility related to that. He stated that the City Attorney’s Office will finish the analysis and staff will openly share all that information with the residents.
He is happy everyone came out and happy Mr. Clark brought that to staff’s attention as this
1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 23 June 24, 2024
historical knowledge in Pacifica is how one gets to the root of information and facts about complicated land ownership situations. He stated that he will see them the upcoming Wednesday night for the LCLUP follow-up meeting to go through the final comments from Coastal staff and consider the amended LCLUP to submit to the Coastal Commission. He stated that on Thursday we have the ribbon cutting at the Civic Center site open to the public.
Regarding the 4th of July, the Police Department has been doing social media and other education and outreach. He did not have more details to prove regarding the 4th of July but Police will be coming out with more details in the future.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. Conduct Public Hearing and adopt a Resolution Confirming the Annual Report from the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District and Assessing the Levy for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 at the same rates as in the Fiscal Year 2023-24.
PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Conduct the Public Hearing;
2) Rule on Oral and Written protests, if any; and
3) Adopt a resolution approving the annual report of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Board, and continuing the assessments without change in Fiscal Year 2024-25.
Economic Dev. Manager Schiff presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she has a question on the staff report on packet page 110 that talks about the possible formation of the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District, which is an alternative to the BID being explored that would be under a different law and they would get a full report on it soon, as she understands. Her question is what is the timeline because it states “if the new district is not formed in time, the renewal of this existing Pacifica hotel BID will occur in parallel”.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the original plan was to do two processes in parallel and few had to change the timeline. She stated that the agenda before Council now is the Business Improvement District as it exists today. She stated it is the same assessment rate of $1 per night per stay and, if Council approves this resolution, it will be in effect on July 1. The new conversion of a district will be a new process and we will essentially have to go through the same process of Resolution of Intent and subsequent adoption of the conversion. The process takes about three months to give notice and requirements, etc. and if we resume this process fairly quickly, over the next few months, we can potentially form the new district by the end of September or October.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we would not start collecting against that new district until fiscal year 2025-26.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the process will be, if the new district is formed, the current district that we are about to renew will disband, thereby no double collections.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed we do not need to wait until the end of fiscal year to start a new one and can just slide into a new one as soon as it is ready.
1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 24 June 24, 2024
Asst. City Manager Carter answered affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened the public hearing and, seeing no one, closed the public hearing. She asked if we received any protests.
City Clerk Coffey stated that no protests have been received as of this meeting and there were none lodged during the public comment period.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to adopt a resolution approving the annual report of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Board, and continuing the assessments without a change in Fiscal Year 2024-25; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
8. Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget.
PROPOSED ACTION: Hold a public hearing, review, and move to adopt the following resolutions:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the FY 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget;
2. Adopt the FY 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program appropriation from the Roy Davies Trust Fund by a 4/5 vote;
3. Adopt the resolution establishing the GANN Appropriation Limit for FY 2024-25;
4. Adopt the resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule;
5. Adopt the resolution approving the City's annual review of the Investment Policy included as Exhibit A to the resolution, with minor changes for FY 2024-25.
City Manager Woodhouse introduced the staff report and turned to Asst. City Manager Carter.
Asst. City Manager Carter presented the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse thanked Asst. City Manager Carter for all of her work on this as there were many late nights and early mornings that went into budget this year. This process begins with the mid-year budget update that essentially involves strategic planning so there are six or so meetings about budget that occurred over the last several months. He thanked her for her attention and diligence to that. He stated that, when we move the resolution for the master fee schedule, we need to cite the specific packet page number for the childcare registration fees that are in the schedule (packet pages 128 and 129).
City Attorney Kenyon added that, for any other edits to make to any of the documents the Council is approving, we need to recite the changes and recite the packet page for the record.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she has a question on packet page 118: The resolution states at the end of the paragraph starting in Section 2, “The CIP Budget also includes expenditures from the Roy Davies Trust Fund of…”
Asst. City Manager Carter stated $100,300. She stated that on page 117, and in the budget resolution itself, Fund 27 includes the actual allocation of $100,300. She stated that the budget
1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 25 June 24, 2024
resolution is correct, but the number was cut out.
City Attorney Kenyon recommended that on page 118 that Council amend that to include that number for the record.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated the number is $100,300.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, at the time of the motion, Asst. City Manager will then relay these edits so the motion will be as amended by staff.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked Asst. City Manager Carter and the finance team. He stated on packet 137 regarding the cannabis operation, employee background, life scan plus DOJ and FBI fee, it was $31 last year but does not seem to be present this year. He asked if that was because we do not anticipate there being any need this year or was it left out unintentionally.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he presumes it is another typo and should be the same.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if that amount would go up.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it would be escalated by the escalator we apply, so we can calculate that currently and fill that in unless we hear differently from Chief Sarasua.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the rest of the fees not being escalated.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the escalator only applied to certain fees.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that another simple one is that the state between governor and legislator decided to keep the VLF and ERAF and asked if he was correct that they decided to pay the city what they owed the city.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively, stating that, for the VLF in-lieu backfill, which is from two years ago, that is suggested by both houses to be in the governor’s budget, but we will need verification. He stated that the recommendation in the budget was to budget it and adjust mid-year if, for any reason, that got stricken out of the state budget.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked everyone involved for the work of advocating. He knows that comments have been raised around the coastal trail improvements near Taco Bell and his understanding from answers to questions received is that staff has had the opportunity to understand what that looks like; if a staff member could come and let them know what that looks like and whether or not it can be put in the CIP budget at this meeting or if it has to be brought back separately, it would be appreciated.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he can begin and then PW Dep. Director Yip can speak to that. Since that came up, PW Dep. Director Yip did meet with Taco Bell and talked to them.
Taco Bell is willing to look at putting those improvements into their current project, and if they do not put them into their current project, it is likely a fix the city can do on our property and, if Taco Bell gave them permission on theirs, do it on theirs. He stated that it is not a costly project and we do not need to revise the CIP at this meeting regarding that.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that there are two gaps and we discussed this with the owner and he deferred them to their architect who is working on their use permit who said that they should
1.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 26 June 24, 2024
be able to accommodate at least the southern portion with their project. The city put in the request and asked them if they can complete the northern gap as well so it will be a complete connection to both the southern parking lot as well as the northern one. He stated that we did not have any confirmations from them but regardless if they should not be able to accommodate them, as the City Manager said, the city can add it to our annual concrete and sidewalk project but we do need their permission to enter onto their property in order to come to work on their property. He stated that a portion is on private property and the other portion is on city property.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought at least one of them is definitely done and the other one there may be done as well and he asked if there was further direction needed.
PW Dep. Director Yip did not think there was any needed. He will follow up and make sure that this is carried through or have some response for Commissioner Berman or City Council.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked the City Manager if the discussion around tree fees is scheduled on the work plan in the not too distant future, and if so, when.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we were anticipating sometime in the fall, with specific date to be determined, but after a year of collecting information about the ordinance, putting it together, coming back to Council, sometime in the fall for considering revisions as well as at that time they will have the administrative cost information that drives the suggested fee.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we have a robust discussion around the tree ordinance on the books, sometime around September.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively, sometime in the fall.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Boles asked, as a follow-up to the answer of the tree fees coming back in the fall, if it is possible for Council to revise this document for that particular fee in the fall or would it have to wait until we do the budget again.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Council can make revisions and additions to the fee schedule anytime during the year and they go into effect then and we reflect them in the update the following budget year. He stated that, if they are going to be increased, there will be certain notification and hearing requirements, etc., but that is an action Council can take any time through the year.
Councilmember Boles stated she wanted to thank Asst. City Manager Carter and congratulations on all the wonderful kudos she has been getting in appreciation for her work and teamwork, as well as the creativity she and staff are bringing to try to balance the budget and find money where we did not think we have. She referred to packet page 117, library fund,
1.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 27 June 24, 2024
stating she knows we just approved a certain amount of money for public outreach and she asked if that money should be in the library fund or go somewhere else.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we allocated those funds in the General Fund for now since it is not specifically related to the library.
Councilmember Boles referred to the Fire Equipment Fund and that we are paying for a new truck over a certain amount of time. She asked if we are paying revenues out to paying installments on that truck.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that this is not related to the truck, but related to the fire equipment of 60 years that we have to replace on a certain cycle. She stated that the idea behind this $133,000 was that every year we will contribute as this equipment is expensive and allocating this fund will build up some reserves for the future.
Councilmember Boles asked if the fire truck money was from the General Fund.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the fire truck fund should be in the motor pool fund.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Paul Totah, Pacifica, stated he is present as a Tree City Pacifica member and shared his concerns about several issues regarding trees and results of a survey.
Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated she is speaking as a member of Tree City Pacifica and shared her concerns about the high tree permit and appeal fees and requested changes on these fees in the fee schedule tonight.
Lauren Berman, Pacifica, resident of Linda Mar and Planning Commissioner, shared her thoughts on the trail issue along Taco Bell.
Marcy Milby, Pacifica, shared her concerns on the tree trimming situation issues and exorbitant fees and suggestions.
Sandy Ayers, Pacifica, stated he is a member of Tree City Pacifica and seconded what previous speakers about the tree permit and appeal fees as well as his thoughts on the issue.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared her concerns on the tree fee schedule and suggestions for fairness.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated the tree permit fee is important to her and she shared her concerns on this issue in alignment with Tree City Pacifica speakers.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Councilmember Boles asked what the fine is for an illegal tree removal and where is that codified.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the fee for illegal tree removal is based on the replacement value of the tree and is referenced in our Municipal Code in Chapter 12. She stated that there is a guide book that determines values of trees and that is used.
1.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 28 June 24, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked if any trees are valued at more than $1000.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that some of the values climb to $10,000 or $20,000.
Councilmember Boles asked about trees were cut down illegally in the last year or year and a half. She asked if there has been follow-up, violations, and fines.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we are in process of issuing the notice of violations and fines.
Councilmember Boles asked approximately how many tree permits the city has processed in the last year.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that we do not have that information to date yet. She stated that there are different types of tree permits and issued for different reasons and it is not easy to get that information. Staff have to look at different data basis, as we have tree permits associated with building permits, stand-alone tree permits as well as tree permits issued as part of planning applications, and it takes time to collect the full picture.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that is part of the staff work that goes into preparing the information that comes back to Council for tree ordinance revisions as well as related to what the status of removals is and the cost.
Councilmember Boles stated, if we are considering reducing the fee and whether that needs a subsidization, it would be nice to know how much money we are talking about.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that staff was not recommending a change to the tree permit fee at this meeting so we do not have that information and Council could make a change without the data to support. He stated that is the whole intent of bringing the package and information back to Council.
Councilmember Boles stated she was trying to get a little information to know roughly the order of magnitude. She asked if we can explain regarding the comment made about the hourly rate.
City Manager Woodhouse stated what he understands now, and can clarify in the future to make it more precise, is that is not an hourly rate. The hourly rate written in the description is an indicator of the basis for that calculation. When this fee was set, staff did an estimate of the staff time involved in processing permits and there is a standard hourly rate that is applied to that staff time. He stated that, on some of the items, it says, hourly rate, and that is the basis for the calculation to arrive at the fee. He stated that, in the fee column, adopted 2024-25, if it says per hour, that is an hourly rate.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if someone submits a tree pruning permit and it only takes staff an hour or two, they do not get a credit on that either but still paying the full fee.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it is unlikely to take an hour or two to process a tree permit.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is hard for him to summarily reassess what the fee should be without the data that Councilmember Boles is asking for and then some. He would be delighted if we had that information in front of them at this meeting to deliberate accordingly, but he appreciates that the end result of the direction Council gave, there will be a time to have a
1.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 29 June 24, 2024
proper conversation around the fees at which point we can reassess and lower as appropriate.
He was reading through the fee schedule expecting to see the $1,000, and he sees the updated number of $1,026. He is very comfortable from not raising the rates from what they were last year while we figure out what we are doing with them going forward sometime in the fall. He will vote with consensus but he would like to make the motion with not raising the rates for the tree permit, with building permit, without building permit, and the appeal fee from last year.
Councilmember Bier stated that was her initial thought also. She was interested in discussing the tree fee, but she does not feel comfortable raising it at this meeting if we are not going to have that conversation. She wants to talk about it and is looking forward to that conversation.
Mayor Vaterlaus wants to know what the tree fees were prior. She does not see lowering it below what it was in the past.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in conjunction with this, he thought there was a matter of what goes into making that fee and the steps it takes and what is involved with the community, and that is what we are talking about when we asked for this to be brought back. It isn’t just the fees themselves, but it is also where is our ordinance working and where is it not working and that extends beyond the fee.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she is concerned with Tree City’s item where there were 12 trees, to that effect, cut down in one weekend due to misinformation. She is sure some people had their trees cut because someone told them they do not have to get a permit and other ones thought $1000 was too high for a permit. She does think it is too high.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer also agreed. She asked when Council approved the $1000 fee.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated last year.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it has been a year and we collected data. She remembers that meeting and the premise on which that was brought forward had to do with it being an inclusive fee for all the trees being cut. She asked how many people cut down more than one tree. She stated, if we are talking about logging or taking out six trees to build a new development on property, that is an entirely different situation. She does not know how to make this something that the community can live with or something staff can live with. She stated that, as decision makers, Council needs to make a decision.
Councilmember Bier agreed to lower it tonight and see what the numbers are in four months.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated from the 2022-23 budget the permit fee was $238.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, given inflation, he proposes $250 for good measure.
Councilmember Bier agreed with $250.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked about the appeal fee.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the challenge about the appeal fee is how much staff time does it take to prepare all the documents and staff report and all the stuff to conduct the
1.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 30 June 24, 2024
appeal. She thinks that is what she remembers and we were trying to recoup costs. She knows that the community is asking that we make it the same as the permit fee.
Councilmember Boles stated that the appeal fee is the same for a huge project too. She thought certainly the staff time varies and that does not necessarily cover all that. She is okay reducing that too. She stated that $1000 was what staff said took the time, which was a convoluted process and going to consultants back and forth and it seems like a lot of extra administration time that is not necessary and hopefully we can simplify that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse recalls that, on the appeal fee calculation, appeals take a huge amount of staff time and there was either a very low or no appeal fee for trees. He stated it was nowhere near what the time taken is. He stated that there was also a conversation that, in addition to the tree permit fee, there was the other perspective about tree removals not being so easy and appeals not being so easy, so the cost factor might have been a disincentive to that, although based on what the cost is to process it. He stated that was a policy conversation that Council had. He stated that there was also another factor here with is not research we have done but we did do some preliminary looking into it a year or so ago, i.e., trying to arrive at an apples-to-apples comparison with what the fees are in other cities because it is very difficult. He stated that it is not a direct comparison as a lot of cities have the actual tree permit fee that might be $250 but also have this other permit or license paid for as well which we do not have so we have to aggregate all that. He stated that is all the research that staff intends to do when we bring it back to inform Council but the Council can reduce the fees as much as Council would like at this meeting and we can do that. Council cannot raise fees as that requires noticing to do that for the fee schedule, but we are able to reduce fees and it just becomes a budgetary issue. He stated that policy-wise and philosophy-wise in their fee schedule, unlike other cities, Pacifica is in a financial position where we do strive for some cost recovery and that has always been the philosophy in Pacifica and part of Council’s policy discussion as well.
Council can choose to subsidize certain fees and identify the subsidy source and pay for it out of the General Fund, which would be part of the discussion as well.
Mayor Vaterlaus remembers that conversation because Council talked about the fact that, if it was $1,000, people wouldn’t be willing to cut down trees, and then we found out that people cheated. Council thought $1,000 would limit the number of people and be a good cost recovery for the city but it did not work.
Councilmember Boles asked Asst. City Manager Carter if she could tell them what the appeal fee was in the last year.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the appeal fee in fiscal year 2022-23 was $426. As City Manager mentioned, staff knew at the time it was a subsidy.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that, at $426, it was a subsidy considering what it takes to produce a staff report and prepare the item to go to the PB&R Commission.
Councilmember Boles stated that others are subsidized also, such as her Vista Mar appeal.
She stated she only paid $500 for it and that took a lot more staff time.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that is a conversation he is familiar with yearly, before he ever got on Council, that we do heavily subsidize appeals and has been the direction of Council
1.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 31 June 24, 2024
largely to keep it low enough that people can still do it, but there is always a conversation around how much we should raise it this year because the amount of staff time is disproportional to the charge.
Mayor Vaterlaus thinks that the tree fee can be higher than $250 as that is not much more than the year before and now we are on the third year and even $350 is one-third of what we are charging now. She suggested $450 for the appeal.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that what was brought forward by the community was to make our rates more consistent with surrounding communities.
Mayor Vaterlaus added also consider what the City Manager indicated about additional fees that we may not have that we have.
Councilmember Boles stated part of why our fees were highest is that we have to go out and verify the replanting and other cities require the applicant to do that themselves and send in the photos, and this is a place where we can save money to put the onus on the applicant to do the labor so neither group is paying extra time.
Councilmember Bier thought it would be good to be a part of the conversation we have next.
She thought we should lower the fee to $250 at this meeting, and she can go either way with the appeal fee, and maybe we can talk about that another time.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Mayor Vaterlaus.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bier stated that there is another fee she wants to talk about.
Councilmember Boles asked what the appeal fee was for a development project now.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that a part of the conversation around appeal fees for development projects is largely in comparison to other cities and Pacifica is on the low end.
Councilmember Boles thought it was the same and that was the maximum of what we were charging.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, if staff comes back to them in a few months, staff said something about not being able to raise the fees, and she asked if we can raise the fees in four months if we find out different statistical information.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we can. Council cannot raise fees at this meeting as we did not do the advanced noticing about fee increases but, in the future, we would do that advanced noticing.
1.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 32 June 24, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck did not like the premise of reducing the cost now, coming back in four months, and increasing the cost again.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked next steps.
Councilmember Bier stated lowering it to $250 at this meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the appeal fee.
Councilmember Bier suggested $450.
Councilmember Bigstyck suggested $592.
Councilmember Boles suggested $350.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that is a lot of work.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is comfortable with $450.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.
Councilmember Bier also agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was going to move to amend the Master Fee Schedule.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if there was one that Councilmember Bier had.
Councilmember Bier wanted to talk about the tobacco retail license and she was part of the advocacy for the tobacco retail license on packet page 134. She stated, when we first advocated for it a long time ago, the fee was $300 and she was surprised when she noticed that it was not that anymore and she does not understand why it was lowered at any point in time.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the answer to the question was that staff traced back the fee amount all the way to FY 2009-2010 and there were a couple of years of not applicable in there but the last year that it was $300 was FY 2012-13 and then FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 were not available and then in FY 2015-16 it was $76 and then FY 2016-17 it was $30 so we would need to do more research for what the policy discussion and decision was back in that time to change that fee.
Councilmember Bier thought we could maybe talk about it next year.
Councilmember Boles asked what that fee was for.
Councilmember Bier stated it was for selling tobacco.
City Manager Woodhouse explained that it was the tobacco retail license.
Councilmember Bier stated that it goes to compliance and Police Department.
Councilmember Boles stated it was a one-time yearly fee that the tobacco retailers pay.
1.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 33 June 24, 2024
Councilmember Bier stated that, with the uptake in vaping and the flavor ban, there needs to be more compliance, but that is a whole other discussion.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if there was consensus with Council about the change of fees, $450 for appeal fee, $250 for tree fee. She asked if anyone wants to make a total motion.
