City Council - Regular Meeting

to order for our joint study session.

Recording in progress.

And it is 5.07 PM. Sorry, we're starting a little bit late. City Clerk, could we have a roll call, please?

Council Member Espinosa?

Here.

Council Member Beer? Here. Council Member Beckmeyer? Presente. Vice Mayor Wright.

Present.

Mayor Bowles. Easy. And Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commissioners. Commissioner Wallman.

Here.

Commissioner Vertuccio is not present. Commissioner Taverna.

Here.

Commissioner Guzeta is not here. Commissioner Crawford is not present. Commissioner Blackburn.

Present.

Commissioner Balistrieri. is not present. Vice Chair Miller?

Present.

And Chair Johnson?

Present.

Wonderful.

Thank you all for joining us tonight. We've been looking forward to this conversation for a long time. So Captain Glasgow, I believe you're presenting the... I think we're doing the salute to the flag as part of the regular meeting a little bit later. Yeah. Thank you, Myra, for asking that.

Great. Thank you. Mayor Bowles, Vice Mayor Beckmeyer, fellow council members, staff members. I'm Captain Bill Glasgow with the Police Department.

Point of correction, Vice Mayor Wright.

Vice Mayor Wright. I apologize, sir.

I don't want to take this thunder.

Today I'm joined by several of our commissioners. I have, as the roll call stated, Chair Deborah Johnson and Vice Chair Miller, along with several other commissioners here, happy to speak with you regarding some of the charter revisions that we had conducted a meeting to make recommendations to update our city charter. Clicker is not working. Next slide. Just briefly, agenda. Going to talk a little bit about the background of the processes that we went through to be here to present to you tonight. A review of the Emergency Preparedness Safety Commission timeline. And then just a few recommended charter changes that the commissioners had discussed and would like to bring to your attention. and then just next steps of moving forward with regards to this charter. Next slide. So a little bit of the background. City Council priority work plan of fiscal year 23-24 included a review of the commission committee's charters. Back in May of 25, City Council ad hoc subcommittee was established. Council members Beer and Wright were on the subcommittee. met with the city manager and staff to review and develop questions for the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission to facilitate a review and make recommendations for charter update. And in August of 2025, based on the ad hoc committee's direction, additional charter review questions for the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission were finalized, which were later reviewed at a regular scheduled commission meeting. Next slide, please. So the review timeline, August of 2020, the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission discussed the charter review questions posed by the commission at the regular emergency preparedness meeting. This was a very, very long meeting we had. I don't know if you guys, commissioners, remember it was about a two-hour process, which was great because it allowed us the opportunity to review these questions. and actually establish some goals that we were able to maybe incorporate in our annual review and report back to Council in May or June, I believe, of this year is when we'll come back with our annual update. So there was a lot of good conversations of how to engage the community, how to promote what the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission does. So thank you for those questions and allowing us to review those questions with the Commission. Then if you recall, November 19, 2025, Emergency Preparedness Safety Commission discussed and voted on the recommended changes. So at this meeting, commissioners had discussed some of the revisions and came up with several items in which we're presenting to you right now. Next slide. So these charter revisions, just three of them, changed the commission's name from the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission to Emergency Preparedness Commission. Great conversation went into this. With removing the word safety, it allowed us to kind of focus on disaster preparedness and emergency preparedness. And sometimes with the word safety in it, it kind of swayed us into tackling issues, discussing issues that were maybe not in our purview to make recommendations or bring to council for. Other committees and commissions would be responsible for those suggestions at that time. Another great discussion was the creation of the ex officio member, a youth ex officio position designated and have the youth advisory board create a process for this position. We're seeing a lot of commissions and committees and a lot of I think council's goals also were to really have our youth be a part of various processes. So our commission thought that would be a wonderful idea maybe add an ex officio position. And then lastly, if you recall the city council meeting on September 8th, we amended the municipal code to remove the emergency preparedness commission as an appellate body to the 72 hour parking ordinance. We recently, just before we met, we actually had one of these processes and our new 72 hour parking enforcement ordinance amended that and removing us as an appellate body, making the hearing officer, which is the on-duty watch commander, now be the final word and final disposition of all parking appeals. Next slide, please. So kind of next steps, staff's going to revise the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission's charter, then come back to council for consideration and an adoption. And then lastly, updating our ordinance. And at this time, I'd like to turn it over to you if there's any questions or comments for the commission, commissioners.

Thank you so much, Captain Glasgow. I guess it says on my little cheat sheet here to invite comments from the chair, Deborah Johnson. Do you have any? anything you'd like to add to Bill's report?

No, I think this has been a really helpful process.

If you can use the mic.

It's been a really helpful process to go through this certain times it has come up in our discussions. We're like, eh, what are we doing? So to solidify that, I think there was much discussion about the whole word safety and what that meant. And so that I think really focusing on emergency preparedness is our focus. And we look forward to progressing and hope the changes go smoothly. Okay, thank you. What can I say?

I love our commission. I love you all too. I see Greg.

I'd like to start just by thanking all the members of the commission and our distinguished police representative as well for the work on this. I'm particularly appreciative of the addition of the youth bringing them into this process. I've seen wonderful results with Pacifica Youth being involved in a lot of the different things we're doing and I take a lot of good feelings away as a result and I appreciate you continuing that movement.

Yeah, we're very excited about that. We've been really talking about this for quite a long time and how to do it. We have such great response from youth at our fog fest booth. You know, they're sort of like, you know, they're the future. And when IBL came and presented their water safety brochure that they worked on, it was truly amazing that these kids took this issue on. And I think they could bring so much input to our commission. So we, We're glad that you like that, and we love it.

I don't see any other lights. And I was in most of your discussions, so I'm a little pervy. I'm not sure if we talked about, like, some of the other committees that we're putting youth members on, they're not just ex officio, they're actually, like, a formal voting member. Is that something that you all considered? I mean, it would mean like one of the spots, you know, we wouldn't, I mean, I guess we could consider increasing the number, but that's another option, right, of...

That topic was addressed at that meeting, and a majority of the membership felt that having maybe the youth member just being a voice, just like our ex-officio, other ex-officio members, would satisfy having input from the youth. And then when you're looking at voting membership, requiring meetings, things of that nature, didn't want to overextend the youth position if and when that person is appointed or brought on board.

And then just reading, I really appreciate the questions that Mary and Greg put together for you all and reading those answers of some of frustrations or the questions that go beyond your charter and like understanding that a lot of the ex officio members don't come and it would be helpful for them to be there more the representatives from the schools we get the Red Cross occasionally and then there's not a fire position I don't get could you talk to any of that is there is there anything else that we could help with in terms of helping those people be at your meeting

Yes, so that was a concern of staff, or I'm sorry, a concern of the commission members. That is going to fall on the staff liaison, which is myself, to ensure that I'm reaching out to the appropriate peoples to make sure that those entities have a seat at the table and that we can count on them being there on a more regular basis. So those discussions are currently happening.

Okay. And then fire is not an official ex officio position, right?

No, it's not.

Maybe because that's too much to demand of our short staffed fire?

I wish I could add some input on that. I don't have a, I don't know why that it's more of emergency preparedness. Police department's function is emergency preparedness. Most of fire's involvement is with assisting with evacuations, things of that nature.

Okay.

And if I could chime in regarding that, I mean fire, North County Fire Authority is the city. It's our fire department. And so I think it would be unusual you have an ex-officio member from a city department at a committee or commission. That could be part of the origin of that. I'm not sure.

Okay.

And I know.

We did it several, probably 10 years ago, had fairly consistent representation from San Mateo County EMS. I think it was Steve Mahaly. He had since retired, but I do feel like we've lost a significant input with not having the representatives from the schools. We had pretty consistent from Jefferson Union and with Laguna Salada, and it really helped to get an input into the schools. I know there was a conflict of interest with I don't know if it was the high school or one, but anything.

Or conflict of meeting time, I think. Yes.

Our schedule conflict. So any help with that, I think, again, they provided a lot of good insight.

Okay. And I know FIRE comes and presents sometimes, so maybe that's just being able to invite them and have a discussion with them. is maybe still a good path forward.

Through the mayor? Yeah, please. Sarah, can you put up the slide that has their recommendations? I wanted to talk about the youth position. Thank you so much. I'm so happy that you're talking about young people. It makes me so excited because we're doing a lot of work to bring folks to the table, and they need to be there. I did notice that you added to designate the Youth Advisory Board to create a selection process for the position. And I hesitate with that because we have positions in other committees and commissions too. And so, yeah, I think we'd have to talk about that a little bit. We should be recruiting and interviewing all of them in the same way. As part of interviewing for the committees and commissions.

Yes.

Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. But it doesn't mean a youth advisory board can't, you know, someone from the youth advisory board can be the ex-officio member, so.

So you're saying there's another mechanism for bringing in youth representatives?

Well, I'm saying we don't use the Youth Advisory Board to create the selection process for the other youth seats. And so we should do it all the same across the board.

Yeah. So how is that? What's the mechanism?

Oh, it goes out to the community whenever we're doing interviews for committees and commissions.

It's the same as anything else.

It goes to the schools through the Youth Advisory Board and everything. And then they come and they interview. But they interview, like you guys.

But they interview with the council. Yes. That's what I was asking. Oh, yes. So you want a standardized approach. That makes sense.

Yeah. And they've been doing it. It's been great. It's been great.

Council Member Pierre may add some input on that recommendation. The recommendation by the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission was to create a youth ex-officio member position. Typically for ex-officio members on the committees and commissions, it's another body that makes that designation. So for instance, on the library advisory committee, there's an ex-officio member position for the school district. and the school district makes that designation of who would represent them as the ex officio member. The difference is on a couple of the committees where there's a designated youth position, those are full member voting youth positions. So the city does that recruitment for the full member voting positions.

Thank you.

So this recommendation is consistent with the way the city treats exit recruitment of ex-officio members?

Well, in my opinion, we definitely want them to be full voting members. So we can have that discussion together.

I would support that idea.

I think part of our thinking was that they're probably going to cycle through more frequently than The other board members.

That's what we've done for other committees is just to point you to a one-year term. Oh, okay. Because, yeah, their lives change. They go off to college. Which they can renew. Right, okay.

So how does that impact our total number of members? So that's the question.

Do we lose a person?

Nine regular members and three non-voting ex officio. is the way it reads right now. Let's talk about that. So we have nine voting members. Now we'd have to add that, right?

Or add two or take one away from those nine spots. Because I think the typical is to have an odd number so that you can, if you have a divided vote.

Any thoughts about that from the other commissioners? Hi. Good to see you.

Well, are you referring to whether to have it an official? It would be official voting members. And that's practiced in the other commissions also?

And then is it going to change the number of regular seats? Right. That is what we're talking about, right? Yes. Okay. You can make it clearer.

The library has two youth seats, for example, because there's a lot of interest for that. BAC. BAC has one.

And they're voting.

in their voting.

Mayor, may I also offer just one more difference between the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission and other committees that have youth voting members is that the other advisory committees that have the youth members, I believe it's Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee and the Library Advisory Committee, those are advisory bodies that have no appeal jurisdiction. The Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission is the appellate body. Although removing the appellate body for the 72-hour parking ordinance, the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission does serve as the appellate body for some building official decisions. And I'm not certain I would have to turn to a city attorney to advise on how that would work with a youth member under the age of 18 voting on an appeal type of situation like that.

I think that might pose some concerns because there are specific qualifications. And I don't know if having a member who is not 18 would qualify as due process. So I would need to look into that. But I do have concerns. Thanks, Sarah, for raising that.

Could we add the youth commissioner and preclude them from being involved in any things that they're not allowed to?

Yes, they could be an ex-officio member without voting.

Could they vote on everything but things they're not supposed to?

We could look into that and see what things could they vote on. I think that would be fairly easy to do, frankly. I would imagine that the most of what the emergency preparedness... commission would do, they would be able to participate in, because those appeals and reviews are rare, so. That's right.

Yeah, go ahead.

Hi, Commissioner Ballman. I think in light of the concern about members under 18 voting as far as appeals decisions, it may make sense then to have two youths on the committee in such capacity that would balance it out to nine voting members in such a scenario.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you all.

Yeah, sorry.

Speak up.

We know you. My mindset with the legal consultation would be to consider adding two youth members, and then whenever there's a commission-related item for appellate issues, those two members wouldn't be able to vote, and that would keep us at nine in such a scenario.

Would not be able to vote, or would?

For those rare occurrences, those two members couldn't vote, and we would still be nine members, so an odd number. But then in everything else, it would be 11 to use that could...

I JUST WANT TO REMIND, BACK IN 2017, THE COMMISSION, THE CHARTER HAD CHANGED. WE ACTUALLY ONLY HAD SEVEN VOTING MEMBERS AND IT WAS INCREASED TO NINE, WHICH IS THE LARGEST COMMISSION IN THE CITY. SO I'M JUST KIND OF THROWING IT OUT THERE THAT THAT WOULD BE TWO MORE ADDITIONAL DECISIONS.

WE DON'T WANT TO GO TO 11, IS WHAT I HEAR YOU SAY.

And how many empty spots do you have right now? We have no empty spots. We had to turn. Everybody sticks around, huh? That says something about you.

Well, we went through our cycle last fall, so we have two new members. Right. We never know. So I don't know how that would work. Somebody has to resign? I'm not sure. If they're recusing themselves from voting on the rare appellate, why not just have them? as an ex-officio because it's not like we don't listen to our ex-officios.

And I feel like, I'm saying it because of me too, voting is not, it makes them more stressful for the kids. So I think maybe, I'm not sure they should vote. I mean, they're kids. They're trying to go through college and they don't need the extra stress.

We are letting them vote on other

Oh, are you?

Oh, okay.

I personally think that if you have to cast a vote, you take more responsibility for the position. And I think in the course of things, it would be a better service, not just to the community, but to our youth as well, to have them vote.

And I think this is where we could talk to the Youth Advisory Board and see what they think about it.

Oh, yeah, too. That's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I do think, again, thinking about the difference between committees versus commission, which we did talk about, about that when we were trying to figure out the difference between a commission and a committee, and we are commissions. I think that's why we came up with it being an ex-officio. And for us, it would be new, as opposed to the other committees that have youth, but I don't think any other commissions do.

Could we make a suggestion to ask the Emergency Preparedness Commission to speak to the Youth Advisory Board and discuss it perhaps at their next meeting and as they come back with their charter sort of trusting their input too?

And now that we have council liaisons to the youth advisory board, then tomorrow, no, Wednesday night will be my first meeting. Okay. So you could bring that up? I can add the comment in, but however you all want to go about it is fine. But out of youth, yes.

Regarding any of our participation with the youth advisory committee. Would that need to be a special session if it's like a study session between the two groups?

I don't think so.

I don't think so. If the direction was for the commission to meet with the Youth Advisory Board, yes, it would be a notice, you know, Brown Act special meeting.

Probably can't happen on Wednesday, yes.

So, you know, it would take longer, so streamlining that somehow. You meet twice a month, though.

So it's not that long. So did I hear clarification? Is there another commission that has a youth member? Yes.

Through the mayor? Library Advisory Committee has two.

That's a committee.

Oh. Commission. No. Not to my knowledge. Not yet. Probably for the reason that the city clerk and the city attorney outlined. My guess.

So if other commissions are thinking about that or we're moving in, perhaps it should be a group effort to figure out the whole commission issue with you. I don't know.

I think that discussion, the commissions generally are listed in the code. And they have a lot of adjudicatory decisions to make. And so I think that is the reason that the youth have not been put on commissions. Other than that, there's really no difference between commissions and committees. It's whatever the agency determines. A commission can be a committee, or a committee can be called a commission. But the commissions that the City of Pacifica has they are provided for in our code and the reason for that is because they have a lot of adjudicatory duties and roles where I would not recommend that you have a resident who is not 18 on those adjudicatory bodies.

Council Member Wright.

I would love to hear from the one who we have not heard from. Gregor, do you have an opinion or any input?

My thoughts on it are this. Everything on the voting for a student member of the commission would be a great way of them to field participation in civic life and part of their resume building if they're looking to go to college or if they're looking to do other things. Where it gets, and so I have no issue with that. In fact, I would encourage it. I just remember sitting in this very room on that dais with my name on that board while we were listening to the red tagging issue of the three apartment buildings on Beach Boulevard. Yeah, I know. I was 58. I didn't think I would want to do that when I was 18, to be responsible for that kind of heavy responsibility on that. So I'm a bit hesitant on having them as a voting member to that. I'm not quite settled on how to say this, but it came up the other day while we were talking about... territories and commonwealths of the United States and whether they get a vote in presidential elections. Now, they might be able to vote within their territory of Guam or Puerto Rico, which is how that came up, and it didn't add to an electoral count vote. Now, if there is a way in which the commission deals in that respect with AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT'S COMING UP AS THE TERM THAT WAS USED WHEN WE'RE MAKING A DECISION THAT RECOMMENDS SOMETHING UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT WOULD BE CURIOUS TO SEE IF WE COULD HAVE A BIFURCATED VOTING SYSTEM THAT WAY OF SOMETHING THAT'S INTERNAL OR AN OPINION THAT, YES, PLEASE, GIVE US YOUR OPINION, STUDENT MEMBER COUNCIL. BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOING NORTH TO THE CITY COUNCIL, Then maybe that would be, yes, they would have an opinion on that. It would be expressed. It could be recorded in the minutes, but would not count as a vote that is a final tally decision that goes north. I don't know how we would arrange that, how that has to be written.

