CITY OF PACIFICA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Zoom Meeting: Dial

CITY OF PACIFICA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/99351469388

Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 993 5146 9388 Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream

Alt 2: Cable Channel 26 Mayor Deirdre Martin Mayor Pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Mary Bier Councilmember Mike O'Neill

City Council Special Meeting 1 September 29, 2020

SPECIAL MEETING

September 29, 2020 (TUESDAY) www.cityofpacifica.org

6:30 PM CLOSED SESSION

Mayor Martin called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session. Mayor Martin announced the business to be discussed. Mayor Martin opened public comment for Closed Session, and seeing no one, closed public comment.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code section 54957. Title: City Manager

7:00 PM OPEN SESSION

Call to Order -- Mayor Deirdre Martin called the meeting to order on September 29, 2020 at 7:04 PM

Mayor Martin reconvened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Mayor Martin explained the conditions for having Council meetings pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s executive order, N-25-20 and N-39-20, which suspends certain requirements of the Brown Act and pursuant to the orders of the Health Officer of San Mateo County, dated June 17, 2020, to conduct necessary business as an essential governmental function. City Councilmembers and City staff essential to this meeting will be video/teleconferencing into the meeting, and there will be no physical location open to the public. The public can observe and participate in the meeting via the Zoom link provided in the Agenda or by phone to the dial-in number and Webinar ID provided in the Agenda. This meeting can also be viewed live via local TV Channel 26 or online at www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream. She also gave information on how to present public comments live if participating by Zoom or phone and how written and emailed public comments will be handled.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived

Deirdre Martin Mayor Present

https://zoom.us/j/99351469388

https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream

http://www.cityofpacifica.org/


Sue Beckmeyer Mayor Pro Tem Present

Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present

Mary Bier Councilmember Present

Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present

Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Tina Wehrmeister, Acting Asst. City Manager/Planning Director; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Christian Murdock, Sr. Planner; Bonny O’Connor, Assoc. Planner; Dan Steidle, Police Chief; Dan Steidle, Police Chief; Mike Perez, PB&R Director; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Elizabeth Brooks, Dep. City Clerk; Tommy Yu, IT Mgr.

Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember O'Neill

Closed Session Report

City Attorney Kenyon stated that there was no reportable action.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

A. Proclamation - Honoring Public Service of Senator Jerry Hill

Mayor Martin read a proclamation in recognition of Senator Jerry Hill’s years of public service. Senator Jerry Hill stated that he was honored to have this proclamation. He expressed his appreciation of Pacifica, and was honored to represent Pacifica. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she has worked with him on so many issues for years, and she thanked him for being there and wished him well in his future endeavors, asking what his plans were for the future. Senator Hill thanked her, adding that he had no idea what he will be doing in the future, but was looking forward to a break for a while. Councilmember O’Neill thanked him for all these years, and he stated that he always picks up the phone when they call. He thanked him for his support to Pacifica over the years. He also gave a shout out to Marc Hershman, his assistant, as he has done a yoeman’s job getting stuff together when needed. He didn’t know if he is retiring. Senator Hill stated that Marc has been the glue that kept him connected to every part of the district they represent. He stated that it has been wonderful being part of his family as well as him being part of the senator’s. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added her thanks and gratitude to him for his leadership and support and he has been there for every question and supported her and Pacifica, as well as his aide, Marc. She looks forward to hearing about his retirement and his next chapter. She was honored to have known him and mentored by him. Senator Hill thanked her, adding that it was an honor.


Councilmember Bier thanked him for his service, adding that it was a beautiful thing to see someone give so much of himself to our community and they appreciate him. She thanked him for his steadfast support all the substance use prevention strategies they have implemented and the young people she worked with have felt honored to speak with him and work with him and know that they are heard. Senator Hill thanked her, adding that they do everything because of the kids. He thanked them all, adding that he appreciated this.

B. Proclamation - Ginny Jaquith - Recognition of Service on Beautification Advisory Committee

Mayor Martin stated the next proclamation was in recognition of Ginny Jaquith for her service on Beatification Advisory Commttee and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer would read the proclamation. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer read the proclamation. Ginny Jaquith thanked them for the proclamation, stating that she wanted to echo what Senator Hill said about Council, in view of the fact that she is listening to another government agency on TV and she felt Pacifica’s Council was simplifying what should be happen with a Community Council as opposed to the debate going on in the background. She thanked the BAC for their continued efforts on behalf of the “Keep Pacifica Beautiful Plan” that was adopted and the the community groups that have sponsored and helped maintain those projects. Her special “shout out” was to members of Public Works, i.e., Aren Clark and others, as they could not do any project without their help. She stated that the idea of this was put some “jewelry” on this beautiful community. She stated that she will continue on the mural committee. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has known her for years and she is Like the EverReady battery and she keeps going along beating the drum and trying to get the job done. He was glad she will continue on the mural committee and that means that we will have murals. He thanked her for what she has done for Pacifica. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, as a past mayor she has done so many things here and we appreciate all she has done. She agreed that she isn’t going to stop and they will keep watching her do what she does in a great manner. Councilmember Bier stated that she has admired her leadership for a long time and thanked her for what she has done and continue to do for Pacifica. She felt that she represents what Pacifica is really about. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she has ben an admirer of her even before she was a Pacifican. She stated that they worked together at San Francisco State and seeing her in action in that environment with her leadership, and then seeing her in this environment. She stated that the engagement she inspires and pulls people together was a thing of beauty. She stated that she always knows the right person to call and has suggestions to work through log jams. She thanked her for what she has done for her and Pacifica. Mayor Martin echoed what everyone said, adding that she didn’t think they have seen the last of her and she looks forward to working with her over the years. She thanked her for what she has done and continues to do.


Ms. Jaquith thanked them, stating that she appreciated the comments. She stated that it has been fun and she will continue on.

C. Proclamation - Tom Clifford - Recognizing Service on Planning Commission

Mayor stated the next proclamation was in recognition of Tom Clifford’s service on the Planning Commission. City Clerk Coffey stated that, before she begins, she wanted to see if Tom Clifford is joining and can raise his hand and promote him to panelist. Mayor Martin then read the proclamation. Tom Clifford stated that it was such an honor to serve Pacifica and was happy to do that. He thanked Council and all the previous, current and future commissioners, stating it was a good job and a good way to contribute to Pacifica. He stated that we have a good staff. He appreciated this recognition. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she never served on Planning at the same time he did, but she attended the Planning Commission meetings before she was on it and she admired him for what he does because he did so much in Pacifica over the last 11 years and she thanked him very much and now he can relax. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked him for his guidance and help in the early days of their library project. She learned so much from him and he helped her realize the larger picture that was involved. She was grateful to him for his service and she hopes that he is enjoying his retirement from the services in Pacifica. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was proud of the services of all the commissioners give. He stated that Planning is the one where everyone wants to talk to you all the time. Thanked him for the years of service as a planning commissioner. He stated that the city was better because he was there and he is grateful. Councilmember Bier thanked him for everything. She likes these proclamations as she learns so much about someone and she learned about all she has done for Pacifica. She felt the city was lucky to have him and others like him. Mayor Martin stated that it has been a pleasure to work with him and she looks forward to continuing to work again as she feels that he is one they won’t see the last of. She was glad to have him serve for so long. Tom Clifford thanked them and added that they haven’t seen the last of him. He was looking forward to when they can have the meetings in public. Mayor Martin stated that they will recognize him when he wears his hat.

D. Proclamation - Richard Campbell - Recognizing Service on Planning Commission

Mayor Martin then read the next proclamation to honor Richard Campbell for his service on the Planning Commission.


Richard Campbell thanked her. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she worked with him on the Planning Commission for four years and she knows his dedication. She stated that sometimes they agreed and sometimes they didn’t but that is fine and how it is supposed to be. She appreciated his time and service to the city of Pacifica. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he knew him for several years when he was on the school board and he was active. He thought his kids went to Vallemar or Ocean Shore. Richard Campbell stated that it was Ocean Shore. Councilmember O’Neill remembered seeing him at the PTO meetings, etc., and he has always been active. He stated that they have disagreed on stuff but were amicable afterwards which is what is important in this town, adding too bad the country isn’t like that. He felt he was dedicated and did what he thought was best and voted his conscience which he thought was important. He thanked him for his service. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they didn’t serve much together, but worked on campaign lines and were not always on the same side. She stated that they were involved in the school district at the same time, but with kids at different schools. She has always known him to be a gentleman and espouse a high level of public discourse and civic engagement. She stated that it was inspiring and what we need more of in Pacifica and everywhere. Councilmember Bier stated that she has never had a disagreement with him. She appreciated his service, especially during all the cannabis work and when he spoke up she paid attention and appreciate all of his perspectives. She hoped to see him around. Mayor Martin stated that she was so thankful for the perspective that he brought to the Planning Commission, and she felt his replacement has really big shoes to fill. She stated that we were better every day because of the protection of our environment that he provided to Pacifica for the past 13 years. She hoped they find someone as good as he is. She thanked him personally, for her children and all those who are not present but she is glad to have had him. She didn’t think they have seen the last of him. Richard Campbell thanked Council for the proclamation which means a lot to him. He stated that, as Tom Clifford stated, it has been an honor to serve Pacifica, adding that it is a great town with great people. He had a great experience with his fellow commissioners. He stated that he has watched a few of the recent Planning Commission meetings and they were a great set. He stated that they were lucky to have a lot of smart people there. He stated that the planning staff has been great and makes them look good, and also thanked building department that came to answer their questions. He enjoyed his time there and tells other Pacificans that they should get on commissions as it is a great way to serve and you are surrounded by great people.

E. Proclamation - Pacifica Resource Center - Recognizing 2020 Non-Profit of the Year Award

Mayor Martin stated that their final proclamation was recognizing Pacifica Resource Center as the 2020 Non-Profit of the Year Award winner. She stated that Councilmember Bier would read the proclamation.


Councilmember Bier read the proclamation. Anita Rees of PRC thanked them for recognizing the PRC as Senator Hill’s non-profit of the year. She stated that the support and partnership of Council and city staff, as well as the community, make their work possible and share this recognition with them. She stated that they look forward to continuing their partnership in supporting Pacificans who struggle to make ends meet, and they are neighbors helping neighbors and together they are PRC. Mayor Martin thought Councilmember Bier might have more to say personally. Councilmember Bier was glad Ms. Rees was in the Resource Center and our city as they do so much for all vulnerable people in Pacifica, specifically Ms. Rees as she has watched her leadership over the years and that has done incredible things in the PRC. She thanked all the PRC staff for helping. She stated that she didn’t think people understand how many people qualify for services and encouraging as many residents as possible to access those services is important and she was proud to have been helped and served by the PRC and proud to give back now. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she was proud of the Resource Center and especially of its leadership, including the board, and the way Ms. Rees has brought that together is amazing to see. She has been watching how the resource center has struggled and mentioned Ms. Rees’ background and how she came and invested that in our community which she thought was inspiring and she was grateful to her for that and the resource center for all they do. Councilmember O’Neill reiterated what everyone says. He thought the Resource Center does a great job doing what they do for their clients and Pacifica. He stated that they are tackling very human problems facing Pacifica and the country as a whole, and he thanked Ms. Rees, her staff, the board, volunteers and donors who do a great job. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she has always supported the resource center, mentioning that she went to all the Palm-A-Palooza events but this was a unique one because it was on Zoom, commenting that she would have rather had one in person. She totally supports what she does because she works so hard to help so many people with so little. She thanked her for that. Mayor Martin thought a member of the board, Chris Hunter, was present to say something. Chris Hunter, PRC Board member, stated that they were proud that the City Council offered this proclamation at this meeting, especially at the same time they were honoring Senator Jerry Hill. He stated that they have worked with Senator Hill and were proud that he presented PRC with the award of the 2020 Non-Profit of the Year for his district and proud that Council felt it a good thing to also honor them. He stated that the comments by Council did not fall on deaf ears and they appreciate it. He was proud of the Board directors and Ms. Rees, as well as staff and all the work they do to continue to make scenic Pacifica a good home for everyone. As 40 years as an independent non-profit and one of the eight core agencies in San Mateo County, they do a tremendous amount of work, and he was proud of what they do, as well as the community of Pacifica and neighbors helping neighbors. Mayor Martin stated that we were blessed to have Ms. Rees and staff who work at the center and she echoed Councilmember Bier’s sentiment that she is a wonderful leader. She stated that everyone who works for PRC works tirelessly for everyone in Pacifica and the city was


blessed to have them as an extension of all citizens. She stated that, as a core agency of the county, Pacifica was lucky to have them here to help Pacificans. She thanked them. She then stated that they have the opportunity to open it up to the public and, if Council agreed, would allow one minute for public comment on any of the proclamations. Council agreed. Dep. City Clerk Brooks introduced the speakers. Linda Jonas, Pacifica, stated that she has been a very active volunteer and most of it was because of Ginny Jaquith who was a dear friend. She has also had a lot of support for Jerry Hill. She stated that she supported the PRC through her Rotary Club, Sorority chapter and personally. She stated that they were wonderful people and organizations and she was grateful to see them recognized. She stated that she knows Tom Clifford but not Richard Campbell, but thanked them both for their service. Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated gave a congratulations to everyone honored this evening, and a special thank you for the PRC for all the hard work they do for everyone in our community. Michael Kranzke, Pacifica, thanked them for the opportunity to address them and share his concern for a fair and responsible completion of the Balboa Way Project, over three years in the process. Mayor Martin stated that they are only talking about the proclamations and following a few more agenda items, he can address oral communications, and he can raise his hand when that item comes up. Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, stated it was hard to fit in the gratitude in just one minute for a lot of exceptionals in the community. He was grateful to Jerry Hill for coming to Pacifica many times and had heard him speak many times at Mazzetti’s and have that ear on the local level. He stated that he began learning from Tom Clifford by attending City Council meetings and even more education from the Planning Commission, as well as Richard Campbell whose words echo in his ear at every Planning Commission meeting to not be cavalier with neighborhoods. He associates Ginny Jaquith with her contributions vis a vis Pacifica Cares and PRC. He stated that his first introduction to PRC was at his first Council meeting and felt they do nothing but good in this community and he was grateful for any association with them.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he would like to remove Item #3 from the Consent calendar as he has some questions. Mayor Martin asked if anyone has any public comments. She invited Michael Kranzke to comment at the next agenda item as she did not see Balboa Way on the consent calendar. Dep. City Clerk Brooks stated that Michael Kranzke was unmuted to speak. Mayor Martin asked if he wanted to talk about Balboa Way again. Mr. Kranzke responded affirmatively. Mayor Martin explained that it was the next agenda item, Oral Communications, and she asked


him to raise his hand after this item. Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to accept Consent agenda minus Item #3; seconded by Councilmember Bier. City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