City Manager Woodhouse asked, before we leave the tree appeal fees, if he can get some clarity. He thought he heard a comment about not wanting to consider changing them in the future and, when we do come back with tree information, he wants direction of whether Council wants all that information and comparative data or not; otherwise, staff will not spend time doing that research.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he wants the comparative data. He stated that it feels like bad governance if the conclusion they come to in four months is to raise it back up to $1000. He stated he needs data in front of him to be able to make that determination, but he is saying it feels bad governance to lower it that far now just to, in five months from now raise it again.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we need a motion with corrections.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the staff can handle the corrections and Council can make the motion as amended by staff.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated she will try to summarize corrections. Staff is asking to make administrative corrections on packet pages 128-129 related to the child care services fees (onetime non-refundable fee for child at the time of entry into full cost program at $80 per child, program for $295 per month, and a summer program at $595 per month). Staff also asked Council to correct the typo on page 137 for cannabis background. The fee was listed at $31/year and was omitted in the submission. With the CPI increase of 2.6, this fee would go up to $31.80.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he would correct that, as his understanding is the Police Chief recommended to keep it at $31.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed that staff recommended to keep it at $31 for the coming year and the tree permit fee will go down from $1,026 to $250 on page 139. With the appeal fee, it is set at $450.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we have to correct the resolution on packet page 117.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed, stating that it is related to the Master Fee Schedule so Council can take an action for the Master Fee Schedule and staff will make corrections to that.
City Manager Woodhouse confirmed the appeal fee Council determined was $400 or $450.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated $450.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated she had said $450.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer moved the amendments to the Master Fee Schedule as outlined by staff; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
1.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 34 June 24, 2024
Asst. City Manager stated that the budget resolution needs clarification on the Roy Davis Fund.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we are voting on the one item, Master Fee Schedule.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (AS AMENDED) RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mayor Vaterlaus stated #1 is adopt the resolution approving FY 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget; seconded by Councilmember Boles.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FY 2024-25 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to adopt the FY2024-25 Capital Improvement Program appropriation from the Roy Davis Trust Fund by a 4/5 vote.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if this is where we make the notation on the resolution as well.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed and stated that we can highlight the amount allocated from the Roy Davis Trust Fund which is $100,300.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated as stated by staff; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
ADOPT THE FY 2024-25 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM APPROPRIATE FROM THE ROY DAVIS TRUST FUND BY A 4/5 VOTE (AS AMENDED)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to adopt the resolution establishing the GANN Appropriation Limit for FY2024-25; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FY 2024-25
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to adopt the resolution approving the City’s annual review of the Investment Policy included as Exhibit A to the resolution, with minor changes for FY2024-
1.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes) City Council Regular Meeting 35 June 24, 2024
25; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY’S ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE
INVESTMENT POLICY INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT A TO THE RESOLUTION, WITH MINOR CHANGES FOR FY 2024-25
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
CONSIDERATION - NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:39 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
1.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Attachment A: Minutes of 06-24-2024 Special and Regular Meeting (5736 : Approval of Minutes)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/26/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for Providing a Spare Rotating Assembly
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a Resolution that authorizes the City Manager to award and execute a Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for a sole source purchase of one spare rotating assembly in the amount of $180,500 for the centrifuge in connection with the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant biosolids handling process.
STAFF CONTACT:
Louis Sun, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works-Wastewater (650) 738-4660
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Biosolids are nutrient-rich organic materials resulting from the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment facility. When treated and processed, theseresiduals can be recycled and applied as fertilizer to improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth. The Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) produces mostly Class "A" (best quality) and a minimal amount of Class "B" biosolids at an average of 100 wet tons per month during the dry season and an average of 150 wet tons during winter.
In order for CCWRP to meet the regulatory disposal requirements for biosolids, the decanter centrifuge is used to dewater or remove the liquid from the digested sludge produced in the treatment process. After the digested sludge goes through the centrifuge process, the dewatered sludge is essentially the biosolids that are easier to handle and cost less to transport.
Currently, CCWRP operates on two centrifuges - both are Centrisys Decanter Centrifuge Model No. CS-18-4. The first one was purchased in July 2011, while the second one was purchased in March 2015. The centrifuge is critical to the solids handling process, and although CCWRP operates on one centrifuge at a time, staff provides a maintenance program to ensure that both centrifuges are in running condition to provide redundancy. Purchasing a spare rotating assembly will provide additional redundancy and will help reduce downtime when staff conducts routine maintenance.
The following are justifications for sole source purchase:
-The Model No. CS-18-4 centrifuge technology is proprietary to Centrisys CNP, and only Centrisys CNP can provide centrifuge components such as the rotating assembly. -Centrisys CNP technicians have the expertise on Centrisys Decanter Centrifuges. ,
-Centrisys repair facility has a proven track record of a quick turn-around time on repairs and inspection for the spare rotating assembly.
2 Packet Pg. 42
Pacifica City Council 2
August 26, 2024
Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76), as set forth in Article 7 Exemptions From Competitive Pricing, Section 7.4 Sole Source Purchases, authorizes the City Manager to waive bidding requirements for a sole source purchase and services when sufficient justification exists. As sufficient justification exists, the City Manager recommends approving a resolution that authorizes the City Manager to award and execute a Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for a sole source purchase, approves a total project budget of $180,500 and authorizes staff to execute future task orders not to exceed the project budget.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Council may choose not to approve the purchase of a spare rotating assembly with Centrisys CNP for the CCWRP dewatering process. However, this could result in future repair delays and possible permitting violations. Staff does not recommend this alternative action.
RELATION TO CITY GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the Master Service Agreement with Centrisys CNP is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities: The Project will support the City’s wastewater treatment plant’s dewatering process which will ensure proper disposal of biosolids and protect the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The following is the source and use of funds for the project:
Use of Funds
Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP $180,500
Total Use of Funds $180,500
Project Fund Source
Fund 34 - Account No. 34.900000.52800.P006.000 FY2023-24 $175,000 Fund 34 - Account No. 34.900000.52800.P006.000 FY2024-25 $75,000 Total Project Fund Source $250,000
Estimated Project Fund End Balance $69,500
No additional budget authority is necessary as sufficient funds have been approved in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund from FY 2023-24 and FY2024-2025 to pay for this project.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Purchase Agreement Centrisys CNP 8-26-2024 signed (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 43
Pacifica City Council 3
August 26, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AUTHORIZING CITY
MANAGER TO AWARD AND EXECUTE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF PACIFICA AND CENTRISYS CNP FOR A SPARE ROTATING ASSEMBLY THROUGH SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE, APPROVE A TOTAL BUDGET OF $180,500.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Capital Improvement Program 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 at the June 26, 2023 and June 24, 2024 Council Meeting respectively which included the CCWRP Centrifuge Project (Project); and
WHEREAS, during the FY 2023-24 and FY2024-2025 budget approval process, the City Council approved sufficient funding on CCWRP Centrifuge Project; and WHEREAS, in order for CCWRP to meet the regulatory disposal requirements for biosolids, the Centrisys decanter centrifuge is used to dewater; and WHEREAS, purchasing a spare rotating assembly will provide additional redundancy and will help reduce downtime when staff conducts routine maintenance.; and WHEREAS, the Centrisys decanter centrifuge parts and accessories are proprietary and their repair facility is the only authorized repair facility for Centrisys CNP; and WHEREAS, consistent with the City of Pacifica’s Purchasing Policy (Administrative Policy No. 76) as set forth in Article 7 Exemptions From Competitive Pricing, Section 7.4 Sole Source Purchases, authorizes the City Manager to waive bidding requirements for sole source purchases if he/she determines sufficient justification exists, and to ensure the City selected the most qualified contractor/vendor to complete the project; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to authorize the City Manager to execute a Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Centrifuge Project through sole source purchase and approve a budget authority in the amount of $180,500; and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project and all related purchase. 2 Packet Pg. 44
Pacifica City Council 4
August 26, 2024
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 26th day of August, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 2 Packet Pg. 45
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
CITY OF PACIFICA – WASTEWATER DIVISION
PURCHASE ORDER NO.
Seller (Vendor): Buyer:
Name Centrisys CNP Name: City of Pacifica
Address 9586 58th Place Address: 170 Santa Maria Avenue City, State Zip: Kenosha, WI 53144 City, State, ZIP: Pacifica, CA 94044 Attn: John Feicht Louis Sun
Phone: (262)654-6006 Fax: Phone: (650)738-4662 Fax: (650) 355-7256 E-mail: [email protected] Fed. Tax I.D.: E-mail: [email protected] Project Information (If Applicable): Ship To:
Charge to Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
Acct#: 34.900000.52800.P006.000 – Centrifuge 700 Pacific Coast Highway Pacifica, CA 94044
Order Date Ship Via Payment Terms
August 26, 2024 Freight Net 30 days of invoice Upon Receipt of Equipment Delivery
Buyer and Seller agree as follows:
MATERIAL AND/OR EQUIPMENT TO BE PROVIDED: Vendor shall furnish the materials or equipment described below in strict compliance with the Quotation from Centrisys CNP dated 4-24-2023 (Attachment 1) at the price or prices set forth opposite each item and within the times stated below in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Purchase Agreement, including the attached Terms and Conditions, which are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement:
Item
No.
Item Description Budget
Acct No.
Quantity Unit Price Extension Delivery
Date
1 Complete Rotor Option, one
decanter rotating assembly,
Model CS18-42PH
34.900000.52800.P006.000 1 $ 180,500 $ 180,500 50 wks
TOTAL $ 180,500
Sales Tax : $ TBD
Shipping: $ 0
P.O. Total: $ 180,500.00
2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Centrisys CNP 8-26-2024 signed (5723 : Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: CCWRP Centrifuge P006
Special Terms and Conditions
Shipping: Show Purchase Order number on all packages and invoices.
All purchases are F.O.B Pacifica unless otherwise specified on Purchase Order.
Charges: All transportation charges must be prepaid and shown separately on all invoices.
City of Pacifica is exempt from Federal Excise Tax.
Purchase up to $10,000 (must be approved
by Department Head or authorized signator)
Approved: _______________________
Name: LISA PETERSEN
Title: Director of Public Works
Purchase between $10,000.01 and $25,000
(must be approved by the Assistant City
Manager)
Approved: _______________________
Name: YULIA CARTER
Title: Assistant City Manager
Purchase between $25,000.01 and $75,000
(must be approved by the City Manager)
Approved: _______________________
Name: KEVIN WOODHOUSE
City Manager
Purchase above $75,000
(must be approved by the City Council)
Date City Council Approved: __August 26, 2024_______
Buyer: CITY OF PACIFICA
Authorized Signature: _______________________
Name: KEVIN WOODHOUSE
Title: City Manager
Vendor: CENTRISYS CNP
Authorized Signature: _______________________
Name:
Title:
If Seller is located in the City of Pacifica, does Seller have a current business license? Yes No
Jeffrey Kin, PE
Director, PM and Apps Eng
2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Centrisys CNP 8-26-2024 signed (5723 : Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: CCWRP Centrifuge P006
PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
DEFINITIONS: The term "Buyer" as used in this Purchase Order means the City of Pacifica, and the term "Seller" means the person, firm, or corporation from whom the material or equipment described in the purchase order is ordered.
ACCEPTANCE: The attached Acceptance Copy shall be signed and returned by the Seller within ten (10) calendar days after it is received by the Seller. The receipt by the Buyer of the signed Acceptance Copy or the initiation of performance under this Purchase Order by the Seller shall constitute acceptance of the Purchase Order by the Seller, including all of the terms and conditions herein. Acceptance is limited to the terms stated herein. Any additional or different terms and conditions proposed by the Seller are rejected unless expressly agreed to in writing by City Purchasing Agent or authorized agent.
COMPLETE AGREEMENT: This Purchase Order, including all applicable terms, conditions and specifications, shall constitute the sole and exclusive agreement between the parties. This Purchase Order supersedes all other writings and negotiations, written or oral. The City of Pacifica will not be responsible for goods delivered without a Purchase Order properly signed by the City Purchasing Agent or authorized agent. When this Purchase Order covers a purchase rendered over a stated period of time, Seller must obtain a new order upon expiration of the time period to authorize the purchase for an additional period of time.
DEFAULT: The Buyer may terminate the whole or any part of the purchase in any one of the following circumstances: (1) If the Seller fails to make delivery or fails to perform within the time specified herein or any extension thereof; or (2) If Seller delivers nonconforming goods; or (3) If Seller fails to perform in accordance with the material provisions of this agreement, or so fails to make progress as to endanger performance of this Purchase Order in accordance with its terms. In the event of any such failure Buyer will provide Seller with written notice of the default and Buyer's intention to terminate for default if Seller fails to cure the default to Buyer's satisfaction within seven (7) calendar days of Buyer' notice. If Seller fails to cure or correct the default within seven days, the Buyer may, without further notice to Seller, procure upon such terms and in such manner as the Buyer may deem appropriate, items similar to those terminated, and the Seller shall be liable to the Buyer for any excess costs of such similar items; however, the Seller shall continue the performance of this Purchase Order to the extent not terminated.
The rights and remedies of the Buyer provided in this clause shall not be exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Purchase Order.
CHANGES: Buyer may direct in writing changes, including additions to or deletions from the quantities originally ordered, or in the specifications or drawings. If any such change causes a material increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance hereunder, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the price or schedule. Any claims for adjustment which Seller believes result from any change directed by Buyer shall be asserted in writing by Seller no later than ten (10) days from the date of Seller's receipt of any such direction. Equitable adjustments for any claims or changes under this agreement, including claims arising from
2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Centrisys CNP 8-26-2024 signed (5723 : Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: CCWRP Centrifuge P006
terminations or suspensions directed under DEFAULT above, of this agreement, will be made by written Change Order. Nothing contained herein shall excuse Seller from proceeding with the change as directed prior to negotiation of any adjustment. Whether made pursuant to this clause or by mutual agreement, changes shall not be binding upon the Buyer, except when confirmed in writing by a member of the Buyer’s Purchasing Department.
INVOICES: Seller shall send Buyer a separate invoice for each shipment. Invoices shall not be issued prior to delivery of items. Payment shall not be made prior to receipt of items and an invoice. Credit and discount periods will be computed from the date of receipt of the invoice to the date the Buyer’s check is mailed. Unless freight and other charges are itemized, the discount will be taken on the full amount of the invoice. Payment will be made within thirty (30) days after approval of the invoice by the Buyer.
TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS: All prices shall be F.O.B. Factory. The Seller shall be responsible for safe and adequate packing of the items, which shall conform to the carriers’ requirements. The Seller shall separately number all cases and packages, showing the corresponding numbers on the invoices. An itemized packing slip bearing this Purchase Order number shall be placed in each container. No extra charge shall be made for packaging or packing materials unless authority therefor is set forth in this Purchase Order. Seller shall assume and pay for any and all loss or damage to the merchandise from any cause whatsoever until delivered to Buyer at the specified destination.
DELIVERY: Timely performance and deliveries are essential to this Purchase Order. The Buyer reserves the right to refuse deliveries made in advance of the delivery schedule.
Overshipment allowances, if authorized, will be applied to the entire order. If the Buyer agrees to accept deliveries after the date of delivery has passed, the Buyer shall have the right to direct the Seller to make shipment to the delivery point set forth in this Purchase Order by the most expeditious means, and the total cost of such expedited shipment and handling shall be borne by the Seller. Acceptance of late deliveries shall not be deemed a waiver of the Buyer’s right to hold the Seller liable for any loss or damage resulting therefrom, nor shall it act as a modification of the Seller’s obligation to make future deliveries in accordance with the delivery schedule.
DELAYS: Seller will not be liable for delays in performing its obligations to the extent the delay is caused by an unforeseeable condition which is beyond Seller’s reasonable control and without Seller's fault or negligence. Acts of God, such as storms or floods, as well as government priorities, acts of civil or military authorities, fires, strikes, epidemics, war or riot are examples of events which will be excusable for being beyond Seller's reasonable control, only upon fulfillment of the following conditions: (a) within seven (7) days of the commencement of any excusable delay, Seller shall provide Buyer with written notice of the cause and extent thereof as well as a request for a schedule extension for the estimated duration thereof, and (b) within seven (7) days of the cessation of the event causing delay Seller shall provide Buyer with written notice of the actual delay incurred, upon receipt of which, the date of promised delivery shall be extended for the time actually lost by reason of an excusable delay.
INSPECTION AND APPROVAL: All items are subject to final inspection and approval after delivery to Buyer. If any items are defective in material or workmanship or otherwise not in
2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Centrisys CNP 8-26-2024 signed (5723 : Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: CCWRP Centrifuge P006
conformity with the requirements of this Purchase Order, the Buyer shall have the right to require Seller to correct or replace them. Final acceptance or rejection shall be made by the Buyer as promptly as practicable after delivery. Final acceptance shall be conclusive except with respect to latent defects, fraud or such gross mistakes as amount to fraud, or with respect to the Buyer’s rights under the “Warranty” clause.
WARRANTIES-GUARANTEES: The Seller warrants that the items, at time of delivery, shall conform to the Buyer’s specifications, the requirements of this Purchase Order, approved sample or samples, if any, and are free from defects in design, material and workmanship. Warranty will be as described in the attached Vendor’s Quotation. At the Buyer’s option, the Seller shall promptly either repair or replace defective items after receipt of the Buyer’s written notice of a defect. Transportation charges for the return and redelivery of defective items shall be borne by the Seller. Seller also warrants that said merchandise is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances whatsoever and the Seller has good and marketable title to same, and Seller agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Pacifica, its officers, agents and employees free and harmless against any and all claimants to said merchandise.
SAFETY: All equipment and materials shall comply with all Federal, State and local safety rules and regulations including OSHA. Where applicable, materials must be labeled in accordance with Section 5194, Title 8, of the California Administrative Code. The Seller is required to include a Material Safety Data Sheet prepared in accordance with Section 5194(9) with each shipment of all such materials to the City.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER: It is the policy of the City of Pacifica that in connection with all materials furnished or work performed under this Purchase Order, there be no discrimination against employees because of race, religion, color, sex or national origin, and therefore the Seller agrees to comply with applicable Federal and California laws including, but not limited to, the California Fair Employment Practices Act.
TAXES: Unless prohibited by law, Seller shall pay and has included in the prices of this Purchase Order any federal, state or local tax, transportation tax, or other tax which is required to be imposed upon the items ordered hereunder, or by reason of their sale or delivery.
TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Purchase Order in whole or in part at any time, and from time to time, by written notice effective upon receipt by Seller of such notice, even though Seller is not in breach of any obligation hereunder.
Upon receipt of notice of termination, Seller shall immediately discontinue performance and shall comply with Buyer’s instructions concerning disposition of completed and partially completed items, work in progress and materials acquired pursuant to this Purchase Order. In the event of such termination, Seller shall be paid an amount in settlement to be mutually agreed upon by the parties which shall cover Seller’s reasonable costs of performance incurred prior to termination in connection with the items for which this Purchase Order is terminated plus a reasonable profit based upon such costs. However, said payment shall not exceed the price specified herein for such items. Seller shall advise the Buyer, in writing, of Seller’s claim, if any, for termination costs within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of termination.
2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Centrisys CNP 8-26-2024 signed (5723 : Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Project Title: CCWRP Centrifuge P006
Termination in accordance with this article shall not affect Buyer’s obligation to pay for items accepted by Buyer prior to such termination.
GOVERNING LAW; VENUE; DEFINITIONS: The definition of terms used, interpretation of this Purchase Order and rights of all parties hereunder shall be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of California. Any litigation with respect to this Purchase Order shall be brought and conducted in San Mateo County, California.