I see the city attorney shaking her head.

I was hoping you weren't going to make Scott respond, because they have such great ideas. But my concern would still be the same, right? Because the decision... If somebody were to challenge it, and I'm not saying anybody would, but if they were, they could use that as a potential bias or conflict, that it influence the adjudicators, right? And so, in my opinion, I could research that, but my initial reaction is that that would pose the same problems as voting on any adjudicatory action would.

Just to add another concern that I would have is that the commissions that serve as appellate bodies, the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission and Parks, Beach and Recreation Commission, all of the members of those bodies must submit a Fair Political Practices Commission Statement of Economic Interest, or as you know, the Form 700. I would have some concerns with requiring youth members under the age of 18 to submit those. I have a hard enough time doing it.

Thank you both. Those are really good points.

If I can just add something I tried to bring up earlier, maybe I didn't articulate it, but we have nine filled seats, two recently appointed last year, and others have terms. So if we, this is just another operational or logistical consideration, is then what would we do, ask somebody to resign?

No, I mean, we've done this on others where it's just at the next round of applications, right?

Oh, I guess I'm eager to get youth involved.

We are, too. We are, too. But with an ex officio, you can do that right away, that sounds like, and not work for our process.

That's the point I'm making. That's the point I'm making, in addition to all the legal, you know, kinds of considerations.

Okay, okay.

I mean, it makes sense. I really appreciate the conversation, right? Yeah. Yeah. It makes sense for the commissions to have the ex officio. Okay. Easier to.

So, are you happy with the language that's here? Yes. Now, Mary? Okay.

Well, I heard some reference to potentially doing two as opposed to one. Is there?

Well, I didn't like that.

What? Potentially two.

Staff's recommendation is maybe one for right now.

Yeah.

And if that's something. We can always add it.

We're a pretty big commission.

Yeah.

Okay. Is there anything? I have one other thing I wanted to talk about, but is there anything else? Any of you?

Just to clarify what the action is here for identifying an ex officio if we go that route? Because I heard it was not asking the Youth Advisory Board.

Staff can reach out to the other staff liaison and come up with something. prior to the adoption of the ordinance, I guess.

Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. And then I saw a number of comments about your role and work plan, like the whole advisory to the council not being well defined and in terms of your work plan and so forth. Like, I know, like, for me, like, I hear what's happening regionally, and I'll come and tell you some things about it just to educate you, but it's not my position as your liaison to tell you what to do, right? But you are a body that works for the council. We do want to hear your concerns. There was a question about that, like, how do you communicate if you have concerns to let us know if there's something. So, I mean, always, I'd say always feel free to email us and obviously at goal setting, which will be March 7th, you're welcome to come. And that's where we can talk about things on the work plan, our work plan. But to give everyone a little bit of a notice, Vice Mayor Wright and I have been speaking to the city manager because I think there's a little missed opportunity the way we kind of rush all the committee and commission reports, right, where there's not so much time for discussion of we're looking at the idea of possibly spreading those out a little bit and actually being able to discuss your work plan. And so that would be a place, you know, if you have some ideas you want to bring forward, if we have some, we could talk together, and then the council can give direction, right, as a body.

I have a question in regards to that, because I think in the past, We have, there's been some confusion on some of our parts.

I'm sorry, can you pull the microphone closer?

Okay. Thank you. Hi, this is Commissioner Taverna. In the past, there's been a little confusion, I think, on some of our parts on the commission on how to handle when our citizens from Pacifica may come to us with a concern about emergency preparedness. And I remember this when we had high fire danger and You know, because of our title, of course, they feel like we are the group to come to. But so in the future, when people come with concerns about tsunamis and evacuation and things like that, I mean, we have the education. We can spread that. But if they're very serious concerns, then we would just report it up to city council. Is that what we should do?

Well, theoretically, typically, concerns of that nature would be brought to the staff liaison who's assigned to that commission, and further discussion could be had as to the direction and or a response to any given community member's concerns.

Yeah. But if, you know, if something was brought to you which raised an idea of something you might want to do in the community, some particular outreach or, you know, whatever.

Absolutely.

You know, that's something that you could take on yourself. And, again, we can have discussions about the work plan because we also hear from our community and what they're worried about. Thank you.

Yeah.

Go ahead, Michael.

Commissioner Wellman, one question I have is besides this body and perhaps also planning, is there any other commissions or committees that are on public access TV?

That are on what? I'm sorry? On what?

I know even like OSPAC, they really want more interaction and direction from us, so I think we can figure out a way to do that.

I also think it having given you know that the meeting where we all the commissions and committees get up and give our annual report and it's very quickly but I've realized a couple of times doing it that like oh it's so great to hear but it is and kind of a quick rapid fire one group after another and a few questions and we get on with our business but I would really like us to maybe see some potential of the different commissions kind of interacting a little bit more so that we know like oh well maybe this issue that's come to our commission really is a parks and beach water safety or things like that so I'd like more input on how best to make sure that the commissions keep in touch and know what we all are doing. Yes, our liaison, which are fabulous, lets us know certain things, but I think hearing what other commissions have been doing has been really eye-opening and great and only does good for the city.

And I love that there was some partnership with emergency preparedness and parks, beaches, and recreation around the education for the life buoys. That was a great thing. And we do that.

We still continue to do that.

Commissioner Blackburn, I'd like to add on to that and direct it to another element of city government, which is We are having our eyes on the local hazard mitigation plan, which is up for that five-year renewal. Identifying the risks and threats to the community is the beginning of pushing ourselves in that process whereby grant money from the federal government would be available to pay for projects to remediate or mitigate those hazards. Knowing what we're coming up with, or as we come up with Elements for that plan to get revised knowing where the higher priorities are within the cities and other commissions that Conversation that we would have with the City Council and the other Commission's can be very useful as they do their planning Two three five years out for projects that might be eligible and available with funding that is three five six years out That's a great point

So, I mean, are we okay with these proposed revisions? And letting the commission and staff, you know, to finalize the drafting and the exact selection process for the ex officio youth member? Okay. Yes.

This comes up from everyone. Thank you.

Well, thank you so much. It's really been great to have this conversation in person.

Thank you. Thanks.

Okay. So we are officially adjourning until 6 o'clock. We can't start our meeting until then. 6.02 p.m. Could we have a roll call, please? City Clerk.

Council Member Espinosa. Aki. Council Member Beer. Here. Council Member Beckmeyer. Present. Vice Mayor Wright.

Present.

Mayor Bowles. Here.

Wanted to make sure everyone knows to put a parking pass on their car if you're in the City Council lot and there are parking passes at the door and at the bottom of the stairs. So I'm going to read an item just for general public comment. So public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on non-agendized items must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city, and comments on agendized items must relate to that specific item. If comments do not fall into one of these categories, the city will provide you with an initial warning to stay within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city or on topic. If the warning is not followed, I will direct the city clerk to cut off the microphone. And throughout the warning system, I will seek the assistance of the city attorney in identifying comments not related to the agenda item or not within the subject matter of the jurisdiction. So with that, I'd like to read our land acknowledgement. The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the indigenous protectors of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramitesh Ohlone people. Thank you. And Councilmember Beckmeyer, would you lead us in to salute to the flag?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. City Attorney, do we have a closed session report? No reportable action. And with that, I'd like to call Jeannie Salisbury forward for a proclamation. Hello. Welcome. So we have a proclamation for you today for your years of service. Oh, and I picked up the wrong one. Whereas Jeannie Salisbury faithfully served the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission for 19 years, having begun her service in February of 2006, and has demonstrated unwavering commitment to the safety, preparedness, and well-being of the community. And whereas throughout her tenure, Commissioner Salisbury has provided exemplary leadership, served with distinction as both chair and vice chair of the commission, and offering steady guidance during times of growth and change. Whereas, Commissioner Salisbury has participated in countless community engagement events focused on emergency preparedness, working tirelessly to educate, inform, and empower residents to be ready for emergencies and unforeseen events. And whereas, her dedication and vision have been instrumental in strengthening and expanding the commission, as well as in developing strategic approaches to increase community involvement and preparedness. And whereas, in recent years, Commissioner Salisbury has further supported community resilience by assisting the Community Emergency Response Team, or CERT program, contributing her professional expertise as a registered nurse to the medical portion of CERT training classes. And whereas, Commissioner Salisbury's service has been marked by professionalism, collaboration, and a deep sense of public responsibility, leaving a lasting and positive impact on the commission, the CERT program, and the community it serves. Now, therefore, I, Christine Bowles, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Pacifica and all its citizens, do hereby recognize and honor Jeannie Salisbury for her 19 years of outstanding service, leadership, and dedication and expressed sincere gratitude for her invaluable contributions to emergency preparedness and public safety. Be it further proclaimed that this recognition is extended with appreciation and respect for her past service and with best wishes for continued success in all future endeavors. Would you like to say something before the council speaks? Yeah.

Thank you so much for this proclamation. I'm truly honored.

Jeannie, can you speak on the mic so we can all hear you?

Thank you so much for this proclamation. I'm truly honored and very grateful for the recognition. Serving on the Emergency Preparedness Commission for the past 19 years has been a great experience. I've had the opportunity to work with our commission chair, Deb, for the whole 19 years, and with the other commissioners for a long time as well. We've had great times at the Fog Fest and at CERT classes and other community events. And I think we all share one thing in common and that's we're really proud to live in Pacifica and we care deeply about the safety of its community. It's a great pleasure to have worked with you all. I'd also like to thank our police department liaison, Captain Glasgow, and his predecessors for their support and guidance in organizing us. It's great. As well as our city council liaisons. I think I've worked with Mayor Bowles. and Congressperson Mary, I'm sorry, and Sue as well. So thank you. Thank you for your presence at our meetings and for carrying our concerns back to the city council and to the city manager. We appreciate that. This morning I was walking on Maury Point and I was just thinking how beautiful Pacifica is and how lucky we're all here. And my husband and I, we've been here for 49 years and raised our family here. So it's because of all the people in this room that we have such a great community. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Council members, would you like to make some comments? Go ahead.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and start. Jean, thank you so much for everything. 19 years is a very long time to be of service to your community. That's amazing. You know, one thing I really appreciated about you, the Emergency Preparedness Commission was my first liaison position when I was elected. You, as well as your cohort, really showed me what it means to be a commissioner, and I watched you closely. And so thank you so much for that and for all of your service. Thank you.

I, too, would like to thank you for the example you set, your sense of community spirit, your sense of community in general, and helping keep us all safe is really meaningful to me. You make us all better. with what it is that you do. And thank you so much for that.

Thank you.

Thank you. I never met you before, but it was 10 years in service? 19. 19 years. Oh, my God. Well, thank you. Thank you so much. We really need people like you in this community. Thank you.

I appreciate your... hearing from you during the interviews when you would apply to be reappointed. And I could see that the institutional knowledge of the committee, there was some stability to be able to have that backbone. So thank you for that. I know it's still in good hands. And we do appreciate your service. It's very important to the community. Thank you.

I have so enjoyed getting to know you as the liaison to this committee the last three years and really your work as a nurse and with CERT and helping with the first aid training and also I think you do some of the makeup and pretending to be an injured person sometimes that they have to sort through, which is a fun but a little harrying job. And I know how much work you and others do to prepare for Fogfest and just try to educate our community every chance you get. It was really hard not to reappoint you because you applied again this time, and you... in all of your grace in that interview, said, you know, I've done this a long time. I'm happy to do it more, but if there's someone else that you feel would be a good fit. And, oh, gosh, we didn't want to say no to you. We wanted to add more positions, but we're not allowed to do that. And so we took you at your word, but it's not to mean that we valued you any less. And we really hope that you'll still stay involved in this important work you know, certainly through CERT and in other ways. Thank you so much, Jeannie. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So, yeah, well, we're going to take a picture, but should I open public comment first? I always forget which way to do this. So I'll open public comment first. I'm not sure if I have any cards. So if anybody wants to say anything, feel free to come up and you can fill up a card later. Is there anyone on the phone? Emily? Okay. Well, if not, I'll close public comment, but stay there. We want to come take a picture with you.

Smile. Okay, come on up. So like when they were here for study sessions. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay Thank you all and with that that brings us to our consent calendar Are there any council members that would like to pull an item off consent? Seeing none I know I want to make a couple of comments on item seven and together we'll.

And we do have something to read. Yeah.

Something to read for item eight, but shall we take public comment first? Public comment first or should we read it first? Public comment first. Public comment. Okay. I don't think I have any cards on the consent agenda.

Sorry. You have a card.

You have a. Oh, item seven.

Former council member.

There are two cards on item seven. And one of those is from Tiger Jazz Big Stick. So come right on up. And then Chris Redfield will be the next.

Thank you, Honorable Mayor and Council. I am Tiger Jazz Trolls Big Stick of Pacifica. Based on the mayor's comment a moment ago, I probably don't need to speak very much, which is even better. I wasn't going to speak much anyway. As to item number eight, I want to thank you. In this moment in time, that reaffirmation I think means a lot to a lot of people, myself included. As to item seven, which is why I put in a card, I just thought we should have more information on that particular item. It seemed like an opportune moment to remember again Robert Collin, who prior to the end of last meeting I didn't realize had passed. And meeting him when this was first pitched to me, it seemed like an amazing opportunity. I was trying to figure out how it fit into the grand scheme. It occurred to me as essentially BBRP Part 2 was a natural fit. And to see the idea that this might run parallel instead of sequentially with a resiliency infrastructure project, it seemed like a missing link as we're trying to protect ourselves and find more natural ways of doing it. So just wanted to request more information, but it sounds like the mayor has it covered. So thank you very much.

I'll do that. Chris Redfield on item seven, and then I have Sandy Mills on item eight.

Good evening, staff and council. Chris Redfield speaking as a member of the public. I just wanted to speak in full support of being on board with One Shoreline in our efforts to protect and enhance our coastal resiliency through this feasibility study. We must utilize the best available science and modeling by expert researchers of our vulnerable coastside. As we all know, grants are a crucial component to Pacifica, and funding for viable projects such as offshore artificial reefs. This is only a feasibility study, but an important step in a very large process. One shoreline's comprehensive approach and data of the region is a gold mine. I believed in the artificial reef concept for many years as a component in a larger solution to enhance and protect the coast for all to enjoy. is my sincere hope that the Department of Boating and Waterways funding supports this effort. Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. Sandy Mills, and that's the last card I have on the consent.

Hi. Hello.

Yay.

I was wondering what's going on. Mayor Bowles and council members, I, last week, at the end of last week, I was written a letter to ask you to remind us all that we were Sanctuary City. And just before I hit send, I looked at the agenda and saw that that is on the agenda. So instead, I'd like to say thank you very much for protecting our community and making it known that you're on the ball. So thank you.

Thank you. Suzanne, did you have a comment? You can fill out a card later.

Okay. I'll give you a card, I promise. Again, on number eight on the consent, few things are more important than this. And I am truly grateful that we are having this reaffirmation, especially at this time. And thank you, council, for putting it on consent. Thank you, Suzanne. Thank you.

We have one raised hand. It is for Tom. Okay. Tom, I'm guessing Kendall, please go ahead.

Yes. Tom Kendall. I think there's nothing really to add. I appreciate the comments from the previous two people speaking up on item seven. I did submit a written comment supporting having the mayor sign the support letter to one shoreline. I think it's a great opportunity to work with this county agency and it's I think we have nothing But to gain by doing that. So anyhow, I'm part of the group that worked with Rob Coughlin to bring this to the community and Appreciate your all support.

Thanks There are no other raised hands, okay with that all closed public comment And I just want to make one comment on on that on item seven. So this is I FOR THE COUNCIL TO SIGN A GRANT APPLICATION WITH ONE SHORELINE TO LOOK AT FURTHER STUDIES OF THE OFFSHORE REEF AND IN PARTNERSHIP WITH UC SANTA CRUZ SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS TO DO THE MODELING AND KIND OF PROOF OF CONCEPT. I'M JUST REALLY EXCITED. Overworked right we have so many engineering projects, but one shoreline is a partner that's supposed to help all Cities in the county work on our adaptation planning and sea level rise And it's quite exciting that that they have wanted to take on this project themselves and and they're excited about it And and this is you know our new seawall Although the seawall here that we have now, you know, there's a lot of overtopping but but an offshore reef outside can actually break that wave energy. So we have less hitting the wall and less danger to pedestrians. So it's really an exciting project. And for now, they're not asking any money from Pacifica. So it's a $150,000 grant application, 75,000 of which would come from the Department of Boating and Waterways if approved. And then there's other regional money also possible. Anyway, I wanted to say that. Oh, and yeah, Council Member Wright.