CONSENT CALENDAR MINUS ITEM #3: RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember AYES: Martin, Beckmeyer, Vaterlaus, Bier, O'Neill

Item #3 Discussion: Councilmember O’Neill stated that the agenda item is titled Termination of Local Emergency due to extreme weather conditions and fires during Covid-19, but when you read the resolution, it sounds like we are extending it. He was confused and was hoping to get some guidance as to what we are doing. He stated that it is proclaimed that, during the existence of the local emergency, the powers, functions and duties of the city shall be those prescribed by state law, and it doesn’t sound to him like they are terminating, but that is what the agenda item says. City Manager Woodhouse stated that he will look more closely at the language, but there are numerous local emergencies that are continuing on, i.e., coronavirus, Covid-19 related local emergency, and he wasn’t sure if it item might refer to that, but this specific local emergency was with the CZU lightning complex fires in Southern San Mateo County at a time when evacuations were occurring and the fire was very uncontained and they didn’t know if it was going to potentially blow further north and, because of the evacuations, causing a lot of traffic on Highway 1 which could interfere with emergency vehicles, as well as the evacuees. He stated that there was an emergency order made related to beach closures that weekend to relieve traffic and that emergency order was under the authority of this declaration of local emergency. He didn’t know if his comment answers his question, but he will need to look at the specific language if it is confusing or maybe City Attorney Kenyon can look at it. City Attorney Kenyon agreed that was the intent, but she believes the incorrect resolution was attached to the staff report. She thought they will have to continue this item. Mayor Martin stated that, on packet page 51, it addresses the CZU Lightning Complex Fires. Councilmember O’Neill stated that the reason he pulled it off is that, because of the local emergency situation, the City Manager has certain powers over and above what he would normally have, and his concern which the City Clerk sent to all the Councilmembers was that there was a very large percentage of Pacifica that is rated by the state as extreme fire dangers and there are quite a bit down to No. 2. Most of it is the south end, but it does go up to Sharp Park. Because we have this local state of emergency, he didn’t know if it was appropriate to cancel this, given the current fire season and now the Glass fire near Santa Rosa and he wants to be sure that the City Manager, police and fire have every power they need to order an evacuation if we need to do it. He stated that a large percent of Pacifica, 30-40%, is an extreme fire danger area, rated by a state agency. City Attorney Kenyon apologized that she mis-spoke as the resolution terminating the existence


of the local emergency is attached to the staff report and is prior to the proclamation of the local emergency. She stated that it is in the packet and if the Council desires to terminate the local emergency they could do it at this meeting. City Manager Woodhouse stated that he will ask City Attorney Kenyon to verify that the possibility of fires occurring and the declaration of local emergency needs to be triggered by an actual local emergency and the possibility of one occurring and if there were a fire to occur, they would quickly declare a local emergency and take the necessary orders required at that point in time, but he didn’t think there was a nexus to declare the local emergency related to the potential for fires to occur. City Attorney Kenyon stated that he was correct. She clarified that the reason the original proclamation of local emergency due to fires was established was because there was a concern that the fires were going to impact the health and safety of Pacifica residents through the inability for emergency vehicles to traverse the streets. She stated that she was not aware of any local health and safety concerns related to the glass fire or any of the other fires that are ongoing currently in the North Bay. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he didn’t see that as an example of a fire that seemed to start yesterday and all of a sudden they are evacuating two towns, and he wanted to be sure Pacifica has the power to order evacuations if we need to in Park Pacifica and can close off streets, do what they need to do to evacuate and get people out even if we don’t have a declared state of emergency. City Attorney Kenyon stated that the city manager has the authority to unilaterally issue an emergency order at any time that would go into effect immediately. She stated that was what occurred in the proclamation of local emergency that the City Manager signed back in August. She stated that the Council would have to ratify it at its earliest possible opportunity. She reiterated that the City Manager has the full authority as the emergency services director to proclaim a local emergency at any time. Councilmember O’Neill stated he just wanted to get that clarified. He then moved to approve consent Item #3; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer. City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call. Vote: 5-0 (Agenda Item #3)

AGENDA ITEM #3: RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember AYES: Martin, Beckmeyer, Vaterlaus, Bier, O'Neill

1. Approval of Disbursements for 08/16/20 through 08/31/20. PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 08/16/20

through 08/31/20.

2. Approval of Minutes PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the special and regular City Council meeting held on September 14, 2020.


3. Termination of Local Emergency Due to Extreme Weather Conditions and Fires During COVID-19 Pandemic PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution Terminating the Proclamation of Local Emergency Due to Extreme Weather Conditions and Fires During COVID-19 Pandemic

4. Copier lease agreement with KBA Docusys / US Bank PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the US Bank lease agreement for a term of 3 years through the managed copier server provider KBA Docusys in the amount of $11,846.88 ($3,948.96 annually); and authorize the City Manager to execute the lease agreement and any other necessary documents relating to the lease agreement.

5. Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Article 12 of Chapter 7, of the Pacifica Municipal Code Relating to the Regulation of Parking of Oversized Vehicles to Add Exemption Relating to Loading and Unloading Permit (Second Reading) PROPOSED ACTION: Move to waive the second reading and adopt by title an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Article 12 of Chapter 7, “Traffic” within Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code Relating to Regulation of Parking of Oversized Vehicles to Add Exemption Relating to Loading and Unloading Permit.”

6. Consideration of adoption of a resolution approving a $15 fee for a Temporary Recreational Loading/Unloading Permit and a $34 fee for a Disc of Photos from the Police Department and amending the City of Pacifica Fees and Charges Master Schedule, attached to Administrative Policy No. 2, to add those fees PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution approving a $15 fee for a Temporary Recreational Vehicle Loading/Unloading Permit and a $34 fee for a Disc of Photos and amending the City of Pacifica Master Fee and Charges Schedule, attached to Administrative Policy No. 2, to add those fees.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Dep. City Clerk Brooks introduced speakers. Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that Pacifica Housing for All would like to extend an invitation to a virtual community meeting on homelessness on Wednesday, September 30, at 7 p.m. She stated that neighbors from District 1 had reached out to them for additional information on the unhoused in Pacifica and they invited experts to come and speak, recognizing homelessness as an issue important to Pacifica at large and they are broadening the invitation. She stated that it will start with a short video created by Pacifica Housing for All in collaboration with Peoples Alliance of San Mateo County. She stated that it includes interviews of formally motor home unhoused. They will then hear presentations from three speakers, Anita Rees of PRC, Laura Bent, Chief Operating Officer of Samaritan House and Pastor Paul Bains, President and co-founder of Project We Hope. She stated that Pacifica Housing for All anticipates that this will be an informative meeting, adding that the length of the meeting is posted on their website, pacificaprogressives.com, and it will be televised live by Pacific Coast Television on Channel 26 and www.pacificcoast.tv . She invited everyone to join them.


Anita Rees, Pacifica, thanked them for the opportunity to speak and then thanked Pacifica and the community for their ongoing support as they continue to respond to Covid and its impact on Pacifica residents. She stated that their office continues to be open to the community with limited hours, closed Monday and Tuesday afternoons and Wednesday and Thursday mornings but no change on Friday’s hours. She stated that, when closed, they are available by phone. She stated that groceries continue to be delivered to seniors and at risk families bi-monthly and others needing groceries are encouraged to attend their distribution on Wednesdays at the American Legion Hall parking lot at 555 Buel. Those signed up in advance will have a scheduled distribution time and others can arrive at 3:30 and they will provide groceries as quickly as possible. She stated that PRC continues to help those who are unable to pay their rent or mortgage, especially due to Covid and its impact. If anyone needs help paying October or any past due rent or mortgage, she asked them to contact PRC by phone, email or website. She shared a story as part of their unhoused on the coast outreach work. She stated that this was a couple living in a motor home, and they helped them return to housing. They received one of their outreach flyers and came to PRC for support. They were expecting a child and wanted to find stable housing. She stated that they provided groceries, case management support while the future father looked for work. He found a stable job and a place to live. PRC helped and processed an emergency financial assistance application to pay their security deposit. They moved into the home before the baby’s due date and are happily and stabilely housed. She stated that was the kind of work they try to do on a regular basis with anyone who is unhoused. That was pretty quick, 4-6 months, but other times it can take a year or longer. She stated that the goal was to continue to work with them to find the housing that they need and want. She stated that, if you know or see someone living on the street, encampment or vehicle, contact outreach staff by email, [email protected]. or calling Daniel Gardner at 650-575-4861 or Alan Ramirez at 650-387-4458. She stated that they can call or text them and they will respond as quickly as possible. She stated that there was still time to complete the census on line at my2020sensus.gov and by phone at 844-330-2020 and by mail. She asked the public to contact PRC at 650-738-7470 or website of you need help or know someone who needs help. Nick Rekia, Pacifica, stated that he has been here 10 years living on the street but in the community close to 30 years. He stated that, for the last three years, they feel like they have been under siege with this amazing renovation going on. He would like to state that there are quite a few homeowners on the street who have extreme damage to their due to the way that construction has been carried out, and he would like attention to be given to those people so they can get their houses back to order and get back to where we were prior to this situation going on. He stated that it was anxiety provoking knowing that so many people have assessments done and those assessments seem to be put on the back burner while they just try and finish the project. He stated that there are some houses that really have documented evidence of damage that needs rectifying. Steve Hawkes, Pacifica, stated that he lives on the east side of Balboa. He was told the sidewalk will not be replaced on his side and he thought it should be. He stated that there is obvious damage due to ongoing construction on the street for the past 2-3 years. He stated that there are huge chunks of the curve that have been taken out by oversized tractors, cracks and level issues with the sidewalk due to street sinking, and he thought it will only get worse when the rain starts. He felt that it is a huge safety issue and should be addressed. He stated that it has been an ongoing thing on that block and they just want it back to normal and safely. Marianne Martinon, Pacifica, stated that she lives on Balboa Way. She wanted to speak


about the situation happening on Balboa Way land surrounding streets for close to three years. She stated that the street has been under construction for quite some time. She stated that this is the third summer that they have had to endure conditions on the street which include huge holes, uneven streets, and if feels like they are four-wheel driving. She stated that the dust is awful and the recent ash in the air was a normal day for them with all the fine dust they usually have. She stated that the noise and shaking of her home has been awful. She stated that the previous week her children missed two days of school because they couldn’t hear the classes. She stated that she has always worked from home even before Covid and it has been so hard to hear her conference calls and she has had to resort to texting and emailing only or cancel her meetings. She stated that, since the project began, she has been unable to park in front of her house as well as all her neighbors, as construction is going on and huge machines are taking up spaces or other construction vehicles. She stated that, even on weekends, tractors and other equipment are everywhere and parking is very difficult. They have had to get used to parking blocks away and packing in their stuff. She stated that, while construction is finally starting to look like it is making progress, it doesn’t make her feel any better because it has been going on for so long. She stated that stating that they have been inconvenienced is an understatement. She stated that three years ago, they would told this would be a three-week project and since that time it has been on and on with no end in sight. She and her neighbors are at their wits’ ends. She stated that her driveway is crumbling from the constant shaking of construction and she filed a claims per construction from the City Planner but she hasn’t heard back from the claims department with the final say on her situation. She stated that it has been almost six months since her claim. She would like to get back to normal and have the city address each of the homeowners’ concerns, get their homes back to normal, have sidewalks, driveways and street back to normal and addressed. Jim Lange, Pacifica, living on Balboa Way and was present to echo a lot of what their neighbors are saying. He stated that he is a 64-year resident and his wife is a 59-year resident. He stated that they have been dealing with this since 2017 they were promised that their block would be returned back to prior EQ basin conditions and that was not being proposed at this point. He stated that they have had a couple of community meetings and at each one they attended a Councilmember has at least attended one. He stated that each time they have heard that their block will be returned back to the condition prior to the project. He stated that they were told that field workers were going to come out and share the project with them and the redesign but that did not happen. When they came to their homes it was going to be a parameter walk. During the parameter walk, the stated that they can only stay in front of the home and did not do the parameter. He stated that time after time, they were told things that did not happen. He stated that they were told their house was being monitored, and when he asked if the field streets were monitored by 4LEAF, how the monitoring was going, and they said they didn’t know anything was happening on their side of the street. He asked her to show them at their meeting, and two days later she came to their house, took the obvious pictures in their back yard of the damage but everything they heard has not happened. He stated that the claim process has been ridiculous. He stated that they made their claims on January 12, 2020 and it took several phone calls and several efforts on his part to get the field inspector who came in June when they did the inspection but they have still have had no follow up. He stated that last week they told him it was in the full authority debt and they don’t know what that is. They have asked what it is, but the explanation is very confusing and they only talk about litigation. He asked if they were supposed to have a lawyer to do this. He stated that all they want is their street, home, property back as promised. He stated that they were asking Council as leaders to take the role and help them out. He stated that they have had their car out for a joy ride and it was returned back one-half good and one-half wrecked and that is not okay. He stated that they are asking, as promised, to protect their property as promised by the city. He


stated that he wanted to give Louis Sun a shout out for being the sounding board. He stated that he knows he is the messenger but they are all very frustrated and his efforts have been extremely positive. He asked that Council help them out. Mayor Martin reached out to Michael Kranzke to give him a chance to talk. Dep. City Clerk Brooks stated that there were no other raised hands.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS

Councilmember O’Neill stated that meetings are being held by Zoom, and he attended the library JPA meeting and they discussed what the library is trying to do and how they are moving forward under Covid. He attended the congestive management and they were talking about recent upgrades they want to do on Highways 92 and 101 interchange. He attended the commute.org strategic plan meeting on Friday and addressed with them the specific issues in Pacifica that he would like to see done in Pacifica. He stated that a lot of the same issues he mentioned were mentioned by former Councilmember Sue Digre. He attended the Pacifica Democrats of City Council candidates’ meeting on Saturday. He was happy to inform them that City Manager Woodhouse told him that, with the cooperation of North Coast Water, we now have our airport monitoring station up and running. He stated that, as they hear the planes flying over, they will be able to document which plane, sound levels, how many in a day, etc. He stated that it was progress and they will see what happens with that data. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she attended a town hall with Scott Weiner and he explained why he brought all his position forward on housing. She stated it was interesting hearing from him. She attended the Jackie Speier meeting on recovery for restaurants and one of our restaurant owners spoke and it was a good meeting to listen to because it was difficult for them, paying all their bills and only allowing 25% of people to come to their restaurants while they are still paying 100% of their bills. She attended a meeting on AB3088 which is the Covid rent control ordinance and she learned a lot more information. The Beach Boulevard resilience, the shelter in place advisory, is sort of similar to the Recovery Council on Covid but they are operating separately, but they intersperse their information. She attended Palm-a-Palooza and has been at every one. She stated that the Democrats held a candidate’s forum which was quite interesting to hear what everybody had to say. She stated that, as always, in the Wednesday County meeting where they learn what is going to happen in the next week, they learned a little bit ahead that we might be going into the red from the purple zone and we are ever so thankful to be in the red. Hopefully, if we can keep our numbers the same, we will be going down another level because we are doing quite well in the county. She thanked everyone for being vigilant and wearing masks, social distancing and washing their hands. Councilmember Bier stated that she attended the candidates’ forum and she thanked the Democrats for having that. It was very informative. She thanked the community for showing up big for Palm-a-Palooza. She thanked Councilmember Vaterlaus for chatting with them and keeping them going through the whole thing. She stated that they are honored to be a part of that, adding that they raised a good chunk of money. She attended the Emergency Preparedness meeting where they talked a lot about the roles and responsibilities of commission and fire safety and evacuation plans. She could not attend the age friendly community meeting as it happened during the day while she was at work. She hopes she will be able to get to the next one. She attended a Webinar on homelessness and the impact on schools where they talked about what home learning looks like for those who are couch surfing or in shelters or living in their cars. She thought that was an important detail that we need to


think about moving forward. She stated that she is part of the Ad Hoc committee with Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer for the Beach Boulevard Resiliency project. She attended the workshop which was wonderful and well attended. She was concerned about all of the comments that she just heard in the oral communications, and she wanted them to know she heard them. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer didn’t have a lot of meeting reports. She attended the Democrats meeting and she found it to be very helpful and enlightening to hear from candidates, not only in Pacifica, but in other jurisdictions where Pacificans have a vote. She stated that she has had several meetings with citizens that were interested and concerned about what we are doing in the Resiliency project in West Sharp Park and how that ties in with the Sharp Park Specific Plan and such matters as that. She attended a new business opening which was exciting. She can’t believe the courage of someone opening a new business during Covid, and that is a 731 Gallery on Palmetto Avenue. She suggested that the public stop by. She thought the workshop went very well and she was hoping to continue to have that much engagement and that much input from everyone throughout that process. She share Councilmember Bier’s concerns and everyone’s concerns. She would like to hear if there is an opportunity for Council to have an update on Balboa Way. She thought it was important for them to get some kind of understanding of where they are in the project and what is to come. Councilmember O’Neill wanted to remind everyone listening and attending that, in their mailbox next week, there should be the ballot. He stated that this is a really important election. He has every confidence in the elections in San Mateo County as we have consistently been on time and were the first counties to report but given all the chatter being promulgated, he wanted to be sure everyone takes the opportunity to vote. He stated that there are two City Council races in addition to the president and several different state senators, state assembly and many different state propositions. He reiterated that the ballots should be in their mailbox next week, and are being sent from the election office on October 3. He reminded everyone to vote no matter who you vote for. Mayor Martin stated that it was an all mail-in ballot. Councilmember O’Neill concurred that every voter is getting an all-mail ion ballot but there is a ballot drop box at City Hall and there is going to be an actual early voting at the Council Chambers and St. Peter, and there is no excuse not to vote. Mayor Martin stated that you can drop your ballot off at the ballot box in front of City Hall. If you find another ballot box in the County, you can also drop it in that ballot box in the county. She stated that, regarding Balboa Way, she will ask the City Manager Woodhouse to give them a little more information on that. She stated that Terra Nova Boulevard slurry seal about is a hot topic and near completion and looking pretty fancy. She attended the Peninsula Clean Energy strategic planning retreat this weekend and was on Zoom, long and interesting, but they have a good update and there is a great plan to move forward doing lots of interesting stuff considering some of the announcements that have recently come out about not selling any cars other than electric by 2045 which was put out by Governor Newsom. She tuned into the beginning of the Beach Boulevard and hung on a bit longer than she thought she could, because she got mixed up on her meeting nights. She let people know there has been a lot of concern about the Open Space Committee not meeting. She stated that they are resuming meetings in October. She stated that there is a lot to talk about and everyone is excited to get it back on the calendar, especially with updates from the GGNRA and county parks. She stated that Recology recycling yard is now open on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8 a.m. to 12:00, and they can only let one person in at a time as they are very Covid conscious and everyone must wear a mask and


Recology is still accepting Styrofoam in front of the office and large cardboard, Monday through Friday, 7 am to 1 pm, and that has been awesome, especially as people are ordering a lot of stuff at home now and getting large boxes and Styrofoam. She stated that, while Coastal Cleanup Day wasn’t actually a day they celebrated, it was more of a month and the Coastal Commission put out a great video and had some fun videos from the staff and it was really promoting clean up your happy place. The Pacific Beach Coalition did an amazing job all up and down the coast of Pacifica and beyond to promote cleaning your happy place. She stated it was called the beach to streets program. She didn’t have much information now, but the specifics were staggering in terms of what was collected, who was collecting it and it was an amazing year for participation. She thanked everyone who was involved with that, especially the paint-the-bucket contest that had an art walk and voting along the Sharp Park berm. Everything was well-spaced apart and great participation where the participants could vote for their favorite people’s choice award bucket. She stated that there were cigarette buckets that are self-contained and businesses will be accepting them and pledging to maintain them out front of their establishment. She thought it was amazing and the talent, time and love that went into those buckets was amazing. She stated that it was a yearly thing, and if anyone gets to do it next year, she recommends it. She reminded everyone that we have moved into the red zone and everyone is relieved. She stated that we may see things change around town but one thing that should not change and remains consistent is that we must continue to be vigilant, continue to wear masks, wash our hands and keep our physical distance. She asked that they remember to connect with those who are not as connected, reach out to people alone and remember that people are alone and when they finally do see someone, they need to talk. She stated that it was a good exercise in humanity and she appreciated everyone for coming together as a community on this. Councilmember Vaterlaus mentioned that this was FogFest weekend and she missed having FogFest as it was an important thing for all of the citizens of Pacifica. She thanked the people who have done it for all these years because it was so much work. She stated that the work is about a year long and she knows they are starting to do work and hope that we will have it next year. Mayor Martin added that there has been some communication from the county about alternate ways to celebrate Halloween and she recommends that those who are very concerned about what is going to be going on for Halloween should really start looking at that information, talking with their pandemic pods, and remembering that safety is No. 1 this year. She stated that we may have to forego some amazing traditions but we probably should. Councilmember O’Neill asked if City Manager Woodhouse could put the information for Halloween celebrations in Connect with Pacifica or on the city’s webpage as it would be nice for parents to do that. Mayor Martin called a break and then reconvened the meeting.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

City Manager Woodhouse stated that most of the items he was going to mention were already mentioned by Councilmembers and he will just quickly reiterate some of them. He will provide an update regarding Balboa Way, as well as inviting Public Works Director Petersen to comment about last weeks’ Beach Boulevard infrastructure resiliency project kickoff community meeting. He added that, while honoring Senator Hill, he was really instrumental in the state funding of $1.5 million that Pacifica received for that project to kick off the feasability and design


of that project. He stated that the community meeting was well attended with some great input from the community, more than 40 attendees. He stated that they were pleased to be kicking off that process. He referred to Councilmember O’Neill mentioning the aircraft overflight noise monitor they received, and he thanked him for his service on the SFO Roundtable in vetting and bringing that monitor to Pacifica. He added that it was a mobile monitor that will be at that location in Pacifica at the end of Fassler Avenue back in the Valley two weeks every quarter. He stated that it will measure at different times. He stated that now is an odd time to be measuring airplane activity because of the coronavirus impact, but the measurements will hopefully continue on in the future and that is good news for us to gather that data. He stated that the voting was mentioned and the various locations. He pointed out the city’s website and City Clerk Coffey could probably clarify that, if we don’t have it up, we will. He stated that they put out information in Connect with Pacifica and will continue to do so about locating the different places and ways that you can vote. He referred to Councilmember O’Neill mentioning the permanent exterior ballot box at City Hall which was installed, and the Council Chambers and St. Peter are actually voting centers. He stated that, additionally the census was mentioned and there was some discussion about whether that deadline is going to be this week or not. He stated that they are doing a final census push with lots of information out and he asked that everyone spread the word. He stated that, as mentioned before, this translates into money for Pacifica and we need high participation on that. He then referred to the comments from the public on updates regarding Balboa Way. He stated that some were saying that the city hasn’t done what they promised they would do. He stated that they have had several community meetings and are following through and doing everything that they talked to community members about. He stated that, at each of those community meetings, he, Dep. Director Sun and other staff expressed they understood how frustrating this situation is to the residents. He stated that it was additionally frustrating to the city because they are in a position of cleaning up problems that the contractor has caused, and they were in mediation with the contractor to have them pay for the couple of million dollars of additional expense that the city is undertaking now in the repair work on Balboa Way. He stated that the repair work has two different phases, and it is going well and being repaired properly. He stated that they were also taking steps beyond. He stated that the project included very diligent preconstruction surveys of the conditions out there, and then post construction damage from the contractor surveys and they were taking care of all that damage on the streets, driveways, and they have added additional driveways that will be replaced on the east side of Balboa Way. He stated that certainly one of the frustrations for those residents is that, when it comes to claims related to their house or backyard that has to run through an insurance process and it has been very frustrating working with the insurance companies as well as for the city working with insurance companies during coronavirus. He stated that the claim process is carrying forward and they are working to get the insurance companies to be responsive to the residents who have filed claims. He stated that the project itself will take care of a lot of the street and driveway repairs. He stated Dep. Director Sun can elaborate on that. He stated that the insurance claims are what need to be handled if they are claims related to foundations of houses, etc. He mentioned one additional thing that, while they are finishing up and working on correcting the contractor mistakes regarding Balboa Way, the EQ basin is complete and is operational and has received a great award from the American Society of Public Works, San Francisco chapter for the environmental project of the year of 2020, and that is good news regarding the basin side of it. He understood they were still cleaning up and fixing the Balboa Way site. PW Wastewater Dep. Director Sun wanted to add some more details. He stated that the Balboa Way project is now about 70% complete. He stated that they were essentially almost done with all the underground utility repairs and now they were working on the concrete repair and mostly on the west side of Balboa and they are working their way toward the east side. He stated that,


once the concrete work is done, they are scheduled to re-pave and repair the street. He stated that they were on track to complete the project by the end of October. He added that, in the virtual community meeting in May, they told the residents that their designer, Freyer & Laureta conducted a survey of the street back at the end of 2019. Freyer & Laureta sent their surveyors out to the street and they conducted an assessment. He stated that, because of that assessment, they recommended that the city not repair the sidewalk on the east side of the street. Since that meeting, they had a second assessment by them. The assessed the street and they added some more driveway on the east side. He stated that their recommendation for the sidewalk still remains the same and they are not doing any work on the east side on the sidewalk. He stated that, with regard to the claims, the city has tendered the Balboa Way repair project and all of the individual resident claims to SMCI, the insurance carrier, and they were the contractor for the EQ basin project. He stated that all the residential claims fall within SMCI’s coverage and it is still under review pending the outcome of their mediation process. He stated that it is a bit of a lengthy process and why there are not a lot of update in movement on the individual claims. Councilmember O’Neill asked him why there was a recommendation and what was the basis for not fixing the sidewalk on the east side. PW Dep. Director Sun stated that he conducted a survey which was a 3D scan of the whole street and they determined from this 3D scan that there was not a lot of elevation difference on the sidewalk. He stated that there was a crack and things that already existed, but they didn’t see any evidence of a major shift or movement of the cracks and that was why they recommended not doing any work on the east side on the sidewalk. Councilmember O’Neill thought the city had a policy that the homeowner was responsible for the sidewalk repairs, and he heard generic anecdotal stores where they have to repair it if it was as much as 1/8 inch or 1/2 inch which is pretty minimal. He asked if they were holding SMCI or the insurance company to the same standard they hold the homeowners to by telling them they are responsible for the sidewalk and asked the height differential they require homeowners to fix. PW Dep. Director Sun stated that he was not familiar with that specific criteria. He thought Director Petersen might be able to answer that. PW Director Petersen stated that, typically, it was when you have a tripping hazard and it is going to be something over a half inch. She stated that, to add more information, when the survey was done by Freyer & Laureta what they were saying was that they can’t verify that there was any damage done by the project to the east sidewalk. She stated that, if the city replaces that sidewalk, they don’t think there will be a basis for getting reimbursed by the contractor as they are not seeing any evidence of it. She stated that, ultimately, that was why the decision was made, as there wasn’t evidence that there was damage to the east sidewalk. She stated that, as mentioned by Dep. Director Sun, there are a number of claims that do continue to move forward with SMCI, but even with claims the city currently has with an insurance carrier, they have waiting over a year and sometimes those claims take a long time to be processed and coming back with any kind of decision from the insurance company. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she was going to say the same thing. She stated that the homeowners are responsible for the sidewalks and she didn’t think that was right. She stated that they are homeowners and they waited a year. She stated that, if the city has to wait for a longer time, she can see it, but those homeowners are living in their houses and they are


dealing with issues and she doesn’t know how to speed up the insurance company, but she would like to see a push done because they are trying to live in their houses. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he thought he and Councilmember Vaterlaus were the only two that were on the Council when they signed the contract for this, but he thought they did some sort of before and after, saying the sidewalk was a certain way, and he asked if that was not done on the east sidewalks. PW Dep. Director Sun stated that Freyer & Laureta actually was able to go back and look at some of the pictures that were taken before the project was started and there was documentation in terms of looking at the existing street. He stated that it was conducted by our construction manager, 4LEAF. Freyer & Laureta also used pictures that were taken back in 2017 prior to the project with a street view, and the utilized that function to look at a picture comparing to the condition now. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was confused as to why they used Google map street view to look at it for the snap shot in time prior to construction and now they are doing 3D scans. He stated that there seems to be a discrepancy in the measurement of how things were done. He asked if that was standard practice or did the technology evolve over the three years. PW Dep. Director Sun stated that, with the 3D scan, they also conducted just a regular survey and that was also included as part of the project. With all the data they have, Freyer & Laureta was able to determine the condition of the sidewalk and looking at the damage of the street itself, they were able to use all the information to put together their assessment. Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they didn’t do any of the measurements to see the tripping hazard that PW Director Petersen talked about in the half inch, and see if any of those were prior to the construction. He asked the City Attorney if they were discussing this too much in depth. Mayor Martin thought so. City Attorney Kenyon thought the Council has exhausted this discussion for this meeting to the extent that she would recommend that staff followup with further communication to Council. Councilmember O’Neill understood and thanked Dep. Director Sun and PW Director Petersen. Mayor Martin thanked them as well, and asked the City Manager if he had anything else. City Manager Woodhouse stated that he had nothing else. Councilmember Bier asked if she could publicly apologize to Michael Kranzke. She understood that it was really hard to get on Zoom when you don’t do it normally, and he tried twice and then again and couldn’t get his hand raised, and she publicly apologized to him. Mayor Martin thanked him as well, and stated that they received his comments via email and they tried their best to get him at the right time.


PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

7. Letter of Intent between KH Equities and the City of Pacifica to Negotiate an Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and Loan Agreement to Convert Marymount Summit/Gateway Apartments located at 405-439 and 443-467 Gateway Drive in Pacifica (APNs 009-540-110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, and 170) into an Affordable Housing Project Restricted to Residents at 80% Area Median Income. PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to sign the Letter of Intent and

Negotiate an Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, Loan Agreement, and any

other necessary documents for City Council approval at a future meeting.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, due to an abundance of caution and the proximity of her house to this project, she decided to recuse herself on this vote. Mayor Martin stated they would send her a text message, but then thought she could stay as it was an item for consideration. City Attorney Kenyon stated that, if she is abstaining, she should probably turn off her video. City Manager Woodhouse stated that he wanted to start with some introductory comments. He stated that as Council knows, working on opportunities for affordable housing has been a Council priority for years and multiple aspects of that goal. He stated that one of them was to seize opportunities with developers whether related to public property or private property to create those opportunities. He stated that this opportunity for the conversion at Marymount came their way, and while it was an exciting opportunity, he wanted to commend Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister and Sr. Planner Murdock, as well as the city attorney’s office because this came to the city very late in the game to try to get something on the agenda and staff has been working nonstop on this to negotiate the letter of intent before them, with all the details, and if approved by Council, how it could lead to the regulatory agreement. He stated that, if there is a question, he communicated with the superintendents of the school districts related to the property tax impact component of this and when the get to that, he can elaborate on the issue. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister presented the staff report. She then gave the City Manager the opportunity to share his interaction with the school districts. City Manager Woodhouse continued the staff report. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister continued the staff report. Councilmember O’Neill asked if, by special assessments, she meant the bonds and parcel taxes will still be paid to the school districts and the city. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that she was not sure about the bonds but she knew that the mosquito abatement district and city sewer fees are considered special assessments and she didn’t have an analysis of the bonds that are based on property value as they are special taxes and she wasn’t sure if they are included in the exempt. She thought the applicant may know that answer.


Councilmember O’Neill stated that the bonds are ad valorium just like the property taxes. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister confirmed that he was correct. Councilmember O’Neill asked if she knows what property taxes they are paying now. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that they can get that information. Councilmember O’Neill stated that they weren’t discussing the whole $20,000 but just the net, what they would be losing, but they were already getting something now. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that, when they prepared their analysis of the item, they thought the fair comparison wouldn’t be to current day property tax valuation and payment. He stated that the fair comparison, given that the property seems to be up for sale, is actually to market rate transaction of the estimated sale price of approximately $65 million. He stated that he was correct in one sense that the current cash that will be forgone by the city might the city might be the amount of the current property tax evaluation that is paid, and in reality the fiscal analysis is more appropriately based on the anticipated increase in value upon the sale and what that loss would be to the city. Councilmember O’Neill thought it was like, is the glass half full or half empty. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister continued the staff report. She introduced a recommended revision as noted on a slide presented as follows, “ (c) For Year 3 and subsequent years, the annual rent for an Assisted Unit may be increased to the lower of (i) an amount not to exceed thirty percent of 80 percent AMI; or (ii) an amount not greater than the maximum as otherwise allowed pursuant to state law rent control law for a non-exempt unit (e.g, currently, 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is less)s, except that unqualified households (i.e., those households with income above 80% AMI) may see additional rent increases but shall in no event exceed the market rent.; and (d) Thereafter, the maximum rent for each Assisted Unit, including a reasonable utility allowance, shall not exceed thirty percent of 80 percent AMI, except that unqualified households (i.e., those households with income above 80% AMI) may see additional rent increases but shall in no event exceed the market rent.” Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister completed the staff report, concluding that staff is recommending that the Council authorize the City Manager to sign a letter of intent with revisions to the annual rent increase schedule for year 3 and beyond as introduced and negotiate an affordable housing regulatory agreement, loan agreement and any other necessary documents for City Council approval at a future meeting. She recommended allowing the applicant be allotted ten minutes to speak in order to present the proposal, plans and visions for the project and share information about their team. She stated that the staff team is available for any questions. Councilmember Bier asked her how many units are unqualified and will eventually go up to market rate. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that they don’t know. They have the rentals and they know where the rents are, but the individual tenant income


information for all of the tenants has not been shared with the applicant and they did not have that information. Councilmember Bier concluded that it was not equivalent to the 26 units she was talking about. She asked her to explain that a little bit more, such as conversion of the 26 units. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that when the condo project was approved, it needed to comply with the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance. At the time, everyone was anticipating that it would be converted and sold quickly. She stated that the applicant was required to enter into an inclusionary housing agreement with the city which said that those 26 units would be affordable for-sale units. She stated that, because it was never converted, the inclusionary agreement stayed in place and was recorded on the property but it was never effectuated and there was no benefit largely to the community to having 26 affordable units as they never proceeded. She stated that, when it came time for the first rent increase in 2017, the owners recognized this and knew it would be a question, and they proposed with the rent increases they would go ahead and honor that and turn to a below market rate agreement with the city so there would be 26 rental units. She stated that, if they ever sold, they still had to keep the 26 units for-sale affordable, but in the meantime, with renting, the BMI units would be rented out at affordable rates. She stated that they have their own agreement and were required to be restricted for what they determined to be more like 55 years and those, even beyond the 30 years or 15 years, whatever Council selects, those will continue to be restricted for the required period of time. Councilmember Bier concluded that they will not be converted to sell. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that the applicant is not proposing to complete the condo conversion. Sr. Planner Murdock referred to the part of her question on the number of units which may qualify or not qualify, and stated that Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister is correct that they don’t have comprehensive information. He stated that the applicant has completed income verification for some of the tenants, slightly over half, and of those who have been surveyed, it appears that 28 of them or roughly 16% do not qualify. He stated that they believe a high proportion of the existing tenants will not qualify although they don’t have comprehensive information at this point. Councilmember O’Neill asked if the only loan they are asking for the city is the $10,000 for the fees and by voting for this they are not adding any more debt for the city. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister responded affirmatively. Councilmember O’Neill stated that upon the purchase of them, she stated that it triggered the condo allowance is going to disappear and all rental units. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that it was the applicant’s intent to keep it a rental unit. She thought, as part of the package that they need to proceed with and figure out what they need to do after they get Council’s direction on the letter of intent would be to determine if they or the applicant should formally rescind and do all actions necessary to reverse the map. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was asking because there are a lot of rental housing in


the county for affordable rentals, but this seems to be a condo map already filed. He thought it would be nice if they could come up with some sort of affordable purchase housing. He stated that, when the school district sold Westview, they were able to sell some of the units below market and affordable and they would have a deed restriction that they would not get the full equity but they would get a percentage of the equity. He realized that they were under a time crunch with this and he would not want to gum the works up with that discussion, but he would like to consider that some of the units could be allowed for affordable housing purchase so they could build some equity. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister thought, when the applicant gets up to speak, maybe that should be asked of them. She stated that one thing they can say is that the can explore whether to leave the map as is, and it may be a while from now when someone could create for sale units. She stated that she has not done the research or studied whether or not that is a viable option. Councilmember O’Neill emphasized that he wants them as affordable purchase units, not market rate units. He thought it would be nice to involved in that as there are a lot of first time home buyer programs and programs for teachers and first responders to buy. He stated that most of them might be above the 80% AMI but it would be nice to see if that could be an option. City Clerk Coffey stated that she thought they would go to the applicant’s team. Mayor Martin agreed, stating that it is KH Equities. Daniel Mense, President of KH Equities, thanked city staff and the city attorney for their generous time in developing the framework for this regulatory agreement. He also thanked Council for taking the time to listen to their proposal. He stated that it may not be as exciting as the debates but they will do their best. He stated that KH Equities was an affordable and workforce housing developer and operator. Their project spans a full spectrum of housing, ranging from affordable buildings to bridge housing to permanent supportive housing. He referred to the letters of recommendation that they provided by government agencies and non-profit organizations with which they have partnered over the years on both public and private projects. He then summarized their proposed project. He stated that they are partnering with Housing on Merit, an established non-profit affordable housing developer and John Stewart Company which is the largest affordable housing property manager in California to convert Marymount, a market rate building into an affordable housing site. He stated that they were proposing to restrict rent on 100% of the units at 80% AMI rent limits via their regulatory agreement. He stated that the project will be funded with nearly 100% private financing. They plan to immediately invest in capital improvements that will address the health and safety of the building as well as complete upgrade to the exterior, common areas and interior units as they become available. He stated that they hope their project will make a positive impact on Pacifica and its residents by creating and preserving more affordable housing and bringing a robust team with deep experience to the property and its residents. He then turned it over to their non-profit partner, Housing on Merit. Jennifer Litwak, Exec. Director of Housing on Merit, stated that she was grateful to hopefully take a minute of their time to make sure they have a balance of time for questions. She stated that their director of compliance in operations, Miki Metz who has been attending. She stated that they are a non-profit that launched about a decade ago and have primarily been developing and preserving affordable housing. She stated that they started in California and have expanded their footprint nationwide. She stated that they have developed over 3,000 units of


affordable housing in California totaling 15 projects, nine of which are multifamily, five senior and one permanent supportive housing that houses the most vulnerable among us. She stated that they work hard to maintain strong relationships with the Board of Equalization, County Assessors Office as well as local government and community leaders. She stated that they are excited about the opportunity to potentially work in Pacifica and being on this meeting, it sounds like there are amazing events and a great non-profit social fabric that already exists in the community. She stated that they have experience and she thanked them for their time and were excited about the project. She knows that some of their letters have been circulated to Councilmembers to give them an understanding of the depth of the work they do on behalf of the residents as well as being a great community partner. Mayor Martin asked if anyone else on their team wanted to speak. Ms. Litwak stated that she was the only one from Housing on Merit and she will be turning it over to the property management company. Jennifer Wood, John Stewart Company, is the vice president in their San Francisco regional office. She stated that their company was founded more than 40 years ago to manage quality affordable housing that the residents will be proud to call their homes. She stated that they are currently the largest manager of affordable housing in California for more than 33,000 units of affordable housing which is more than 450 individual apartment communities. She stated that they have been involved in every type of affordable housing they can manage. She stated that they were excited about this project because it reaches an audience they don’t often get the chance to work with, mentioning the various types of individuals, such as homeless, special needs, etc., and there are certain income groups left out. They feel this is needed in Pacifica, to have affordable housing that will remain available. She stated that they were looking forward to bringing some professional management expertise of 40 years in the Bay Area and they were thrilled to work in Pacifica. Mayor Martin asked if there was anyone else on their team. Ms. Wood stated that she had Teresa Liu who is their regional director. She stated that Mr. Mense may have comments to add. Mr. Mense welcomed Ms. Liu to provide comments. Teresa Liu, Regional Director of John Stewart Company, stated that Ms. Wood gave them an overview of their experience in the Bay Area. She stated that this was a unique project and she lives on the peninsula in San Mateo County and was excited about helping a community within the area for public servants in the middle tier and housing has not always been available for them. She stated that keeping rent restricted in an area that is affordable is really needed in the Bay Area. Mayor Martin stated that they have 2 1/2 minutes left. Mr. Mense stated that they pretty much addressed all their points that they were looking to present and they were happy to answer questions about them and the project. Councilmember O’Neill thought that their founder, John Stewart, passed away. He asked if that was the same John Stewart he was thinking of.