2.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Centrisys CNP 8-26-2024 signed (5723 : Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for ATTACHMENT 1
2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Centrisys CNP 8-26-2024 signed (5723 : Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for To All Bidding Contractors
Centrisys Ref - Opp# 13268
Project Name Calera Creek WWTP
Location Pacifica, CA
Date 4/24/23
Prepared By Matt Marhefke
Proposal
CS18-4 2Ph Rotating
Assembly
Full Spare and Complete
Rotor Option
2.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Centrisys CNP 8-26-2024 signed (5723 : Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for Page
2 of 4
Sincerely,
Centrisys Contact
John Feicht
Regional Sales Manager
9586 58th place
Kenosha, WI 53144
Ph: (262) 654-6006
Direct: (847) 691-4626
Email: [email protected]
2.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Centrisys CNP 8-26-2024 signed (5723 : Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for
ITEM 1. Complete Rotor Option – One (1) Decanter Rotating Assembly, Model CS18-4 2PH
Centrifuge Specification
Model CS18-4 2Ph
Inside bowl diameter (in): 18
Bowl length (in): 70
Bowl length to diameter ratio: 4:1
Beach angle (deg): 15
Maximum bowl speed (RPM): 3400
Rotodiff model: 1071DLF
Equipment Description
▪ Centrifugally casted duplex SS solid bowl
▪ Scroll conveyor with duplex SS scroll shaft; 316SS flights ▪ Includes both main bearing assemblies, feed pipe, Rotodiff, carrier and pulley. ▪ Requires trip to the site for installation and alignment Purchase Price
One (1) CS18-4 Rotating Assembly – Complete Rotor ………………………….$180,500 USD F.O.B. Kenosha-WI, freight excluded, taxes excluded.
Validity
Purchase price is valid sixty (60) calendar days from the quotation date, for shipment of equipment within the timetable stated below.
Payment Terms
30% with order; 70% upon arrival on site
Timetable
Shipment phase: 50 weeks following purchase order
2.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Purchase Agreement Centrisys CNP 8-26-2024 signed (5723 : Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/26/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Resolution Authorizing a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Freyer and Laureta, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $940,300 for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project.
Approve budget authority in the amount of $1,081,345 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $141,045.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to Approve a Resolution Authorizing a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Freyer and Laureta, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $940,300 for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project; Approve budget authority in the amount of $1,081,345 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $141,045; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
STAFF CONTACT:
Daniel Patten, P.E., Engineering Manager (Wastewater)
(650) 922-7248
[email protected]
Louis Sun, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works (Wastewater) (650) 738-4660
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On June 24, 2024, during the FY 2024-25 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget approval process, the Council approved funding for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project.
Improvements to the collection system in the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard neighborhoods were identified in the City’s Collection System Master Plan Update 2021. This project will include replacing existing sewer mains with new pipes and rehabilitating manholes to improve system reliability and reduce the risks of overflows as well as inflow and infiltration (I&I).
In addition, three (3) sanitary sewer pipeline segments crossing Calera Creek will be replaced and evaluated for new design alternatives, requiring additional engineering and potential environmental impact evaluations.
The City is applying for a grant for the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program. If the project is selected, WIFIA will fund a portion of the construction of the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project. The City submitted a Letter of Interest to the WIFIA Program on June 27, 2024, and was invited to apply to the program on July 22, 2024. A WIFIA loan will provide up to $20,000,000 but not exceed 80 percent of total eligible project costs. 3 Packet Pg. 56
Pacifica City Council 2
August 26, 2024
On June 3, 2024, the City advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from engineering design teams (Consultants) to design and develop construction bid documents for the Project. Then on July 15, 2024, five consultants bid on the Project: Wilsey Ham, Freyer and Laureta (F&L), EKI, Hydroscience Inc. (Hydroscience), and Schaaf and Wheeler, Inc. (Schaaf & Wheeler). The table below summarizes the fee for each consultant.
Proposer Fee
Freyer and Laureta $923,300 (base bid) $940,300 (with all options included)
EKI $726,500 (base bid) $826,300(with all options
included)
Schaaf and Wheeler $580,945 (base bid) $910,764(with all options included)
Wilsey Ham $690,262 (base bid) $761,908 (with all options included)
Hydroscience $1,115,424 (no options included)
As required by the state Public Contracts Code, the RFP utilized a qualifications-based selection (QBS) approach to ensure the City selected the most qualified Consultant for this critical Project. From July 16 to August 6, Staff reviewed the proposals based on the following criteria:
· Fees and Level of Effort
· Project Understanding and Approach
· Project and Team References
F&L’s Proposal is 23% higher than the lowest fee, however, the selection process is not based on the lowest fee alone, but on what is outlined above. Upon staff review, staff found that F&L provided a more comprehensive scope of work with a better value for the City in terms of labor hours. Their project approach will result in a more thorough and streamlined improvement to the City’s Collection System in the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard neighborhoods.
Moreover, F&L provided a team experienced in pipe-bursting and sewer improvement projects.
Their proposed team has recently designed similar projects for the City of Pacifica with the Pedro Point Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation and Replacement Project, the West Bay Sanitary District, Castro Valley Sanitary District and City of San Mateo. These projects included elements which will be critical to the success of the Project, including:
· Field investigation and base mapping
· CCTV investigation and cleaning
· Pipe-bursting
· Manhole rehabilitation
· Private sewer lateral replacement
· Traffic plan development
· Public outreach
· Work in the public right of ways and easements
Because of the above reasons, City staff ranked F&L first and determined that they were the most qualified to perform the engineering design of the Project. 3 Packet Pg. 57
Pacifica City Council 3
August 26, 2024
The following table summarizes the schedule anticipated for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project:
Description Date
Council Approval of Engineering Agreement August 26, 2024 Notice to Proceed September 2024
65-Percent Design March 2025
95-Percent Design May 2025
100-Percent (Final) Design June 2025
Bidding July - October 2025
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose not to approve the Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1; however, this will result in project delays, and possible increases of construction costs. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the Annual Purchase Orders is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
· “Stewardship of City Infrastructure, street, and facilities - The Project will improve the reliability of the collection system in the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard neighborhoods. This work is anticipated to reduce I&I, the risks of sanitary sewer spills and the costs of maintaining the system.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of Task Order No. 1 is $940,300. City staff recommends including a 15% contingency to the Task Order for any additional design work due to the complexity of the project. The Source and Use of Funds spreadsheet is shown below.
Use of Funds
Task Order No. 1 - Engineering Design Services $940,300 Contingency (15%) $141,045
Total Use of Funds $1,081,345
Project Fund Source
Enterprise Fund (Fund 34)
Account No 34.900000.52800.C050.000 $547,000
Account No 34.900000.52800.C044.000 $3,500,000
Total Project Fund Source $4,047,000
Estimated Project Fund End Balance $2,965,655
For FY2024-2025, a total of $547,000 has been allocated to the project budget and $4,250,000 is scheduled for FY2025-2026. Due to current project schedule, staff does not anticipate fully using the funding for Linda Mar Pump Station Jockey Pump Replacement Project C044, and will allocate $534,345 to the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project C050. Staff will make allocation adjustment in FY2025-2026 to reflect this change.
3 Packet Pg. 58
Pacifica City Council 4
August 26, 2024
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 59
Pacifica City Council 5
August 26, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA
AUTHORIZING A MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICE AND TASK ORDER NO. 1 WITH FREYER AND LAURETA, INC. FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN
SERVICES FOR THE VALLEMAR AND ROCKAWAY BEACH BOULEVARD AREAS SEWER
REHABILITATION AND REPAIR PROJECT
____________________________________________________
WHEREAS, during the FY 2023-24 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget approval process, the City Council approved funding for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project; and WHEREAS, the Project includes but not limited to the engineering design and construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, improvements to the collection system in the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard areas were identified in the City’s Collection System Master Plan Update 2021. The Project will include replacing existing sewer mains with new pipe and rehabilitating manholes to improve system reliability and reduce the risks of overflows as well as inflow and infiltration (I&I). In addition, three sanitary sewer pipeline segments crossing Calera Creek will be replaced and evaluated for new design alternatives, requiring additional engineering and potential environmental impact evaluations; and
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2024, the City advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from engineering design teams (Consultants) to design and develop construction bid documents for the Project. Then on July 15, 2024, five consultants bid the Project; and WHEREAS, as required by state Public Contracts Code, the RFP utilized a qualifications-based selection (QBS) approach to ensure the City selected the most qualified Consultant for this critical Project; and
WHEREAS, City staff ranked Freyer and Laureta, Inc. first and determined that they are the most qualified to perform the engineering design of the Project; and WHEREAS, The City Council has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to authorize a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Freyer and Laureta, Inc.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica authorizes the City Manager to execute a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Freyer and Laureta, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $940,300 for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project and approves budget authority in the amount of $1,081,345 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $141,045; and Authorizes the City Manager to execute all documents related to the Project.
3 Packet Pg. 60
Pacifica City Council 6
August 26, 2024
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 26th day of August, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 3 Packet Pg. 61
OAK #4818-2196-0582 v1
MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
This Master Agreement for Consultant Services (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 26th day of August 2024 by and between THE CITY OF PACIFICA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Freyer and Laureta, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as Party and collectively as the Parties.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires consultant services in connection with engineering design services for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Collection System Rehabilitation and Repair Project.
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified to perform such services; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has agreed to provide CITY with such services on the terms and conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, CONSULTANT and CITY agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1. Scope of Services. CONSULTANT agrees to furnish services pursuant to a Task Order in the form set forth in Exhibit A, Task Order, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Services").
1.2. Compliance with Law. The Services shall be performed in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders.
1.3. Time is of the Essence. CONSULTANT agrees to diligently prosecute the Services. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence.
1.4. Professional Competence. CONSULTANT represents that it has the professional skills necessary to perform the Services and that it will perform the Services in a skillful and professional manner. CONSULTANT represents that it has all the necessary licenses to perform the Services and shall maintain them throughout the term of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT agrees that the Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which CONSULTANT is engaged, in the same or similar geographical area in which CONSULTANT practices its profession and will prepare all work products required by this Agreement in accordance with such standards. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT is in responsible charge of the Services. Acceptance by CITY of the Services does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from professional responsibility for the Services performed.
3.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
1.5. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee of CITY. CONSULTANT expressly warrants that it will not represent that it is an employee of CITY. Persons employed or utilized by CONSULTANT in the performance of the Services will not be employees or agents of CITY. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.
1.6. Confidentiality. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in confidence and not disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation, without CITY's prior written consent, any trade secret or confidential information, knowledge or data relating to the products, process, or operation of CITY. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain in confidence and not to disclose to any person, firm, governmental entity, or corporation any data, information, technology, or material developed or obtained by CONSULTANT during the performance of the Services. The covenants contained in this Section 1.6 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause.
1.7. Ownership of Material. Any reports and other material prepared by or on behalf of CONSULTANT under this Agreement (collectively, the "Documents") shall be and remain the property of CITY. All Documents not already provided to CITY shall be delivered to CITY on the date of termination of this Agreement for any reason. The Documents may be used by CITY and its agents, employees, representatives, and assigns, in whole or in part, or in modified form, for all purposes CITY may deem appropriate without further employment of or payment of any compensation to CONSULTANT.
1.8. Documentation. CONSULTANT shall keep and maintain full and complete documentation and accounting records, employee time sheets, and correspondence pertaining to the performance of the Services, and CONSULTANT shall make such documents available for review and/or audit by CITY and CITY's representatives at all reasonable times for at least four years after the termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services.
1.9. Testimony. CONSULTANT agrees to testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with the Services. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT or is based upon CONSULTANT's negligence, CITY will compensate CONSULTANT for the preparation and the testimony at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates.
ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION
2.1. Compensation. Compensation for the Services shall be in accordance with the rate and schedules specified in a Task Order. However, in no event shall the amount the CITY pays to CONSULTANT for work done under a Task Order exceed the total compensation specified in the Task Order (Cost Ceiling).
2.2. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices in a form satisfactory to CITY on or before the tenth day of each month for Services provided during the preceding month. CONSULTANT shall submit time and cost records as necessary to substantiate
3.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer performance of the Services. Within 35 days after receipt of each such invoice, CITY shall verify the accuracy of the invoice, correct the charges where appropriate and as discussed and mutually agreed with CONSULTANT, and make payment to CONSULTANT in an amount equal to the amount of such invoice, as verified or corrected by CITY. No payment hereunder shall be construed as evidence of acceptance of any of CONSULTANT's work. CITY reserves the right to withhold payment from CONSULTANT on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in CONSULTANT's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder. CONSULTANT shall not stop or delay performance of the Services under this Agreement on account of payment disputes with CITY.
2.3. Status Reports. Together with each monthly invoice, CONSULTANT shall submit a status report detailing the amount expended on the Services to that date and the remaining amount to be expended before the Cost Ceiling is reached. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY in writing when payments have reached 90 percent of the Cost Ceiling.
2.4. Withholding. In lieu of holding retention, CITY shall withhold CONSULTANT's final payment under a Task Order until the Services provided under that Task Order are complete and CITY has received all Documents. CONSULTANT shall diligently continue and complete performance of the Services if the Services are not complete at the time CONSULTANT has performed services up to the Cost Ceiling.
ARTICLE 3 - TIME OF PERFORMANCE
3.1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of the second signature and shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 2027 (the "Term").
Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be extended for successive one-year term(s) upon mutual, written approval by the City Manager or his/her designee and CONSULTANT. Work authorized by a Task Order shall be performed in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Task Order.
3.2. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by CITY upon written notice to CONSULTANT.
3.3. Final Payment. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation for Services performed up to the time of such termination, it being understood that any payments are full compensation for the Services rendered under this Agreement.
3.4. Other Remedies. Nothing in this Article 3 shall be deemed to limit the respective rights of the parties to terminate this Agreement for cause or otherwise to exercise any rights or pursue any remedies which may accrue to them.
ARTICLE 4 - DESIGNATED CONTACTS
4.1. CITY Contact. CITY designates Dan Patten, P.E. as its contact who shall be responsible for administering and interpreting the terms and conditions of this Agreement, for matters relating to CONSULTANT's performance under this Agreement, and for liaison and coordination between CITY and CONSULTANT. In the event CITY wishes to make a
3.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer change in CITY 's representative, CITY will notify CONSULTANT of the change in writing.
4.2. CONSULTANT Contact. CONSULTANT designates _Jeffrey Tarantino___ as its contact, who shall have immediate responsibility for the performance of the Services and for all matters relating to performance under this Agreement. Any change in CONSULTANT's designated contact shall be subject to written approval by CITY.
ARTICLE 5 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
5.1. Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to claims, liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees, awards, fines, penalties, or judgments, arising out of or relating to the Services (collectively "Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its Officials, officers, employees and agents (the "CITY Parties"), except to the extent the Claims are attributable to CITY Parties' gross negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT shall defend the CITY Parties as required by California Civil Code Section 2778, and with counsel reasonably acceptable to those parties. CONSULTANT shall have no right to seek reimbursement from the CITY Parties for the costs of defense.
If CONSULTANT is a design professional, as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c), CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Indemnitees harmless against Liability only to the extent such Liability arises out of, pertains to, or relates to CONSULTANTs negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. In such an event, the cost to defend charged to CONSULTANT shall not exceed CONSULTANTs proportionate percentage of fault.
The obligations contained in this Section 5.1 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for whatever cause for the full period of time allowed by law and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance requirements of this Agreement.
5.2. Health and Safety. CONSULTANT may perform part of the Services at sites which contain unknown working conditions and contaminated materials. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of CONSULTANT's employees during the performance of the Services.
5.3. Insurance. CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency shall procure, provide and maintain at all times during the performance of this Agreement, and for such additional periods as described herein, the insurance listed below with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a Best's rating of no less than A:VII.
A. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury liability and property damage, to protect against all liability arising out of the use of any owned, leased, passenger or commercial
3.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer automobile at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 aggregate. Coverage shall apply to hired and non-owned autos.
B. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with limits providing a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage for each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products/completed operations aggregate. The insurance shall cover all operations including but not limited to the following: (1) premises, operations and mobile equipment liability; (2) completed operations and products liability; (3) contractual liability insuring the obligations assumed by CONSULTANT in this Agreement; (4) broad form property damage liability; (5) personal injury liability endorsement, including death; and (6) automobile bodily injury and property damage insurance, including all owned, hired and non-owned equipment.
C. Professional Liability Insurance. Professional Liability Insurance protecting against liabilities arising out of or in connection with negligent acts, errors, or omissions of CONSULTANT and all of CONSULTANTS employees, subcontractors, consultants and other agency in connection with this Agreement, at a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage and $1,000,000 aggregate, on a "claims made basis" with a continuation of coverage extension for liabilities for two years from the date the Services are substantially complete. Such professional liability policies shall include coverage for liability assumed by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement.
D. Workers Compensation Insurance. Workers Compensation insurance, occupational disease insurance and employers liability insurance shall be required with minimum limits as required by law, covering all workplaces involved in this Agreement.
E. Policy Terms. Concurrently with execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with Certificates of Insurance evidencing that CONSULTANT has obtained or maintains the insurance required by this Section
5.3. The Certificates shall be on forms acceptable to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also furnish CITY with original endorsements with the following documentation:
Precluding cancellation or reduction in coverage before the expiration of thirty (30) days after CITY shall have received written notification thereof from CONSULTANT by United States mail;
Providing that CONSULTANT's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, and include a separation of insureds or severability clause which treats each insured separately, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability (cross-liability endorsement);
Excepting CONSULTANTS professional liability insurance, naming CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds (Additional Insureds); and
3.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer Providing that for any claims relating to CONSULTANT's services hereunder, CONSULTANT's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents, and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY for itself, its City Council, boards, commissions, committees, officers, employees and agents shall be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not be contributory with it.
It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverages requirements and/or limits shall be available to the Additional Insured, including but not limited to any umbrella or excess insurance.
Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of:
(a) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (b) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured.
F. Material Breach. If CONSULTANT fails to maintain insurance coverage or provided insurance documentation which is required pursuant to this Agreement, it shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. CITY, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from CONSULTANT resulting from said breach. Alternatively, CITY may purchase the required insurance coverage, and without further notice to CONSULTANT, may deduct from sums due to CONSULTANT any premium costs advanced by CITY for such insurance. These remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies available to CITY.
ARTICLE 6 - NOTICES
All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be personally delivered or sent by facsimile or reputable overnight courier and shall be deemed received upon the earlier of: (1) if personally delivered, the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice; (2) if delivered by Federal Express or other overnight courier for next business day delivery, the next business day; (3) if sent by facsimile, with the original sent on the same day by overnight courier, the date on which the facsimile is received, provided it is before 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time; or (4) if sent electronically, the date of delivery on the confirmed read receipt. Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner described in this Article 6. Rejection or other refusal to accept or the inability to deliver because of a change in address of which no notice was given shall be deemed to constitute receipt of the notice or communication sent. Unless changed in accordance herewith, the addresses for notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be as follows:
If to CITY: City Manager
170 Santa Maria Ave.
Pacifica, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 738-7409
Facsimile: (650) 359-6038
Email: [email protected]
3.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer If to CONSULTANT: Jeffrey Tarantino
150 Executive Park Blvd.
Ste. 4200
San Francisco, CA 94134
Phone: (650) 619-3226
Email: [email protected]
ARTICLE 7 - MISCELLANEOUS
7.1. Conflict of Interest Prohibition. CITY and CONSULTANT will comply with the requirements of the CITYs Conflict of Interest Code adopted pursuant to California Government Code §87300 et seq., the Political Reform Act (California Government Code §81000 et seq.), the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission (Title 2, §18110 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations), California Government Code §1090 et seq., and any other ethics laws applicable to the performance of the Services and/or this Agreement. CONSULTANT may be required to file with the CITY Clerk a completed Form 700 before commencing performance of the Services unless the CITY Clerk determines that completion of a Form 700 is not required, pursuant to CITYs Conflict of Interest Code. Form 700 forms are available from the CITY Clerk.