On a separate issue, so please finish. I didn't mean to interrupt.

No, that was it for that. I was going to talk about item eight.

Just on the expenditures, I went through a small process with some of our staff, and I just wanted to point out how responsive they were, and not only did they explain each of the expenditures that I had questions about, but the process and the double-check and triple-check process that we have in place to protect our money. And we're very lucky to have the people we have. And I just wanted to say that.

Okay, great. Thank you. And with that, on Item 8, Councilmember Beer and I would actually like to read the resolution out loud. So, Mary, if you would like to start on that. back at page 146 and do the whereases, and then I'll do the now therefore. Did you want to read any of the, like? I don't have it all in front of me. Oh, okay. I mean, feel free if you want to say something before you start.

Well, I will just say something really quickly. You know, we are sworn into office to protect our Constitution.

Mm-hmm.

to protect the Constitution of the State of California, protect the Constitution of the United States of America, and I could not stop thinking about that. I'm like, how are we doing that? And so this is our little tiny way of trying to do that.

I'll put my glasses on for this one. Okay.

It's a resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica reaffirming the city's commitment to protecting the United States Constitution, democratic values, and human rights, expressing grave concern over recent federal immigration enforcement actions and their impact on civil liberties and calling for accountability, transparency, and respect for due process. Whereas the City of Pacifica is a sanctuary city under ordinance number 826CS, which affirms that all residents, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to city services, protections, and rights without discrimination. And whereas the City of Pacifica Sanctuary City Ordinance, consistent with the California Values Act, SB 54, limits the Pacifica Police Department's cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, except as required by state or federal law to protect public safety and maintain community trust. And whereas the United States Constitution guarantees fundamental civil liberties, including due process, equal protection under law, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable seizure with the understanding that these rights belong to every person, regardless of citizenship status in the United States. And whereas due to recent federal immigration enforcement actions in Minneapolis, Minnesota, including multiple fatal shootings by federal immigration agents and federal agents' resistance to local and state investigations, serious concerns have been raised nationwide regarding the protection and preservation of constitutional rights, the use of excessive force, and local autonomy in law enforcement oversight between municipalities, and counties. Whereas federal immigration enforcement can escalate fear and pose an immediate chilling effect on cities, including but not limited to inhibiting local residents from freely enjoying public facilities, attending schools, accessing medical services, and engaging in the basic civil liberties of life as entitled in the United States Constitution. And whereas the city of Pacifica is a coastal community with a strong tradition of neighbor-to-neighbor care and is home to immigrant families, mixed status households, refugees, and longtime residents who bring tremendous value to our local schools, businesses, faith communities, and neighborhood living, and whose well-being and dignity are essential to the health and safety of our city. And whereas the city recognizes that constitutional rights are not merely theoretical, but designed to be exercised and applied in daily life, including the ability to go to work, take a child to school, seek health care, practice faith freely, engage in free speech, and request government assistance without fear. And whereas the city's democratic institutions are strengthened when local residents feel safe to freely exercise the civil liberties to which they are entitled, including the right to freely attend public meetings, contact elected officials, volunteer in schools, and engage in peaceful protests without fear of intimidation, retaliation, discrimination, or targeting. And whereas the city's residents are carefully watching governmental leaders' actions and responses to moments like these, and the City Council has a responsibility to model and demonstrate that the city will always choose lawfulness, humanity, due process, and democratic accountability over fear and division. And whereas the City of Pacifica's sanctuary city policy not only fosters a relationship of trust, respect, and open communication between city officials and the community, but serves as the public safety measure that encourages the community to report crimes, serve as witnesses, seek help during emergencies, and feel safe to engage with the city's local law enforcement. And whereas the City Council of the City of Pacifica reaffirms that all government actions, local, state, and federal, must adhere to constitutional principles and that local democratic institutions play a vital role in upholding the rule of law and community trust.

Now therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find, section one, constitutional commitment. The city reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the US Constitution and the protection of civil liberties and human rights for all persons. This includes due process, equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and the right to peaceful protest. Section two, protection of sanctuary principles. The city reaffirms Pacifica's sanctuary city policy that city personnel shall not assist federal immigration enforcement in a matter that undermines the constitutional rights of any person consistent with state law and public safety obligations. Section 3, accountability and oversight. The city calls upon federal authorities to ensure full transparency and independent investigation into all incidents involving the use of force by federal officers to respect local and state oversight, and to ensure that operations are conducted in a manner consistent with constitutional protections and respect for human dignity. Section four, civic education and awareness. The city encourages civic and community organizations in collaboration with local government to expand education and outreach about constitutional rights, civic engagement, and mechanisms for accountability and law enforcement. Section five, non-retaliation and protecting civil liberties. The city opposes any retaliatory action against local governments or officials who uphold constitutional protections, including through lawful sanctuary policies, civic advocacy, or defense of civil liberties. Section 6, communication to officials. The city clerk is directed to send certified copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, California's Governor and Attorney General, members of Congress representing Pacifica, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Justice, and relevant civic and civil rights organizations. The resolution shall be in force and effective 30 days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. Thank you.

I mean, I think the bottom line is it's love. It's love. It's all about love. And love just, it conquers hate. And we just have to lean in with love all the time. With every interaction we have and everything we do.

And we are here for each of you and for each other. And won't stand the hate and divisions that we're seeing happen in other places in our country. So with that... Yeah, would you like to say something? Great. I see you're pushing your button, maybe.

I am not pushing the button yet, but I would like to, with that move, that we approve the consent calendar.

Thank you. I'll second. All right. Everyone please vote.

And with the motion to approve the consent calendar made by Vice Mayor Wright, seconded by Council Member Beckmeyer, passes unanimously. Thank you.

And that moves us to public comments on items not posted on the agenda. I have one, two, three, four, five, six cards. Ron Makel, I have a card with your name on it, but I'm not sure if it's for consent or for another item. So if you wanted to... Number nine, okay, I will put you down for later. So we'll start with Rianna Karstadt, followed by Lila Ranero, and then Brian Ranero.

Wow, first, thanks.

We're together.

Robin's with me. Good evening, Mayor Bowles, city council members, and staff. I'm glad to be here tonight. My name is Rhianna Karstad, and I'm sure some of you probably recognize me through my involvement in various organizations here in town. Tonight, I am actually here on behalf of the Fogfest Organizing Group. Last year, at the end of 2025, our amazing and irreplaceable president, John Beckmeyer, made the decision to resign his position of the Fogfest Organizing Group president. It is an incredibly huge job. It's a large festival to plan. And it's going to be very hard to fill John's shoes. Because of that, we decided going forward that President Fogfest would actually be two folks. So myself and our sponsorship chair, Theresa Gio, will be taking charge as co-presidents. I speak for both of us when I say that we are honored and excited to take the reins together and make Fogfest a success for the foreseeable future. Having said that, I am incredibly happy to tell City Council and all of Pacifica that the 2025 Fogfest was a complete success. Even with the rainy weather severely hindering attendance on Sunday, it was an actual Fogfest for that day. We were still able to raise enough funds to match our community giving level from 2024. I'm incredibly glad to say that last month, at a meeting at the community center, the Fogfest organizing group distributed over $90,000 to 36 community nonprofit organizations from here in Pacifica. The train does not stop moving, however. We are already deep into planning this year's Fogfest. The 39th annual Fogfest will be taking place on September 26th and 27th, 2026, along Palmetto Avenue, as always, in downtown Pacifica. The success of the 2025 Fogfest would not have been possible without the generous support from the city of Pacifica. Going into 2026, we are hopeful that we will continue to have the same level of support from both the city and the community in building the success of Fogfest. The Fogfest board is actively looking for volunteers. Please. Anyone interested in getting involved, please, please come to our monthly meetings. They are now the first Wednesday of every month at the Community Center in the Portola Room at 6 p.m. The Fogfest is all volunteer-ran. The board and everyone that works that weekend are all volunteers. And your contribution, big or small, can make a huge difference. Festival Productions, our booth organizer, is already accepting applications for 2026. The application for bands will open very soon on our website, and we are actively looking for sponsors to help ensure 2026 will be another successful year for us. Please come volunteer. We need committee members. I just want to reiterate again how grateful we are to the city for their partnership each year in making Fogfest a reality. Thank you. And thank you, Rob and our parade chair, for being here with me today.

And we already have a theme this year since it's America's 250th birthday. So we're going to be celebrating patriotism. Patriotism belongs to all of us. And it's a big year to celebrate. I was here in the bicentennial. I can't even say the name of what they're calling it this year. We're just going to call it America 250, okay, to keep it simple. But we hope that everybody registers in the parade. Build a float. Come walk, demonstrate your patriotism or whatever it is you care to do or whatever your group does. But please, it's Pacifica's biggest event and our most wonderful party. Thanks.

Thank you, Rabin and Rihanna. Yeah. Rabin, if you don't mind filling in a card when you have a moment in the back. Thank you. Lila Romero followed by Brian Romero.

Good evening, Mayor Bowles and council members. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of my friend Caitlin Quinn and her neighbors and all of us, really. I'm sure you're all well aware of the ongoing issues with the short-term rental located at 1987 Beach Boulevard. To cut to the chase, what does it take to get a permit revoked? to the current ordinance, under the city's social host liability section 9-4.4907, permit revocation and enforcement, the administrator may suspend or revoke a short-term rental permit after making a determination that the permittee has violated any of the provisions of this article or is operating the short-term rental in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, welfare, or safety, or constitutes a nuisance. Over the past few years, 1987 Beach Boulevard, operated by Marbella Lane, has hosted countless guests whose actions have necessitated dozens of calls to the police, including the criminal incidents of theft and destruction of neighbors' personal property. Such occurrences within the past year included the episode October 19th, 2025, where the guest knocked out the neighbor's security cameras. August 8th, 2025, a person hired by guests of the SCR stole the same neighbor's yard signs. And just this past weekend, a group of over a dozen Super Bowl partiers coming and going all day and night, trespassing, smoking, being loud and rowdy, and finally leaving several bags of garbage across the street next to the public trash receptacles on Beach Boulevard. The photo distributed illustrates this really inconsiderate to our town and environment. What will it take for our friend and neighbor, Caitlin Quinn, to get some relief? When can she expect a hearing? Will the hearing be private or public? Who runs the hearing? How's that going to go? The situation has been going on for years now and it has greatly harmed the well-being of Caitlin and of the neighbors who have had to endure these ongoing issues. It must become a high priority for the city management to revoke the STR permit for 1987 Beach Boulevard. Caitlin Quinn and her neighbors in our community have the right to feel safe and secure in there in our homes. Thank you.

Thank you, Lila. Brian Renero, followed by Mark Steckbart.

Thank you, Mayor Bowles and councilpersons. Good to see you this evening. On June 9th of 2024, there were 230 SDRs operating in Pacifica. and less than 100 tracked by the city of Pacifica in their STR program. Fast forward to 16 months later, September 25th, 2025, there are now 237, an increase in STRs that are operating within Pacifica. less than 100 being tracked by the city of Pacifica. During this time, we had multiple city council meetings discussing specifically STRs. We had a special study group and the ordinance was passed. In this 16 month period, the city of Pacifica, the city manager and HDL were totally ineffective in policing the amount of STRs that are operating outside of the permit process. We knew that there would be problems with the city being able to police these STRs. That's why in the ordinance, there is a provision for platform accountability. And according to the law, according to the ordinance, the STRs platforms must provide a listing of all bookings made on their platform at a regular and periodic basis to the city of Pacifica. This law is totally pointless if the city of Pacifica and the city manager refuse to use it. I would like to ask the question, I would ask you in your role as oversight over the city manager to ask the question, how many times has the city manager contacted STR platforms to get that list? I hope that that number is not zero. What I'd also like to know, during this highly contentious period of 16 months, when we were discussing the ordinance, how many permit revocation hearings did the city manager conduct? I hope that number is not zero. And now that the new ordinance is in place and in effect in the non-coastal zone, I'd like to know how many renewals of STR permits occurred in the non-coastal zone that did not involve an inspection of the premises, which is also required by the law. I hope that this number is not zero. And I know that I've asked questions like this is the fourth time I've asked these questions here in council chambers. And the city manager admitted that he had difficulty answering those questions. I do notice that with us today is the assistant city manager and the planner up the grave. I think between those three folks, which I've seen aid on the fly to answer questions in the city council meeting, I hope that they would also provide an answer to those three questions. Are any of those numbers zero? I sincerely hope there is some substantive enforcement of the STR ordinance occurring since its implication. Thank you.

Thank you, Brian. Mark Steffart, followed by Aaron Reif.

We're here again. The website's been improved on STRs to a point, but the public, I think, is still being dealt a bad hand, and it's really slight of hand. There's no definition of coastal versus non-coastal to the average civilian, so I'm not too sure what they're looking at. There's no list of SDRs dropping out, so a neighbor cannot locate or report SDRs running out of the table. Now, the data's been shown of the number of SDRs. I think it's down 50% according to the city's website that I looked at today. So that means I think a lot of them are under the radar screen. But still, there's no rules for hearings. And what constitutes a strike? So we're all running in the dark, deliberately. There's no checklist of required items for a legal SDR. So even if you have a problem, you don't know what you're talking about. Because there's no list of the terms in the ordinance. You actually probably have to Google LexisNexis to pick up the ordinance under Muni law to figure it out. But still, most of the plaques aren't up. or parking occupancy visitors, no parties, rule noises listed on the city website. It is as difficult as possible for a civilian to figure out what y'all been doing. And that brings us to 1138 Grand Teton. The business name is Whale's Tail. It's actually registered. That's not a real person. So how the hell did they get a permit? And no plaque. 728 Noriega is permitted. No plaque. And the parking, a real treat. They converted the garage to a game room, which is an illegal conversion. So, like, who's checking the hen house? 1159 DeSolo. It's on Airbnb, but there's no permit number. There's no plaque on the house. The owner is DeSolo Holiday Vacations. That's not a real person. And the garage is a game room. They got a permit. So tonight, you have an interesting situation. You have the community coming out for a development appeal in East Rockaway. I suggest you take the first speaker and say, you have to sit down like the STRs. We will not tell you what's going on. We will not let you see the file. We will not invite you to the hearing. If there is a hearing, we won't tell you when. If you have witnesses, we won't call them, and staff will get around to it when they feel like it, and we'll tell you the conclusion when we feel like it. And if you do that in this town, you'd get run out of town, as you richly deserve. But the double standard here is you do that to every SDR complaint for the past three years.

Thank you, Mark. Erin Reif, followed by Suzanne Moore. That's the last card I have.

Hi, everyone. I'm Aaron Reif. A lot of you know me. I was told to bring this issue up in this meeting specifically, so here I am. My topic is about Fassler Ave Safety, especially now that they've re-striped the lanes for the new condos there. So the backstory is that we recently completed the Ohlone Portola Heritage Trail project. That's a countywide project, and we completed the Pacifica portion of it. We put in hundreds of hours doing volunteer work with the trails um we had a ribbon cutting and some of you were aware of that as well so we're the trail goes from lindamar and by rockaway and we're trying to steer people to the businesses in the front and then it goes up fastler avenue so we're sending people on this really special trail right up fastler avenue but the recent restriping of the lanes at the condo has moved the traffic to within inches of the curb. And even though the speed limits are like 35 and 25 on the top, I'm estimating like people race from the bottom as soon as the light turns green on Fassler, they'll race each other and pass me doing over 80 miles an hour very frequently. So there's a lot of, it's super scary here. And There's a lot of people that use this. There's no alternative. I talked to some of these people and they asked me as well, like, hey, would you speak up for us too? So I think it's super unsafe and I'm really scared somebody's gonna get killed. There's parents that are mountain bikers, like moms, that are like, hey, my kid rides this too. They're scared. There's couples that walk down the hill to go to the beach. They're scared. I mean, if you go out there getting buzzed at 80 miles an hour when somebody's three inches from you, this is scarier than being on the side of a freeway. Like, it's a serious problem. So I would like it to be addressed. The speed limit... Everything. Thank you guys very much. Trail work day is Saturday if anyone wants to come.

You have one more minute if you still have things to say.

Okay, so I feel the speed limit is there and it does need to be enforced and also the striping needs to be changed. There's the center two lanes now are just for, or the center lane is just for like turning traffic in and out. And that really is crowding the sidewalk to an unacceptable location. Lastly, we do a ton of trail work here, and if anybody wants to come this Saturday, hopefully it'll be raining, and you'll get a amazing lesson in how our trails work. Thanks, everybody.

Thank you so much, Aaron. Thank you. Suzanne Moore, and if anybody else wants to make a comment, please go fill out a card in the back.