Ms. Wood stated that it is, adding that it was heartbreaking for them as they did not expect it even though he had been ill for a while. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was a real leader on affordable housing in California. He was concerned that, if the city is entering into a long term agreement, there are succession plans and their organization is going to continue. Ms. Wood stated that he was their founder and remained active in housing in a variety of ways, such as advocacy and working on special projects as chairman of the board, but his involvement in day to day operations ceased quite a while ago. He was the CEO for the first 23 years, and they have been in business for more than 40 years. She stated that, at one point, the company was acquired by another organization and he and three employees of the company bought the company back and those three employees are still part of the board. She stated that there are succession plans for them as well. They are all involved in housing and some worked with John Stewart for 20 years or more. Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if they are entering into a long term contract, he wanted to be sure there is going to be someone there. He stated that they mentioned that it was private funding, and he thought that a lot of it was tax credits, etc. He asked, once they sign the agreement, are the tax credits safe and cannot be changed by whoever is in Congress. He asked if he was wrong on his assumption. Ms. Wood stated that she will let Daniel Mense speak to the possibility of tax credits, but the agreement that the city would sign would be a deed restriction and that’s a long term guarantee, and even if state laws change like rent control changes, if it is challenged, the property would remain protected with its deed restrictions with its regulatory agreement. Councilmember O’Neill asked if they know the mix, as 10% studios, 20% one or two bedroom, etc. He stated that his concern is that they have four senior citizen housing projects in Pacifica but none for families. He was concerned that they will be able to get some family affordable housing in Pacifica. Ms. Wood stated that she did not recall the exact mix and she has the information but it is not in her head. She asked Daniel Mense if he can share what the unit mix is. Ms. Liu stated that she can speak to that, which is primarily one and two bedrooms. They don’t have any studios. Councilmember O’Neill thought that was good. He stated that he spoke to the city manager, and he understood that they were also contemplating adding an additional 40 units in the parking spaces. He asked if that was no longer a current idea and did it change. Mr. Mense stated that it was very much an integral part of their plan. He stated that they didn’t mention it as they didn’t want to conflate any issues, but it is part of their business plan to bring up to 42 units and they are currently working with their architects in designing a feasibility plan. Councilmember O’Neill asked, if they approve and sign the agreement before them at this time, will the city be waiving all those planning fees and expenses as part of this agreement for the 42 units. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that they are speculative. She


knows Mr. Mense is indicating that it is definitely a part of his plans for the project, but staff has not seen an application yet. She stated that they may be submitting under the ADU regulations which sounds weird as people tend to think of those as single family regulations but they provide for additional units in multi-family projects as long as they are within the existing footprint and, while they need to evaluate it, they may only need a building permit and they may not have a significant amount of planning fees. She thought it may be something that they will want to address in the regulatory agreement that, in the future, they would anticipate that they would be restricted as well. Councilmember O’Neill asked if she meant the new 42 units would be restricted to 80% of the adjusted income. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that it was not a provision they have discussed, but they probably should when they negotiate the regulatory agreement. Councilmember O’Neill asked if what they are voting on at this time does not waive the fees. He stated that he didn’t say he was saying no to waiving the fees, but wanted to know that they are not restricting. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that the city was not agreeing to any fee waivers or reductions associated with those units. Mr. Mense stated that he would like to address a couple of points. He stated that, regarding tax credits, they are not getting any tax credits or any bonds for the project. It is going to be financed 100% with private capital which is an exciting and unique part for them in being able to put forth a project that is going to achieve afford ability with 100% private financing. Regarding the ADU and the additional units, they were happy to commit now that any additional units they bring on line will be under the regulatory agreement and they will meet the restrictions. Councilmember Bier referred to the residents, and she asked if there was a plan in place that none of them will be displaced with the sale of the building. Ms. Wood stated that she will answer on behalf of Mr. Mense. She stated that was something they discussed before the John Stewart Company agreed to be the management partner. They didn’t want to be involved in a project that would displace anyone. The plan is to accomplish the 80% BMI through attrition. She stated that probably a large number of the existing residents will qualify based on their observations. She stated that no one will be displaced based on their income. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that he would like to add another point on displacement. He stated that it was helpful and important to consider people who may earn more than the 80% AMI income now but also displacement of people who earn less now but improve their circumstances and begin to earn more also would not be forced out of the project, based on his understanding from the applicant and their commitment to continuing afford ability and encouraging people to improve their circumstances and their incomes. Councilmember Bier concluded that those people would have the rent increases up to market rate if they don’t qualify. Ms. Wood stated that was her understanding.


Mr. Mense agreed that, if they don’t fall under the 80% limit their rent will be raised. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked them to explain how the rent will be raised for those in that category and over what period of time. She thought it was addressed on packet page 128 in the area of Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister describing the replacement language. She wasn’t sure she understands what the schedule should be saying that it is for bringing those people up to market rate rent. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that the schedule is the same in terms of the percentage increases, but anybody who is making too much and don’t qualify, their rent can continue to increase beyond the 80% AMI and anybody who is qualifying and who is paying more does not get a rent increase. Councilmember Bier stated it was still 9% per year until it reaches market rate. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was her question of what happens after year three, and not a balloon payment, so she thought it is kind of paced out at about 10% a year. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that for year 3 and onwards, that kind of balloon payment concept is exactly what they were trying to address so the revised language is at year 3 and beyond the percentage increase is equivalent to state rent control and it would be between 5% and 10%. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer appreciated the background on the property management company. She referred to the various kinds of units they work with in other cities, and she wondered if there was any requirement or industry practice around disabled, such as accessibility created units. She realize that there is ADA but she was talking about intentionally focused on accessibility concerns. She asked if that was something they do in the industry. Ms. Wood stated that it is. She stated that one thing that they have covered so much with KH Equities on their plans for the property but they haven’t talked about any specific plans with regard to modifications. She can tell them that she serves with the John Stuart Company’s San Francisco area as 504 coordinator and she reviews and approves all of their requests for reasonable accommodations and reasonable modification for people with disabilities. She stated that it was an area that they were very familiar with and new projects are going to have specific requirements and existing buildings not as much, but they will certainly make modifications for people with disabilities who are qualified for it. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought she had a question for Planning staff. She referred to this project as presented and the potential speculative future ADU should they come to fruition, and asked how any of those parts fit into RHNA for Pacifica. Planning Director/Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister stated that the state has changed what can qualified to be counted and we will be able to count this on our preservation of affordable units, but it may not qualify for new construction because it is not new construction and the qualifying term to count for new construction would be much longer afford ability terms, such as 55 years minimum. She thought they will get some points but not be able to count it as if it was a brand new construction. She stated that they are looking to see if there is any way to maximize their ability to count this for RHNA. Councilmember O’Neill asked if there were any provisions where the city can get some units for


Public Works employees or teachers as most of them are below the $80,000/year. He wondered if they can reserve it for people who live in Pacifica or a mile radius of it and if there are any provisions for that. He stated that he talked to Jackie Speier’s office regarding the RVs and the waiting list for affordable housing is like 5,000 people in San Mateo County and he hoped to see if we can get it for our city employees, school district employees, etc.

Ms. Wood asked Mr. Mense if he wanted to address preferences for their community as she didn’t know if they have considered that. Mr. Mense stated that their first goal and mandate is total inclusion and to be made available. If there are specific requests that Council has, they were 100% open to exploring that and making sure that they meet fair housing codes and don’t illegally exclude anyone from the project. He stated that, to the extent they would like them to look at project-based voucher, Section 8, anything along those lines in trying to cater to a specific demographic, they were happy to discuss that and figure out how to work it into the project. Councilmember O’Neill stated that there are 300-400 veterans are on the list, but we also have city and school district employees that are hurting also. He stated that one individual commutes from Brentwood every day to come to work. He stated that, when they vote on this at this time and it passes, it was something they could handle down the road if they wanted to go down that route. He assumed it didn’t need to be covered by the letter of intent at this time. Ms. Wood stated that Mr. Mense made her think that, in California, a source of income is a protective class and they can’t discriminate based on source of income in housing which was primarily intended to prevent landlords from denying Section 8 voucher holders, but it does apply to other kinds of employment as well. She thought it may not be possible for them to reserve housing for a specific group based on their type of employment, but it could be further explored and Mr. Mense could explore different opportunities to market to those groups or a possibility for preference. She just wanted to say that off the top it would be a potential impediment to trying to create their own local preference. Councilmember O’Neill stated that they obviously have to do what is legal, but he was curious, given the need. He mentioned that both school districts are trying to build affordable housing for their staff and he was just asking. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought along that line and based on what he just said about income, she was thinking that the PRC is in the business of helping gay people into stable housing and she didn’t have any knowledge of what kinds of funding is available that helps that happen. She was just looking for a way to have linkage or some kind of compatibility with what they are already doing at the county level with our eight core agencies. She thought, in thinking of this continuity, there is some connection there. She was sure there are ways but she didn’t know what they would be. Councilmember Bier commented like a relationship. Brett Spain, KH Equities, thanked them for taking the time to listen to them. He stated that they have already preempted that process and they have reached out to the San Mateo County Housing Authority to set up a partnership in terms of a referral program, and he thought it was the Pacifica Resource Center that they learned about at this meeting. They will take down that information and are fully planning to reach out. He stated that, however Council can help facilitate that partnership, they were more than amenable to setting up some kind of a referral


program or such for this project. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was wonderful to hear. Her name is Anita Rees and she will make sure that he has the opportunity to make those connections. Mr. Stan stated that it was amazing and they really appreciate it. Mayor Martin asked if there were any more thoughts on the terms of the proposal this evening. Councilmember O’Neill asked if they have to have public comment. Mayor Martin opened public comments. Dep. City Clerk Brooks introduced the speaker. Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, stated that, as a resident interested in affordable housing for years, he felt it was heartening to see this opportunity come before them and he asked that they take it as it strikes him as a blessing. He stated that he hasn’t seen anything like it come down the pike for at least half a decade. Mayor Martin closed public comments and mentioned the proposed action that was before them is to authorize the City Manager to sign the Letter of Intent and Negotiate an Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, Loan Agreement, and any other necessary documents for City Council approval at a future meeting.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that, if that is a motion being made, the motion should include as amended by the Assistant City Manager in the oral staff report. Councilmember O’Neill made the motion as stated and amended; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer. Councilmember Bier asked if they can comment on how great this is first. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they can discuss after a motion and a second. Councilmember Bier appreciated the city’s communication with these developers to be in line with 1482. She thanked them for doing that. She stated that, when they talked about the changes they made to the amendment by Acting Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister, she was checking off the boxes of things she was concerned about and was excited. She would normally want to push for the very low income category, like 60% but she knows that we need to get at least one development and then they can work on those other things later. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and was thrilled to see something that comes to Council that is ready made to match completely and is in align with what have been Council goals around affordable housing for longer than she has been on Council. She stated that finding resources for affordable housing always feels very out of reach, and having an opportunity to bring something like this to our community is a gift and they were pleased to have it. Councilmember O’Neill seconds everything his fellow Councilmembers have said.


Mayor Martin agrees with what everyone said. She thanked everyone who worked to put this together so fast and looked forward to seeing the fruits of their labor. City Manager Woodhouse understood that there was a motion and a second, but he wanted to double check on the discussion about the term. He stated that Acting Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister can clarify it but, regarding the 15-years and city discretion for another 15 years, did they discuss that or want a different term or 30 years, etc. He stated that they can figure it out if they need to discuss it further. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is okay with the 15/15 as you never know what is down the road that might change. Councilmember Bier concluded that he was okay with 30. Councilmember O’Neill clarified that the 15 with the option for 15. He stated that if they go for 30 years, he didn’t know if they need 30 years for the financing, will there be some major change, and you never know down the road to commit for 30 years. He was okay with 30, but 15/15 sounds like a circuit breaker in there for either side if there is a major issue that arises. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer has a question, referring to what Councilmember O’Neill brought up about the potential for retaining the condo approval and the ability to convert units to saleable owned homes versus rentals, and she asked at what juncture that kind of a conversation might go on. She was potentially at that mark but maybe she is wrong and it is whenever it would be brought up. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he mentioned affordable purchases. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood, adding that it seemed like it had to be in an articulated agreement. Councilmember O’Neill thought, based on what they were saying, something needs to kind of invented now. He thought they need a boilerplate letter to get the process started for their lending of the purchase and that is a back office thing. He stated that, as mentioned by Acting Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister, they can leave the overlay map on there now and cross that bridge when needed. He stated if both sides are agreeable to it, they can change the contract in 15 years. He thought an affordable purchase would be nice to have as an option. Councilmember Bier urged them to take a look at 30 years, as when you look at affordable housing, it is usually between 45 and 54 years. She would push for the higher number and say 30 years off the bat. Councilmember O’Neill stated that maybe Mr. Mense or one of the others could answer his question, i.e., if they want to put something in there like affordable purchase, is that something they can change in this agreement midstream to allow for 30 years. City Attorney Kenyon stated that she should probably address that. She stated that issue is normally not part of a regulatory agreement and the issue he is raising would not be best to be discussed at the 15-year option point as it is not necessarily part of a regulatory agreement program that has a lot of state and federal restrictions on it. She didn’t recommend that Council direct staff to negotiate that as part of a regulatory agreement or something they could negotiate


at a 15-year point, and that is one of the reason staff recommended this option, as staff wanted the ability, after 15 years, to review the project to see how it was being managed and operated and assuming that all is going as planned, the city would opt for another 15 years. She stated that, another way to use the 15-year option, is to say at that point that the city could consider whether or not they wanted to opt for another 15 years or if they wanted to explore in more detail a program of the likes that they are discussing. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he did not want to change the verbiage of the letter they are voting on at this time, because they need that expedited, and he was talking about down the road. Councilmember Bier asked, if they say 15 years at this time, what could happen at the end of the 15 years. She stated that she was not saying this agency would do it, but could they say at the end of the 15 years that they were going to go up to market rate. City Attorney Kenyon stated that they could not as it was in the sole discretion of the city as to whether or not they want to keep it as a 30-year agreement or essentially terminate it at 15 years, but not an option for the developer to make that decision. She stated that, according to the terms of the regulatory agreement and from the perspective of the city, it would be a 30-year term if we want it to be and at 15 years, the city can make a decision as to whether or not they want to opt in for another 15 years or if they want to terminate it and explore other affordable housing options for the site. She stated that it was providing more discretion to the city, not the developer, in terms of how long the city wants this agreement to last. She reiterated that it was something that the City Attorney and staff recommended in order to give the city more discretion to evaluate how this program is being operated. She recommends that Council stick with a 15-year and an additional 15-year option. Councilmember O’Neill stated that his motion stands, and asked if Councilmember Bier wanted to change it. Councilmember Bier stated that the City Attorney was pretty convincing. She would personally prefer saying for 30 years, but she has to trust that the city will do the right thing when they review the project and they will continue to keep it affordable. Mayor Martin stated that there was a motion and a second. Councilmember O’Neill confirmed that it was as staff recommended. City Clerk Coffey stated that Councilmember O’Neill made the motion and seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer, and then took a vote by verbal roll call. Vote: 4-0 (Vaterlaus abstained) Councilmember Vaterlaus returned to the meeting.

RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [4 TO 0] MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor Pro Tem AYES: Martin, Beckmeyer, Bier, O'Neill RECUSED: Vaterlaus


8. Sharp Park Specific Plan Update and City Council Direction on Preferred Land Use Strategies to Guide Preparation of a Draft Sharp Park Specific Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Receive staff's presentation and provide direction on the Guiding Policy Framework which will guide staff's preparation of a Draft Sharp Park Specific Plan.

Sr. Planner Murdock mentioned the participants in presenting the report: the Plan Pacifica team including Asst. City Manager / Planning Director Tina Wehrmeister, Associate Planner Bonny O’Connor; the city’s consultant team from Dyett & Bhatia, Alison Moore and Rajeev Bhatia; and Planning Commissioner Tygarjas Bigstyck. Sr. Planner Murdock then began the staff report. He then turned it over to Alison Moore for the power point presentation. Alison Moore of Dyett & Bhatia, continued the staff report.

Mayor Martin asked what the purple areas represented in the last slide. Ms. Moore stated that those were sites under 7,539 sq. feet or where four or fewer units could potentially apply. Mayor Martin concluded that they could be built up. Ms. Moore responded affirmatively. Councilmember O’Neill asked if saying under 7,500, is that the parcels that are less than 7,500, and are bigger than the standard size lot but less than 10,000 feet. Ms. Moore responded affirmatively, further clarifying that those parcels represent sites where the opportunity to design incentives for developments where less than five units could occur, and there are quite a number of parcels that are smaller. She stated that Sr. Planner Murdock could clarify that. Sr. Planner Murdock suggested he state the issue differently. He stated that they are all familiar with the city’s VMR inclusionary ordinance like the 15% affordable units for projects proposing 8 or more housing units. He stated that, for projects of 7 or fewer units, Council is aware that they are not required to provide affordable housing units in Pacifica. He stated that, fortunately, state density bonus law provides strong incentives for certain developments to include affordable housing units, in many cases in excess of the city’s 15% requirement in the VMR ordinance. He added that those requirements only apply to projects with five or more housing units. What they are trying to point out is that there is a gap between city’s inclusionary zoning or VMR ordinance, state density bonus law which provides strong incentives for affordable housing production, and the built environment in terms of the size of lots along Palmetto where they are focusing their attention for planning purposes, revitalization and redevelopment. He stated that they see that there is a potential opportunity but are a lot of challenges to making it successful. He stated that an opportunity with the right planning policies and the right densities in the land use designations to create a space where small projects may be able to provide affordable housing. He stated that, in all cases, they hope they end up being naturally affordable and they also hope to create opportunities for formal deed restricted affordable housing in the Specific Plan, and that was where they are providing some attention to the smaller sites that often are overlooked for affordable housing production.


Ms. Moore continued the staff report. Sr. Planner Murdock concluded the staff report with information on references for more information for future discussion. Mayor Martin asked if Council could have comments from Commissioner Bigstyck on what their hot topics were. Planning Commissioner Bigstyck stated that he was the liaison for the Commission on this item. He stated that the most robust conversation they had at their last meeting was regarding the mixed use neighborhood versus mixed use center designations for Palmetto and they had a good consensus that, south of San Jose, a mixed use center was appropriate and they were comfortable as a group with the heights being upwards of 55 feet, but north of San Jose, it was a different story. He stated that they were split down the middle as to what would be the appropriate land use there. He was the person most in the middle and thus his interpretation is mixed use neighborhood but incentivizing height limits over 35 feet might be appropriate for those doing affordable housing. It was a split conversation and that was the hot topic. Mayor Martin asked if it was a hot topic among the commissioners as well as the public. Planning Commissioner Bigstyck stated that, among the public, they had a couple who called in about incentivizing developers and there was a specific concern that the language of the sea wall should be incorporated into the policy framework so it might put at ease anyone looking to develop down the road and they could see that their economic use of the property was going to be kept secure because, in no uncertain terms, there will be a sea wall there. He stated that another one that came up and was popular among the commissioners was the topic of trees. He heard Ms. Moore say that it might be difficult given the constraints but they were harmonized on the notion that, if trees can be incorporated in the street scape, they should be. Mayor Martin opened public comments. Dep. City Clerk Brooks introduced the speakers. Suzanne Drake, Pacifica, stated that she lives in the Sharp Park area and is close to this neighborhood and was very impressed with all the work and presentation done so far. She echoed Commissioner Bigstyck’s comment of having the sea wall as predominant in making sure we secure any potential investors and developers in the area. She stated that, because it is still a residential community, when they are talking about parking, she recalled that Sharp Park as well as Beach Boulevard was going to be designated to be paid parking. She stated that, if that is the case, she strongly recommends that people in the residential neighborhood are allowed parking permits. She added that it might be an unpopular idea, but she was willing to pay a fairly decent rate for a permanent parking permit for the area. She was sure it will be unpopular with other people but she thought it could be viewed as a revenue generator for Pacifica through the residents. She stated that she has been very impressed overall with how this meeting has been held. Tom Thompson, Pacifica, stated that he is a Sharp Park taxpayer and property owner for over 30 years. He loves the vision for the downtown Pacifica in Sharp Park. He stated that the specific plan goals are spot on and he congratulates Council and staff for coming up with it. He stated that there is a big problem, in that the private sector investment needed to make this happen won’t happen without a viable plan to resolve the sea wall problem along Beach


Boulevard first, especially when it comes to the 2212 Beach Boulevard project. He stated that the Sharp Park Specific Plan guiding framework is now the time and place to clarify Pacifica’s commitment to resolve the sea wall problem, especially as it pertains to 2212 Beach Boulevard and Palmetto Avenue as well. He respectfully urged Council to include a commitment to solve the sea wall problem and the Sharp Park Specific Plan guiding framework document before them at this meeting. He also respectfully requested that they address this issue at this meeting. He stated that he has some experience in development and looked at the Beach Boulevard in a past life as a development site and if he can help with any questions or clarifications, he was present and would be happy to do that. Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she has been a resident of West Sharp Park for 24 years and is concerned about both our nation and her neighborhood. She stated that she sent comments to the Mayor, Council and city staff noting that, while good progress has been made, much more work is needed to understand and communicate the impact of land use, density and height changes that are being proposed in the Sharp Park Specific Plan. She is also stating verbally now that the creation of realistic to-scale visual representation to clearly present to the community what the proposals for increased height and density would do to this unique, historic small coastal neighborhood. She stated that such images were prepared for the proposed library project in Sharp Park and the Sharp Park Specific Plan with the changes of height and density are proposals of greater magnitude to the area than the single library building. She stated that putting the neighborhood character in a single connection to the ocean at risk and much more effort to visually communicate the impact is needed. She stated that additional tools such as story poles and virtual representation could also be considered for creation prior to any final position they are taking. She stated that the area under study for the Sharp Park Specific Plan represents less than 3% of the build able land in Pacifica. She stated that the proposed intensification of the area disregards decades of respect for the character of the distinctive neighborhoods of our city with an idea to overdevelop the highly constrained, small, vulnerable area. She stated that, while the community has expressed support for increasing the vibrancy of the area, singular strategy for intensification and increased height being put forth is one that few who are familiar or live in West Sharp Park seem to be comfortable with. She stated that there was another letter in their meeting packet from others of her neighbors with whom she has spoken, do not feel that their voices are being heard. She felt more work is needed for all, including Council, to understand the implications and develop profitable alternative approaches. She asked Council to direct staff to create the visual representations for review before any decision has been made. Mayor Martin closed public comments. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it was 10:50 and they have to extend the meeting. She moved that they extend the meeting to 12:00; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill. City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call. Vote: 5-0 (Extend meeting to 12:00am) Mayor Martin referred to the last comment which brings up what Commissioner Bigstyck said, specifically what would it take for Dyett & Bhatia to present visual representations. She stated that it was helpful when they were doing the library visualizations and people walked up to them and voted on them at Farmers’ Market, FogFest, etc. She was curious about what it would take. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that they agree as the Plan Pacifica team that more work is needed


to communicate these concepts to the community. He stated that they are trying to strike the right balance between understanding that they are still in a conceptual phase for the plan and being cost conscious with their limited resources for developing those kinds of materials but not doing them prematurely before they check in with the Council as decision makers as to whether they are even open to that concept and level of height and intensity. He stated that they definitely know they have to prepare a number of different types of tools to communicate this in terms of visual representations and other materials. He stated that it will certainly be part of the coming phases of the planning process. Mayor Martin thought that makes sense, and she thanked him for explaining it very thoughtfully. She stated that what they were doing was planning and, if he is asking Council to give him feedback on this, her first thought was how they can make a decision if they can’t visualize it either. That struck her and she didn’t want to forget that. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that they do have some information and maybe they can pull them up in the slides as he had specifically asked their consultant earlier in the process to come up with some rough modeling of what the difference scales of intensity would look like. He stated that they were trying to have a different kind of conversation about what the desired outcome is and how they arrive at that, rather than something too premature in the built form of what it would take, and allowing that discussion to curtail potential outcomes. He stated that they can have the process take whatever route Council thinks is necessary but it reflects why they are where they are. He stated that, as they are working through the slides, they can see that they have tried to economically produce some conceptual visualizations of what the trade-offs may look like between mixed use neighborhood, mixed use center, 35 ft, 45 ft or potentially greater heights. He stated that to do it for the entire planning area or all of Palmetto would be a rather intensive process and they haven’t made the decision to commit those kinds of resources at this point. Mayor Martin understood, and added that she read through the packet where it said over 50% of people supported heights over 35 ft but she stated that, while it might not be imaginary for a contractor, for her she would not even vote on that unless she sees it. She felt that they need to at least show a few things to the community to open up for discussion. She referred to the library project because that is part of the neighborhood. Sr. Planner Murdock asked if there were particularly advantages that she thought would be helpful, as he thought they tried to give a typical scenario at an intersection with a prominent significance in this particular set of renderings, and asked if there were other types of perspectives that will be helpful to her before making a decision. Mayor Martin asked if these were shown to the community. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that Ms. Moore could speak more particularly about the images on the online survey, but he thought they were. Ms. Moore stated he was right, as all the images were included with questions in the survey and she added that participants who took the survey were supportive of heights over 45 feet along South Palmetto. She stated that the survey was intended to quantify those areas of mixed opinions so they could have numbers to back it up. She reiterated that all these visualizations were included in the survey. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that, as he interpreted the survey results, there was a majority


support for heights over 35 feet on north Palmetto, South Palmetto, 2212 Beach Boulevard and Eureka Square. He concluded that it was not in a vacuum and isolation as people were providing that feedback. He thought it was worth exploring, and if Council needs more information to make a decision, staff was there to get that feedback, adding that they have provided that information to help inform the public feedback thus far. Mayor Martin apologized, stating that she still had a problem with it as they did a lot of the meetings in person and then they went virtual with the survey. She stated that, when you are standing in front of something, versus looking at it, she appreciated it but didn’t feel that it gives you the perspective of 45 feet. She referred to four stories versus 35, and when she visited the booths for the library and they were working through it, she was the liaison and it felt more real. She asked for input from Council. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that those were design concepts for library so it was a little different than just saying that it is showing the height limits. She stated that story poles would be almost impossible to put up and she didn’t know what other kind of renderings should be there, because she can understand the drawings they have and this was the same as they had at the public meeting on Zoom which she attended. Mayor Martin understood that she was a real estate agent and she sees things differently than other people. Councilmember Vaterlaus also understands the concept of the people who want to keep the neighborhood with the neighborhood style and they mentioned that ion the presentation, that they would keep the historic portions of the neighborhood and look at the small houses which would remain the same because they put these along Palmetto and on Francisco, not down the streets in the neighborhoods. She thought they took that all into consideration. Councilmember Bier stated that she finds it hard to visualize and, as the slides were presented, she wanted to zoom in so she could see it a little bit better. She didn’t think she fully understands, as they have the height restrictions and the density, and if they had a 45 foot height, how many units could fit on one-third of an acre and when they are saying all these things, she cannot visualize what it means, such as how big is one-third of an acre and what could fit into that. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that a standard house size lot is 5,000 sq. feet. Councilmember O’Neill stated that a lot of Sharp Park is substandard lots. Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed. She was just saying that 5,000 sq. feet is standard and they see mostly those get a conceptual of what a lot size is. Ms. Moore asked them to go back to slide 15 as she thought that would help them get to some of the points they are making. She stated that it shows the difference between a mixed use neighborhood building and a mixed use center building. She stated that it would be twice the number of units and a little but more commercial. She stated that, on a 5,000 sq. foot lot, they would get about three units with mixed use neighborhood and about six units on mixed use center. Mayor Martin stated asked if it was on Palmetto as she didn’t see it reflective of Palmetto. She stated that they are just seeing a building on some street that they are supposed to imagine as