CONSULTANT may not perform Services for any other person or entity that, pursuant to any applicable law or regulation, would result in a conflict of interest or would otherwise be prohibited with respect to CONSULTANTs obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
CONSULTANT agrees to cooperate fully with CITY and to provide any necessary and appropriate information requested by CITY or any authorized representative concerning potential conflicts of interest or prohibitions concerning CONSULTANTs obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
CONSULTANT may not employ any CITY official, officer or employee in the performance of the Services, nor may any official, officer or employee of CITY have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code §1090 et seq. CONSULTANT hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of CITY. If CONSULTANT was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of CITY in the previous twelve months, CONSULTANT warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. CONSULTANT understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et seq., the entire Agreement is void and CONSULTANT will not be entitled to any compensation for CONSULTANTs performance of the Services, including reimbursement of expenses, and CONSULTANT will be required to reimburse CITY for any sums paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement. CONSULTANT understands that, in addition to the foregoing, penalties for violating Government Code §1090 may include criminal prosecution and disqualification from holding public office in the State of California.
Any violation by CONSULTANT of the requirements of this provision will constitute a
3.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer material breach of this Agreement, and the CITY reserves all its rights and remedies at law and equity concerning any such violations.
7.2. Subcontracting. CONSULTANT may subcontract portions of the Services upon the prior written approval of CITY. CONSULTANT will be solely responsible for payment of such subcontract Services. No contractual relationship will exist between any such subcontractors of CONSULTANT and CITY. CONSULTANTs subcontractors agree to be bound to CONSULTANT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as CONSULTANT is bound to CITY under the Agreement. CONSULTANTs subcontractors further agree to include the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, with any subsubcontractor to the extent they apply to the scope of the sub-subcontractors work. A copy of the CITY indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to CONSULTANTs subcontractors upon request.
7.3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and CONSULTANT as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may only be modified by an amendment in writing signed by each party.
7.4. No Assignment. The Services are deemed unique and neither party shall assign, transfer, subcontract or otherwise substitute its interest in this Agreement or any of its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. As limited by this Section
7.2, this Agreement is to be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
7.5. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or beyond the authority of either party, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement can be interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties.
7.6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and, when fully signed, such counterparts shall have the same effect as if signed in one document.
7.7. Choice of Law. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without reference to its choice of laws principles and venue shall be in the appropriate court in San Mateo County, California.
7.8. Waiver. No failure on the part of either Party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder. A waiver by either CITY or CONSULTANT of any breach of this Agreement shall not be binding upon the waiving party unless such waiver is in writing. In the event of a written waiver, such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party's rights with respect to any other further breach.
7.9. Mediation. In the event the parties are unable to resolve a dispute arising under this Agreement through good faith negotiations, the parties agree to submit the matter to
3.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator. Prior to the mediation, the parties shall exchange any documents reasonably necessary to resolve the matter to be mediated.
7.10. Attorneys Fees. If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.
7.11. Interpretation. In the event this Agreement is ever construed in any dispute between the parties, it and each of its provisions shall be construed without regard to the party or parties responsible for its preparation and shall be deemed to have been prepared jointly by the parties. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement.
7.12. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of one of the parties represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the Agreement on behalf of such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in accordance with its terms.
7.13. Third Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the CITY or CONSULTANT. CONSULTANTs Services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of CITY. CITY shall be an express third-party beneficiary of all contracts between CONSULTANT and any subcontractors or subconsultants in connection with any services performed in connection with, or in furtherance of, this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.
CITY OF PACIFICA
By: Date ____
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
CONSULTANT- Freyer & Laureta, Inc.
By: Date
Jeffrey Tarantino, Executive Vice President
Attest:
By: ___________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
3.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer Approved As To Form
By:
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney
3.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
3.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Agreement_TO1_082624_Freyer_and_Laureta_Vallemar_Rockaway (5725 : Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Areas Sewer
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/26/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Notice of Completion for the FY 2023-24 Resurfacing Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the FY 2023-24 Resurfacing Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
STAFF CONTACT:
Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On March 27, 2023, City Council authorized the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Agreement and a Construction Management Agreement for the FY 2023-24 Resurfacing Project. The project included pavement overlay, cape seal, double slurry seal, slurry seal, microsurfacing, base repair, pavement striping and markings, and other miscellaneous related work. The project was funded by SB 1, Measure W and Measure A funds.
There were two construction change orders issued to the contractor Pavement Coatings Co. during the course of construction in the amount of $197,686.78. The change order was for the additional spot repairs, asphalt concrete for wastewater repairs, and the 5 additional streets that were double slurry sealed with the project. With the change orders, the final contractor construction cost for the project was $1,705,405.13. Additionally, due to some raveling of the slurry seal coat on Manor Dr. between Oceana Ave. and Lockhaven Dr. that was observed after the work was completed, Pavement Coatings came back in June 2024 and re-slurry sealed the area to correct the problem at no cost to the City.
As the project is now complete and staff is satisfied with the contractor’s work on the project, it is appropriate to record the formal Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office. This recorded document is the legal notice that the City considers the project complete and that we intend to pay the contractor for the full and complete contract price. This also puts all subcontractors and suppliers on notice that if they have any claims for payment from the contractor, they have 30 days to file claims for payment against the City. This provision of contract law protects subcontractors from contractors who may not pay them properly. It also protects the City from claims against us for any nonpayment on the part of the contractor. The City withheld 5% of the contract amount, $85,270.26, as retention to make sure that all subcontractors and suppliers have been paid. The City will release the retention if no claims are received.
The City Manager is recommending the adoption of the attached resolution accepting completion of the project and the filing of the Notice of Completion (Attachment 1) with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office.
4 Packet Pg. 88
Pacifica City Council 2
August 26, 2024
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the filing of the Notice of Completion. The total project Source and Use of Funds table is shown below.
Total Project Source and Use of Funds
SB1 $956,000.00
Measure W $234,340.00
Measure A/Fund 09 $1,000,000.00
Total Source of Funds $2,190,340.00
Construction Cost $1,705,405.13
Construction Management and Inspection Cost $98,340.00
Total Use of Funds $1,803,745.13
Project End Balance $386,594.87
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose not to adopt the resolution accepting completion of the project, but as the work has been satisfactorily completed, the contractor may file a claim against the City for nonpayment of retention if there are no claims.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the Notice of Completion for the FY 2023-24 Resurfacing Project is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: This project improved approximately 8.35 miles (33 street sections) of existing City streets and roads, which will prolong the life of the streets.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
4 Packet Pg. 89
Pacifica City Council 3
August 26, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. _______
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 FY 2023-24 RESURFACING PROJECT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that WHEREAS, the City Engineer of the said City has filed with the City Clerk of said City, his Certificate as to the completion of all the work provided to be done under and pursuant to the contract between said City and Pavement Coatings Co, on March 27, 2023, and
WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this Council that said work under said contract has been fully completed as provided in said contract and the plans and specifications therein referred to,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered as follows:
1. That acceptance of completion of said work be, and it is hereby, made and ordered.
2. That the City Manager is directed to file for record with the County ecorder of the County of San Mateo, Notice of Completion thereof, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 26th day of August, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 4 Packet Pg. 90
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/26/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Reject all bids for the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project.
STAFF CONTACT:
Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director/City Engineer
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
Sean Rose, P.E., S.R. Rose Engineering Inc.
650-738-3767
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project will provide a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements along approximately 2 miles of portions of Palmetto Avenue, West Avalon Drive, and Esplanade Avenue. The improvements are identified in the City’s 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
The project will install new, and improve existing, Class 2 (dedicated), Class 2B (buffered and dedicated), and Class 3 (shared) bike lanes along Palmetto Avenue and a portion of Esplanade Avenue and install new Class 3B bicycle boulevards (shared with traffic calming elements) along West Avalon Drive and portions of Esplanade Avenue. The Project will also resurface the above roads which will encourage more bicycling and ensure a smoother surface for use by all users.
The project will enhance pedestrian safety by installing quick-build painted bulbout safety zones at pedestrian crossings, curb ramps, high visibility crosswalks, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons at several intersections that connect high use centers with beaches, including the intersections of Palmetto/Westline, Palmetto/Esplanade, Esplanade/Bill Drake, Esplanade/West Manor, Esplanade/West Avalon, Palmetto/West Avalon, Palmetto/SB Hwy 1 On-Ramp, Palmetto/Surf, and Palmetto/Shoreview.
The Project was advertised for construction bids on July 10, 2024. On August 1, 2024, the bid opening was held via videoconference by the City Clerk and the results are as follows:
Company Total Bid
Dryco Construction $1,192,554.60
Golden Bay Construction $1,400,114.80
VSS International $1,523,325.00
5 Packet Pg. 91
Pacifica City Council 2
August 26, 2024
The apparent low bidder is Dryco Construction with a bid amount of $1,192,554.60. All required documentation was submitted with their bid. The original estimate at bid time was $750,000.00.
Upon opening bids, it was apparent that some of the bid prices needed to be revised to reflect more current bid prices, increasing the engineer’s estimate to $1,050,000.00. The bid amount still exceeded the revised engineer’s estimate by approximately $142,554.60, or 14%.
The low number of bids and high bid amounts received may be related to the bid timing being late in the construction season, and to current contractor availability.
Based on these bid results, staff is recommending that the Council reject all bids. Staff plans to re-evaluate the current scope of work and amend the bid documents. Staff proposes to readvertise the project later this year to attract a wider pool of available contractors, and a more favorable bid.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may direct staff to award the project to the low bidder Dryco Construction, for $1,192,554.60, with a 10% contingency for a total potential construction cost of $1,311,810.
This would require a corresponding fiscal action to increase the project budget by $490,000.
Staff does not recommend this alternative because of the high bids exceeding the revised engineer’s estimate by 14%. Staff anticipates that construction costs will decrease in the winter bidding period.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the recommended actions is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: Includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level rise. This construction project will improve the existing bicycle and pedestrian network by improving the safety and usability of existing bike lanes and pedestrian facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact is associated with rejecting all bids. The scope of the project will be evaluated and/or additional funding may be required at a future date.
ORIGINATED BY:
Engineering
ATTACHMENT LIST:
5 Packet Pg. 92
Pacifica City Council 3
August 26, 2024
5 Packet Pg. 93
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/26/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Resolution Authorizing the Support and Submittal of Applications to the SMCTA Cycle 7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the support and submittal of applications to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Cycle 7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding for the Oceana Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project
STAFF CONTACT:
Roland Yip, P.E. - Deputy Director of Public Works,
(650)738-3771
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On June 10, 2024, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) released a call for projects for the 2024 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Cycle 7 Grant Program. The Cycle 7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program will release approximately $19 million in available Measure A and W funds.
The bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Oceana Boulevard has been identified as a potential project eligible to receive grant funding. The Class II bicycle lanes on Oceana Boulevard between Milagra Drive to Clarendon Road is a priority project from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. The bicycle lanes will connect to key schools in the area and to the future bicycle lanes that are a part of the Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvements Project. In addition, the project will install ADA curb ramps and high visibility crosswalks.
The total request from the grant on this project is estimated to be in the amount of $2,000,000.
City required matching funds are discussed in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.
As part of the grant application, it is required to include a resolution authorizing the support and submittal of the application, and committing matching funds. The City Manager recommends adopting the resolution in support of the application submitted for the SMCTA Cycle 7 Pedestrian & Bicycle Program.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Alternative Action would be to not adopt the resolution which would disqualify the submitted grant applications.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea 6 Packet Pg. 94
Pacifica City Council 2
August 26, 2024
level rise. Adopting the resolution will make the funds available to continue to implement the City’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no fiscal impacts at this time. However, this action commits the City to provide $200,000 in matching funds to the project, if the grant is successful. Sufficient funds exist from Fund 9 - Measure A, Fund 11 - Measure W, and Fund 13 - Street Improvement for this purpose.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
6 Packet Pg. 95
Pacifica City Council 3
August 26, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE OCEANA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECT
AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR CYCLE 7 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM FUNDING WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica (Sponsor) has identified a lack of bicycle infrastructure connecting the Manor and Sharp Park neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor has developed the Oceana Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project (Project) to install Class II Bicycle markings as identified within the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, it will cost $2,000,000 to implement the Project to install bicycle and pedestrian improvements starting from Milagra Drive to Clarendon Road. The project also looks to improve some of the pedestrian intersections with high visibility crosswalks and signs and WHEREAS, the Sponsor seeks $2,000,000 for the Project; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) issued a Call for Projects for the Cycle 7 Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on June 10, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the TA requires the Sponsor's governing board to adopt a resolution:
1. Supporting the Project and application for $2,000,000 in TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for Project;
2. Committing the Sponsor to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $200,000 needed for implementation;
3. Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and
4. If funds are awarded, authorizing the Sponsor's City Manager, or designee, to sign a funding agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the TA [and/or other parties, if applicable for TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution and execute applicable amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing board of the City of Pacifica:
1. Directs staff to submit an application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $2,000,000 for Oceana Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project;
2. Authorizes the City Manager or designee, to execute a funding agreement or MOU and any amendments with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority [and/or other parties, if applicable] to encumber TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds; 6 Packet Pg. 96
Pacifica City Council 4
August 26, 2024
3. Commits to completing the Project, including contributing $200,000 of matching funds needed for Project implementation, if the requested TA funds are awarded;
4. Certifies that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and
5. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution and execute applicable amendments.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 26th day of August, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 6 Packet Pg. 97
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
8/26/2024
1 SUBJECT:
Short Term Rental Study Session
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive updates on the Short-Term Rental Program and provide direction on potential revisions to the City’s Short-Term Rental regulations.
STAFF CONTACT:
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
(650) 738-7301
[email protected]
Brianne Harkousha, AICP, Senior Planner
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND:
The City Council held a Study Session on June 24, 2024, to receive an extensive update on implementation of the City’s short-term rental (STR) program and to discuss potential provisions to be considered in an update to the STR Ordinance.
The City’s STR program is very complex and affects various municipal services. An effectively managed STR program can serve as a robust driver for the local economy, boosting tourism and hospitality, increasing local spending, enhancing property values, supporting local small businesses, and expanding the visitor-serving economy. Cities with an unregulated and improperly managed STR program have experienced a range of negative impacts which can create challenges disruptive to the local community and its character, including noise, garbage, traffic, parking, reducing the availability of long-term housing and the overall cohesion of neighborhoods.
At the last study session, staff provided an extensive update to the Council and the community and shared information about the implementation of the City’s STR program and enforcement efforts. Furthermore, staff provided general benchmark information regarding other agencies STR provisions. For further background, please refer to the staff report for the June 24, 20241 City Council Study Session.
During the previous study session, the City heard from the community, including STR operators and neighbors, who raised various concerns over current STR regulations and enforcement efforts. Changes were requested related to the following aspects of the implementation of the STR program to ensure:
• Inclusion of regulations in the new ordinance to effectively enforce noncompliant STRs.
• Addressing complaints about STR operators that were hosting parties, causing nuisance to the neighborhood, and especially those properties with repeat STR 1 City Council Study Session on June 24, 2024 - Staff Report & Attachments:
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=1539&Inline=True 7 Packet Pg. 98
Pacifica City Council 2
August 26, 2024
violations.
• Understanding the impact of new ordinance provisions that may affect legal and compliant STRs.
Developing effective management standards and regulations for the STR program requires a careful balance between compliance and enforcement, the availability of long-term housing, and the economic benefits that successful STR operations bring to the local economy. While STRs can boost tourism and hospitality and support local businesses, it's essential that new regulations do not compromise the well-being and cohesion of neighborhoods. The end goal should be to integrate a well-managed STR program into the broader economic and social composition of Pacifica's community, ensuring that the benefits of tourism and local economic growth are balanced with the needs and quality of life of residents.
The City Council discussed the City’s regulations and limitations under the current Ordinance and identified potential provisions of interest to evaluate further and strengthen the City’s STR regulations. The City Council’s direction at the June 24, 2024 Study Session was for staff to evaluate and research the following provisions and areas to improve the City’s STR program.
Council’s direction can be divided into two categories: policy considerations and regulatory compliance matters.
Policy Considerations:
• Hosted vs. Unhosted Rentals: Differentiating and setting limits for unhosted STRs based on the number of rental days.
• Primary Residence Requirement: Requiring STRs to be primary residences with specific residency conditions.
• Occupancy Limits: Setting limits on the number of occupants per bedroom. • Parking Requirements: Defining where vehicles can be parked (garage vs. driveway).
• Multifamily Properties: Deciding on the allowance of STRs in multifamily residences.
• STR Density: Limiting the number of STRs per neighborhood, business district, or street/block.
• Zoning Differences: Exploring different regulations for STRs in Coastal vs. NonCoastal zones. • Minimum Rental Duration: Prohibiting hourly rentals and enforcing a 2–3-day minimum rental period.
Regulatory Compliance:
• Permit Limits: Restricting one STR permit per natural person. • Permit Processing Restrictions: Not allowing the processing of other city permits if the property is being converted to an STR without proper registration. • Enforcement Timeline: Shortening the enforcement process timeline. • Grandfathering Permits: Considering whether to grandfather in current STR permit holders.
• 24/7 Contact Requirement: Mandating the identification of a 24/7 contact person for each STR.
• Administrative Procedures and Compliance: Clarifying and Improving STR permit revocation procedures and enforcements.
Following the Council’s direction at the June 24 meeting, staff reviewed and evaluated these considerations to provide recommendations, further analysis of implementation impacts, or to request additional direction as necessary as summarized in the Discussion section of this 7 Packet Pg. 99
Pacifica City Council 3
August 26, 2024
report.
Staff also includes a list of defined terms in Attachment 1 to ensure that all parties reviewing this report fully understand common terminology. The terms listed in this attachment are for general understanding only and should not serve as a recommended language for incorporation into a future Ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
Before delving into the policy considerations, staff plans to first review the potential timeline for implementing potential new ordinance provisions. Staff have also analyzed the feasibility of a moratorium on new Short-Term Rental (STR) permits. This approach ensures that the timing and immediate impact of the proposed changes are fully understood before the Council engages in the detailed policy considerations tonight.
1. New Ordinance Timeline
After the Study Session on June 24, 2024, staff reviewed the concerns and issues expressed by the Council and members of the public. Per the council's direction, staff evaluated the list of items related to STR program implementation and potential ordinance provisions. This extensive review and update are incorporated within this staff report. If Council’s direction during the August 26, 2024, Study Session is to proceed with ordinance revisions, staff will still need to undertake significant work to bring the amendments forward for Council consideration, timeline and details as follows:
1. City staff would begin preparing draft ordinance amendments to the STR Ordinance in a redlined version. In addition, staff will also need to prepare any analysis required to justify any specific ordinance amendments.
2. City staff will coordinate and meet with the California Coastal Commission to discuss the feasibility of the recommended ordinance amendments. This step could present challenges if certain ordinance amendments need further analysis or are not perceived as feasible by California Coastal Commission staff and could result in an extended process.
3. Depending on the outcome with Coastal Commission staff discussions, City staff would proceed with one of the following:
a. Schedule an additional Study Session for City Council to review and consider recommended modifications by Coastal Commission staff; or b. If no substantial modifications are required by Coastal Commission staff, then City staff will schedule the proposed ordinance amendment for the next available Planning Commission meeting.
i. If the outcome of the Coastal Commission review is 3(b), then the next steps would be the Planning Commission consideration of the proposed ordinance amendments and recommendation of approval to the City Council. ii. If the Planning Commission recommends approval to City Council with or without modifications, City staff would schedule the proposed ordinance amendments for the first introduction to the ordinance at the next available City Council meeting. iii. If the City Council reviews and recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments and introduces the ordinance by title, then the second reading of the ordinance would occur at the next City Council meeting. iv. Thirty days from the date of the second reading, the ordinance amendments would apply to properties located outside the Coastal Zone. The ordinance would not be effective in areas located in the coastal zone until California Coastal Commission approval is received.
v. City staff will begin preparing and applying for an LCP Amendment for the STR Ordinance Amendment to be reviewed and approved by the California Coastal 7 Packet Pg. 100
Pacifica City Council 4
August 26, 2024
Commission. This step also contains uncertainty, but staff anticipates that the preliminary review of the ordinance and consistent coordination with the California Coastal Commission could reduce additional comments and/or requested modifications by the Coastal Commission.