Suzanne Moore with two recent updates on community concerns. First, from January 27th, an update on HUD funding from the Executive Director of Housing Authority of San Mateo County about the Housing Authority's funding landscape. Quote, we continue to receive our funding per usual. The only program that we know will be ending is the Emergency Housing Voucher Program. But we have sufficient funds for that program through at least calendar year 2026. and will be notifying the households, hopefully within the first quarter of 2026, about our plans for ongoing subsidy. And we wait to see if and when the fiscal year 2026 budget will be passed by the current House and Senate to finalize how best to proceed. Regarding Section 8 vouching holders, that's the end quote, regarding that, we know nationwide that there have been Section 8 evictions and that they appear to be preemptively before the HUD funding cuts. In Pacifica, we know of three evictions that have resulted in homelessness. If you know a Section 8 housing voucher eviction, ask the tenant to notify Debbie McIntyre, the executive director, directly by email. Her email is dmcintyre at smchousing.org. And if you know anyone who has received a letter with threats of eviction to contact legal aid as soon as possible, there's a brief window to make legal requests for verification of eviction cause. San Mateo County Legal Aid Housing Advice Line is 650-517-9811. And Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto is 650-326-6440. Second update, Faith in Action Bay Area from January 26th. There have been no ICE raids reported in the Bay Area. ICE activity continues to target specific individuals, with most detentions occurring at court dates. 160 San Mateo County residents have been detained, but there's been a recent spike in unconfirmed ICE sightings on social media following what's happening in Minneapolis, and it's caused increased fear in an already tense environment, and some community members are afraid to engage in daily activities. So recommended actions, reassure families that it's safe to go outside, take walks, and bring children to school. All potential ICE sightings should be reported to the Rapid Response Hotline for verification at 203-666-4472, and sign up for training for the verification team. It's unclear if future needs may require volunteers to bring food to immigrant neighbors or escort people to or from school or work. If these additional roles are needed, the existing trained volunteers will be tapped first. And that's www.faithinactionba.org. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzanne. Do we have any comments on?

We have one raised hand. It is for Casa Casillas. Okay. Go ahead, Sam.

Hi, city council members. A couple of weeks ago at the last city council meeting, Brian Raniero asked a very specific question about what enforcement action has been taken at all on any properties that had complaints on them. And then we learned that in 1987 Beach Boulevard, who not only has complaints, but actually has had to have the police call because of the people being there with acts of vandalism and trespassing on Caitlin Quinn's property. And we find out that their permit was actually renewed without any hearing whatsoever. This is really appalling. What was even more appalling was as one of the city council members actually asked the city manager during that meeting, how much enforcement action has ever been taken? How many hearings have there been? And he refused to answer, giving a coy answer about, wow, ordinances are really complicated, as you know, and these complicated ordinances are complicated, and they're so complicated, they're complicated. Refusing to answer to a person who he reports into. Think about that for a second. If he is, if this is really too complicated for him, I think he should have resigned at least three years ago when this is coming through. And he's very ineffective at this point as well. And also touting the fact of the uncounted or unverified revenue that we're supposedly getting from these Airbnb while we're losing population and families. It's cynical. It's time to move forward. It's time to cut the cord there. Even before March, let's just get going on this. It's time to move forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Sam. There are no other raised hands. Okay. With that, I'll close public comment.

We have had a couple of conversations about short-term rentals. Maybe a couple of the easy questions. staff could answer. I mean, there have been a few notices of violation filed. Can we say a number at this point? Or is that legally protected?

I'LL BEGIN BY SAYING THAT NUMEROUS OF THE COMMENTS THE COUNCIL WERE HEARING TONIGHT WERE NOT ACCURATE. THE REPORTS, THE DATA REPORTS FROM THE PREVIOUS YEARS INCLUDE A LOT OF DATA ABOUT THE STRs, THE CURRENT STRs, THE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND EVERYTHING THE COUNCIL WENT THROUGH REGARDING THE ORDINANCES. Those reports and records do speak for themselves. Concerning specific notices of violation and enforcement action that are underway, can't comment on that as a matter of legal issues. City attorney can elaborate on that as necessary as well. And that's my comment.

Okay. But there have been some that are closed, right? So besides the ongoing ones.

Correct.

Two?

Is that? I can report back to the council. I mean, we recently submitted update reports to since, you know, December and January, and we can report back to council on numbers.

I appreciate it. I don't remember seeing that. And it's my understanding that every short-term rental that has received a renewal has been physically inspected at this point.

That's correct. Yes. And all of those renewed STRs are listed and available on the website. So, you know, that information is transparently available.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I promise to follow up with some of the other questions that were asked tonight. Okay. Thank you. And with that, we're moving on to our public hearing. Agenda item 9 an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Bay View Road development project So first I just need to ask council members if anyone has had ex parte communications or if anyone has any conflicts of interest I Have had ex parte communications with a large number of the neighbors I as well, okay Okay, and I too have had conversations with a group of neighbors Okay So city clerk, I think you'll be promoting senior planner Lynn to present the staff report All right, good evening just testing to see if my audio works and the audio is like an okay volume I Yes. Yes. Sorry. Thank you.

Great. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members. My name is James Lin, Senior Planner with the Community Development Department, joined by Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director, and Hina Gupta, Assistant City Attorney, here to present item number nine on tonight's agenda, Appeal of Planning Commission Decision of File 2018-058, Bayview Road, Calera Terrace, New Single Family Residence. Next slide, please. Tonight's presentation will be broken down into the following section, project information, review and project history, appeal points and responses, and staff recommendation. Next slide, please. The project is located near the intersection of Bayview Road and Rockaway Beach Avenue. The project site is a vacant, irregular-shaped flag lot with an area of approximately 26,055 square feet with a general plan land use destination of low-density residential and a zoning designation of R1H, single-family residential hillside. The surrounding land uses include the residential development to the west along Bayview Avenue and to the south and southeast along Rockaway Beach Avenue. Next slide, please. The project required the approval of a site development permit and tree permit. The project is proposing a new 3,180 square foot new single-family residence and an attached three-car garage, which meets all applicable objective development standards. And although not subject to discretionary review, the project includes a 679 square feet detached ADU that also meets all applicable objective standards pursuant to local and state laws. The project will require the removal of one protected Monterey pine about 21 inches in diameter near the northeastern corner of the site. Next slide, please. The vehicular access would be from an 18-foot wide fire access roadway, which includes a hammerhead turnaround that was designed with extensive input from North County Fire Authority. The access generally follows the existing slope and does not exceed the maximum slope allowed by NCFA and occupies a significant portion of the land, leaving very little room for further modification. The home is sited in the most feasible location to meet these and all other applicable development standards. Next slide, please. The next slide here contains the northwest elevation from Bayview Road. Next slide, please. And the southwest elevation from Rockaway Beach Avenue. Next slide, please. Here's a table summary of the project's history. The project was initiated back on December 5th, 2018. The first planning commission hearing was held on April 1st, 2024, to which it was continued to a date uncertain for additional information requested by the commission. On December 1st, 2025, the second planning commission hearing was held and approved the project subject to the conditions of approval. On December 11th, 2025, an appeal of the planning commission's decision was filed with the city clerk's office. The appeal letter had identified Javier Chavarria as the project applicant and developer. City staff is clarifying for the record that the site and project owners are Robert Banda and John Spanker. Next slide, please. I will now review each summarized appeal points and the corresponding staff response. Appeal point number one, the appeal contends that the difficulty of developing the lot is a result of choices of the landowner and their predecessors and interest. This is not a valid appeal point because the project does not request or require a variance or exemption from any applicable land use regulations. The Planning Commission did not approve a variance. The project meets all applicable objective development standards in the Pacifica Municipal Code for new construction in the R1H Zoning District, and as such, the appeal point is not valid. Next slide, please. For appeal point 2, the appeal letter claimed that five of the findings for denial for the site development permit can be made. Starting with appeal point 2A, the appellant contends that the project components such as the driveway and ADU were not designed or located to break up or soften visual impacts. The project is proposing 3,907 square foot of landscaping, while leaving 11,248 square foot of undisturbed vegetation area, totaling 58%, which exceeds the 20% minimum required for the R1H zoning district. Next slide, please. On this slide, you can see the existing condition as well as the updated accurate rendering of the proposed conditions. Vehicular access is provided from Bayview Road along the flagpole portion of the subject site. A revised rendering was provided that reflects the proposal and reduced visual impacts of the current design. It is important to know that the vehicular access is treated as a fire department access road and provides legal and conforming vehicular access to the proposed residents. Multiple design alternatives were discussed with the North County Fire Authority and Planning Commission added condition 43 for the continued collaboration with NCFA and the city as final design approvals are outside of the commission and the city's purview. Next slide, please. Here's another updated rendering of the proposed vehicular access farther back on Bayview Road. Next slide, please. Here is an updated bird's eye view rendering showing the proposed development. Next slide, please. ADUs are required by state and local law to be processed ministerially. They are not subject to site development permit findings. The ADU complies with all applicable objective design standards and provides a deeper rear setback of 20 feet when only four feet is legally required. Additional shrubs, vines, and retaining wall plantings between the ADU and lot 16 are also proposed to reduce potential privacy and visual impacts. Next slide, please. Appeal Point 2B. The appeal claims that the setbacks were incorrectly identified and that the elevated access driveway and retaining walls are prohibited in setbacks. The front and side dot lines are correctly identified. The fire access complies with applicable requirements and is allowed within setbacks. Retaining walls are regulated by Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.2502, which specifically are for fences, hedges, walls, and are within the setbacks. And as such, the finding cannot be made. Next slide, please. Appeal Point 2C, the appeal claims that the proposed grading work will damage the natural grade of the site. The project minimizes grading and preserves the natural features by following the site's natural slope and setting development back into the hillside. Fire access requirements are met while limiting excavation in coordination with NCFA. Retaining walls, terracing, and enhanced landscaping are used to reduce site disturbance and integrate the development with the natural environment. Geotechnical studies confirm that the project is feasible subject to implementation of recommended measures and conditions of approval. Next slide, please. Appeal point 2D, the appeal claims that the proposed development is inconsistent with the city's adopted design guidelines. Design guidelines are advisory and require overall balance rather than strict compliance with every guideline. The project qualifies as a housing development project under the Housing Accountability Act and council discretion over subjective design guidelines is limited. The project already incorporates design features that reduce perceived mass, preserves views and privacy. Lastly, the project complies with all objective development standards of the R1H zoning district. Next slide, please. Appeal point 2E, the appeal claims that the proposed development is inconsistent with the general plan and other applicable laws of the city. The proposed driveway meets PMC and fire code requirements. The cited code provision does not apply due to the site's 25-foot frontage, so the appeal claim is not supported. In addition, both the original 2011 and the updated 2024 geotechnical studies conclude that the project is feasible and consistent with seismic and geologic hazard policies. Next slide, please. Appeal point three, the appeal claims the project was not in compliance with the public notice requirements. Notice was published in the San Mateo Daily Journal on November 21st, 2025, and mailed on November 20th, 2025, meeting the required timeline 12 days prior to the hearing. The city disputes any implication that mailing dates were falsified and confirmed notices were handled in accordance with standard practice. Once mailed, delivery timing is outside the city's control and does not affect the validity of the noticing process. Next slide, please. Appeal point number four. The appeal claims that the project violated the Brown Act related to late distributed supplemental materials, thereby preventing adequate review and feedback, and the commission rushed approval without allowing adequate review. The Brown Act requires agendas and initial staff reports to be posted at least 72 hours in advance and described with sufficient sensitivity. Supplemental materials may be distributed after posting if made publicly available at the time of distribution. The agenda and initial staff reports were published online on November 26, 2025, exceeding the Brown Act requirement. Printed copies of the easement were provided to the commissioners, included in the public agenda binder and available to the public at the time of the meeting. The easement contract was publicly available at the time of distribution and had also been included as a publicly available supplemental exhibit in the initial April 1, 2024 hearing. Next slide, please. Appeal point number 5 had raised issues with setbacks that were already addressed under appeal point number 2, so I will be moving into appeal point number 6A. The appeal raised claims that the Planning Commission failed to investigate project design alternatives such as developing the Paper Street Keller at Terrace. Planning Commission reviews discretionary permits for private developments under state planning law and city standards. Extending Calera Terrace is a substantially different project and not part of the proposal. State law and city standards do not require evaluation of project alternatives for projects exempt from CEQA. The proposed single family residence minimizes construction grading and disruption compared to the potential alternatives. And as such, the appeal claim regarding the alternatives is not applicable. Next slide, please. Appeal point 6B, the appeal raised concerns regarding inconsistencies with plans and renderings. Renderings are a visual tool and not used to determine compliance with objective standards. The rendering of the southwest and northwest views are accurate in height and placement. The applicant provided an updated rendering of the driveway show earlier in the presentation. Next, there are no story poll requirements as raised by the appellant and the project meets all development standards which have not been inconsistent. Next slide, please. Appeal Point 6C, the appeal raised concerns that the project is substantially larger than the surrounding homes. The subject site is approximately 26,055 square foot, which exceeds the 5,000 square foot minimum. As a result, the proposed scale and coverage complies with zoning requirements at 15% lot coverage, significantly smaller than the 40% maximum. An estimate of the lot coverage of surrounding homes averages at about 22%. Lastly, similarly sized homes have been approved on R1H lots in the area, including a 3,800-square-foot house on Otstead Way in comparison to the project's 3,180-square-foot residence, supporting the project's appropriateness when comparing a similarly sized lot. Next slide, please. Appeal point 60, the appeal claims that the neighbor access for construction of the project was not addressed by the commission. All work needs to be conducted on the subject site and all construction plans comply with code and permit requirement. Next slide, please. Appeal point 6E, the appeal claims that there were inadequate analysis of heavy construction traffic impacts and consideration of impacts to public roadways. The condition traffic control plan would ensure safe access and evacuation and would involve coordination with police, fire, ecology, and notices where needed to affect the properties identifying conditions of approval 35 and 42, which requires documentation of existing site and public improvements to assign responsibility in an event any project related damage to public improvements and is not a mitigation measure. Next slide, please. Appeal point 6F, the appeal claims that the construction and security bond details were not provided to assure safe completion and damage protection. The city engineer sets the form and amount of any construction security based on standard practice and project impacts. The planning commission cannot specify secure details as it is outside their purview. Conditions of approval 45 added by the commission ensures completion of retaining walls and related improvements if the project is abandoned with oversight by the city engineer addressing the community concerns. Next slide, please. Appeal point number seven, the appeal claims that the project description was not stable or consistent due to changes in the project and the added conditions of approval constituted a change in the project description. Secret project descriptions require that the description must describe the project's main features and provide sufficient information to evaluate environmental impacts, but allows for flexibility for minor changes during review. The project's main features, a single family residence, attached garage, and ADU have remained consistent throughout review, ensuring a complete and informative environmental evaluation. Conditions 41 through 45 do not fundamentally alter the project, affect CEQA exemption status, or create significant environmental impacts. The commission based its review and CEQA categorical exemption determination on the accurate and stable project description. Next slide, please. Appeal Point 8A, the appeal claims that the Planning Commission added conditions of approval as mitigation measures to support a Class 3 categorical exemption. The first claim is that the Planning Commission improperly relied on conditions of approval added at the meeting on December 1st, 2025, as mitigation measures to support a categorical exemption. The appellant claims that the conditions of approval added by the Commission at the public hearing were actually mitigation measures, and the Planning Commission improperly relied on to apply CEQA categorical exemption to the project. The condition of approval added by the planning commissions are not mitigation measures, but to ensure compliance with existing state and local regulations. They address public concerns and standard development requirements without affecting the project's CEQA categorical exemption. These conditions do not prevent or reduce significant environmental impacts and are consistent with Class III exemptions for small-scale construction. Next slide, please. Appeal point eight B, the appeal claimed that class three exemption does not apply because it is comprised of a large single family residence, ADU, three car garage, retaining walls, elevated driveway and grading. There are no floor area restrictions for new constructions associated with this exemption. Class three exemptions typically apply to one single family residence up to three in urbanized areas and accessory structures like garages and ADUs. Next slide, please. Appeal point eight C, the appeal letter claims the project size, topography and proximity to the neighbors constitute an unusual circumstances under CEQA. Unusual circumstances applies only if the project differs from the typical exempt class and may cause significant impact. The project description is typical for a class three development and two geotechnical reports show no significant risks associated with this project. Next slide, please. Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal, approve site development permit PSD 838-18, and treat permit TP-4-24 at the following condition to be read by Community Development Director Updegrave, and find the project exempt from CEQA. Next slide, please. And that concludes my presentations. City staff, city attorney, and the applicant team are available this evening for questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Lin. Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director. I also wanted to mention that Chair Hauser is also here from the Planning Commission as our liaison and is joining us at the table now. A QUESTION WAS RAISED BY A COUNCIL MEMBER REGARDING THE STORM DRAIN CONNECTION ON BAYVIEW AND DIRECTOR, SORRY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR YIP FROM PUBLIC WORKS WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THERE IS NOT, LET ME READ IT SO I GET IT COMPLETELY RIGHT. was able to confirm that there was not a storm drain on the as-built. The civil plans do have a note, connect to existing storm drain, field verify. And so they would be required to install a new storm drain if they can't verify that one exists. And this would be required during plan check, but we can also add a condition of approval they'd like to read into the record for council's consideration. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall field verify the location and functionality of the existing storm drain system indicated on the civil plans. If the existing storm drain cannot be located or confirmed as functional, the applicant shall design and install a new storm drain line connecting to the public storm drain system on Rockaway Beach Avenue to the satisfaction of the city engineer. And that concludes staff's presentation.