Palmetto. Ms. Moore stated that this was based on an actual lot along Palmetto. She was checking her records to give them an intersection street. Mayo Martin wondered with those two trees if it was Paloma looking north with the laundromat there. Ms. Moore stated that in the images the trees are conceptual and not on the existing lot. Rajeev Bhatia of Dyett & Bhatia, stated that these were all shots along Palmetto, and he referred to what Commissioner Bigstyck said about the tree issues. He stated that these proposals were adding trees in between parking spaces along Palmetto so you would have trees. He stated that, currently, the city put in the bikeway and there wasn’t room for a tree strip. He stated that these are managed points along Palmetto Avenue itself. He stated that one of the challenges along Palmetto is that the lots are pretty small and in order for them to achieve cohesive buildings that are 3-4 stories tall, they need to give incentives to people to consolidate some lots together otherwise it becomes very difficult and challenging to get 3-4 story buildings. He stated that is something they will be looking into as well later on following the direction they get from Council, such as assuming minimal parcel size that they would establish before the heights to kick in. He stated that otherwise, it is very difficult to park whether underground or behind the buildings, and do they have the setbacks, elevators, etc. to make the high units accessible to people. He stated that there are a minimum number of units required for that. He stated that they will need to continue working on that in terms of what the actual lot sizes would need to be. He stated that these are lots that may be able to accommodate some of the taller buildings. These are 0.3 acre atypical lots and not the common lot size that currently exists along Palmetto. They are trying to depict buildings on a site that happens to be bigger where the taller buildings can be accommodated. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was the liaison for the Beautification Committee when they were talking about Palmetto and Department of Public Works were less than enthusiastic about trees due to the climate close to the ocean. They couldn’t find any trees that would be good for that, such as you can’t put a cypress there and the maintenance required for trees would be quite prohibitive. He thought there may be a new species. He stated that the discussion is basically with a mixed use center you can put more units on it because you are going to a height limit. He added that, if they went to a higher height limit, they are accomplishing two goals, getting more units and you would go over the threshold of a five-unit building that would require an affordable housing component. He asked if he was correct. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that he was on the right track. He stated that the quick answer is that, under local ordinance, they would need 8 or more units before they would get an affordable housing unit. He stated that once they get to five units, the state density bonus law is an option for the developer to relax certain zoning requirements and the tradeoff with that is providing an appropriate proportion of affordable housing units in return. He stated that it opens up the door for the city to incentivize greater affordable housing production once they get to the five-unit level. He thought they were trying to accomplish a number of Council priorities in this Specific Plan with these land use designations and the corresponding heights. He stated that first the objective they have heard most clearly from the Council is to try to improve vibrancy on Palmetto. He stated that there may be a number of different ways to do that and they think the one most likely to be successful and they have evaluated thus far is to increase the number of people living in this area to have daytime, evening, weekend foot traffic throughout the year, not


the seasonal tourism but other types of short term draws if they were to have a lot public gathering spaces as their strategy. He stated that, to get more people in the area, they need to provide an incentive for those projects which is higher densities. He stated that, giving the baseline of 1980 to 2020 that has given them what they have now on Palmetto, i.e., 35-foot height limits and 22 units per acre. He stated that is what the zoning has allowed for 40 years and has given us the present outcomes. He stated that, what they make of them as Councilmembers is their own opinion. He stated that thus far, they have gotten direction to get them to someplace different and they were bringing them options to do that. He thought the closer they skew to 1980 standards the more likely they are to end up with the current outcomes that they have on Palmetto. The more they have some vision to change the calculus for development along Palmetto and elsewhere in Sharp Park, he thought the greater likelihood that they may have different outcomes than what the last 40 years have delivered to us. He stated that was why they were seeing this packet of options. He stated that they might not be the right package for Council and they may need different information in terms of visualizations but the baseline that they started from has resulted in the outcomes that they have today. Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if they go with the mixed use center with a higher density, it also means they might qualify, if they include Eureka Square, as a priority development area which would allow more money for street paving, possibility of more mass transit, etc, because they have more people there. He asked if that was a correct assumption. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that they have already qualified as a priority development area. He stated that, in order to be more successful in achieving the intended outcomes for a priority development area, he would agree that they need to change the mix of land uses, “re-jigger” the formula for developers making decisions of whether to pursue projects or not, and they get the outcomes that Council thinks are important to improve vibrancy and create this as a revitalized area. He stated that is if those are still the objectives for the Specific Plan. Mr. Bhatia stated that he would add that along the southern portion of Palmetto, they would be requiring retail or other active use at the ground level to maintain the street level vibrancy, and their economist told them that, in a mixed use format, the retail is not financially viable use, it is a dollar sink, and is subsidized through the residential development. He stated that, if you have a limited number of stories you can go above, developers will not build mixed use development because it was not viable to provide the amount of retail required for the amount of fundage. He stated that having taller buildings having more units subsidized the same amount of retail at the ground level actually makes some of the mixed use developments more financially viable. Mayor Martin stated that they were doing it on such a small square footage in such a beach cottage neighborhood and it feels forced. She knows the idea is to reinvigorate this area. She asked what the Coastal Commission say, as she thought there was some pushback. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that he wouldn’t characterize it as pushback. He thought the coastal Commission has its set of issues that are of concern to them, such as coastal resource protection. He stated that, among those coastal resources, there is access to the ocean and they want to make sure we don’t inhibit where possible to expand access to the coast which includes parking, coastal access points, trails, etc. He thought the greatest significance in the comment letter they received was consideration of view impacts, and the Coastal Commission wants to ensure that, if they are looking at taller buildings, they are not going to result in changes in publicly accessible views from public spaces. He was not talking about private view protection as that has not been a city policy and not a coastal act policy, but public views from public spaces like streets or other significant public lands are a factor that they need to evaluate


and it is going to require some comprehensive analysis in terms of visual modeling and other information to demonstrate how we believe coastal resource and view impacts will not be adversely affected. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was what she was going to bring up. She stated that, in answering the mayor’s question, it was a lot about being visual sight lines impacting the visual character or surrounding areas as well as public view to and from the ocean in visually sensitive areas. She stated that, when she looks at the picture on the screen, she remembers the meeting that was at the Little Brown Church where there was a discussion about the buildings. She thought Commissioner Bigstyck might be able to elaborate on this from the Planning Commission meeting. She stated that there was a discussion about stepping back the buildings and having the heights not like a wall of a building, a big square wall, but they were intentionally stepped back so they allow the views to go between buildings. She referred to the question of the visual poles being put in place before they make a decision about this, and thought it was unrealistic. She did think that was something she has seen included in development plans but maybe she is mistaken. She thought that could be incorporated when they were at a point where they are closer to doing something. She thought the point of this item was that they were enacting a vision that has been talked about for many, many years and there has been widespread agreement that this is the area in town that allows for that kind of vibrancy and the opportunity to walk they are going to the pier, walking the promenade and to have a neighborhood that serves the neighborhood which exists already which is part of what is so challenging. They have something now and have had it for about 100 years so she thought changing that is big and she thought that there was a hesitancy which is understandable but what they have in front of them at this meeting is the result of them working, laying out goals, having community prospect and having input. She thought they have gotten recommendations, community feedback about height limits in certain parts of Palmetto and Francisco and it seems to her, if she is remembering the Planning Commission meeting correctly, that the north part of Palmetto was recommended to be a lower height than the south part and she didn’t recall specifically hearing or missing what they talked about with Eureka Square and she asked what they imagine there. She stated that the other piece is that it isn’t approve it tonight and then next week the developers are going to start rolling trucks in. Mayor Martin stated that this what they will be basing the ordinances off of regarding height limits and it is very significant. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. Mayor Martin stated that they can’t diminish the importance of this meeting’s decision. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she was not diminishing it, but saying it is challenging because it is visionary and is enacting what people have been saying they want for a long time. She stated that they need to be bold. She stated that they can keep it the same as it is, but it is never going to improve. She stated that, with smart planning, it can improve. She has every confidence in that. She agreed that they need to address the sea wall issue somewhere in it, stating that it seems like maybe in the land use section, but she didn’t know where it would fit in. She would listen to staff on that. She referred to the bike corridors, stating that they have focused on the east/west corridors but she wondered about having no lanes on Palmetto now. She asked if there were any discussion about lanes or the shared lanes concept with no paint on the street or just a line. She stated that it was already a congested area and, if they are talking about parking, she wasn’t sure if the intent was to move the parking from there and have it also be a bike corridor and what that would look like. She would like to speak to parking a


little bit and how they would incorporate their work in resiliency for this neighborhood into this plan which she thought was an important consideration. Councilmember Bier suggested that they take one thing at a time and discuss it fully and then move on to the next thing, referring to all the things Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned. She agrees that they need to talk about all those things, but when jumbling it all up, she didn’t think they will be able to make a decision. She suggested that they start with the land use conversation and then move into the other sections. She thought that would be helpful for her to do them one at a time. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was for whatever will help them move this conversation. Sr. Planner Murdock thanked Councilmember Bier, and he thought there were a couple of ways to work through this as staff was happy to talk about whatever Council wants to talk about. He stated that they lined up some questions on the key elements that they were hoping to get feedback on and he suggested starting on packet page 152. He stated that another way to think about going about it was to work from top to bottom of the guiding policies and framework. He stated that was the outline they will use to develop more detailed policies in the draft plan, packet page 159 and the guiding principles start on packet page 160. He added that they can also take whatever different approach the Council thinks is appropriate. Mayor Martin asked if they want to start on packet page 152 for land use. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that it works for them if it works for council. Mayor Martin read the first bullet point in the land use section on page 152. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that this question was the synthesis of the community feedback they received and they were fine with input from the Planning Commission. He stated that this doesn’t have to be the only option but that was how this mix of issues ended up in this particular form. Councilmember O’Neill asked him if he wants them to answer each one of the bullet points or just comment on all three. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that they were discrete questions and not a set of options. Councilmember O’Neill concluded that he wants a comment on each bullet point. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that he did, if possible. Councilmember Bier thought, if they are going to be talking about land use, they have to talk about housing and what the vision is for that. She stated that, when talking about incentives for developers and if they are going to create a height limit for developers and an incentive for them, she would want different language to be included, such as low income, very low income and maybe the word afford ability. She didn’t see that anywhere, just inclusionary but not afford ability. Sr. Planner Murdock thought they were trying to strike a balance between this being a guiding policy and then the minutia of an actual zoning requirement. He stated that, if they would like better clarity or different terminology to make it more understandable, they can revise it, such as low, very low, extremely low income housing, for example.


Councilmember Bier stated she would appreciate that, stating that during the Planning Commission meeting, Chair Nibbelin suggested that it also went into the guiding principles and she would encourage that as well. Alison Moore stated that one of the general guiding policies on packet page 161 includes the language “promote a variety of housing types and sizes, and programs to support development of housing affordable to moderate, low and extremely low income households.” Councilmember O’Neill asked if the developers under the present guidelines would be able to transfer density bonuses, such as they buy a parcel, make it a public park but those units could be transferred over to another site. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that they do have a transfer development rights ordinance currently, and in their General Plan policies they have support for revising that ordinance to make it work better. He confirmed that, under current zoning, they could do that and hopefully they can expand opportunities for that in the future upon adoption of the General Plan and Specific Plan. Councilmember O’Neill concluded that, if they went with this MUC, they could add that the developer would be able to buy one lot, dedicate that to public open space but transfer the development rights from there to this to get to more units as long as they stay under the height restriction. Sr. Planner Murdock thought so as in theory it sounds feasible to him. He stated that practically, the issue is that in bringing more units into this constrained space, Council has to be willing to accept that. He stated that, if they are clustering even further, there are tradeoffs as they would love to create more ground space for parkland. He stated that, if Council is willing to accept greater density or heights to achieve that, it was important policy framework language that they need to hear and incorporate that into the planning process. Mayor Martin thought it was a double-edged sword as an example is a guy who bought that space between the weed shop and Colombo’s old house on Palmetto. She stated that it was supposed to be a café and she hasn’t seen anything going on there, and she was saying that you need that to get people in there to get bodies and seats and what developers are saying is that they need people living above all these things in order to make that happen. She was hard pressed to find any of those neighbors in that neighborhood that say they want more humans living and parking in those neighborhoods which is already a constraint, unless they are thinking about putting in a lot and doing a bunch of fancy stuff. She mentioned setbacks, but stated that a setback is only good if you are taking down the whole building because those buildings are already there and only a few open lots. She stated that was concerning to her. She stated that the Coastal Commission didn’t just say that it was access to the views, but was visual character of the surrounding areas as well. She stated that also concerns her. She wants to be bold, and they are moving in the right direction. She thought, if you are standing at the door of a 45 or 55 foot building, you might think differently if you have a better picture of where you stand in comparison to that. She thanked Councilmember Vaterlaus for pointing out that those were design concepts but they were designed enough on the corner that looked and she felt as if she was standing there as she has been to the Sharp Park Library so many times and she knew exactly what she was voting for. She doesn’t get the sense from the community forums that people understand that and that the neighborhood understands what eight multi-unit apartments would do to their neighborhood at 55 feet high, let alone parking. She loves the idea of mixed use, and she thinks the heights are the issue. She thought they would be shooting themselves


in the foot if somebody comes in and tries to build something at 45 or 55 feet high and it gets approved and someone appeals it and it goes to the Coastal Commission. They will be in the same predicament. Councilmember Bier hears what she is saying, and she also thinks that after seeing the conceptual designs for the library, if they were going to do a mixed use center designation, it should be on that end of Palmetto, the southern end. She asked if San Jose cuts it down the middle. She thought they could go ahead and do the mixed use center on the south side of Palmetto but not the north side as they have to be very careful and they have to talk about the north side a lot. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he agrees with Councilmember Bier in regard to the 55-foot mixed use center from San Jose Avenue south. He thought that was fine. He thought they need to move forward because if the library and possibly some sort of hotel is built there, it is probably going to be above 45 feet. He referred to Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer’s mention that under commercial zoning there is no setback at the ground level but the building itself would be stepped back so every story it goes back five feet or so and they would still have open air flow. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it was not a square box of 55 feet but something with step backs in it. Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are not going to look like Cash Canyon in downtown San Francisco. Mayor Martin thought it was called a set back, not a step back. Ms. Moore stated that a setback is when the building is further from the street level, but a step back is where the height of the building steps back like a step. Mayor Martin stated that was what they have been referencing in the proposal. Councilmember O’Neill didn’t think there is a reference to proposal as that would be up to design of the building when it comes before the Planning Commission. Mayor Martin referred to Commissioner Bigstyck mentioning that. Mr. Bhatia stated that they can certainly put that in the requirements and it doesn’t have to wait until the building. He thought some of the drawings that they have showed to them have stepbacks at the upper levels and the ground level comes up to the street and goes up 1-2 more stories at that height but then they step it back and they can come back with different proposals for that. Mayor Martin stated that they would have to pick out housing at the back end of it. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that the stepbacks may result in less housing which is one of the tradeoffs for the architectural character of that design. He stated that you can build a big box to maximize the number of units, but they don’t think that is the best outcome, as much as they are supportive of housing in this plan. He stated that they know there is a balance. He stated that the guiding policy framework at this point talks about setbacks and stepbacks. He stated that they have largely talked about setbacks in terms of the priority building as close to the front property line as possible to create that retail street environment. He stated that there are some