Overall, the timeline for the implementation of the new STR ordinance is contingent on the Coastal Commission’s review and any modifications it might make to the Council-recommended amendments. The amended STR ordinance could go into effect as early as mid-late November 2024. Initially, the amendments will only apply to the areas outside the Coastal zone. Approval of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment by the Coastal Commission, which is required for the ordinance to apply within the Coastal zone, could take up to a year, at minimum, or likely longer. This delay may create a disparity and distinct set of STR regulations in coastal and noncoastal zones.
In any event, the new ordinance will not be in place in time for the STR permit renewal in October 2024. Renewal notices will be sent out early next week, and staff will coordinate with HdL to inform current STR permit holders that the Council may modify the ordinance in the coming year to change or expand the STR regulations in Pacifica.
2. Adopting a Moratorium
Several Councilmembers have asked whether the City should consider adopting a moratorium on new STR permits. Cities may impose moratoria (temporary prohibition on an activity) by adopting interim ordinances prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal. There is a detailed process for adopting a moratorium, which includes adopting specific and quantifiable findings demonstrating that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and that the approval of any applicable entitlement for use which is required to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in a threat to the public health, safety or welfare. (See Government Code section 65858).
Moratoria are often used when there is an immediate threat to health and safety, and the city wants to take immediate action to preserve the status quo. For example, a city that supplies water and finds that its water supply is depleted may adopt a moratorium on new water service connections during a declared water shortage emergency if it finds that allowing new or additional water service connections would deplete the city’s existing water supply.
In this case, while there are a number of concerns that the community members have raised about STRs, there do not appear to be any facts that would indicate that the continued issuance of STR permits would constitute “a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare.” Additionally, stopping the issuance of STR permits would not do anything to address the community’s concerns relating to existing STRs. Moreover, given the Coastal Commission’s recent approval of the City’s Short-Term-Rental Ordinance and the rapidly approaching permit cap, it would be difficult to make the necessary findings because the permit cap accomplishes the same objective as a moratorium without the difficulties associated with making the requisite findings. As shown in HdL’s most recent report, there are only 11 permits available under the existing 150 permit cap. 8 applications are pending with HdL leaving only 3 available permits.
As a result of the City’s enforcement efforts, the remaining 3 permits will likely be issued in the next few weeks. Thereafter, applicants will be placed on a waiting list.
Finally, even if the requisite findings could be established, the moratorium would only be effective for 45 days. Thereafter, the Council would have to make another finding that a threat to health and safety still exists and there is nothing the City can do to mitigate the impacts. It is unclear how the City could make those findings if the City has reached the STR permit cap.
Finally, a moratorium prohibiting additional STR permits would require approval by the Coastal 7 Packet Pg. 101
Pacifica City Council 5
August 26, 2024
Commission. As the Council is aware, the Commission recently approved the Citywide cap on short-term rental permits. A limitation that is more restrictive than the City’s cap would require an amendment to the City’s local coastal program (LCP). The City will have likely reached its cap on STR permits well before the Commission’s action on any amendment.
3. Potential Provisions for the New Ordinance.
Staff has completed its analysis of the items related to STR program implementation and potential ordinance amendments directed by the Council at the June 24, 2024 study session and provides analysis of those items below grouped between the policy considerations and regulatory compliance items as outlined above and described below.
3.1 Policy Considerations to Improve the STR Program
• Hosted vs. Unhosted Rentals: Differentiating and setting limits for unhosted STRs based on the number of rental days.
Differentiation between hosted and unhosted rentals
Council directed staff to evaluate the terminology of a hosted vs. an unhosted short term rental and how defining these terms might allow the City to further regulate STR’s. Staff evaluated the provisions of eight different public agencies to determine whether defining hosted vs. unhosted short-term rentals was a common practice.
Staff found that several of the sample agencies had legislative distinctions between hosted and unhosted short-term rentals. Several agencies defined a hosted shortterm rental as a short-term residential rental in which the host is present while it is being rented. “Host” was defined as a host on premises at all times between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. An unhosted stay was defined as a short-term residential rental that is not hosted.
“Host” was defined as any person who is the owner of record of residential real property or any person who is a lessee of residential real property who offers a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, for short-term rental either through a hosting platform or individually as an operator. An unhosted short-term rental was defined as a short-term rental in which the owner of record or the long-term lessee of the property does not reside on the property during the time a renter is occupying the residence. For the purpose of this report, these are the definitions used by staff in preparing the analysis and impact of implementation.
Limits for Unhosted STRs
The Council also directed staff to evaluate the possibility of limiting unhosted shortterm rental operations to a certain number of days per year. Staff evaluated eight agencies’ operating limitations, including contacting enforcement staff to measure the effectiveness of such provisions. One agency located in a coastal zone limited unhosted short-term rentals to a maximum of up to 60 days per calendar year.
Another agency located outside of the coastal zone limited unhosted short-term rentals to a maximum of 120 days per calendar year. These agencies’ staff indicated that administering, monitoring, and tracking the number of days an unhosted shortterm rental operated per calendar year had been challenging. While enforcement efforts have increased post-COVID, efficiently ensuring compliance with these provisions required a significant staff commitment of time and resources.
Implementation Impacts/Considerations:
Differentiation between hosted and unhosted rentals
7 Packet Pg. 102
Pacifica City Council 6
August 26, 2024
While the short-term rental ordinance could be amended to impose these additional requirements, monitoring and enforcement would require a significant operational commitment by the City’s small Code Enforcement Division and already understaffed Police Department. In addition, proposing a distinction between hosted and unhosted short-term rentals would be difficult to administer practically. Adding restrictive operational requirements on unhosted STRs would require staff to investigate, inspect, and verify compliance prior to registering such STR. It would also require the City to devote staff resources to the development of a new real-time STR investigation and inspection program. Additional reporting requirements, inspections, and investigations would also be required before resolving or enforcing an STR complaint. Such a program would likely require the hiring of additional enforcement personnel, increased STR permit fees, and increased fees for violations to ensure cost recovery.
Although the perception of limiting unhosted STR operations per year would seem like a tactic to reduce STR activity, adding such a provision would be difficult to implement effectively, as it would rely on self-reported data and only be enforceable if violations were reported or investigated. This approach would not likely address concerns about neighborhood disruptions but would severely affect the overall coastal hospitality industry in Pacifica. Additionally, verifying and monitoring the number of days an unhosted STR operates in a given year would require significant staff resources and would depend on accurate data reported by hosts and online platform verifications, making it challenging to enforce due to the complexity of tracking and the high likelihood of underreporting that may require more assistance from consultants to perform some of this work at a higher cost. A proposed limitation on unhosted STR operations would also not contribute to an overall improvement in life, health, and safety, as other provisions could directly impact this area. Thus, staff finds a provision to limit unhosted STRs impractical, unfeasible, and therefore, not recommended.
After evaluating the definitions of the terms staff recommends that defining a type of short-term rental, as “Hosted” vs “Unhosted” would be beneficial. Staff requests further direction from the Council on specific variations of such definitions, and whether placing additional restrictions on the number of unhosted STRs within the citywide cap of 150 STR units is still desired. Earlier this year, the City updated the STR permit application to include more data-driven questions, such as whether hosts are on-site during rentals. While precise data on the hosted versus unhosted composition of Pacifica's STRs will only be available after the next renewal in October, it is known that most STRs in Pacifica are unhosted.
If the City decides to ban or further restrict unhosted STRs, it would likely lead to a significant reduction in STR permits from compliant hosts, significantly impacting the economic benefits that the STR program provides to the local economy and local businesses. This may also result in a crucial drop in City revenues between $1.5-1.7 million per year (based on the unverified assumption that about 90% of Pacifica’s STRs are unhosted), which may lead to the inevitable reductions of already underfunded city services.
Additionally, such restrictions could also stimulate and encourage non-compliance, with some hosts potentially misrepresenting their hosting status on the permit application. As shared by staff in other jurisdictions with similar STR restrictions, enforcing this provision could prove challenging, as verifying whether a rental is hosted or unhosted might be difficult, if not impossible. 7 Packet Pg. 103
Pacifica City Council 7
August 26, 2024
The Council also wanted to explore the possibility of charging different STR permit fees for hosted and unhosted STRs. Charging different permit fees for hosted and unhosted STRs is not recommended due to enforcement challenges, administrative complexity, fairness concerns, and the potential for reduced compliance. As already mentioned, verifying whether a rental is truly hosted would be difficult, leading to possible false reporting and increased monitoring costs. A tiered fee structure could also create disparities among hosts, as some may feel penalized without justification.
This may discourage compliance, as some might choose to operate without permits or misreport to avoid higher fees. A uniform fee structure helps maintain fairness and simplifies enforcement, focusing on effective regulations rather than revenues or creating financial inequities.
• Primary Residence Requirement: Requiring STRs to be primary residences with specific residency conditions.
The council directed staff to evaluate provisions for a primary residency requirement with specific residency conditions. The council and members of the public expressed concerns about the STR being rented all year to strangers, impacting neighborhood character.
Staff researched options available to Council, including a primary residency requirement that would ensure that the STR property is used as a primary residence for some portion of a year. A variation of this requirement would be a temporary residency requirement, which would require a property owner to reside at the property for a certain period of time before applying for an STR permit. Implementing both of these options, such as allowing only hosted STRs and requiring that the property be used as a primary residence to obtain the STR permit, presents administrative and enforcement challenges similar to administering the hosted vs unhosted restrictions.
Identifying whether an STR property is used as a primary or temporary residence would require staff to review both the property owner’s documentation and the documentation of the lessee residing in the unit prior to issuing an STR Permit.
Documentation would likely include driver’s license, tax information or a copy of any lease and evidence proving that the host is actually living in the dwelling unit for the requisite period of time per calendar year. However, verifying the residential occupancy requirements could be difficult and presents the same challenges for staff to enforce a primary residency provision as described above. Practically, this provision would not be enforceable and would mainly be a self-reporting task in which compliance is only verified through documentation. For these reasons, staff is not recommending pursuing these requirements.
• Occupancy Limits: Setting limits on the number of occupants per bedroom.
Council directed staff to evaluate setting a limit on the number of occupants per bedroom. Council and members of the public raised concerns about STR operations exceeding maximum number of occupants for a typical residence and impacting neighborhood character with multiple people visiting a residence. Staff evaluated provisions amongst eight public agencies and found that the majority have an occupancy limit of no more than two people per bedroom. Setting limits on the number of occupants per bedroom is recommended to allow the City to ensure the proper ratio of guests to rooms available. Staff recommends adding a provision that sets a limit on the number of occupants per bedroom to a maximum of two 7 Packet Pg. 104
Pacifica City Council 8
August 26, 2024
occupants per bedroom. This would not apply to children under the age of twelve years old.
Implementation Impacts/Considerations: This type of regulation would be very challenging to implement from a regulatory perspective in determining what number should be applied as the limit because bedroom sizes can vary from property to property, and from an enforcement perspective because this would require determining who is actually utilizing the STR. The City could request certain information as part of the STR permit application as part of the registration (i.e., the application could require identification of the number of guests per bedroom), but that number could change over time if the owner decides to change the configuration of the bedrooms. In terms of enforcement, it would be difficult to identify which rooms the guests are actually staying in and whether the maximum capacity has been reached at a particular point in time.
• Parking Requirements: Defining where vehicles can be parked (garage vs. driveway).
Council directed staff to define/limit number of vehicles and where they are allowed to park (i.e. garage, driveway). Council and members of the public expressed concerns about multiple vehicles parked on the street and lack of parking in the neighborhood due to the short-term rental operations.
Staff conducted research of the eight sample public agencies and found that these agencies included a few variations of parking standards for an STR operation, which included the following:
o STR to maintain minimum parking requirements consistent with the jurisdiction's parking standards per the zoning district or use type and must be available for the guests during the STR operations (typically two off-street parking spaces in a garage and two on-site (i.e., on the driveway).
o One vehicle per bedroom, either off-street or on-street parking space (requires off-street parking to be used before using onstreet parking spaces). o One per vacation rental, either on-site or within a designated parking lot.
Staff reviewed various parking standards for STR operations in benchmark agencies and found that the most common is to require that the property proposing an STR operation provide the minimum parking consistent with the zoning district or existing use on-site (i.e. Single-Family Residential Zoning or Single-Family Residential Dwelling) and the parking must be made available during the STR operations. For reference, PMC Section 9-4.2818 (Number of parking spaces required) of Pacifica’s Off-Street Parking and Loading Ordinance requires single-family and two-family residential uses to provide two garage spaces per unit and where adequate length to accommodate a parked car does not exist or on-street parking is unavailable a minimum of one guest parking space per unit should be provided. In addition, parking spaces are required to meet a minimum size to be considered a parking space consistent with PMC section 9-4.28047.
In order to address parking concerns for STR operations, staff would recommend a provision that would require STR operations to comply with the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces and be designed to be consistent with the City’s Off-Street Parking and Loading Ordinance. In addition, all off-street parking spaces must be available for the STR during operations. Staff would implement this 7 Packet Pg. 105
Pacifica City Council 9
August 26, 2024
provision by proposing objective criteria for an STR operator to comply with, such as requiring applicants registering an STR to provide a site plan and written statement indicating the location of the spaces and the size of the space to ensure it meets the minimum standards per the Off-Street Parking and Loading Ordinance. The operator would also need to agree to make all spaces available for renters of the STR of an unhosted short-term rental and make at least one space available for renters of the STR of a hosted short-term rental. This would also be verified during the inspection phase if a provision for inspections before issuing an STR Permit is adopted.
If a property registering for an STR does not have the minimum parking on-site consistent with the Pacifica Municipal Code, then they would not be eligible for an STR Permit because the property does not provide sufficient parking for the operations. To further implementation, staff would also recommend that the STR operators add the parking requirement to the guest manual to ensure the requirement is communicated to the guests of the STR. Although this provision cannot limit the public from using a public street, this would allow the City to verify that the STR operators are in compliance with the minimum parking standards for the property, and non-compliance could result in revocation of the permit and/or a site with inadequate parking available would not be eligible to register an STR at the proposed property.
In summary, staff would recommend to add a provision that requires STR operations to comply with the minimum number of off-street parking standards consistent with PMC Section 9-4.2818 and minimum design standards for each parking space PMC section 9-4.28047. In addition, the provision would require all parking spaces be made available for renters of the unhosted STR and at least one parking space made available for a hosted STR.
Implementation Impacts/Considerations: A provision that requires an STR operator to self-report the number and location of parking spaces would require staff to update application forms, review information during the registration phase, verify at the renewal phase, and also enforce if there was a reported complaint.
Administering this provision is possible; however, it would be an additional item that staff would verify during the application phases and enforcement. Thus, consideration of an increased fee for violations or increased STR permit fees would be necessary for cost recovery. Additionally, since this is primarily a self-reporting task and potentially verified during the inspection phase, it could be challenging to observe impactful results and/or may not fully address the Council or the public concerns regarding street parking.
• Multifamily Properties: Deciding on the allowance of STRs in multifamily residences.
Council directed staff to evaluate limiting STRs in a multifamily residence and prohibiting STR’s on vacant lots. Council and members of the public expressed concerns regarding multiple STRs being operated in one building and its impact on the neighborhood character or impact on available housing stock.
Staff’s analysis of the eight sample agencies found that several agencies had land use allowance provisions that allow one STR per property (legal lot of record) or parcel (APN). One agency prohibits STR’s in multifamily buildings with four or more units and one limits one STR per building with four or more units that share common walls.
7 Packet Pg. 106
Pacifica City Council 10 August 26, 2024
Pacifica currently has 15 properties that operate two or more STRs on lots with either two or up to five units per property. A figure of a list of properties may be referenced below (Figure 1). Proposing a provision that limits one STR permit per a legal lot of record and one STR permit per multifamily residential building with five (5) or more units when units share common walls would allow the current STR operators with multiple active STR permits within a triplex (3 or more units with share common walls) or on a single parcel (i.e. 2 STRs on one parcel) to continue to operate in compliance. This would also reduce the impact on overall TOT loss if existing, active, and compliant STRs are allowed to continue operating. Adding such a provision would address the concerns of multiple STRs operating in one building and the impacts on available housing stock in the buildings where affordable housing is commonly provided. A provision that limits the future number of STR Permits issued on a property or by multifamily residential building would allow staff to facilitate and track the concentration of STRs within the City.
Figure 1: List of STR Properties with Multiple Units
Based on this research and considering the concerns expressed by the Council and members of the public, it’s reasonable to propose a similar land use allowance to protect the neighborhood character, preserve housing stock, and reduce the potential nuisance of multiple STRs on one property.
Staff recommends a similar land use allowance provision for STR operations to ensure that there is only one STR permit per property (legal lot of record) or parcel (APN). In addition, staff would recommend another provision to limit one (1) STR permit per multifamily residential buildings with five (5) or more units, when units share common walls. If an STR is required to comply with the minimum land use allowances to operate, staff would implement this provision during the registration of the STR and verify that:
1) Only one STR operating per legal lot of record or parcel; and 2) Limit one (1) STR permit per multifamily residential buildings with five (5) or more units, when units share common walls.
3) When multifamily residential buildings consist of four (4) or less units, when sharing common walls then one STR permit per unit is required to operate an STR for each unit proposed in the building. 7 Packet Pg. 107
Pacifica City Council 11 August 26, 2024
Implementation Impacts/Considerations: A provision specific to land use allowance would require staff to review property records and verify compliance during the registration phase of the STR. This would increase staff time to review applications to register an STR and ensure compliance. A new provision specific to land use allowance would also apply to existing STRs and eventually, existing STR operators would be required to comply with the standard. However, improvements to the Administrative Regulations of the Municipal Code may be considered to protect the existing compliant STR operations, which will be further discussed in the following sections of this report.
• STR Density: Limiting the number of STRs per neighborhood, business district, or street/block.
Council directed staff to evaluate limits on the number of STRs per neighborhood, district, street, or block. Council and the public expressed interest in a provision that would limit the concentration of STRs to either locations where higher density exists or limiting number per neighborhoods to ensure an oversaturation of STRs does not occur.
After reviewing the provisions for the eight sample agencies, staff found that a majority of the agencies did not have a limit on STRs based on neighborhood, district, street, or block. One agency had a neighborhood cap which provided that no more than 20% of the units could be permitted for STRs. One agency’s ordinance provided that no more than 15% of parcels could have an STR per block. Other provisions related to concentration limitations were buffers, where one agency required 55-feet between STRs and no more than 15% of parcels per block with STR operations, and one agency with an overlay district that allowed STRs in a particular area that was analyzed and justified to have the highest density and foot traffic in the City to promote STR operations.
The agency that had a neighborhood cap of providing that no more than 20% of the units could operate as STRs, is also a high-demand tourist destination and currently has close to 3,000 STR properties in the jurisdiction. This agency has very different characteristics than Pacifica and this should be considered when determining an STR limitation based on neighborhood. Similarly, the agency that has a buffer and cap per block and the other with an overlay district are located adjacent to jurisdictions with high demand tourist destination along the coast.