Just as a follow-up to that, about the storm drain, and thank you. Yeah, I was checking out the storm drain master plan, and it didn't show anything. And from what I can tell from the drawings, all the stormwater in the paved areas plus the upper portion of the site all drain to the driveway underneath and eventually to the street. So... So adding a new storm drain would mean from the driveway all the way down to Bayview, right, to take up the street to put that underneath. And I'm assuming that there would be verification of the capacity of the existing storm drain in Rockaway area. I don't know if that might need to be added to the condition. The other interesting thing in, oh, maybe I'm deliberating. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'll come back to that. So, yeah. Anyway, I just want to ask more questions about what it connects to and whether we're looking at increased impacts of storms, which were also mentioned in the Storm Drain Master Plan. Maybe we should hear from, well, let me ask one question. Tommy, I appreciate... staff answering the questions about the appeal. I might have missed it, but can you explain? This is a de novo hearing, right? So we're not just necessarily opining on the appeal questions.

That is correct, Mayor Bowles. It requires approval of the site development permit and tree removal permit.

So anything that's in the application is fair game for our discussion tonight.

I think I can answer that for you. Yes. de novo, even though it is an appeal from a planning commission decision, the council gets to look at this whole application de novo or anew. And so if the council wants to add conditions of approval, staff has recommended one condition of approval to add already. And so if the council agrees, you can add that tonight because it is a de novo review. Okay. Thank you, City Attorney. I appreciate it.

Chair Hauser, would you like to say anything?

Sure. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, council members. I'm Samantha Hauser. I'm the chair of the Planning Commission.

Can you hear me? Oh, yep. No one can hear me. Can you hear me now? Okay.

I'm Samantha Hauser. I'm the chair of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed this. As indicated by staff, there were five commissioners present. Of the five commissioners, four voted for approval and one abstained. No. There was a re-vote after. It's incorrect in the staff report. So, going back to kind of what we looked at, this project has come before us twice, as was indicated on slides. I think the first time it came, the Planning Commission did have a lot of questions that surrounded CEQA, geotechnical, stormwater, a lot of the things that kind of have been discussed by staff, as well as access. What I appreciated and what I think we as the Planning Commission appreciated is that when the applicant did come back, they had done the work to do a completely new geotechnical report, and they clarified Planning Commission's misunderstanding, which was that the access was through an easement over someone else's property. The applicant owns the access way fee simple, and they amended the easement that was encumbering their land. So that was a huge help in understanding access because part of why there were discussions about potentially exploring other access points was it was not clear if access was legal. I do want to say that I completely empathize with the community. This is not, you know, it's half an acre. It's been vacant for years. And it is, you know, construction is inconvenient. It's always inconvenient. I think the key thing here is this is a site that's zoned for two to six homes. And what's proposed is the minimum. It's one home and an ADU. I think there are objective design standards that under state law we have to review. Staff reviewed them against the project against the objective design standards. The commission reviewed the project against the objective design standards. And both found that the project complied. We tried to address the concerns that we heard from the community through amended and additional conditions of approval. This was not done quickly, right? This was a long meeting. We took multiple recesses to give the city attorney time to review codes and what was best practice. And if you have any additional questions, I'm here to answer them.

Okay.

Thank you so much. So I'm told this is a time that we can ask questions of staff. if you all have questions now or want to hold them until after the other presentations.

I could ask one very simple question of staff.

Okay.

Sam? Samantha Updegrave. Sorry. I did you the disservice of sending you about 30 questions earlier today. Unfortunately, I was in meetings and did not get the chance to read your responses. Are there any of my questions that you would like to highlight for the public's information in terms of your responses?

Thank you, Vice Mayor Wright. I think if there are specific questions that the council has I'm happy to answer those. I don't know what out of the list you sent would be most meaningful.

Then I'll save those until a little bit later.

I just want to confirm one thing, and I think I understand and it's clear, but I think there's still confusion among the public and some of the letters that we're getting today. A driveway access, and I heard this at the Planning Commission meeting, like we have to provide that access, right? That's a legal requirement. They have a legal right to build something on the site. So stop me if I'm wrong. And then our current codes do not define any required setbacks for driveways. Is that correct? That's correct. There are no setback requirements for driveways. Okay. And we do have setback requirements for retaining walls. Sorry, we have height limits for retaining walls. I don't have the code section handy, but you mentioned that in the staff report. But at this point, because of a weird definition of measuring from the high point, we're not able to review this project retaining wall heights and the setbacks for compliance.

The setbacks, so the project did vest prior to changes in the zoning ordinance. However, the retaining walls that are associated with the fire access are not subject to that section because they're required by law to support that access.

But other retaining walls outside of the fire department driveway and turnaround are still not subject to height because of our definition that we just changed. They're subject to height, but I think with a different measurement. Okay. Maybe you can explain that. What are the height limitations for retaining walls and setbacks?

Sure. Thank you, Mayor Bowles. Retaining walls within setbacks have different height allowances. Within side setbacks, I think they're allowed to be six feet. Within front setbacks, three feet. And under the code that this project is vested to, the retaining wall is measured from the high side.

So you basically could have an infinitely tall retaining wall?

The retaining walls are not so limited.

Okay. All right. So we can't really review retaining wall heights. I'm glad we fixed that for future. Okay. Does anyone else have questions for staff at this time?

No?

Okay. I have more for later, but... OK, so I'll officially open the public hearing and invite the appellant to speak for 10 minutes. And then there will be an additional three minutes for rebuttal later on in the meeting. So you have 10 minutes now. And if you could introduce yourself.

members of city council, and residents of the city of Pacifica. Thank you for providing the opportunity to present this evening. My name is Nathaniel Launer. I am an attorney with Green Fire Law, and I represent the Coalition for a Safe Pacifica. There are a number of concerns the coalition and residents of Bayview Drive have with the proposed project, but tonight I would like to focus on just a few, each of which individually require granting the coalition's appeal and denying the site development permit. These concerns were fully set forth in the coalition's appeal and are supported by public comments raised by neighbors and experts hired by the coalition, which have been submitted to the council and are included in the record for your review. First, the project requires a variance and none was provided. The first argument supporting the need for a variance is that the proposed project does not achieve the objectives of the R1H Hillside District. The objective of the district is to ensure the new structures and streets are designed to protect the visual and natural resource qualities of the hillsides and minimize adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods, drainage, traffic, land stability, and natural resources. The project does not protect the visual and natural resource qualities of the hillside. The geotechnical reports supporting the application themselves recommend removal of most of the vegetation on the site and the project's application requires a substantial amount of vegetation removal. Additionally, the project does not minimize the adverse impacts on existing neighbors, drainage, traffic, land stability, and natural resources. This has been supported by public comments submitted by residents of Bayview Drive and experts hired by the coalition. These comments highlight that the project does not align with the qualities of Pacifica's natural and built environment, and that the project could substantially increase stormwater runoff, which could be a significant environmental effect. Additionally, the project will require substantial grading and retaining walls in a known landslide zone, and there are legitimate concerns for the impact of traffic and emergency vehicle access. The second argument that supports the need for a variance is that the project is inconsistent with the city's design guidelines. Now, these guidelines are important because they are the only thing, aside from the previously quoted objectives, that distinguish development in the regulations of the R1H Hillside District. Therefore, to meet the objectives of the Hillside District, consistency with these design guidelines warrant careful consideration. Here, the proposed project will involve a large structure elevated above and neighboring nearly a dozen homes. Additionally, the proposed access road includes no side setback from the downslope property at 125 Bayview Drive. The location of the proposed project, therefore, has a substantial impact on the existing views, privacy of the neighboring homes, and their current property value that are inconsistent with the design guidelines. The third argument supporting the need for a variance is that the project does not comply with the zoning ordinances that require a minimum side setback of at least five feet. Shown here on the slide is the original rendering of the access road that was submitted with the project plans that the commission reviewed. On the right is the new rendering submitted by the applicant that we have seen here tonight, but there was no explanation provided of how why the two renderings differ, other than the first was incorrect, and there was no explanation of how the new rendering conforms to the plans that were submitted. Under the development regulations for the R1 district, there must be a minimum side setback of at least five feet from any structure to any side lot line. The definition of structure in the municipal code is anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires location on ground or attachment to something having location on the ground. The access road and the retaining wall proposed in the plan for this project meet this definition because they are constructed and will have a height of at least five feet on the side lot line at the back of the property of parcels six and seven. It is not disputed that the downslope edge of parcel six is a side lot line. The commission clearly indicated the front lot line includes the bottom of the flagpole which abuts the public street and the interior lot line that abuts the rear lot line of 125 Bayview Drive, as we saw in the map presented tonight. To be sure, the definition of a side lot line is any boundary not a front or rear lot line. Further support for the fact that the retaining wall supporting the access road is a structure and therefore should comply to the setback requirement can be found, for example, in the California building codes, which require a building permit for the construction of any structure. Now, that requirement exempts retaining walls less than four feet in height from requiring a building permit. Our reading of that is that the implication is that the retaining walls greater than four feet in height are a structure within the definition of a building code. And that supports the idea that they are a structure for the purposes of the setback requirement. Here, as you can see on the map, the project provides no setback from the access road and the supporting retaining wall structure to the downslope property at 125 Bayview Road. The failure to comply with the side setback requirement is itself grounds to grant the appeal and deny the site development permit. In order for this lack of side setback to comply with the zoning ordinance, all that is required is a variance, but the applicant has applied for none. And the condition of approval 43 fails to ensure that the access road and retaining wall structure will comply with the setback requirement considering the two renderings that were submitted that are very different from each other. The second issue I'd like to address tonight is that the project is not exempt from CEQA. The Planning Commission violated CEQA in issuing a class three exemption for this project because they improperly relied on mitigation measures as a basis for determining that one of the significant effects exemptions, exceptions, excuse me, does not apply. For instance, condition of approval 41 requires an engineering report indicating that, quote, the proposed storm drain does not increase runoff above the pre-development condition, end quote. The Commission stated that this condition, quote, was not adopted to mitigate specific environmental impacts expected to result from the project. But an expert hired by the Coalition for a City of Pacifica submitted public comments in support of the Coalition's appeal. Steven Bond, who is a professional geologist, performed an analysis showing that the project will result in an approximately threefold increase in the runoff of the site. This is substantial evidence raising a reasonable possibility that there will be significant environmental impacts as a result of the project. The project is also not exempt from CEQA because there are unusual circumstances here that create a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect. In addition to the concerns about the stormwater runoff, As shown here, the project is located on unusually steep slopes, on average 49% by the applicant's own measurements. And these steep slopes are located within a known landslide zone and debris flow area. To make construction of these steep slopes feasible, the project proposes extensive grading and cutting of the natural slope and retaining walls as high as 20 feet at the bottom of the project. The location of the project therefore may increase the risk of landslides in the vicinity and increase the risk of damage caused by landslides to downslope property owners. Therefore, we request that you grant the coalition's appeal and deny the site development permit. In so doing, we urge you to find that a variance is required at minimum to comply with the City of Pacifica zoning ordinances for setback requirements and to find consistency with the design guidelines for the Hillside District. We also urge you to find that the project is not exempt from SQL review, requiring at minimum an initial study to ensure that alternatives have been explored, such as the alternative access on Clara Terrace, and an initial study to examine the potential impacts of an increased risk in landslides on these exceedingly steep slopes. In the alternative, we urge you to send the project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Does the Council have any questions for the appellate? I have one while they're looking. And I'll ask staff later if they've reviewed the letter from Steve Bond. And this might not be something you can answer, but I'm having trouble comparing the data points that Steve uses in his letter with the C3 numbers used on the application. And I know you're not an engineer and I don't know if Steve's available, but... Can you shed any light? Otherwise, I can ask staff that question.

I can pull it up here. I do have a copy. If you'd just allow me a moment. Sure. So I cannot attest to what the project applicant used to estimate the stormwater runoff, but I know that Mr. Bond did use rainfall data, the most recent set from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, for precipitation frequency estimates for the city of Pacifica specifically. And so those are the numbers that he pulled. their rainfall estimates presented as storm events, return intervals from two-year, 10-year, and 100-year precipitation records and storm events.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

I don't think we have any other questions for you right now, but we might bring you back later if we do. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you for your consideration.

Okay, so I'll now invite the applicant to speak. So we have Robert Benda on Zoom, John Spencer on Zoom, and Javier Chavarria here in person, as well as Bradley Matteoni, and someone from the geotech, Mitchell Lucci and associates. Maybe you can introduce all these people.

Just before we get started, if I can just ask John Spencer to raise his hand on the Zoom, if he's on the Zoom, to help identify him, to pull him over to a panelist. I'm not seeing John Spencer on the attendee list. I have made Robert Benda one of the applicant's panelists on the Zoom.

Did you want me to start?

Sarah.

I guess you can go ahead and start when you're ready. The timer will show the time remaining, and you'll have a indication of a two-minute wrap-up.

Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Bradley Madione, and I'm an attorney representing the property owners here in Robert Bender and John Spanker. Here with me tonight is the principal engineer as well, Javier, and I know I'm going to butcher your last name. So he's here to address the substantive questions about any impacts, et cetera. I wanted to focus on two issues. First of all, I'd like to commend the city attorney and staff. I think they did an excellent job summarizing the applicable law. But I wanted to emphasize two points. No variance has been requested and no variance is needed herein. The project meets all specific requirements. There is no setback requirement under the applicable Pacifica code requiring any setback for a retaining wall or a driveway. Those are not structures under the code. Second of all, this project is exempt from CEQA, is a single family home with an ADU and a detached garage. It qualifies for a category three exemption. Nor are there any special circumstances that change that determination. We have submitted two geotechnical investigations that confirm that there is no concerns about adverse environmental impacts for this project. There's nothing in the record to contradict that. Therefore, there are no unusual circumstances, nor does the fact that the Planning Commission added certain conditions to the approval change the fact that this is a categorically exempt project. Those conditions were imposed in compliance with applicable case law, finding that you can impose conditions that are in compliance with standard regulations, to make sure the project complies with requirements and there are no adverse environmental impacts. That's all it was. Those aren't mitigation measures. And as such, again, this project satisfies the Category 3 exemption. And with that, I will turn it over to our engineer.

Good evening, dear council members. My name is Javier Chavarria. I am the agent and the project engineer for this project. I am not the applicant, as has erroneously been named. And as the agent for the project and as a project coordinator, I will address some of the issues. And the first and most important one is the issue of the driveway. The initial driveway rendition, it was incorrect. Our rendering consultant made a mistake, and I made a bigger mistake by not catching their mistake and submitting the renderings as it was. Any engineer, any architect that is able to compare the grading plan with that rendering can clearly see that they are not coinciding. The new rendering, however, along with the 3D shape of the terrain that was submitted with the appeal response are very accurately prepare with Revit, and if you will look at the grading plan, there is no portion along 125 Bayview, which is the south side of the driveway, that exceeds 18 inches in front of the building. There is no retaining walls on the right side of the driveway. The driveway basically follows the existing grade, and a curb is being constructed on the right-hand side. The retaining wall seen on the rendering at the further end of the driveway, that is where we turn and it is actually a retaining wall where the terrain at 125 is higher than the terrain on the driveway. So the new rendering is accurate, it can be peer reviewed by any engineer, it can be double checked, and it can be confirmed that there is no discrepancies on that, that there are no retaining walls even close to four feet in front of 125 bay view. So therefore, there's no variances needed, there is no structure per se along the driveway. The setbacks, the building have plenty of setbacks around. The driveway is basically flat grounds. It's a flat structure that does not require, it does not protrude above the soils. Therefore, no variances are required. Regarding the unusual circumstances of the project, if we look at the building immediately to the east, 741 Rockaway Beach Avenue, it's a building constructed exactly under the same conditions here. driveway that is 150 feet away from Rockaway Beach and then 741 there's three buildings there 741 through 749 they're all accessible from that big driveway going back there the hillside behind them is exactly the same hillside that we have here the amount of excavation done it was exactly the same the size of the building is 741 is actually a little larger than the house that is being proposed here. And so is 125 Bayview. So the square footages of the buildings are similar. The height of the buildings are similar. The soil conditions are similar. The access driveway is similar. So therefore, we submit in front of you that there's no variances needed. There are no unusual circumstances. And our understanding from our geotechnical consultants is that there are no issues with geotechnical concerns. We have here our geotechnical consultants from Michelucci and Associates. They will be happy to answer any questions, or if you deem necessary to speak right now and clarify some of the issues that were raised, I would welcome your input. Regarding the drainage, the other point in there, I have not seen the calculations prepared by Mr. Bonds. I would love to see them. It is our most important and our goal to do the project to meet all the requirements. We're not trying to hide anything under the table. We're not trying to do anything incorrectly. We're trying to build a home for a family. We're trying to build something that is sound, that complies with all regulations of the city, and that is correctly done. We have had two other engineers, I am just the coordinator, civil engineers, we have other consultants that have reviewed the plans, and we have come up with a plan that we believe complies. If there is any issue whatsoever, we will absolutely be willing, ready, and available to fix them during the permit process. This project is going to be reviewed by CSG consultants, it's going to be peer review from the drainage compliance, and it's gonna have still two or three levels of discretionary review. So our goal is to have a sound, properly designed project that complies with all the codes and regulations, and that provides a home for this family that has been trying to build it since 2018. If you have any questions, excuse me, I would be more than happy to answer them.