historical strip type development on Palmetto that has parking lots closest to the street where people are walking and it diminishes that interface with the street where a lot of activity needs to take place. He stated that they are trying to discourage that while maintaining stepbacks at upper levels to not result in crowding onto the street at the human scale at ground level. He stated that hopefully at ground level they building appears and feels like a smaller scaled structure when in fact some height and density is tucked deeper into the site at the upper levels. He stated that many communities have done this well, and they think there are ample examples to model. He stated that they need the framework to reflect the Council’s interest in exploring those kinds of heights and densities, and they think they are needed to achieve other objectives and vision for the area that the Council has previously espoused which is increased vibrancy, striving for affordable housing, etc. Mayor Martin asked about the neighborhood. Councilmember O’Neill wanted to ask a process question. He thought this is going to be an issue that they are not going to finish in a half hour which is midnight, and he wondered if they wanted to consider continuing this so they can do the appointments at this meeting. He was throwing that out for discussion. He stated that this is going to be more than a half hour discussion. He asked if they can extend it beyond midnight but he didn’t know if that was good policy. Mayor Martin did not think it was healthy. Councilmember O’Neill agreed which was why he was bringing it up. Councilmember Bier asked if it was okay to continue it. Sr. Planner Murdock stated that they can accommodate a continued schedule as it was not a public hearing and they don’t need to necessarily commit to a specific meeting date at this time. He would want to give the City Manager the opportunity to think about the best date to bring this back. He stated that it sounds like they have some work to do internally to try to make this a more productive process for Council. He stated that they probably want to bring back a recommendation after consulting with the City Manager. He stated that the tradeoff is that, the more time they take, the longer this plan is delayed, but to get it right on the front end is important to him and they will hopefully come back with policies in the draft plan that Council can support and waiting a meeting or two was worth it from his perspective. Councilmember O’Neill didn’t think they want it at the next meeting. Mayor Martin asked if it would hurt if he can look and find any funds in the budget for a couple of visual representations that people could come and visit, maybe at the library between 12 and 5 or at the Farmers Market. She stated that she would show up and they could visit as part of the community outreach for the neighborhood. Councilmember O’Neill asked if she was talking about story boards, not about clay models. Mayor Martin agreed, clarifying that they are big enough to have a picture of a human next to it or kids on their bikes. She felt they have been spoiled with the library project. She stated that 35, 45 and 55 feet are tall and on the corner next to Florey’s Bookstore. She was fine if that is what the community wants, but she wants to see it.


Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the community has talked about this over and over. Mayor Martin stated that they have talked about it twice. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it has been for years. Mayor Martin agreed but they haven’t seen it, just like they talked about the library for years. Councilmember Bier thought that if they will be continuing this item, they shouldn’t continue discussing further at this meeting.

Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed. Councilmember O’Neill wanted to make a motion to table this until some date uncertain and they can make their appointments before midnight. Mayor Martin stated that she would like to amend that motion. Councilmember O’Neill questioned what it was. Mayor Martin stated that when staff looks to bring it back that there is some level of proposal to get a bigger representation out to the community. Councilmember O’Neill asked what her definition is for getting it out to the community, as they are always going to have someone come up and say that they didn’t know this was going on. Mayor Martin stated she was open to ideas. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was trying to get them to where they can make the appointment and get out before midnight. Councilmember Bier thought they probably need a little more visual representation and maybe they can figure that out to get them through. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was not against the visual representation. Mayor Martin stated that they are being asked to make a very big decision and she wants to make sure it is to the rest of the community. Councilmember O’Neill reiterated that he was not against the visual representation, but with her comments about putting it out, he didn’t know if a big truck driving down Palmetto with pictures. Mayor Martin stated that she didn’t say that. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he made his motion and it is dying for lack of a second Councilmember Vaterlaus seconded the motion. City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call. Vote: 5-0 (Table Agenda Item #8 to date uncertain.)


Mayor Martin apologized to Dyett & Bhatia for coming and not getting what they needed but there is always tomorrow.

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember AYES: Martin, Beckmeyer, Vaterlaus, Bier, O'Neill

9. Appointments to the Economic Development Committee; Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission; Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee; Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission; and Planning Commission PROPOSED ACTION:

1) Move to appoint four (4) applicants to the Economic Development Committee for two full-terms to expire October 2024, one partial term to expire October 2023, and one partial term to expire October 2021;

2) Move to appoint two (2) applicants to the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission for two full-terms to expire October 2024; and

3) Move to appoint three (3) applicants to the Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee for two full-terms to expire May 2024 and one partial term to expire May 2021;

4) Move to appoint two (2) applicants to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission for two full-terms to expire May 2024; and

5) Move to appoint one (1) applicant to the Planning Commission for one partial term to expire March 2022.

City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report. Mayor Martin asked if they have public comment on this. City Clerk Coffey responded affirmatively. Councilmember O’Neill asked if they could have one public comment or do they have to have a separate comment for each Commission. City Clerk Coffey stated that they can have one public comment on the item as a whole and then the Council can deliberate and make their recommendations and motions for appointments to each Committee and Commission. Councilmember O’Neill asked if she wants them to nominate a slate or vote for each person individually. City Clerk Coffey recommended that they can deliberate as needed to come to a nomination and then a clear motion to appoint by name to a particular position as noted on the vacancy, such as an applicant for the full term versus a partial term to expire. City Attorney Kenyon recommended that Council open public comment first, hear the comments, close public comments then bring it back to Council and take each Committee appointment singularly and try to reach consensus without making a motion as to whether or not there is a majority consensus on either a slate or individual and then make a vote. She stated that there are a lot of committees needing appointments and it is better to try to be as clear and


specific before motions are made. Mayor Martin opened up public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments, and brought it back for Planning Commission. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he would like to nominate Alex Ferguson for the Planning Commission. Councilmember Bier asked if they were doing the Planning Commission first. Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively. Mayor Martin asked if they want to have a discussion. She stated that this was unusual for them as they usually do it on paper on the dais. She stated that she was going to nominate someone else. She asked if she should do that. City Attorney Kenyon suggests they have a discussion before they make a motion on each committee and try to get a consensus. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it could be complicated because certain people applied for multiple committees and if you choose them now and she chooses them later for something else, it will make things complicated. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they don’t make a motion yet because someone might say something later and she would agree that the person might be better on a different Commission. Mayor Martin suggested that they say that they would nominate someone. Councilmember O’Neill stated that it was 11:45 and he asked if they need to vote to extend the time. Mayor Martin stated that they set midnight. Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they close at midnight. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, if they get through two of them, they will be done with those and then they can do the other another night as there was no way they were going to get these done in 15 minutes. Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they can change the process, because she would like to say Open Space and Parkland because that could conceivably take two minutes. Mayor Martin added that they were meeting this month. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that there are two people who applied and three positions. She asked if they can change. Councilmember O’Neill stated he was fine. Councilmember Bier stated that there were three people and three positions.


Mayor Martin stated that she has Paul Durkee, Kate Johnson and Stephen Kraus. Councilmember Bier agreed. Councilmember O’Neill asked for which commission. Councilmember Bier stated it was Open Space. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that Kate Johnson applied for that also. Mayor Martin stated that she mentioned Kate Johnson. Councilmember Vaterlaus suggested Paul for the long term and Kate and Stephen for the short term. Councilmember Bier agreed. City Attorney Kenyon stated that someone can make a motion unless that was a motion. Councilmember Vaterlaus moved that they take Paul Durkee for the two-year term, Kate and Stephen for the one-year terms for Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee. City Manager Woodhouse stated for clarification that he saw there was one partial term, thus one short and two long. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that was what her sheet says but that was not what that sheet said. Councilmember O’Neill stated that they need three for Open Space. Councilmember Bier agreed, clarifying that two full terms and one partial term. City Attorney Kenyon agreed that it was two full terms and one partial term. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if she was proposing Paul and Kate for the full terms and Stephen Kraus for the partial term. Councilmember Vaterlaus amended her motion as mentioned by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer; seconded by Councilmember Bier. City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call. Councilmember O’Neill and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated no. Vote: 3-2 (Approved. Appointing Paul Durkee and Kate Johnson to full terms and Stephen Kraus to partial term on Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee; Noes: O’Neill, Beckmeyer) Councilmember Vaterlaus nominated for Parks, Beaches & Recreation for two full terms James Heywood and Mark Marchetti and made the motion to appoint those nominees; seconded by


Mayor Martin. City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call. Vote: 5-0 (Approved. Appointing James Heywood and Mark Marchetti to full terms on Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission) Mayor Martin stated they would consider the Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission. Councilmember O’Neill nominates Frank Erbacher and Debra Johnson for Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission and made the motion to appoint those nominees; seconded by Councilmember Bier. City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call. Vote: 5-0 (Approved. Appointing Frank Erbacher and Debra Johnson to full terms on Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission) Mayor Martin stated they would consider Planning Commission. Councilmember O’Neill nominated Alex Ferguson to Planning Commission; seconded by Councilmember Bier. Mayor Martin stated that she was going to nominate Catherine Katie Planey. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to have a discussion. City Attorney Kenyon asked confirmation that there is no motion on the floor. Councilmember O’Neill stated that there was no motion. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought there was a motion. Councilmember O’Neill stated that there were two names nominated. Mayor Martin stated that they were having a discussion, and asked if anyone had a third name. She stated that her reason for choosing Catherine Planey was that she brought a diverse skill set to the table, in addition to being a female, and she did have experience in the world of land use and she felt that Alex Ferguson was great and would do great at the job, but she also felt he might have some conflicts of interests in Pacifica and might not be able to vote on a few things as a contractor. Councilmember Vaterlaus asked how they deal with this. City Attorney Kenyon stated that there was a vote on the table. She stated that, if the discussion is concluded, they need to take a vote on the motion. Mayor Martin stated that there was no motion. Councilmember Vaterlaus thought that there was.


Mayor Martin stated that there was not. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he used the wrong term. He made a motion but it was the wrong term. Mayor Martin stated that he could go ahead and make a motion. Councilmember O’Neill made a motion to appoint Alex Ferguson. City Attorney Kenyon stated that they need a second on the motion. Councilmember Bier seconded the motion. Councilmember O’Neill stated that looking at his resume and application, he has worked in public and private entities as well as public comment forums and project management and public relations in design building coordination and also attended City Council meetings, CERT program and he has attended the Sharp Park Specific Plan meetings and familiar with the Local Coastal Plan and he thinks he has a big lead over some of the other applicants that weren’t familiar with that. That was why he nominated him. City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call. Mayor Martin voted no. Vote: 4-1 (Approved. Appointing Alex Ferguson to partial term on Planning Commission; Noe: Martin) Mayor Martin asked if they can do Economic Development Committee. Councilmember Bier thought they can. Councilmember O’Neill stated that, for discussion, Myra Chen, Beth Lemke and Tripp Marotto. Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that there were four positions. Councilmember O’Neill stated that his other choice was appointed to another committee. Councilmember Bier suggested Nicholas Humann. Mayor Martin stated that she didn’t have him on her list. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he did not come to the interview. Mayor Martin stated that she had Kira, Jim, Tripp and Kathleen.

Councilmember Bier stated that she would like Tripp to have one of the full terms. Councilmember O’Neill stated that it was fine with him. Councilmember Vaterlaus asked, if there as so many, she asked if they are going to vote on them one person at a time and make it different.


Councilmember O’Neill thought there was a second for Tripp Marotto by Councilmember Bier. Councilmember Bier agreed. City Clerk Coffey clarified that the motion has been made for Tripp Marotto for a full term. Council agreed. City Clerk asked about a second full term nominee. Councilmember O’Neill stated that was to be determined. City Attorney Kenyon stated that this motion was for one. City Clerk Coffey stated that it was for Marotto. She then took a vote by verbal roll call. Vote: 5-0 (Approved. Appointing Tripp Marotto to a full term on Economic Development Committee) Councilmember Vaterlaus nominated Jim Heldberg for the two-year term; seconded by Mayor Martin. City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call. Vote: 5-0 (Approved. Appointing Jim Heldberg to a partial term expiring October 2021 on Economic Development Committee) Councilmember Vaterlaus nominated Beth Lemke for a full term; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer. City Attorney Kenyon thought there were only two full terms or was this for a partial term. City Clerk Coffey stated that Jim Heldberg was for a partial term of two years, and the motion on the table now by Councilmember Vaterlaus was Beth Lemke for a full term seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer. She then took a vote by verbal roll call. Vote: 5-0 (Approved. Appointing Beth Lemke to a full term on Economic Development Committee) Councilmember O’Neill nominated Myra Chen for the remaining partial term City Clerk Coffey stated that it expires on October 2021. Councilmember O’Neill stated that he nominated Myra Chen for term expiring 2021. Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she had Kathleen Courtney on her list. Mayor Martin stated that she had Kathleen Courtney on her list. Councilmember Bier stated that she had Kathleen Courtney.


Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they are all mixed up. She has either Myra or Kathleen. Mayor Martin stated that Kathleen got at least four of them. Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed. Councilmember Bier nominated Kathleen Courtney for the second partial term and moved to make that appointment; seconded by Mayor Martin. City Clerk Coffey stated a correction that this would be for the partial term to expire October 2023. Councilmember O’Neill agreed. Councilmember Bier agreed. City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call. Vote: 5-0 (Approved. Appointing Kathleen Courtney to a partial term expiring October 2023 on Economic Development Committee) Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that this was the most difficult situation of choosing people for commissions and committees and if you did not get chosen, she asked that they please reapply.

ADJOURN

Mayor Martin adjourned the meeting at 12:01 a.m. in honor of all essential workers and those working on the fires to keep us safe. Councilmember Vaterlaus added Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Mayor Martin agreed to adjourn in her honor as well.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer. Respectfully Submitted, Sarah Coffey, City Clerk APPROVED: 5 - 0; 10/12/2020 __________________________ Deirdre Martin, Mayor

Documents

CITY OF PACIFICA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Zoom Meeting: Dial