A provision that limits the number of STRs per neighborhood could reduce the proposed STR operations where the City experiences some of the highest visitors and has the most tourist attractions. For example, most visitors visit Pacifica for the beautiful beaches and outdoor recreational amenities along the coast, and limiting STR operations within a neighborhood such as the Sharp Park neighborhood, where there are many outdoor recreational amenities and visitor-serving activities, could have a financial impact on existing business operations in the area. Based on data provided by HdL, the City currently has 67 STR Permits located in the Coastal Zone and the majority are within the Sharp Park neighborhood. A provision that limits STRs within this neighborhood may have an impact on existing STR operations and a financial impact on the City.
Given the potential impacts above, if a majority of the Council was interested in pursuing this option further, staff recommends further evaluating this provision with a financial impact analysis and consideration of how it would impact the active, legal 7 Packet Pg. 108
Pacifica City Council 12 August 26, 2024
STR operations and visitor-driven areas.
• Zoning Differences: Exploring different regulations for STRs in Coastal vs. NonCoastal zones.
Council directed staff to evaluate different regulations for STRs located in Coastal vs.
Non-Coastal zones. Council expressed interest in a provision that included different regulations for STRs located in coastal vs non-coastal zones. Staff referred to the provisions of the eight-sample agency’s and found that only one prepared a new ordinance provision that prohibits new unhosted STRs outside of the coastal zone.
However, staff also notes that the new ordinance amendment has not yet been certified by the Coastal Commission. Additionally, one agency has a cap for STRs located within and outside of the coastal zone. Staff did not find specific regulations for coastal vs non-coastal STRs amongst the eight sample agencies.
Distinguishing STR operations by coastal vs. non-coastal zone and proposing different regulations for each may be problematic to enforce. It would require extensive coordination/collaboration with the California Coastal Commission to ensure the feasibility of the regulations in the coastal zone. It would also create disparity and inequality within the STR program. Given the potential challenges, staff would not recommend pursuing these requirements.
• Minimum Rental Duration: Prohibiting hourly rentals and enforcing a 2–3-day minimum rental period.
The Council directed staff to evaluate a provision for minimum night stays and/or prohibiting rentals by the hour/day. Concerns were raised regarding STRs operating for rentals by the hour or day to be used for an event or party. Allowing a residence to be rented for a short duration could increase the likelihood that the residence is used for large, one-time events. Staff reviewed the eight sample jurisdictions’ provisions and found that multiple jurisdictions prohibit events in STRs and/or require a minimum of two (2) consecutive night stays for STRs. Staff recommends a provision that requires a minimum two-night consecutive stay and prohibits events (parties) in units with an active STR Permit.
Implementation Impacts/Considerations: Implementing new provisions would increase staff time spent reviewing STR applications and enforcement to ensure compliance with the ordinance. This would result in the potential need to increase STR permit fees and/or violation fees to recover cost. In addition, administering this provision would be primarily a self-reported task, and staff would not be aware of an STR that does not meet the minimum stays until a report is filed. The only way staff would confirm that the minimum night stay was not adhered to is if the online rental posting indicates a less than two-night stay. Thus, implementing this standard could present challenges if the online rental company does not agree to ensure these stays offer the minimum requirement and if the operators neglect to disclose their operations are inconsistent with the provision.
3.2 Regulatory Compliance
• Permit Limits: Restricting one STR permit per natural person.
The Council directed staff to research whether the City could restrict short-term rental permits to “natural persons” to prevent large corporations from owning multiple 7 Packet Pg. 109
Pacifica City Council 13 August 26, 2024
short-term rental properties. California law defines a corporation as a “person.” The term “person” includes both corporations and natural persons. (Civ. Code, § 14(a); Civ. Proc. Code, § 17(b)(6); Corp. Code, § 18; Pen. Code, § 7). California law grants corporations all of the powers of a natural person in the carrying out of its business activities, subject to restrictions in its articles of incorporation or to statutory limitations. (See California Corp. Code, § 207). Any restriction on corporations holding short term rental permits would likely be subject to challenge as conflicting with a matter of state concern. Further, as "persons" corporate entities are protected by federal civil-rights laws. (See, Genesis Environmental Services v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Dist., (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th 597, including the rights to equal protection and due process.
Staff does not recommend restricting STR permits to only natural persons.
Restrictions on the number of short-term rental permits held by a single entity could accomplish the same purpose without the exposure to litigation. Like San Francisco and Half Moon Bay, the City could condition a short-term rental permit on “occupancy” of the unit by” at least one of the unit’s primary residents for a certain time period. (See Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica, (2019) 940 F.3d 439, 451).
There is a recent case invalidating a residency restriction which required the primary resident of the home-shared dwelling to be the dwelling's owner. (S. Lake Tahoe Prop. Owners Grp. v. City of S. Lake Tahoe (2023) 92 Cal. App. 5th 735, 762).
Therefore, the primary residency requirement would need to be linked to occupancy not ownership to ensure that the restriction is applied equally to both local and out of state owners.
Implementation Costs/Consideration:
This type of restriction would significantly limit the number of STR permits since many people do not hold property as individuals. It could also expose the City to a legal challenge if the City distinguishes between natural persons and corporations. • Permit Processing Restrictions: Not allowing the processing of other city permits if the property is being converted to an STR without proper registration.
Council directed staff to evaluate whether the City could hold processing of a building permit if an application is received to register an STR for the same property. Council and members of the public raised concerns about STR operators receiving STR Permits for properties that have not obtained Building Permits for existing construction and have Building Permit proposals in process while an STR Permit is proposed on the same site.
Holding the processing of a building permit application if an application is received to register an STR for the same property is not a common provision in the STR Ordinances reviewed of the eight sample agencies, and may be difficult to justify a nexus to do so. In addition, it would be speculative for staff to assume that a property applying for a Building Permit would later apply for an STR Permit. Staff currently prepares a thorough review of active planning applications, active building permits, and/or code violations at the time of STR Permit submittal and prior to issuance of an STR Permit. However, the Ordinance does not have a provision allowing staff to inspect the property prior to issuing the STR Permit to ensure the validity of the active permits or potential violations that are not on record with the City.
Therefore, staff would recommend a provision to require an on-site inspection prior to issuing an STR Permit to investigate any life, health, or safety issues and other items necessary to operate an STR. A majority of the sample jurisdictions require inspections prior to issuing STR permits. However, staff is seeking Council direction 7 Packet Pg. 110
Pacifica City Council 14 August 26, 2024
to determine the level of inspection as it varies from requiring inspections from the Building Division, Code Enforcement, Fire Department, Environmental Health Department, and some are self-certified. The frequency of inspections also differs among the eight sample agencies. Most require a one-time inspection for new applications. One agency requires an inspection with new applications every three years. Another requirement is the inspection of new applications on an annual basis.
In addition, some jurisdictions require a self-certified inspection for either unhosted or hosted STRs.
At a minimum, staff would recommend inspections performed by staff in the Code Enforcement Division and Building Divisions prior to issuance of an STR Permit for an Unhosted STR. These inspections would include a detailed list of items to ensure public health, life, and safety and any additional items to be reviewed for an STR operation. To further address concerns expressed by the Council and the public, staff would recommend a mandatory inspection at the time of new application and annually thereafter. For hosted STRs, staff would recommend a self-certified inspection submitted prior to the issuance of an STR permit and concurrently with the submittal of an STR application. The self-certified inspection would be based on items listed in the City’s checklist for inspection of building safety, fire-life safety, and other applicable STR operations standards.
Staff would recommend a provision to require a City staff inspection to receive approval from the City’s Building and Code Enforcement Divisions prior to issuance of an STR Permit for Unhosted STRs. This inspection would include, at minimum, checklist items verifying emergency ingress/egress routes, installation of carbon monoxide detectors, location of fire extinguishers, existing code violations, existing building permits on record, and other items as necessary for STR operations or to be consistent with public health, life, and safety measures. Staff also recommends that inspections occur prior to issuance of the first STR Permit, every renewal (annual basis), and as needed if an STR operation is in violation of the code. Furthermore, a new provision for hosted STRs requires a self-certified inspection approved prior to the issuance of an STR permit and submitted concurrently with an STR application.
Criteria for the inspection would be based on items listed in the City’s checklist for inspecting buildings for safety, fire-life-safety, and other applicable STR operations standards.
Implementation Impacts/Considerations: Depending on the type proposed, additional staff resources would be dedicated to inspections. Thus, we would need to analyze the cost and time commitment required to conduct inspections. This would ultimately increase either the overall permit fee or the applicant's cost when applying for an STR Permit.
Pacifica’s Community Development Department consultant services for the Building Division, CSG Consultants, estimates approximately $125 per hour for a typical new home final inspection, which includes ensuring the building’s structural integrity is safe, all electrical, mechanical, and plumbing systems are working, and a fire extinguisher is installed on each level.
However, staff would consider a more thorough inspection for an STR operation, such as confirming applicable permits were received for the construction of structures, properly installed carbon monoxide detectors, verifying emergency ingress/egress routes smoke alarms, and verifying consistency with operations listed in the STR permit application (i.e. number of bedrooms listed, parking spaces provided, etc.). The fee may be estimated to be higher than the approximate amount 7 Packet Pg. 111
Pacifica City Council 15 August 26, 2024
provided by the City’s Building Division consultants as the inspection would involve more than a final inspection of a new home. Since this level of inspection would require additional staff resources, an increase in the annual permit fee would be necessary for cost recovery purposes.
• Grandfathering Permits: Considering whether to grandfather in current STR permit holders.
The Council directed staff to evaluate whether a grandfather clause could apply to current permit holders who are in compliance with the current code standards.
Council and public members raised concerns about legal STR operators operating in compliance with current standards but may be impacted by a newly adopted provision. For example, if a new provision proposed an allowance of one STR Permit per building, then an existing STR operator with STR operations in three units of a triplex building would not be eligible for three STR Permits and could not renew two of the three permits. This could reset the City’s total STR count towards the cap of 150 STR units and impact existing TOT revenue and the operator’s business if the existing STR operators have been following code standards and received little to no founded complaints.
Staff reviewed provisions from the eight sample agencies and found that one agency provides a provision that allows an STR operation located in a multi-family dwelling or condominium unit to continue if the short-term rental was legally operating as of January 1, 2024. After reviewing potential options, staff found that adding a section identifying administrative regulations in two areas, (1) application processing (renewal) and (2) revocation and suspension, would strengthen the City’s ability to preserve existing, legal, and compliant STR operations. In addition, staff will evaluate a similar grandfather clause provision referenced in the benchmark agencies’ ordinances above to specify the requirements that a compliant STR operator could be exempt from. However, staff seeks the Council’s preliminary direction on specific provisions they may be interested in that would not apply to the legal, compliant STR operations.
Furthermore, there is no “grandfathering in” with the current annual renewal process and any grandfathering would only last for one year. Thus, if Council wants to consider grandfathering in then specific provisions would need to be identified.
Implementation Impacts/Considerations: Implementation of the administrative regulations would increase staff time reviewing applications and further consultation with management and the City’s Attorney’s Office to ensure staff administers the regulations accordingly. Please refer to the section below for further details on potential Administrative Regulations and Protocols.
• 24/7 Contact Requirement: Mandating the identification of a 24/7 contact person for each STR.
The Council directed staff to evaluate a provision that requires a 24/7 contact that would respond in a specific amount of time to resolve STR complaints. Council and members of the public raised concerns regarding the lack of accountability from STR operators when receiving complaints and the lack of resolution to complaints in a timely manner from the STR operator and City staff. Staff reviewed the eight sample jurisdictions' provisions and found that all jurisdictions require STR operators to provide a contact person who is available 24/7 to respond to STR complaints. The 7 Packet Pg. 112
Pacifica City Council 16 August 26, 2024
required response times range from 15 to 60 minutes by phone and/or 30 minutes to 1-hour response in person.
Staff recommends a provision that requires STR operators to list a contact person who is required to be available 24/7 and respond to complaints by phone within 30 minutes, and if in-person resolution is necessary, one hour in person.
Implementation Impacts/Considerations: Implementing a new provision would increase staff time spent on reviewing STR applications and enforcement to ensure compliance with the ordinance. This would result in the potential need to increase STR permit fees and/or violation fees to recover cost. In addition, administering this provision would be primarily a self-reported task until a complaint is received and resolution from the applicant is required.
Administrative Procedures and Compliance: Clarifying and Improving STR permit revocation procedures and enforcements.
Staff reported procedures related to code and law enforcement response in detail during the last study session, also describing the complexities related to legal, code, and law enforcement related to STRs. Since the last meeting, staff have streamlined enforcement protocols to ensure a more rapid response to unpermitted or non-compliant operations and identified a consistent path forward to rectify, suspend, or revoke permits for STR operators who have fallen out of compliance with our ordinance's mandates.
• Streamlining Enforcement of Tax Obligations and Unpermitted STR Operation
As staff reported at the June 24, 2024 study session, the City has a variety of tools for enforcing compliance with the STR program. The City has partnered with HdL to provide permit compliance and tax collection services. HdL’s advanced data algorithms are capable of locating and tracking unpermitted short-term rental activity in real-time. Throughout the continuing collaboration, staff and HdL have further streamlined the process for locating, notifying, and commencing formal enforcement proceedings against unpermitted properties.
The Council expressed the desire to shorten HdL’s process, which can take up to four months to bring an unpermitted STR to compliance before turning non-compliant properties back to the City for additional legal proceedings. City staff met with HdL to discuss how this timeline could be reduced. When an unpermitted STR is identified, HdL will send the owner or operator a courtesy notice advising them what they must do to bring their property into compliance. Most owners and operators respond to this letter and comply. If, however, no response is received by the fourteen-day deadline set in the courtesy notice, HdL will send the owner/operator a formal warning letter advising them that if that matter is not resolved or no response is received within another fourteen days, they could be subject to the assessment and additional legal enforcement by the City. If no response is received by the end of the fourteen-day period, the City will issue a Notice of Violation and Assessment. At that time, the file is turned over to the City’s STR Administrator and the City’s Code Enforcement Division for formal administrative enforcement.
The formal enforcement protocols for enforcement of the STR permit requirements in Article 49 of the Pacifica Municipal Code include the use of all remedies authorized by the City’s Municipal Code. This includes mailing the STR owner and operator a certified Notice of Violation (NOV) that enforcement proceedings have commenced and advised the owner and operator that their property is in violation of the law and that the owner and operator must pay the assessed tax and fee liability and cease and desist operations until an STR permit is obtained. During this 7 Packet Pg. 113
Pacifica City Council 17 August 26, 2024
process, the owner and operator are provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard if they should desire to appeal the NOV. Property owners who fail to contact the City, file an appeal, or otherwise correct their nuisance activities will then be issued citations under the Municipal Code for each day the property remains out of compliance. Citations can be as much as $500 a day.
If the registration and remittance requirements of the City’s taxes have also not been complied with, the owner is advised that taxes, fines, penalties, and interest will be assessed against the property if no response is received within ten days. In the absence of a response or an appeal, at the expiration of the ten-day period, the City’s Tax Administrator can proceed with filing a tax lien against the property with the County recorder placing a cloud on the property’s title.
The City’s robust enforcement protocols have been successful. Since our last report, nineteen STR Accounts have been resolved either through a cessation of illegal activity or by registration, remittance, and the granting of a valid STR permit. Three accounts are in active communication with the Code Enforcement Division and the City Attorney’s Office. While resolution of the outstanding liabilities on these three accounts is progressing, they remain unpermitted at this time and further enforcement efforts may be necessary. During this same period, an additional twelve notices of violation have been prepared and will shortly be sent out to non-compliant properties that did not respond to HdL’s outreach. These NOVs will go out in the next couple of weeks once their outstanding tax/fee liability is assessed. • Administrative Policies and Procedures to Implement the STR Ordinance Section 9-4.4907 of the Pacifica Municipal Code allows for revocation or suspension of a ShortTerm Rental Permit, if the STR Administrator makes a determination that the permittee has violated any of the STR Ordinance provisions or is operating the STR in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or constitutes a nuisance. Section 9-4907(e) of the STR Ordinance allows the Short-Term-Rental Administrator to promulgate any policies or procedures necessary to implement and enforce the City’s Short-Term Rental Ordinance.
Administrative policies and procedures are being crafted and will be issued within the next 4-6 weeks to streamline and clarify the process for suspension or revocation of an active STR permit. Among these policies, in consultation with the legal department, the Administrator is formulating a “three-strikes” provision for permit holders. Under these anticipated criteria, any owner or operator subject to three “completed enforcement proceedings” in any twelve-month period arising out of activity deemed detrimental to public health, welfare or safety or which constitutes a nuisance will be subject to permit suspension or revocation. For purposes of this administrative policy, “completed enforcement proceedings” will mean either an administrative citation or notice of violation which has not been overturned by a timely administrative appeal.
Under the anticipated provisions of the policies, owners, or operators with three completed enforcement proceedings within any twelve-month period will be ineligible for renewal of their STR permit for a period of one year.
Since the last study session, staff have modified the response procedures to “found” STR violations to be followed by an NOV and implemented an internal tracking system for various cross-departmental STR violations in code enforcement, law enforcement, and tax/permit categories.
Staff also reviewed the law enforcement data for STR properties with three or more “found” violations over the last six months, and has initiated an STR permit-revocation process for one STR, with several other properties receiving NOVs that will be counted towards the “threestrikes” provision.
Summary of STR Permits
7 Packet Pg. 114
Pacifica City Council 18 August 26, 2024
Staff received an updated summary of Pacifica’s STR Permits including information regarding the current cap, compliant STRs, in process, non-compliant, and others. The summary is included as Attachment 2 to this report. As shown in HdL’s most recent report, there are only 11 permits available under the existing 150 permit cap. 8 applications are pending with HdL leaving only 3 available permits. As a result of the City’s enforcement efforts, the remaining 3 permits will likely to be issued in the next few weeks. Thereafter, short term rental applicants will be placed on a waiting list.
Collaboration with Airbnb
The City entered into a Voluntary Collection Agreement with Airbnb in October 2018. The agreement outlined Airbnb's responsibilities and processes for collecting and remitting transient occupancy taxes (TOT) on behalf of its hosts for taxable booking transactions made through its platform. The agreement also included provisions for notification to hosts and guests, choice of law, and other standard contractual terms.
Airbnb assisted the City in enhancing education on STR regulations for Pacifica hosts. These collaborative efforts have led to the recent design and launch of a responsible host page on the Airbnb platform to educate Pacifica STR operators who utilize Airbnb services, representing the vast majority of all Pacifica STRs, about the necessary requirements: Pacifica, CA - Airbnb Help Center. In addition, staff received the attached letter (Attachment 3) from Airbnb.
However, staff previously reported that Airbnb generally believes that all local regulatory policies and laws related to STRs are the sole responsibility of the local jurisdiction. Therefore, in the past, Airbnb was hesitant to suspend unpermitted, non-compliant STRs from its platform unless they were engaged in criminal conduct or imposed open threats to health and safety. Since the last study session, City and Airbnb staff have met a few times to find a mutually acceptable solution to further motivate Airbnb hosts to comply with all City STR regulations. Staff is currently working on a comprehensive list of various “non-compliant” properties with their Airbnb listings to share with Airbnb for further compliance actions. Other measures, like listing STR permits on Pacifica posts and enhancing neighborhood hotline reporting, were also discussed.
Airbnb also requested that the City include the letter addressed to the Council providing an opinion on the future of the STR program in Pacifica, which is included in Attachment 4 to this staff report. Staff met with a group of Pacifica hosts (upon their request) who advertise on Airbnb and also expressed a strong desire to take bad players out of the privilege of being allowed to operate STR in Pacifica.
City staff has also contacted VRBO, the second largest STR platform, to request a meeting to discuss collaborating on compliance efforts.
Continuing this collaboration is crucial for managing the STR program effectively, ensuring that hosts are educated on their responsibilities, and addressing residents' concerns through transparent communication and public engagement.