Thank you. Mr. Tavares.

I'm sorry, if I may. Regarding the storm drain, on the topographic survey, it doesn't show the size of the storm drain system, but right at the end of Bayview, on the right-hand side, there is a 24 by 24 catch basin inlet. And at the base of Bayview, at the intersection of Rockaway Beach Avenue, there is another inlet. And those two inlets are connected, I believe, by a 24-inch diameter pipe. And we will be more than happy to verify that and confirm that that existing line is in place.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have a lot of questions for the applicant.

I have a fairly simple question for the applicant. Did you consider moving the driveway uphill a little bit in order to offer some planting and perhaps a little more privacy for the downhill neighbor?

We did. Unfortunately, the planting easement that was granted to the property on the north initially only allowed 13 feet. And through a lot of negotiations, it was reduced to, I'm sorry, the space was increased to 18 feet. It appears that back in the day when some of the construction of the other homes was done, certain debris were thrown on this parcel and some negotiations of the previous owners granted the owners of 171 Bayview a planting easement along the 25 foot parcel and a planting easement on the eastern side which is the northern part of this property. So therefore, the access was very, very limited. So we worked very closely with the fire department, and we reached to the situation that an 18-foot driveway would be acceptable for the fire department. And then the neighbors at 171 were willing and then amended the easement to reduce their planting easement to seven feet so that 18 feet would remain available for the access driveway. So the 25-foot parcel belongs to Mr. Benda and Mr. Spanker, which are the owners of the property, but that easement was the element of concern. So that was the most that we were able to push it northward.

Would you be willing to have an additional conversation with the uphill neighbor to see if you could, in lieu of neighborly relations, see if you could address that by moving it slightly uphill.

I'm not sure if Mr. Benton and Mr. Spanker are available and listening there. That is a decision that I'm not authorized to make as an agent, and I'm not sure, Bradley, if you...

Yes, this is Robert Benda, I'm online. There are a lot of reasons for that easement that was obtained by the Zablinski's and I don't wanna speak for them, but part of it is the construction of a retaining wall that was required from some additional construction in the neighborhood. So that easement has a long sort of history. We are so very grateful to the siblings keys for renegotiating with us to the extent that they already have I Understand that but I don't see that as responsive to my question We would certainly be willing to have the conversation that's greatly appreciated thank you While we're talking about easements City clerk copy could you

Please pull up one of the drawings. Let's see. Packet page 315. This is the site plan. So I'm gonna have you go to 317 because 315 has all these blocks on it that makes it really hard to read. Oh, actually they're not there on this one. They're in my agenda. Okay, this one's fine then. Can you zoom in to where the triangle shaded part is there on the plan? Yeah, a little bit more if you can. Oops, now that's the wrong page. It's hard to maneuver through these big drawings. Okay, that shows it here on the bottom. So what I'm reading here and which I also saw in the planning commission staff report, it was not in ours, was a deed document that actually noted two planting easements. So one is on lot six, which is the driveway that you were just discussing. And I want to come back to that. The second one is on, is in that triangular part. You can see the note that says existing planting easement. And I can't point, so it makes this difficult. But from the property line on the right side, S5802, there's a dashed line that continues at that angle that is labeled easement line. And if you zoom in there even further where that little square is right below where it says existing chain link fence, you'll see that the retaining wall, the swale part of the driveway, and the drain appear to be inside this easement also. Have you discussed that? And what I read on the easement is it's with the same owners as the house uphill. Has this been discussed with them that you're doing work within this planning easement?

Yes, we have. And basically the swell that is being built behind the retaining walls be an enhancement for the planting area, and that we are going to be improving some of the planting that he has in that section. So, the blinskins are fully appraised of the entire plan.

But I don't see a legal document that allows you to do this work in the easement. It's not just the swale, it's the retaining wall itself, which is about 10 feet tall at this location.

No, the retaining wall does not encroach on the easement.

If you zoom in there, I'm afraid it does. So, Sarah, I don't know if you can go in there a little further.

I'm pretty certain that the retaining wall does not.

A little more, please. Now, you see that dashed line that says easement line? So, it starts from that property line, S58, dash, dash, dash, dash. And then about it, I can't read that number, but one of your crossing lines on your fire department turnaround, it then starts going through the retaining wall, through the catch basin. And my guess is it probably went to, well, it goes to the dash line along the driveway, which is probably where you had the width of the driveway before at 12 feet. So my feeling, and I was talking to this with a city attorney, is that this is a condition of approval that we need to add that you're doing work in that easement and need to get the approval of the owners.

My understanding is that the easement was modified so that the retaining wall would allow for an 18-foot width of the free and accessible fire access, and the remaining portion is a planting easement. So yes, that original line, it was the original depiction of the easement, but that's been modified.

I've not seen that modification. It was not in the Planning Commission staff report. The only modification to the easement I've seen is for lot 6, for the driveway.

Well, if it needs to be modified, I'm sure that that will not be a problem.

Okay. And, Sarah, I don't have a page number. I'm sorry. I hadn't marked this up on the Planning Commission staff report, but I wanted to talk about the easement, the other easement, and the actual language that was changed. Okay. If you can't find it right now, I'll scroll while we're doing some other things and try to find you a page number. I was hoping it was maybe tabbed. I'll just need some guidance from staff on that.

Packet page 437. Okay. Thank you so much.

Okay.

Okay, yeah, so this is the document that was handed out at the Planning Commission meeting. I understand it might have been in the previous packet. So if you go down to the next page. So this is related to, I'm sorry, the easement on lot six. A strip of land, uniform, 13 feet long, the boundary line of said lot six. Okay, and then, yes, this is right here. So... Removal and replacement of retaining walls. So this, if you can confirm, this is the document that was revised, right? That you've revised in working with the neighbors that had this planting easement.

Correct.

And this was changed in 2023, if I understand correctly. Okay. So I'm just going to read a little bit, if you'll bear with me, down that paragraph. where it says the retaining wall shall be constructed in such a manner that the stem thickness is not greater than 12 inches. The entire structure does not encroach more than 16 inches into the new easement measured from the northerly line of the easement. The replacement retaining wall design in all instances shall ensure feasible construction of a driveway not less than 16 feet in width. I want to confirm this with the fire department. I'll ask those questions later. So removing the cinder block wall. Sorry, I had this highlighted in another place. There was some information about the trees. Can you scroll down a little bit more, City Clerk Coffey?

Is it on the next page?

Let me come back to this. I think my recollection is this talks about the retaining wall. It does not talk about the swale. There's also a catch basin at the bottom of the site. There was also language that trees and landscaping outside of this additional easement would not be affected. And I have some concerns about the magnolia tree in the front. And I'm not finding that language right on this page. So I'm going to keep looking for that. What packet page number is this?

This is packet page 438. 438. Okay. Oh, yeah. Okay. So 439, actually. Thank you very much, Council Member Beckmeyer.

talks about removal of other improvements in plants. So the grantor shall have the right to remove any other improvements, trees, plants, irrigation systems located more than seven feet to the south of the northern boundary. So not less than seven feet. So if you can go back to the plan that we just had up on packet page, 316 or so. 314, 316. Yeah, actually right there. So you'll see this. So again, the easement document talks about the retaining wall. It doesn't talk about this additional swale, which I have not found a dimension for. So I'm not sure if that meets the 18 inches altogether. And then there's a catch basin at the property line that is also in the easement. So can you talk about those things? Are these perhaps some things that need to be clarified while you're going back to the owner's? about the lot 13 issues that maybe these need to be clarified as well so that they understand the work.

Yeah, the communication between my clients, Mr. Spenker and Mr. Benda has been very close with the Sablinski. They have been involved in all the process and the drafting of the Eastman and they're very eager for the reconstruction of the retaining wall because that's going to improve the stability of their home. All the drainage have been discussed with them, and I'm sure there would be no issues whatsoever on revising the language of the easement.

Thank you. I appreciate you doing that. So while we're here, I just want to talk about the tree for a minute. And again, the ARVIS report wasn't in our packet for tonight, but it was in the Planning Commission page 174. So I believe this is tree number one, which is a magnolia. And you have it labeled on this drawing as 12 inch diameter at breast height and 18 feet diameter tree. The arborist report, once she gets that pulled up, is actually bigger. It's 15 inches and 22 and a half inches diameter. And from what I can tell from the arborist report, That was written and analyzed before the driveway got widened because the arborist is actually showing tree protection on the inside of the existing retaining walls, which are taking out. So I'm really concerned that that tree is not going to be, I mean, you have it shown like within inches of your swale and it's a protected tree because it's more than 12 inches diameter.

Yeah, so are we. Very concerned with the tree. and then we've had conversations with the arborist, and the arborist characterized the tree as a fair to poor condition. The way that the retaining wall is going to be constructed is with piers, and one of the approaches that he was going to take is to map the root system and try to drill in locations where it will not impact the root of the trees. However, if at that point he feels that the tree will be affected to a level that it will not survive, then the tree will have to be replaced.

Well, at this point, I mean, and your drain catch basin is digging into the roots of the tree. It's not just the retaining wall. It's all these things that are affecting about half of the roots of the tree.

It's a shallow catch basin. It doesn't go deep into the root system.

Well, okay, but it is in the root area, and it hasn't been studied by the arborist. That's all I'm saying, and it ties into the legal document that says that you're not supposed to touch a tree beyond that point. So perhaps this is a condition of approval that the arborist has to go back and look at that tree and opine and If it needs to be removed, then there's tree replanting protections also.

Yeah, most likely that is a route that needs to be followed because the location is critical.

Okay, thank you. I HOPE THE PUBLIC CAN BE PATIENT. THIS IS OUR TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. I KNOW YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, TOO. WE USUALLY TRY TO DO PUBLIC COMMENTS EARLY, BUT I THINK SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS MIGHT HELP YOU. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT. COULD YOU PULL BACK UP YOUR NEW RENDERING OF THE DRIVEWAY? THAT FLASHED PRETTY QUICKLY. AND THERE WERE TWO RENDERINGS community development up to grave presented, one of which I hadn't seen.

It's slide number 11.

Was it from the staff presentation?

Yes. City Clerk Coffey, that's slides number 11 and 12.

Okay, we'll start with this one, and thank you. I noticed right away that your first rendering was wrong, and actually met with the neighbors. I'm like, it's not that bad. I think what I saw was the retaining wall on the right is about 2.7 feet above grade, opposite the back end of the house. So it's not right at grade, right? It does slope up a little bit along the...

The very end is transitioning up, correct.

Right. And then what you're doing here is actually removing soil and reducing the steepness of the driveway as it goes up. Correct. And so I noted that at the back of the property of 125 Bayview, you actually have a five foot high retaining wall where the road is below the existing grade of the house. So this rendering, one, it's not showing a curb on the right side, but I'm assuming there's a curb, right, because to prevent cars from going off and trucks into the fence?

You're absolutely correct, yes. The rendering just showed the difference in color in there, but it wasn't right.

Okay. And this fence that you're showing here is not existing right now. No. Are you proposing to build a fence here? I didn't see any fences noted as new on your plans.

No, it's not existing there, but we felt that after the construction of the driveway, it probably would be appropriate and the neighbor would be pleased if a fence is built in there to protect his property. That's on privacy. Okay.

Okay, so maybe that's a conversation you should have with the neighbors. I wish that your rendering showed the windows in the house because it's really hard to understand the impacts. Okay, but please, please, we can't have comments from the public. You'll have your opportunity to make comments. If we continue this, I think it was really hard for the planning commissioners to review the project. They kept referring to the on-ramp. I know one commissioner voted to abstain because the driveway rendering that you'd shown before was just so shocking. This is better, but I'm concerned it's still not completely accurate either.

The grates are. The buildings are just placeholders in there. We were not intending to renderize the buildings, but the driveway itself and the grates are very accurate.

And it's showing the retaining wall on the left, you know, it gets a little lost in the trees, but from my understanding of the grading plans, that retaining wall gets taller as you're going up the driveway.

Yes, it does.

And so what is the height of that approximately? I think I looked at about eight feet or so at the backside.

Let me pull the grading plan just a second, please.

These are existing retaining walls that they're taking out.

At the back of the property lines of the properties on Bayview, the retaining wall is seven and a half feet, and it starts growing as it goes deeper into our property to eight and a half, 10 feet, and 13 feet at the very end. But that is at the very end of the cul-de-sac. On the portion of the driveway itself, it starts at 24 inches in front, and it starts gradually growing to seven and a half feet at the back of the Bayview properties.

Okay, yeah, that's, it's hard to see that here, and maybe it's the view that you're showing. You're not showing the swale either, obviously, and the impacts there. So the driveway, the grass in the middle, and this little planter strip, I know this is something the Planning Commission asked for. Can you tell us? If you'd have a conversation with fire about this and about the use of turf blocks

We initially had planned to use turf block throughout, and the fire department was not very happy with that because the design and the maintenance of turf blocks and the grass is something that is not very compatible with fire trucks. So we have basically a full concrete driveway with a center strip just to mitigate the appearance of the big mass of concrete. But the two sections where the truck will travel, those are designed to the fire truck standards, H20.

Okay, so the fire department was okay with this strip of landscaping in between? That is correct. And what about on the left edge?

The left planting, that's only a 10-inch strip in there to allow some ivy to be planted in there. So that's a truck is not ever going to get that close to the retaining walls.

OK, so I want to go back to your grading plan for a minute. So that same drawing you had up before, clerk Coffey. So you note the driveway width as 18 feet. And can you explain the conversations with fire? Because I think I heard that they typically require 20.

No, 18 feet. And they require, they would approve 18 feet as long as we have an AMMR for the building. And then we submit it. The fire sprinkler system.

Yes. Okay. And is that 18 feet clear drivable width or is there a different dimension for that?

No, it's a full driveway width.

Okay. So your sections actually show the retaining walls inside that 18 feet dimension. Okay. So that's one of the things I wanted to clarify with you and with fire. So assuming, I don't know, some of these retaining walls get tall, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Assuming 18 inches or eight inches for each retaining wall, that's almost a foot and a half of reduction from the 18 foot clear. Let me find your drawing.

Yeah, I see the sections on sheet A4.2.

A4.2, exactly, which is back at page 318. Sarah, if you'd like to pull that up, please.

So these drawings were presented to the fire department. We had different conversations. And again, during the building permit process, they will be very deeply and closely scrutinized.

Yeah, so you'll see here at the one at the top, the 18 feet. Oops, you didn't need to scroll back towards the left.

The upper left one.

Yeah, so the retaining walls, the retaining wall on the left and the curb on the right both project into that 18 feet width.

Yes, I understand. And that's what I was making the comment, that these drawings were presented to the fire department. We did not go at this level of the project into a very detailed plan check with them. They accepted the driveway conceptually, and I'm sure at the time of building permit, this will be deeply scrutinized. And if we need to reduce the retaining wall location to obtain a full unobstructed 18 feet, then we're going to have to do that.

Well, I think that's something you better figure out if you're having to go back to the neighbor to talk about the change of the pavement again. That is correct, yes. And can we go back up to page 316? Actually, that one was probably good too. So actually, I'm not sure if it's on the site plan. Yeah, it is. Okay. So and go over to the left, Clark Coffey, so we can see the street. So can you explain what the red dashed lines are and the blue curved lines? I think I know what they are, but just to make sure.

Which one, the two curved lines?

And the red dashed lines also that are in Bayview Road. Perhaps you can scroll up a little bit more. Too far. Okay, there you go. That works.

The dashed line is the location of the fire hydrant and basically the hose layout from the fire hydrant to the building. Okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I meant the ones that are in Baby Road. You have the red dashed lines and then the blue.

Oh, okay. Those are the turning radios for the interior and exterior wheel of a fire truck.

And what is the red dashed line? That's just those dimensions?

Those are just the tangents to the curve to establish the radius there.

So a couple questions here. One... I'm sure you're aware that there's parking on both sides of Bayview Road currently, and there are driveways that you're not showing for the homes across the street. And so you're showing this turning radius actually starting from the left-hand side where cars are parked. Can you explain that? How would a fire truck turn if cars are parked?

If I may, Mayor Bowles, maybe this is a good opportunity to bring up Acting Fire Marshal Wittner to speak to the fire issues.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, Honorable City Council, Acting Deputy Chief Craig Wittner, Fire Marshal for the City of Pacifica. Are you happy to answer any questions you have? I've been listening.

Could you explain this fire department turn, those blue curves, and the fact that it's turning from the left side of Bayview Road when cars are parked on Bayview Road on that side?

Sure. We had originally asked for them to show this from the center line. But then we took a closer look at the actual Bayview Road. We noticed that there are two driveways on that west side. So it's unlikely that cars would be parking in the driveway section. There is a small section in between, a curb section in between driveways, which I don't think is long enough for an authorized spot. So excuse me. But that would be my oversight for not calling that as a condition of approval to red curb that small section between driveways on the west side of Bayview. It's not uncommon that we do that, even for a non-authorized spot, but that would be required in order to make that turn. If for some reason we couldn't make that turn, which is indicated from the engineer on there, the radiuses are 52 feet outside and 28 feet inside diameters. we would need to start from that opposite lane in order to make the turn. That's not uncommon, just so you know, but as far as not calling out that portion of red curb on the west side, that is my oversight, and that would be a condition of approval.

Okay. I did go through our planning parking codes, and we actually allow people to park in front of their driveways for up to 72 hours. So it seems like this condition would, take away some of the rights of those two property owners. Is that something we can do, city attorney Kenyon?

You know, I think the fire marshal has given you his opinion on why he granted that. If there are requirements for red curves, and if, you know, I'm not aware of that code requirement that allows... So I'd have to look that up. But usually what happens is we listen to... That's why we have the fire marshal look at it. Now, he is recommending a red curb... Condition. Right, condition of approval. And I guess, is that red curb on the applicant's property?

It is not.

It is not. So that is really... We don't need to make it a condition of approval because that is... That is something that if the fire marshal thinks it's necessary, he would talk to engineering and then they would give a recommendation and then staff would just red curve. It doesn't actually need to be a condition of approval.

And furthermore, if that didn't work, then it would be up to the engineer and the applicant to show another way to make that turning radii.

And thank you for that, fire marshal, because I think that is the question that the council has, which is it doesn't appear from the plans that that there's enough area to provide safe access for a fire truck. And so what I'm hearing from you, and maybe what you can reiterate for the council, is you have looked at this, your team has looked at this, and you believe that given the circumstances and actual review or vision of the road, that you think these plans and with the addition of a red curb, would satisfy any safety concerns with access.

Yes, ma'am, they would. Matter of fact, I sent engine 72 up there today just to confirm. I had sent another engine a number of months ago. I mean, granted, my division looked at this project, I think, in 2022, approved it in 2023. I think there were a few revisions. And, you know, I would just say that it's not ideal, but it's what we have to work with in the city of Pacifica as far as narrow streets go. So we look for opportunities to make things work with some adjustments. Otherwise, we have so many areas in town that just would not be buildable if not for some alternate means. And I mentioned alternate means, and that carries over into the, I heard the mayor ask a question about the driveway width. Normally, the minimum apparatus access is indeed 20 feet. Now, in the fire service, or I should say in communities statewide, it's very common to have a reduction up to X for residential driveways, particularly single-family dwelling lots. So it's not uncommon to reduce to 18 feet, 16 feet. In some communities, they allow 14 and 12 feet driveways. I've never gone that far. but it did allow a reduction up to 18 feet. And that would be 18 feet in the clear, not including retaining walls. And that entire driveway would need to meet imposed loads of 75,000 pounds. And just to carry it on a bit further, if I may, I was quite surprised at the applicant's response to some of our original comment rounds. When they had resubmitted, it was a big step towards compliance when they brought in their more recent design of that engineered driveway. That was part of the alternate means and methods. The state code or regulation statute allows us to make exceptions or variances, if you will, or basically trade-offs. If you cannot meet a prescriptive requirement that's outlined in the California Fire Code, California Building Code, the law allows you to propose an alternate as long as that alternate is equal to and strength, effectiveness, durability, et cetera. And so in this case, the engineer and the applicant had submitted an alternate design to have an engineered, grooved concrete driveway, reduction to 18 feet, which we felt was acceptable, given standard streets throughout cities like Pacifica and Brisbane are even narrower than that, given point A to point B on many, many streets. But they did give us adequate code compliant working room with a full compliant hammerhead turnaround all on their property up where the structures were. So we felt that that was a good tradeoff and it meant the intent and the spirit of the code.

And there were no other options to that hammerhead, right, to put it up higher on Bayview or something else because of the distance?

Yeah, it was a tough option because they couldn't meet the 150-foot hose pole. There may have been some other, but that was what was looked at, discussed, proposed, and accepted.

I think Greg has a question.

When it comes down to that turnaround spot, would it be prohibited for the residents to park in that portion of the driveway?

Technically, yes, sir. And when it comes to signage, I would say from a fire service point of view, we typically don't require off the bat signage for a private property and a hammerhead turnaround for single family dwellings. If we're pushed that direction or if it comes up, as long as we get it recorded on the legal documents as a fire lane and turnaround, then we've got legal proof that's a requirement. If it becomes an issue in the future, then we would enforce it, whereas the difference would be if this were, say, a commercial development, higher hazard, or an apartment complex, it would not be uncommon for us to require signage from the get-go, if that makes sense.

So if the applicant intended to park up there, he would be required to increase the size of that parking area?

He'd be required to discontinue the parking or potentially increase... are redesigned to provide fire department access, a hammerhead turnaround.

I noticed there's no visitor parking other than what's in the garage. And so a delivery vehicle, the mailman, like, I mean, they'd have to be parking in that fire department turnaround.

Yeah. Once again, my only response to that is that it's a single-family lot. And although, again, it's not ideal, I've seen situations even on commercial streets where access was an issue. So I've seen where they've approved or various jurisdictions have approved loading and unloading zones in a fire lane. Again, that's not ideal. I'm not saying approve a loading or unloading zone necessarily, but we know what happens. And if it were to become a known issue, we would enforce it at that point.

If they're having a party, you don't want six cars parked there for hours, right? In case there's a fire.

Well, typically the overall use is single family dwelling, which is going to have X number of cars. And let's say you have RVs, known RVs at a time and Long-term storage of trailers or something would become an issue, but coming and going cars, we don't put a lot of stock in, quite frankly.

That's Super Bowl party, though. Okay, so 18 feet clear, though, and so the proposed drawing that shows the planter at the edge, you know, that might affect your wheels, or are you okay with one foot? planting edge not being paved?

It would need to be 18 feet in the clear and if there were a they're not my favorite as far as planter strips goes but I know that there's a need for drainage etc. So we're okay as long as it's not excessive and it meets a 75,000 pound engineering load for our apparatus.

And then just one more question on this plan, so I can't read the number. It's shown better. So there's the 28-foot interior radius, and I think it was 52 or something, the outside radius. So those two arcs are not drawn concentrically. Does that matter?

Well. We use these plans for access and water supply initial approvals when there are stamped engineered documents. I pay a little bit more attention to those when these are submitted for plan check. But these are all high-level review. I generally don't get too picky as long as I see the engineer say, hey, that's going to work. But we'll definitely take a sharper look at those once we get engineered documents.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm just concerned because obviously, you know, you're With those blue lines as they're drawn now, you're hitting retaining walls already on both sides, right? So there's just no room for error.

Yeah, just know that when we give our approvals, ma'am, the form that we use basically gives people the caveat that these are approvals but not approval to violate a provision of the code or to base approval because we missed something. When those documents are submitted for plan review, we'll be looking at those quite thoroughly.

Okay, I appreciate that. Yes, sir. And if for some reason then it doesn't work, then, I mean, that would preclude the development on this site, I assume.

Well, that would preclude that particular proposal. They would need to come up with a proposal that met the code or the intent of the code. And that AMMR would then become void unless it was modified and agreed upon.

Okay, okay. Can I just go on board?

Yeah, absolutely.

Okay. How else do you turn around on this street?

You don't, sir. I mean, honestly, what we do is we just use available driveways because it's a dead-end street. So if there's nowhere to turn around, then our engineers are backing up with the assistance of the captain until they can turn around. We have a lot of areas in our communities where we have difficulty turning around.

I had one more question. I was just reading some public comments right before the meeting. Somebody said that this was in a wildland urban interface zone. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am. So when this project originally came in for review, we had not yet adopted our local responsibility area maps created by CAL FIRE. So any permit issued after January 1, 2026 would need to comply with the what we call the old Chapter 7A requirements, California Wild and Urban Interface Codes, meaning exterior finish improvements would have to comply with, basically be fire-resistant, and then, of course, defensible space requirements. Those are the two that they would need to comply with.

Okay. And would you be reviewing the landscape plans in terms of the defensible space requirements then?

We would certainly look at that, along with our partners at CSG.

That's all I have for you.

One more quick question. Would that necessitate amber cast proof venting?

Yes. It would be full Chapter 7A compliance because this entire parcel is located within the high fire hazard severity zone, as we recall from our adoption process earlier in 2025, May, I think it was. The three categories are moderate, which the yellow areas on our computer maps, the orange area is high, middle of the road, and then very high. So the vast majority of what projects we've been working with that have to deal with the wildland urban interface construction standards will be in the high areas. Thank you. You're welcome.

Yeah, thank you so much.

You're more than welcome.

Yeah, I really appreciate you being here tonight to help set us at ease. I'm not finding my reference to people being able to park in front of their driveways right now, but when we take a break, I'll find that, or perhaps...

I just found out that... I don't know about our code, but the vehicle code prevents parking in front of a driveway. So our code would be in conflict with state law, and state law preempts codes that violate the vehicle code. So even if we do have that code, it would be preempted by the vehicle code.

Okay. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Yeah, our code says 72 hours you're allowed to.

And just so the community knows, we all have questions about the driveway, but Christine asked them the best.

I'm happy to take a break if someone else has other questions.

Not for Craig.

Not for Craig. Yeah. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Chief Whitner, I really appreciate you being here.

So before we take a break, if I may, Mayor, I'd like to know if we could get a quick thumbnail of the other categories of questions that council members have. I know I have a question about catchment and water, the treatment of runoff. stormwater, etc. There were a number of questions that came from the public on that, and I have a couple of questions in that regard. Any other, besides the driveway, other areas? I'm wondering that I'm maybe lapsed on, or other council members have questions on?

For the applicant in particular, right now? Yeah, and I'd probably like to finish that before we take a break, if that's okay, unless anybody's...

Is that all right with you guys?

I have hydrology questions. I have a couple of geotech questions. I have another rendering question. Well, that sounds like a lot.

I was addressing most of my questions towards staff as opposed to the applicant.

Oh, I understood. Okay. Yeah. I still have some for the applicant, too, but. But we can always reopen the public hearing.

And like what we heard a lot from the community was there's fear around steep grading, concerns about all the things that you talked about, the landslide area, the drainage.

So if I may, for the record, could you please explain the catchment process and the exact way in which the stormwater is Treated or handled on the property that the concerns that I received expressed multiple times was a sense of runoff increased runoff and I certainly understand because parts of Rockaway Beach Avenue are already runoff like 24 by 7 yeah, just because of springs and such and I'm thinking about as many in the public raised the questions and Samantha if you have anything to add on this from the Planning Commission chair Hauser I would love to hear it because I'm not on the Planning Commission and I recognize that with our storms as we have been seeing them Significantly like this. What do they call them the? bomb rain some storm bombs with inches and inches of rain falling at one time. And I noticed in the packet, in the information, in the public comment that was mailed, sent to us ahead of time, individuals had gone so far as to have hydrology meteorologists report looking at the amounts of rainfall and that kind of thing. So, long-winded, but if you could please address THE WAY IN WHICH THE CATCHMENT WORKS, THE WAY IN WHICH THERE WILL NOT BE IMPACT TO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORS BECAUSE OF RAIN, WATER, STORM WATER RUNOFF.

CAN WE INCLUDE ALSO DURING CONSTRUCTION?

OH, YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO PULL UP PACKET PAGE 321 WHICH IS THE DRAINAGE PLAN.

Sarah, are you working on 320? Thank you. Sarah's got a hard job.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council Members, Roland Yip, Deputy Director of Public Works. I can start this off with the drainage question. It's a standard comment that comes from engineering. We are the ones who are going to review for impacts to our storm drain system. So with every project that has what we call impervious areas, in which case this is just grass or dirt, If you cover it with concrete, typically you're going to increase that area's runoff by around three times more. So that's kind of roughly where the geotech is getting the number. But they are allowed to increase the runoff. They just have to mitigate for that additional stormwater runoff that enters into our system. I'm going to read condition of approval 41 in its full context because What was shown on the screen was just the beginning part of it. So it says that prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, hydraulic calculations along with a letter from the engineer of record indicating that the proposed storm drain system does not increase runoff above the pre-development condition shall be submitted for review and approval by the city engineer. And that's what was shown on the screen. But the latter half of it says the on-site drainage system shall be designed to detain on-site onsite all flows in excess of the existing flows during a 100-year frequency storm, the detention systems shall be designed to detain water only during peak flows. So they're allowed to increase the storm water runoff. They just cannot increase that flow rate during the peak storm. So think of a giant bathtub that's created in their property. They have to hold the water in their property until the storm is gone and the clouds kind of dissipate with the storms and the faucet is reduced, and then that pipe can continue to drain at that flow rate of that property that was the existing condition. And so we asked for them to do a 100-year storm, a storm that occurs once every 100 years, and the duration and the intensity for that time of concentration just gets getting really into the, engineering technical terms, I know, but it's helpful to understand. There's a couple of durations that we can request for here. We request for a one-hour duration with a time of concentration of one hour. So it's a large system that they have to put in place. And what they have currently on the plan, and this will be further verified when we enter into the building permits, is that they have a series of bioswales across the property. They have a five-foot by 33-foot and then six inch deep gravel dissipation area to disperse the water so it doesn't concentrate flows and cause like a stream. And they also have a two foot in diameter pipe that sits at the southwest of the property to hold the stormwater. So I hope that helps with the stormwater question.

Thank you. No, I'm just, oh.

Oh, during construction. Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

So during construction, they have a erosion control plan and also a construction best management practice plan. And so they have to put a series of silt fences, straw wattles, and they have to be spaced properly for how steep their hillsides are. If they do construction during the summer, there will be less impacts. And overall, people prefer doing things in the summer. And if they do not, there will be more frequent inspections on the property just to ensure that all of those what they call the best management practices, BMPs, are installed properly. And we will be doing more frequent inspections on the site to make sure that they don't get washed away or something like that.

And if for some reason that plan is inadequate and water goes down or debris goes down or You get saturated soil that then slides towards the neighbors. Who's liable for that?

The applicant is going to be liable for all of their construction, and their contractors need to have the proper insurance, and they're going to be liable for all the work that they're doing.

So I'm still trying to understand the rain intensity and an hour for a 100-year storm, and I don't know if you... had a chance to review the letter from Steven Bond, who's a consulting geologist, hydrologist, that was submitted today.

I haven't had a chance to review it, but just in terms of how much you increase a bare dirt, it does increase it around threefold, but that's... NOT SOMETHING THAT TYPICALLY CANNOT BE MITIGATED EVEN FOR LARGER PROJECTS. THERE IS A WAY TO JUST DETAIN THIS EXTRA STORM WATER TO HOLD IT UNTIL THE STORM HAS PASSES SO THAT IT CAN STILL GO INTO OUR STORM DRAIN SYSTEM BECAUSE AFTER A STORM PASSES, THERE'S NO MORE RAIN COMING INTO OUR STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. THEY CAN CONTINUE TO RELEASE THE WATER BACK OUT AT THAT TIME. SO IT'S A COMMON PRACTICE. IT'S DONE around here and everyone has their own manuals to calculate the what you call the stormwater runoff it's a standard equation called the rational method that's done all around here everyone has their all the counties have their own hydraulic manuals so it's a it's a standard equation okay I guess I just want to confirm that I mean some I'm looking at his c3 checklist on a 5.8 and it's

says 0.2 inches of rainfall intensity per hour, and it says 4.3 hours of rain duration. So, I mean, I know we get storms that are longer duration than that and very heavy, and we're getting more of those, you know, with warming oceans and atmospheric rivers. So, what... Yeah, what actually, is that the number that relates to what you're asking? You said one hour, but I don't know what the intensity is.