CONCLUSION:
In summary, the effective management of Pacifica's Short-Term Rental (STR) program requires a balanced approach that considers both the economic benefits of this major segment of the local economy and the preservation of neighborhood character and long-term housing availability. Developing regulations that strike this balance is key for the sustainable well-being and cohesion of the community.
Some policy provisions could be implemented relatively easily, while others may require substantial efforts and resources. The evaluation of potential provisions such as differentiating between hosted and unhosted STRs may present some enforcement and administrative 7 Packet Pg. 115
Pacifica City Council 19 August 26, 2024
challenges. Therefore, any regulatory changes should prioritize practicality and enforceability, focusing on measures that can be efficiently implemented, upheld, and monitored.
Ongoing collaboration with HdL and STR platforms like Airbnb remains a critical component in enhancing compliance and educating hosts about local regulations. These partnerships can facilitate better enforcement mechanisms, streamlined tax collection, and improved communication between stakeholders. Also, engaging with both hosts and residents through transparent dialogue and public outreach will further support the development of a wellmanaged STR program that aligns with the community's economic and social objectives.
Staff seeks the Council’s’ direction for refined STR regulations by considering stakeholder feedback, monitoring the progress made to date with the current policies, and adapting to the diverse community needs related to this complex topic. By fostering a cooperative environment and implementing thoughtful, enforceable regulations, Pacifica can ensure that its STR program continues to provide economic benefits while maintaining the quality of life for all residents.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Prior to publication of this staff report, Staff received six public comments after 12 pm for the July 8, 2024 and August 12, 2024 Council Meetings. These comments are included as Attachment 5 for reference.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None identified, as the purpose of the study session is to receive direction about further analysis and work on potential ordinance revisions.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
The Short-term rental program study session is consistent with the following item in the Counciladopted Strategic Plan and Priority Work Plan for FY2023-24:
• Goal 3: Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing. o Strategy B: Update the Short-Term Rental Ordinance.
Additionally, the study session supports the following Council goals:
• “Organizational and Fiscal Stability” The STR program contributes approximately $2 million in taxes and fees to the City’s revenue base annually. • “An Engaged Community” Consideration of the STR program in a public forum expands public participation in a manner consistent with this City Council Goal. • “A Healthy and Compassionate Community” Evaluating the relationship of STRs to the City’s housing stock is consistent with this City Council Goal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this study session. However, any specific policy direction to staff may significantly impact the City’s budget, level of services, and overall longterm financial sustainability.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment 1_Common Terms (PDF)
7 Packet Pg. 116
Pacifica City Council 20 August 26, 2024
Attachment 2_STR Summary Report HdL 8-20-24 (PDF)
Attachment 3_Airbnb Letter (PDF)
Attachment 4_PRT Letter to Pacifica (PDF)
Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (PDF)
7 Packet Pg. 117
Disclaimer: The list of definitions below are for reference only and to ensure there’s a common understanding of terms used during the STR Study Session. This is not a list of recommended ordinance text amendments or final language to be used in an Ordinance update.
Common Terminology for STR Study Session
1. Short-term rental" means the use of a dwelling unit, or portion of it, for a rental of less than thirty (30) consecutive days.
2. Hosted Short Term Rental: A short-term residential rental where the host lives in the same dwelling unit as the guests during the rental period. For example. the host may rent out a room in their primary residence.
3. Unhosted Short Term Rental: A short-term rental in which the host does not reside on the property during the time a guest is occupying the residence
4. Primary Residency: A dwelling unit where a person has been physically present and that the person regards as home. A person may only have one primary residence at any given time.
7.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment 1_Common Terms (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) City of Pacifica HdL Companies
Status and Count of Short Term Rental Properties Data for 8/20/2024
COASTAL NON-COASTAL COMBINED
150
Total STRs Accounts (Compliant, In-Process, or Non-Compliant) 80 85 173 Compliant STRs 67 72 139
In Process 6 2 8
Non-Compliant 7 11 18
In Discovery 8
COASTAL NON-COASTAL COMBINED
Compliant STRs 67 72 139
STR Permit Issued (Current Status) 66 71 137
With the City for Final Sign-off (Pending City Status) 1 1 2 In Process COASTAL NON-COASTAL COMBINED
In-Process 6 2 8
New Applicant (Early in Process) 2 2 4
Yet to Renew (Active last year but not advertising this year) 4 0 4
COASTAL NON-COASTAL COMBINED
Non-Compliant 7 11 18
Escalated HdL Compliance Phase (Final action before escalated to City) 5 7 12 Escalated City Compliance Phase (City Attorney's Process) 2 4 6 STR Permit TOT BL
5 8 13
1 2 3
0 0 0
1 1 2
Other STRs COASTAL NON-COASTAL COMBINED
Closed or Inactive STR Permits 31 41 72
In Discovery - Entering Compliance Process 1 0 1
In Discovery - Initial Review 7
Google Map Pacifica - Google Map
Google Earth Map Pacifica - Google Earth Map
Non-Compliant means the STR does not meet ALL criteria for 'Compliant'. The STR may be missing one or all of the items (Business License, STR Permit, TOT Account).
STR Permit Cap
Compliant STRs
Compliant means the STR has a valid 2023-24 Business License, has paid and submitted the STR Permit with the Business License, and is registered and reporting In Process means the STR has either not completed the permitting process for current or prior years, owes a permit fee, or remains non-compliant for other TOT or BL and is working with HdL to come into compliance.
Non-Compliant STRs
7.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment 2_STR Summary Report HdL 8-20-24 (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) August 26, 2024
Pacifica City Council
Council Chambers, 2212 Beach Boulevard, Pacifica
RE: Short-term rental regulations in Pacifica, CA
To the Members of the Pacifica City Council and staff:
Thank you for your careful and deliberate consideration of short-term rentals. Over the last 12 months, our team has been in communication with City staff, working together to increase permit compliance and minimize nuisance complaints in Pacifica. While the vast majority of Hosts and Guests on Airbnb are responsible neighbors and travelers, and issues are rare, we firmly believe that we can collaborate with staff to achieve solutions that are both fair and reasonable.
In Pacifica, home sharing is an important economic tool for residents who share their home to earn extra money. Home sharing also offers numerous benefits to a community, from additional tax revenue for city services, to spreading the benefits of tourism to neighborhoods not served by hotels, to helping local families earn supplemental income.
More on our community of local Hosts:
● ~80% of Pacifica Hosts list a single property on the Airbnb platform1 ● ~60% of Pacifica Hosts identify as women2
● A typical Host on Airbnb in Pacifica has guests for a little over three months a year3
● ~54% of hosts in California say that the money they earned from hosting helped them stay in their homes4
● ~77% in California say that money they earned Hosting has helped them deal with the rising cost of living5
Short-Term Rentals and Housing:
According to public census data, dedicated listings - entire homes short-term rented for more than 90 nights per year - make up less than 1% of Pacifica’s total housing stock. 5 Self reported through survey to Airbnb Hosts
4 Self reported through survey to Airbnb Hosts
3 Number based on 2023 Airbnb platform data
2 Number based on 2023 Airbnb platform data
1 Number based on 2023 Airbnb platform data
7.c
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment 3_Airbnb Letter (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) What’s more, census data indicates that vacant second homes take up three times more housing in Pacifica than STRs.
Many communities around the state have studied the impact of short-term rentals on the cost of housing in their communities. In fact, a 2023 Visit SLO CAL study on short-term rentals (STRs) in San Luis Obispo County found STRs are not responsible for driving up overall rental rates and housing prices in the county.
Similarly, San Bernardino County recently conducted an analysis that “could not find clear and empirical data that indicates that short-term rentals have a substantial impact on the availability of long-term, rental housing options.” Earlier this year, Tuolumne County reported that “while short-term rental activity in Tuolumne County has increased over the past decade, the share of vacant homes has remained relatively stable. There is little evidence that a significant number of occupied homes have been converted to short-term rentals and reduced the available housing for moderate-income households. The current housing shortage may be more accurately attributed to decades of increasing regulatory constraints and costs that have constrained new residential development.”
We believe that the discussion about short-term rentals should be focused on resolving nuisance issues in Pacifica. One solution that we recommend is a new fine structure to push bad actors into compliance. Our local Host community takes pride in being responsible residents who care about their community and are supportive of efforts to hold bad actors and repeat offenders accountable.
We look forward to continuing to work and partner with you to ensure Pacifica residents can continue to benefit from home sharing.
Sincerely,
Danny Baldocchi
Airbnb Public Policy, US West
7.c
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment 3_Airbnb Letter (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) Pacifica City Council
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
Dear Members of the Pacifica City Council,
Pacifica for Responsible Tourism is a group of homesharers who make our public coastlines accessible and affordable to a broader group of people by offering alternative accommodations– “short-term rentals” or STRs – to groups, primarily families. In addition to facilitating lifelong memories in our wonderful city, we represent nearly $2 million per year in revenue for the city1.
Because we have not received complaints for our STRs, we were blindsided by the sentiment of the council meeting in June 2024 and are writing to present much-needed facts and a representation of the reality of the vast majority of Pacifica’s STRs. We have attempted to speak with the anti-STR group Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels and city council members on multiple occasions but have been largely ignored (huge thank you to the few who have engaged with us!). We hope to have more communication in the future.
We are thoughtful hosts: we respectfully connect with our neighbors, aggressively reject guests who may create nuisances, and stand against disrespectful STR hosts who create nuisances for Pacifica. We have even contacted Airbnb’s corporate team and the city of Pacifica to offer our help in weeding out bad hosts. 99% of homes in Pacifica are not STRs. And only four homes out of Pacifica’s 15,000 contribute 50% of all STR complaints1 (Pacific Coast TV, 2024, 31:30). These hosts must be summarily dismissed, and Pacifica can succeed by changing its ordinance in a few simple ways while protecting the enormous benefits of STRs. You can rein in bad actors while protecting:
1. The $2m that STRs contribute to city revenue contributes to every Pacificans’ well-being. The vast majority of these funds are contributed by unhosted STRs or STRs where an entire home is rented out.
2. Affordable access to the beach: the California Coastal Commission’s vision is for the coast to be available “for all to enjoy,” and it is usually much cheaper per person to book an STR. Many of our guests are families from inland California cities who come to escape the heat. For reference, a three-bedroom AirBnB costs about the same per day as a hotel room but can accommodate a whole family with three generations who cannot afford three hotel rooms and can therefore no longer visit our town.
3. Housing affordability: Every actual analysis we have seen, whether by Pacifica’s STR office, UC Berkeley, or the Harvard Business Review, shows with hard data
7.d
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment 4_PRT Letter to Pacifica (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) that STRs have zero to no effect on rental prices. The reality is that the bulk of the factors driving rental prices are exogenous to Pacifica.
Banning all unhosted rentals or putting day limits on them would significantly overreact to the very few bad STR hosts, destroying the benefits above. Smart, simple regulation and enforcement tools exist to keep neighborhoods peaceful while preserving the above benefits and one’s right to host. Curtailing all unhosted STRs would go much too far, significantly harming or even bankrupting hosts, and leaving Pacifica with a long-lasting anti-outsider NIMBY brand. All Pacificans and city workers would suffer from a reduced city budget. Unlike large rental corporations, most STR hosts depend on the income they earn from hosting and would suffer financially. Families looking for affordable accommodations in our community would no longer be able to spend their time and money in Pacifica.
Cutting the sizable STR tax revenue from the city budget would hurt all Pacificans, and Pacifica is already a low-revenue city per capita compared to some nearby towns.
1. At nearly $2m (projected), the STR tax income plus increased sales taxes from tourism revenue represent close to 5% of the city’s budget. The majority of STR tax revenue comes from unhosted STRs.
2. The average tourist spends more money on Pacifica’s businesses than the average resident: Airbnb estimates that for every $100 spent on an Airbnb stay, guests spend about $264 on other goods and services, such as local businesses, restaurants, attractions, shops, and more.10
3. Local jobs (cleaning staff, repair people, spa maintenance, etc.) would be eliminated.
4. Half Moon Bay is paying the price of eliminating its STRs, and Pacifica is in a far worse position if we do the same. Eliminating STR revenue drops Half Moon Bay’s lodging tax revenue by just 4%, down to $8.6m, thanks to its many more hotels. Pacifica would drop its total lodging tax revenue by over 50%, down to just $1.5m1 ((Pacific Coast TV, 2024, table at 39:36). Furthermore, the city of Half Moon Bay already collects 3x the overall revenue per capita revenue than Pacifica.
Still, Half Moon Bay is now facing a significant budget deficit of $4m as its “underperforming hotel tax has created serious structural problems.” 11 According to its staff report, “Without increased ongoing revenues, the city will need to make significant cuts that will affect valued programs and services, and potentially impact the health, safety, and quality of life in Half Moon Bay.”
7.d
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment 4_PRT Letter to Pacifica (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) Extensive Data Shows No Effect on Long-Term Rental Prices It is relieving news that the extensive data on STRs show an undetectable impact on rental prices. Every actual analysis we have seen, whether by Pacifica’s STR office, UC Berkeley, or the Harvard Business Review, shows with hard data that STRs have no impact on rental prices. We strongly encourage the council to look at the hard data before concluding the inaccurate trope that the 150 STRs in a 15,000-home city can meaningfully affect rental prices. The counter-intuitive hard data is that:
Rental prices in Pacifica have actually fallen in inflation-adjusted dollars since Pacifica’s STRs grew from 2021 to today.
Rents in Pacifica have decreased by 8% in real dollars after the STR program took shape. Over the past three years:
1. Average national rents increased by 21%2.
2. Inflation has been 15%.
3. Pacifica rents have increased by a mere 7% in nominal dollars2, representing a decline of 8% in real dollars over the time its STRs took shape. It should not be surprising that the few STRs do not affect rental prices in any measurable way.
Countless studies looking to prove that STRs increase rental prices return no to negligible findings.
Pacifica’s own investigation found that “STRs impact [is] minimal when below 1% of housing stock” (STRs are currently at or below 1% of housing stock). Further, note that national rental prices are not fixed; they increase by roughly 5% every year. Against this background, it’s difficult for researchers to find the nearly imperceptible effects of STRs, especially when considering that STRs bring a number of positive benefits to a town’s finances and quality of life. At best, eliminating STRs could decrease rental prices by a negligible 0.36% (many studies show zero change). Keep in mind that annual national rental growth has been 20x that. We encourage readers to view our table of studies integrated into this analysis in the appendix.
Consider that Half Moon Bay banned STRs, and their average rent has not changed compared to Pacifica. The only change is that middle-income families can’t afford to visit Half Moon Bay anymore, and the city faces large cuts to municipal programs11.
If it seems counter-intuitive, remember that 99 out of 100 homes in Pacifica are not STRs, so it’s unsurprising that STRs have a negligible impact on prices (but an outsized positive impact on city revenue).
Against these data, it is not reasonable to be certain that banning STRs would make a detectable improvement in rental prices. However, it is certain that banning STRs would
7.d
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment 4_PRT Letter to Pacifica (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) cause a deleterious impact on the city budget that benefits all Pacificans, suppress business activity, and eliminate access to the beach for many families.
We Need Legislation That Removes Bad Actors
1. Three strikes and you’re out: founded complaints should be used to eliminate bad actors. Consider fines as well.
2. Require that all STR hosts be reachable by a registered phone number within 20 minutes if an issue arises and be able to physically respond within 60 minutes if necessary.
3. Implement designated quiet hours from 10 pm to 7 am to ensure that STRs are not disruptive to neighbors. Hosts must track decibels on their properties.
4. Even Half Moon Bay, whose council was aggressively against STRs, grandfathered in their unhosted, non-primary residence STRs as the financial injury would be catastrophic to many hosts, even triggering bankruptcy.
We are lovers of Pacifica and create more lovers of our town via our lovingly curated STRs. Happy, lively towns have tourists. Only four listings are responsible for 50% of complaints; we can eliminate them with thoughtful, reasonable regulations. Blunt-force banning unhosted STRs would have no positive impact on rental prices, cripple the city’s budget for all residents, and prevent affordable access to the beach all in the unchecked, overreaching interest of a small number of those wealthy enough to own homes near Pacifica’s beaches.
Sincerely,
Anna Tong, Russell Jones, Elda Kong, Wayne Thai, Alexandros Vardakostas, and Albert Zhang, on behalf of Pacifica for Responsible Tourism Appendix
Study Title Findings
Pacifica’s own analysis of STRs1 ((Pacific
Coast TV, 2024, slide deck at 40:52)
“Housing and Financial Impacts: STRs
impact minimal when below 1% of
housing stock”
7.d
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment 4_PRT Letter to Pacifica (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) Regulation and the High Cost of Housing
in California.3
Price elasticity is 0.36%, meaning
Pacifica’s AirBnBs, at worst, increased
rent by 0.4% which is in the noise of
detectability. For comparison, the national
average rent rise every year is nearly 15x
higher.
Airbnb and Rents: Evidence from Berlin4 STRs in Berlin may have increased the average monthly rent by $5.76
Is home sharing driving up rents?
Evidence from Airbnb in Boston.5
STRs in Boston may have increased the
average monthly rent by $7.75
What Does Banning Short Term Rentals
Really Accomplish6
Of the amount that rental prices
increased, “Airbnb contributed to about
1% of aggregate rent growth”
Airbnb Activity and Rental Markets in
Canada7
“at most less than 1 percentage point can
be attributed to increased Airbnb activity.”
A study of STRs in Canada
Do short-term rental platforms affect
housing markets? Evidence from Airbnb
in Barcelona8
Barcelona data indicates that 1% of
housing stock used as STRs increases
rents by 1%
Four months later: An update on New
York City’s short-term rental rules9
“Analysis reveals no significant decrease
in rents or boost to rental inventory four
months after New York City’s strict shortterm rental rules went into effect” Sources
1. Pacific Coast TV. (2024, June 24). PCC 6/24/24 - Pacifica City Council Meeting - June 24, 2024 [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNRHmdVtOo
2. Point2Homes. (n.d.). Average Rent in Pacifica, CA. Retrieved August 20, 2024, from https://www.point2homes.com/US/Average-Rent/CA/San-MateoCounty/Pacifica.html
3. Quigley, John, M., and Steven Raphael. 2005. "Regulation and the High Cost of Housing in California." American Economic Review, 95 (2): 323–328.
4. Duso, Tomaso and Michelsen, Claus and Schaefer, Maximilian and Tran, Kevin Ducbao, Airbnb and Rents: Evidence from Berlin (August 2020). DIW Berlin
7.d
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment 4_PRT Letter to Pacifica (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) Discussion Paper No. 1890, Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3676909 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3676909
5. Horn, K., & Merante, M. (2017). Is home sharing driving up rents? Evidence from Airbnb in Boston. Journal of Housing Economics, 38, 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2017.08.002
6. Calder-Wang, S., Farronato, C., & Fradkin, A. (2024, February 15). What does banning short-term rentals really accomplish? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2024/02/what-does-banning-short-term-rentals-really-accomplish
7. The Conference Board of Canada. (2023, October 11). Airbnb activity and rental markets in Canada. https://www.conferenceboard.ca/product/airbnb-activity-andrental-markets-in-canada/
8. Garcia-López, M.-À., Jofre-Monseny, J., Martínez-Mazza, R., & Segú, M. (2020).
Do short-term rental platforms affect housing markets? Evidence from Airbnb in Barcelona. Journal of Urban Economics, 119, 103278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2020.103278
9. Airbnb. (2024, January 18). Four months later: An update on New York City’s short-term rental rules. Airbnb News. https://news.airbnb.com/four-months-lateran-update-on-new-york-citys-short-term-rental-rules/
10.Airbnb. (2024, April 3). Travel on Airbnb generated $85B in economic activity in the US. Airbnb News. https://news.airbnb.com/travel-on-airbnb-generated-85b-ineconomic-activity-in-the-us/
11.Rusch, H. (2024, June 26). Half Moon Bay facing $4M structural deficit: Council’s budget seeks to make up difference with unassigned funds and economic uncertainty reserve. The Daily Journal.
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/half-moon-bay-facing-4m-structuraldeficit/article_703013f2-3362-11ef-96a9-ff542625a5a4.html
7.d
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment 4_PRT Letter to Pacifica (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) IMPACT STATEMENT: Unhosted Short-term Rental(s)
Dear Mayor Vaterlaus and City Council Members:
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Date: _________________________ Signature: ______________________________ Neighborhood: _______________ Contact Information (email/phone <optional>): _ _________ To send to the City of Pacifica, use one of the following options:
1) Scan your statement and email it to [email protected]. This will go to the City Council and members of City Staff.
2) Complete your statement during this session and leave it with one of the hosts. We will PDF it with others and send them to the City within the week.
7.e
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) From: Jeff Jones
To: Public Comment
Subject: STR @ 400 Belfast Ave
Date: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 11:44:08 AM
Attachments: Impact Statement__FINAL.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.e
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session)
7.e
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session)
7.e
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) From: Lyla Reinero
To: _City Council; Public Comment
Cc: Bryan Reinero; Caitlin Quinn; Jen Hansen; Cindy Abbott; Peter C Garenani; Jeff Jones; Woodhouse, Kevin Subject: STR (AKA Airbnb or VRBO) Safety Concerns
Date: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 5:34:48 PM
Attachments: 07152024 Media Bulletin.pdf
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager and all others whom it may concern,
Safety for the community and “guests” of STRs alike are a huge concern for our community. A concerned neighbor from Park Pacifica shared this article from CNN that shows How Airbnb fails to protect guests from hidden cameras. This article was also recently published as part of LBSNC’s (Long Beach Safe Neighborhood Coalition) weekly email, to which I strongly encourage all of you to read in its entirety and subscribe to here.
On the safety note, there have been multiple instances where guests have pulled into our driveway in Pedro Point and approached our property trying to “check in” to our house when they have booked the listing up the hill/across the street from us at 400 Belfast, operated by Marbella Lane Corporation. The GPS says “arrived at your destination” once their vehicles have come up the hill far enough and are at our house. As of yet this has been mostly an annoyance, yet recently these people have appeared to be acting increasingly entitled. We fear for our safety for the eventual time someone who may be inebriated tries to enter our property late at night. We have enjoyed living in a safe neighborhood where we don’t have to be concerned about locking our doors, but that is a thing of the past. When I recently described this situation to a neighbor, my young daughter was listening, and it made her afraid.
This past Monday 7/15, there were multiple cars from the Airbnb that were parked along Belfast, ignoring the posted sign that says “NO PARKING WITHIN 6' (SIX FEET) OF CENTER OF PAVED ROADWAY”, which is basically nowhere on Belfast, because there is nowhere to pass. If there had been an emergency, there’s no way that emergency vehicles would have been able to get through.
And let’s not forget about the recent arrest (June 9) of 2 convicted felons at a house party gone out of control in Montara at an un-hosted STR. These types of situations are not as uncommon as one would hope and the one across from us frequently has more guests than the stated maximum on their listing. It’s very worrisome and feels like an eventuality that something terrible will happen at any one of the party houses in Pacifica.
I can’t stress enough how much it truly sucks living across the street from this nuisance. It consumes my thoughts night and
7.e
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) day and is so stressful to constantly fear for my safety and that of my family.
I implore you all to work together to direct the City Manager to BOTH issue a moratorium on STRs (stop issuing permits for new STRs) and move forward to adopt a new robust Ordinance ASAP. Countless hours have already been provided by the Pacifica Homes are Not Hotels team in writing the draft ordinance which has been put forth to the city. There is no reason why we need to wait until the LCP is updated. The STR ordinance must become a top priority.
Thanks and take care,
(Grand Avenue)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.e
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) From: Cherie Chan
To: Vaterlaus, Sue; Bryan Reinero; Public Comment
Subject: Re: Public Comment: Council Meeting July 08, 2024 Agenda Item 11 Date: Monday, July 8, 2024 9:12:51 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Mayor Vaterlaus:
Per your request for a list of Short Term Rentals (STRs) which you state to be "not available", I am re-sending the email with the list of STRs which were sent to you on Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 10:29 PM.
It should be noted that this list of 241 rentals is not a complete list: this a list of rentals on the AirBnB platform only, and does not include other platforms such as VRBO, Keyflip, Hotels.com, bookings.com, etc, or websites maintained by the llc rental companies themselves, such as Marbella Lane. We also know of several buildings which operate multiple discrete rental units out of one building and one permit, and recognize that a deeper dive is likely to yield over 300 discrete rental contracts.
Thanks again.
Cherie Chan
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bryan Reinero
Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: MARCH 9, 2024 COUNCIL GOAL-SETTING SESSION T
C
P
Hi Sue,
I've downloaded the data and separated the Pacifica STRs in this Google spreadsheet. Let me know if you have any trouble accessing it.
best,
Bryan
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 12:50 PM Vaterlaus, Sue <[email protected]> wrote:
We will get there, just not now. Show me a list of 300 short term rentals. It is not available because I believe it to be inaccurate
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: Cherie Chan
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 11:03:27 AM
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>; _City Council
7.e
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) <[email protected]>; _City Council <[email protected]>; Woodhouse, Kevin <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: Council Meeting July 08, 2024 Agenda Item 11 [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Council,
Thank you for your hard work in aligning the City's TOT tax rate with the county's prevailing average, bringing in much-needed revenue to fund Pacifica's essential services. Raising the tax rate from 12% to 15% is a small step in the right direction.
The proposed resolution makes two assumptions below:
WHEREAS, this measure will reduce the impact on local taxpayers so local residents do not shoulder the cost and visitors and tourists also contribute to the services they utilize; and
WHEREAS, the proposed measure will include accountability requirements such as annual financial audits and public spending reports; and (1) While adopting the proposed resolution could bring in an additional $720,000 per year in revenue, this amount is miniscule relative to the number of unregistered STRs in our City, which collect $0 TOT Taxes.
The staff report fails to note that due to lax regulations: "At present, the City of Pacifica has approximately 140 STRs registered. However, a search on online STR platforms show that the true number of STRs in Pacifica is somewhere closer to 300 —and may be even larger than that. And almost all of these are unhosted, wholehouse STRs."(2) The City, is missing an opportunity to truly help its residents - and its coastal-oriented visitors of this beautiful town by failing to collect ANY taxes for most providers, and exacerbating a moral hazard by incentivizing Pacifica property owners to avoid paying their fare share, and funding the improvement and we all need to help Pacifica, residents and visitors alike.
I encourage you to pass this small tax, but to go further by requiring all STR hosts to obtain a license or registration number. This functionality is already available on the STR businesses platforms(3), and a simple way to fund the much-needed services our beautiful town needs.
Thank you again for your time and service to our community.
Citations:
(1) Draft Resolution, Packet Page 5. Council Agendar Summary Report at page 5. (2) https://www.pacificahomesarenothotels.org/
(3) https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1634: "Some cities require Hosts to obtain a license or registration number to list their places on
Airbnb. The corresponding field on their listing allows them to show that number for compliance."
With Appreciation
Cherie Chan
7.e
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
--
Cherie Chan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.e
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) From: HD
To: Public Comment; _City Council
Subject: Fwd: NO to AirBNB and Short Term Rentals
Date: Monday, July 15, 2024 11:00:43 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Hello,
As you can see below, I never got a reply regarding the legality of the Airbnbs near my house.
The situation around my house is getting out of hand this summer. I see a constant flow of cars driving the wrong way on the street, a constant in and out of many people and cars making me feel less safe to let my kids play outside alone.
I welcome tourists in our community, but I wish they would stay in our hotels respecting the residential neighborhood zoning.
Airbnbs are not only a risk for the residents of the community, but also to the guests due to hidden camera problems. See this investigation from CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQJ2FxB988
Let's do what is right and stop STR rentals like many wealthy neighborhoods have done.
Communities with wealthy individuals used their power and influence to prohibit STR like Atherton and Woodside. For Pacifica, we should do it because we want a better community for our kids and members!
Thank you.
Haroldo
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: NO to AirBNB and Short Term Rentals
To: Vaterlaus, Sue <[email protected]>
Hi Sue,
Did you have to check on these properties? Are they legal? How can I check if short term rentals in Pacifica are legal?
Please advise.
Thank you.
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:46 PM HD wrote:
7.e
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) >
> I live on Pacific Ave. As an example, check out these properties. >
> 1 - 350 Buckingham Rd (2 units), corner with Pacific Ave. > 2 - 174 Pacific Ave
> 3 - 149 Hilton Way
>
> There are also neighbors that rent their in-law units. I am not trying > to get anyone in trouble and I understand your example of someone that > saved their house with short term rentals. However, as you know, > behind the majority of short term rentals are investment companies and > wealthy investors with property management.
>
> There is several unbiased academic research that proves my point of > view. Here is a video of a recent discussion on CNBC. >
> https://www.cnbc.com/video/2023/08/15/the-airbnb-effect-why-second-homes-havebecome-so-divisive.html >
> I think it is time for everyone to do what is right instead of looking > at their own interests for the benefit of future generations and > families wanting to buy a house for themselves. With that said, a city > could easily allow short term rentals for homeowners in financial > distress with an application form and proof of financial instability > and remove all investors from the market.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 11:39 AM Vaterlaus, Sue <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > We have hired a company that checks to see if advertised short term rentals are licensed.
Maybe I can check it out. What street do you live on?
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: Haroldo Daltin
> > Date: 8/15/23 11:34 AM (GMT-08:00)
> > To: "Vaterlaus, Sue" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: NO to AirBNB and Short Term Rentals
> >
> > [CAUTION: External Email]
> >
> >
> >
7.e
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) > > Thank you Sue for your reply. How are you enforcing the licenses and how can I check if the houses on my street are licensed? 160 licenses are way more than available houses for sale plus all unlicensed that are out there.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Aug 15, 2023, at 7:45 AM, Vaterlaus, Sue <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is a very difficult item. We do have rules about short term rentals but they need to be fortified. There are a max of 160 licenses for short term rentals and due to lots of regulations, we are not allowed to ban them. The coastal commission will not allow a ban at all. Plus if you own your home there is the question of personal property rights. I know a man who saved his home by doing short term rental.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: HD < >
> > Date: 8/15/23 12:35 AM (GMT-08:00)
> > To: _City Council <[email protected]>
> > Subject: NO to AirBNB and Short Term Rentals
> >
> > [CAUTION: External Email]
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I live in Pacifica with my wife and 2 young children. On my street alone we have 3 houses that are full short term rentals. It is very sad to see what this is doing to our community as rents keep going up and housing prices become even more expensive, killing the prospect for us to buy a house in this community that we love and are very much involved in. > > There is a lot of research data available showing the damages caused by short term rentals.
I welcome tourists in our community, but I think they should stay in our hotels and not in our residential areas. If you were to list all houses available for sort term rentals in Pacifica for sale or rent, supply would more than double! This is not a shortage, but an allocation problem where the supply is not going to long term residents.
> >
> > It is time enforce commercial real estate zoning for short term rentals. > >
> > I hope the city council can do something about this issue. I am tired of seeing people driving the wrong way on my street and stress that I will not be able to afford a house here and keep my kids in their school and near the friends they love it. > >
> > What are your thoughts on this matter? Are there any plans to ban short term rentals in
7.e
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) residential areas?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > HD
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.e
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) From: Cervantes, Stefanie
To: Harkousha, Brianne
Subject: FW: Public Comment on Item Not on Agenda-- 8/12/24 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, August 12, 2024 9:37:51 AM
FYI
From: Woodhouse, Kevin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 9:12 AM
To: Carter, Yulia <[email protected]>; Cervantes, Stefanie <[email protected]>; Kumar, Kavitha <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Public Comment on Item Not on Agenda-- 8/12/24 City Council Meeting FYI re: STRs.
From: Bigstyck, Tygarjas <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2024 5:37 AM
To: Caitlin Quinn
Subject: Re: Public Comment on Item Not on Agenda-- 8/12/24 City Council Meeting Thanks Caitlin. I also appreciate your comments to Coastal Commission the other day.
Regards,
-Tygar
Get Outlook for Android
From: Caitlin Quinn
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 4:49:01 PM
To: Vaterlaus, Sue <[email protected]>; Beckmeyer, Sue <[email protected]>; Bigstyck, Tygarjas <[email protected]>; Bier, Mary <[email protected]>; Boles, Christine <[email protected]>
Cc: Public Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on Item Not on Agenda-- 8/12/24 City Council Meeting [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Mayor Vaterlaus and City Council Members,
I hope you all had a relaxing and refreshing break from City business.
I am writing to enquire on the status of Pacifica’s new STR ordinance, discussed at length at the STR Study
7.e
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) Session held on June 24, 2024. At that Study Session, the City Manager said that he and his staff would be back to City Council with work and research on the new STR ordinance by late-August/early-September. It is my hope—and that of the more than 100 Pacifica residents with whom I am in regular contact—that the City Manager and his staff will honor that commitment. When will we have an update on this, please? As an aid to your work and that of the City’s staff, please find attached again the revised STR ordinance for our City that was drafted by Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels. This draft ordinance reflects many of the reasonable and effective restrictions placed on unhosted STRs by cities throughout San Mateo County, including Half Moon Bay, as follows:
·Limiting STR permits to property owners who are “natural persons” and for whom the residence is their primary residence.
·Allowing only one STR to be in effect within the City of Pacifica for any owner and/or operator.
·Setting an operating limit on unhosted STRs to 60 rental nights per year. ·Setting a limit of only two (2) guests per STR bedroom and a limit of one (1) car permitted per bedroom at any STR property
·Revoking the permit for any STR property at which two or more noise or other ordinance violations have occurred within any 12-month period. ·Creating new enforcement teams that include dedicated Code Enforcement and PPD officers.
·Requiring all unhosted STR permit holders to designate a local representative who is on call 24/7 while the property is rented and who can arrive at the property within 20 minutes to abate any problems, up to and including eviction of renters. ·Requiring a 30-day notice be sent to neighbors within a 500-foot radius of any property for which the owner has applied for an STR permit. ·Stipulating that operation of the STR must not be a nuisance or threat to the public’s health, safety, or welfare; must not directly and negatively impact any neighbor’s quiet enjoyment of their home who live within 500 feet of the property; and that no interior or exterior activity at the STR will interfere with or be detrimental to the residential use of adjacent properties. ·Mandating that all advertising (written publication or online website) of the STR property includes the City-issued STR registration number. ·Requiring a minimum of 250 lineal feet between any two or more unhosted STRs in any given Pacifica neighborhood.
Furthermore, as many residents remarked at the June 24th session, it is essential that no existing STR be granted “grandfathering” in the form of exemptions from any parts of the new ordinance. To do so would
only serve to reward the many “bad actor” unhosted STR owners/operators whose commercial operations have caused countless disturbances in our residential neighborhoods and who have robbed our City of full-time
residents and quality of life.
A new, meaningful, and effective STR ordinance—limiting the highly disruptive activities of unhosted STRs and removing Pacifica from the “easy pickins'” list for corporate investors—is long overdue.
7.e
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) And it is vital that
this work be done before the October STR permit re-application period swings around, so current STR operators can make informed decisions about their business operations in Pacifica.
Thank you,
Caitlin Quinn
West Sharp Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.e
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) From: Darcy Duckenfield
To: Public Comment
Subject: We Need STR Regulation Now
Date: Thursday, August 15, 2024 7:20:57 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Pacifica City Council,
Dear Councilmembers,
I’m writing to you today because I am concerned by the increase in short-term rentals in Pacifica and support strong short-term rental regulations in our city.
Short-term rentals, particularly unhosted short-term rentals, are increasingly becoming a problem in our community. Between 2017 and 2023, the number of STR listings in Pacifica increased by over 100 listings. That represents homes no longer available for people to live in, and I’m worried that without strong regulation, I or my neighbors might be displaced or otherwise negatively affected by this explosion of STRs.
Though the City has an existing draft ordinance which caps short-term rentals at 150 units, this does not go far enough to prevent the negative effects of short-term rentals from impacting my community. We need a strong ordinance, like other Coastal cities; one that has clear definitions of unhosted and hosted short-term rentals, a primary residency requirement for hosts, a limit of one short-term rental per person, and a cap on the number of nights an unhosted short-term rental may be operated per year.
Regulating STRs, especially unhosted STRs, will make sure that our communities are not displaced, and that neighbors are able to stay in their home. Please strengthen your proposed regulations on short-term rentals.
Darcy Duckenfield
7.e
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.e
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) From: Claire Delinois
To: Public Comment
Subject: We Need STR Regulation Now
Date: Thursday, August 15, 2024 7:22:40 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Pacifica City Council,
Dear Councilmembers,
I’m writing to you today because I am concerned by the increase in short-term rentals in Pacifica, and thus support strong regulations on short-term rentals in our city.
Short-term rentals, particularly unhosted short-term rentals, are increasingly becoming a problem in our community. Between 2017 and 2023, the number of STR listings in Pacifica increased by over 100 listings. Short-term rentals, especially unhosted short-term rentals, create a significant burden on communities—they tend to create noise issues, take up parking, and generate trash. Unhosted STRs are especially problematic in this regard, since they operate without an owner or property manager to supervise guests and their behavior and impact on communities and neighbors.
Though the City has an existing draft ordinance which caps short-term rentals at 150 units, this does not go far enough to prevent the negative effects of short-term rentals from impacting my community. We need a strong ordinance, like other cities on the coast; one that has clear definitions of unhosted and hosted short-term rentals, a primary residency requirement for hosts, a limit of one short-term rental per person, and a cap on the number of nights an unhosted short-term rental may be operated per year.
Regulating STRs, especially unhosted STRs, will make sure that our communities are not negatively burdened by the nuisances that STRs cause. Please strengthen our regulations, and make sure that communities like mine are protected.
Claire Delinois
7.e
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.e
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) From: Jim DeJong
To: Public Comment
Subject: We Need STR Regulation Now
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 9:09:59 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Pacifica City Council,
Dear Councilmembers,
I’m writing to you today because I am concerned by the increase in short-term rentals in Pacifica, and thus support strong regulations on short-term rentals in our city.
Short-term rentals, particularly unhosted short-term rentals, are increasingly becoming a problem in our community. Between 2017 and 2023, the number of STR listings in Pacifica increased by over 100 listings. Short-term rentals, especially unhosted short-term rentals, create a significant burden on communities—they tend to create noise issues, take up parking, and generate trash. Unhosted STRs are especially problematic in this regard, since they operate without an owner or property manager to supervise guests and their behavior and impact on communities and neighbors.
Though the City has an existing draft ordinance which caps short-term rentals at 150 units, this does not go far enough to prevent the negative effects of short-term rentals from impacting my community. We need a strong ordinance, like other cities on the coast; one that has clear definitions of unhosted and hosted short-term rentals, a primary residency requirement for hosts, a limit of one short-term rental per person, and a cap on the number of nights an unhosted short-term rental may be operated per year.
Regulating STRs, especially unhosted STRs, will make sure that our communities are not negatively burdened by the nuisances that STRs cause. Please strengthen our regulations, and make sure that communities like mine are protected. Sincerely, Jim DeJong 230-240 Airbnbs are operating in Pacifica
The numbers of STRs has increased 254% since 2017
84% are unhosted, “whole-house” listings
At least 46 “hosts” are out-of-town operators
At least 98 homes are run by out-of-town operators, but could be as high as 120 Only ~100 Airbnbs (of any kind) are registered with the City of Pacifica.
Jim DeJong
7.e
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
7.e
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment 5_Public Comments_Redacted (5737 : Short-Term Rental Study Session)