Yeah, so they used NOAA. I don't know which storm event they used. It's gonna be different based on the storm event, 100-year storm or a 10-year storm. We will verify that. What we require is the Salmon Tail County rainfall data, and then at the 100-year, for the one hour, it's 1.2 inches per hour. This can be observed. During a big rain, it may rain hard for only like when it really, really pours, like a showerhead kind of pour. It can only do that for maybe 15 minutes, and that's why the highest intensity they have on these charts is usually at like a 5-minute or a 10-minute mark. Depending on the charts, that's the minimum that they have. For the San Mateo County, at the 10-minute mark, the most that they will have for a small area like a single-family home is 3.6%. inches per hour. The way that he has sized this, though, because it's a 100-year storm and for a one-hour duration, it will be able to hold this amount for the 15-minute duration at a 3.6 inches per hour. We can verify that. But we're following the county's requirement for a one-hour duration at a one-hour time of concentration.

Thank you. You're beyond my understanding at this point.

Mayor, if I may. I just wanted to call to attention that the Planning Commission didn't just add the condition of approval that was read into the record, but condition of approval 29 was also modified. It says applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance plan and maintenance agreement for the stormwater treatment measures, which shall specify that measures shall be inspected at an interval to be determined by the city engineer, so it gives us the discretion. The draft agreement shall be recorded against the property, so this agreement runs with the land, so in 20 years' time. when no one is on council or commission. It's still on the property. And it's prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. The agreement shall include provisions that allow the city to perform maintenance if not properly performed by the owner with such costs to be lien on the property if not promptly reimbursed by owner. So we've endowed the city with rights. It took a long time to do this with the city attorney to make sure that there was the proper nexus for it. But to answer Councilmember Beckmeyer's question, we did treat this as a big site and not as a single family home site. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Thank you. Really appreciate that and appreciate that there'll be more scrutiny as we go into building. Yeah. All right. Is there anything else we want to ask now, or shall we go to public comment, and then we can always come back?

Can we take a break before public comment, or should we take the break after public comment?

Well, right now I only have three cards, so I don't know if anybody else is wanting to speak. Perhaps we can ask people to raise their hands on Zoom now so we have an idea of how long we need. I see two people coming up.

Mayor Bowles, there's currently two raised hands on Zoom. Okay.

So if we had seven public comments. I'm okay either way. Would you like to take a break now?

I could use to go that way.

Okay. And how long a break do we need? 10 minutes, 15 minutes?

I need three minutes.

I might need a little more than that. How about 12 minutes?

Mayor, I just wanted also to make sure the council is aware. that the applicant and the appellants then get three-minute rebuttals each after public comment. After public comment, right.

Five minutes.

Okay. Five minutes is all we need? Okay. All right. So it is 8.48. We'll reconvene in five minutes. I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE MORE QUESTION BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M SORRY. BE PATIENT WITH ME. IF THAT'S OKAY. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR UPTEGRAVE, YOU HAD SHOWN A BIRD'S EYE. COULD YOU PULL THAT UP FOR A SECOND?

THANK YOU, MAYOR BOWLES. LET ME FIND THE SLIDE NUMBER. I believe it is slide 13. Is this the correct one?

Yeah. Okay. This isn't really what I was hoping for. I was hoping to see the building three-dimensionally a little bit more, and this is pretty flat on the site. But anyway, but you can see that the ADU at the top right and the right side of the house is about in plane with the house on the right. I don't know the address of that one. And so if you could also pull up back at page 342 that has the renderings. Thank you. Yeah. So, and just scroll down a little bit. So, I'm looking at, so obviously we know the driveway is incorrect. The one in the middle that shows the house from Rockaway, I'm really questioning whether that's accurate, too, and perhaps Mr. Chavarria can speak to that, because There were some sections that showed the house in relation to the blue house up the hill. And the ADU was pretty much level with that house. And this is showing like, and that would presumably show in this plan. So it feels like the house is shown too low and too far to the left than what is actually accurate. Can you comment on that, Mr. Chavarria?

Yes. There is a drawing, I don't have the actual sheet, that shows a section comparing the elevation of the house and ADU with the adjacent property, and it shows that the roof of the ADU is actually four feet lower than the adjacent house. The angle of this view is, like you said, it may be a little deceptive from the eye, but remember, the building is skewed on the property. The property lines are very strangely located as the building is contouring to the fire truck turnaround. So from this angle and from that vantage point, the ADU basically is not seen because the elevation of the roof of the ADU is the same as the highest elevation of the roof of the building.

I understand that, but it's pretty much in parallel to the other building higher on the hill. I mean, can you confirm?

Can we look at the site plan, please? It's probably sheet A3 of the plans. A bit further up, like. Probably like page 320.

packet page 341 has the section drawing of The single-story accessory dwelling unit and shows the property line in the adjacent house. Is that the I?

Think this image you were looking for I don't think that's what Javier was suggesting we look at but actually this is really important This is the one that the the neighbor of the blue house was pointing to in his public comment because I

Right immediately above where it says Section E, that is 741 Rockaway Beach. So the peak elevation of that house is about 1,004 on a relative scale. And the peak elevation of the ADU in our building is 1,001.6. Right.

And the peak elevation is at the top of the slope. So I'm guessing the bottom of the slope is pretty close to the top of the roof of the ADU. You can see how close they are together here. So it seems really odd to me that this doesn't show up on the plan. And maybe we can look at the plan to show their relative placement next to each other. That would be helpful. That's packet page 315.

And Samantha Updegrave,

Setback from the ad you to that blue house is 20 feet if I recall correctly as opposed to the four feet that was required that is correct ad use are Required under both state and local law or the maximum setback rear setback that can be imposed under local and state law is four feet the ad you here is located 20 feet and At its closest point and 25 feet at its furthest point Thank you.

Yeah, and you could you can see how how the ad relates to the house. So they're at about the same you know slope of the land and The house extends all the way over to the ad use so it just that rendering just does not look accurate to me And I was hoping that the The bird's eye view would show it three-dimensionally so we could see them next to each other. This is really hard for me, who's an architect, reading these plans and trying to understand the impacts. I know that the neighbors have asked for story poles, and we were told they couldn't be done because even just doing that little bit of grading and plant removal was problematic. We learned the one rendering was completely inaccurate, and I'm really questioning this one. It's hard for a layperson and the neighbors to really understand what to expect from this project. I don't know what to ask for in this meeting, but I would have asked for confirmation that those were accurate, maybe seeing your Revit model to show the massing on the hillside in relation to the other houses.

All the architectural plans, floor plan, elevation, site plan, contour lines, they pick correctly all the information, and you can certainly...

I understand that, but most people don't read these drawings, right? And even planning commissioners were having trouble. So that's where it's like, if you're not going to do story pulls, the renderings are really important, and they were requested by planning commissioners. Is that correct, Director Abdubrev?

The planning commissioners had asked for the renderings that were provided and that we were just looking at in the plans. It's also important to remember that the accessory dwelling unit is not subject to discretionary review.

I understand that, but the house is basically in line with the ADU, so it's really understanding the right side of the building and where all this sits on the site. I'm sorry, we can take out the The ADU reference, it was just, that was important in terms of understanding the roof heights, because the roof height of the ADU is about the same as the roof height as the main house at 1001. Okay, I'll just say that for now, and yeah, go ahead, Greg.

Just as a follow-up, on packet page 159, you stated that the city does not require story poles for development projects. you think that that's something that in the future we ought to consider changing to make this kind of visualization easier for people that have a harder time with converting two-dimensional plans into three-dimensional visions in their head it is something that council could consider adding however you know the trends within the state for housing development projects are you know really

our reviews and approvals are based on objective standards. And so I think if you wanted to require story polls, you would have to find what the objective standard is that those are being tied to. And is that true for renderings also? I'm not sure I understand your question in terms of like putting it in the ordinance or?

Or just as a request, as a checklist, especially for projects on steep hillsides that are really hard to understand the relationships. to existing structures and to the grades?

Yeah, we can ask for renderings and we do ask for them, which is different than putting in physical structures on a property as a development review requirement. Okay, but the staff report said there's no requirement that the renderings be accurate. It didn't say that there was no requirement for them to be accurate. It said that the renderings are really a visual tool, but it's not something that staff bases a compliance review on. So it's really just a tool, but we're not looking at setbacks. We're not looking at height. We're not looking right at those regulatory or development standard requirements. That's done through the plans, not through the renderings.

So there was not a problem that the Planning Commission reviewed the driveway with an incorrect rendering?

The Planning Commission approved the project, I think under the assumption that that was an accurate rendering, and added a condition of approval asking the applicant, staff, and fire to work together to try to find a more visually pleasing alternative. And so I think that that was considered. Okay.

Never mind, it's okay. Okay, all right. Let's open public comment. So I have five cards here. We'll start with Ron Makel, followed by Carol Freckley.

Good evening, Council, Mayor, Council, staff, and great audience out here. Boy, I've got to walk. Open my eyes a little bit here. He's sitting here for so long in that chair, I know how you guys feel. At any rate, I'm sorry I didn't attend any of the Planning Commission hearings on this project. I live in Rockaway. I'm kind of far away from this project, but I served some time on the Planning Commission. I do know that there are times when we approve projects that end up not being approved as well as we could have had been as Planning Commissioners. Those things happen sometimes. And there were appeals, and in several occasions, the appeal was upheld. This project is very complicated, as you can see. I didn't get a chance to see all the conditions put upon this project, but it's a very unusual project. It's very complicated, and oftentimes, that should be a red flag for the commission. If you have a single-family home... that isn't meeting all the regular requirements through approval over the counter. So I just think that this thing is a bit much. I do believe that you should uphold the appeal for a variety of reasons, but I think that the appellant did a good job of indicating a lot of those reasons and sent it back to the Planning Commission for review. Deliberation again on this thing. I actually think the orientation of the House could have been better done as well. So the driveway basically went right to the garage. I mean, yeah, the long driveway, road, whatever you want to call it, went right to, you know, the garage and then there. And then that way you wouldn't have to have all this other stuff wasting space there. I live in an area in Ronquoy where A house was built behind me, and it's about 100 feet away. And they put a driveway in. It just services the one house. But they had to build this driveway 20 feet wide. They tried to get something narrower because it was just a driveway serving this one house. But they had to put in, they were required, the city made them put in a 20-foot-wide driveway. And they don't have this massive, you know, hammerhead turnaround for the fire truck. The fire truck goes up, and they can't turn around there. They go up, I guess, and do what they have to do to put out a fire, and then they have to back out. So, you know, that's another option, too. If this long driveway just went right to the garage where the driveway was, and the fire truck could come in and and get in there and do whatever they have to do with the water and stuff, and then they could just back out. I mean, there's a lot of cases that are like that. So I think this whole project needs to be reevaluated. That's my point of view, but I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Carol, followed by Ted Gofer. Hi. Hi.

you want to step up on that little oh so we can see you on the box do i have to stand up i haven't done this since grade school sorry hello nice to see your face i haven't grown since grade school either good evening city council members and staff i'm speaking and regarding item nine the cholera bayview project um and i would like you to uphold the appeal My name is Carol Fregley. I have lived at 727 Rockaway Beach Avenue, Pacifica since June 1994. I love where I live. I have wonderful neighbors, including two young couples who purchased their homes in the last two years and had no idea that the land adjoining their property was part of this project. I had to be the one to break the news. For these young families who choose Rockaway over other places, pay a great deal of money for their homes, and plan to invest their time and energy into the community while supporting schools and public services with their tax money, such news was indeed a shock. And now it seems this is not the end, but rather the beginning. On August 5, 2025, a property adjacent to the proposed building site sold for $40,000. On December 1st, 2025, the Planning Commission pre-approved this project and four days later, December 5th, 2025, that same adjacent property was listed for $5,999,000 on Redfin. Many of us in Rockaway have been fearful that approval of this construction will lead to further attempts to build along the hill above us. And now it has become clear that even the tentative approval has not only increased the value of the property where the construction is planned, but has also raised the value and potential for development of the nearby available property. Will this engender continued speculation regarding other nearby undeveloped hillsides and open spaces? Would the City of Pacifica have the means to provide infrastructure for projects of such magnitude? Who serves to gain from this? Certainly not the neighbors, and certainly not the neighborhood. For years, residents have asked for a comprehensive plan for development in the Rockaway Valley. one that prioritizes maintaining safety and integrity of the neighborhood. This kind of Wild West land grab is not what we want or need. We enjoy meeting new neighbors who buy existing homes, fix them up, and add zest to our community. We absolutely support giving realtors jobs, hiring architects and contractors, and making Rockaway even more beautiful. But what makes our neighborhood attractive and welcoming should not be destroyed in the name of progress. Thank you.

Thank you, Carol. Ted Gober. Followed by Susan Miller. I'm sorry if I butchered your last name.

I like to think I'm microphone aware. I've been struggling not being able to hear all evening. So you won't have this problem right now. But I only have a few things to say. I want to underline and emphasize what Carol just talked to you about. And I would like to point out to you that this is not, as someone pointed out, this is not a house that somebody wants to build. This is a lot that somebody wants to sell. Earlier in this evening, there were some exceptions that were noted for another side street, Osgood, which is another side street off Rockaway, and it was the same developer. So what we have is a bunch of serial adaptations or exceptions that are granted to the developer, and they, you know... The lot in question was sold for $400,000. Now, after the tentative approval by the Planning Commission, it's $4.9 million. So that's a pretty good return on your money. But I just wanted to point that out. It's not really for families. It's for profit. And, of course, we all work for money. And there's no getting around that. And I... I do want to emphasize what you said about the renderings, and they may indeed be a tool, but if you don't have tools that are accurate or calibrated, then we're unable to use the information that those renderings give us. One of the pictures I noticed that the driveway, the rendering of the driveway, if you look at the house, it's not it's not proportional to what the house actually is. You have another minute. Does that mean I'm up?

One more minute.

I don't have a whole lot to say. I'll probably just repeat myself, but I really wanted to point it out. The main point is it's for development. It's not for families. It's not infill projects.

Thank you. Thank you. Susan Miller, followed by Greg Jones, and then Max Reinhart.

I'm not going to be as good a speaker as Ted was. But I want to thank you all for being here, for your hard work. And I want to read to you part of the letter from our independent contractor, Christopher Yerke. He says, after reviewing the entire submittal package, I cannot overstress how important it is to have a full team of independent design professionals along with the services of both the independent special inspection firm and the city building department to act as checks and balances against the developer, contractor, owner, taking shortcuts that could result in serious negative impacts on neighboring properties and surrounding environment. This project contemplates an extraordinary amount of excavation in order to develop a driveway and a building site on a challenging, steep terrain for a rather limited building site. The project plans in no way make clear who that team would be. It appears to me that the developer intends to act as civil engineer, general contractor, architect, structural engineer. In a project of this complex and sensitive, there are inherent conflicts of interest. The developer appears to have licenses only as a civil engineer and contractor. Their website gives no indication of whether they have other licensed members on staff or as a part of an extended collaborative team. nor do they display their CSLB license number on the website, which is mandated by the California state law. Thus, it is hard to know what their credentials are, which raises red flags for me. If a developer is a one-stop shop, then they are merely overseeing themselves and can cut corners at will. With materials presented thus far, I see no evidence of such an independent team. So that's what Christopher said. What I'd like to say is I'm concerned that there have been very many errors as we have heard tonight, not only under rendering but on the plans. We have all seen the discrepancies. This should make us all very cautious about this project. In addition, I know the plans went in before 2026 or 2025. Whenever the fire maps were put in, the new fire map came into effect. I would like to see this project meet the current fire standards, which is increase in defensible space and increase in the exterior and probably roofing, I don't know. So please help us protect this vibrant part of our wonderful city and grant this appeal. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Susan. Matt's Reinhart, and that's the last card I have in the room.

Hello. I'll start with my name is Greg Jones. I live at 154. Oh, sorry. Sorry. I jumped ahead. I live at 154 Bayview Road across the street from directly, my driveway is directly across the street from the easement, so I'm staring right at it. I lived there about 10 years with my wife and my two daughters, and I very much support the appeal that's been presented today. I just want to start with a water runoff. To say that they're not water runoff as soon as the rain ends is completely false on Bayview. I took a video on January 6th, which was two full days after the last moderate rainstorm, and this is what it sounded like. In the drainage system on that same side of the road at the bottom of Rockaway, it was quite significant. Oh, it's not working now. Anyway, sorry. Very significant. Lots of water. Fast. I couldn't even hear myself talk in the video. Okay. More importantly, safety. I have serious safety concerns for the safety of my family and property right across the street. I just mentioned where my driveway is located. I'm concerned about my children and property damage caused by the hundreds of large trucks that are going to be there to take out apparently about 350 proposed trucks hauling in and out debris and tonnage of building materials in. and hauling out dirt and soil from there. I absolutely want to guarantee that not a single construction truck will enter my driveway or block access into or out of my driveway. As the fire marshal said, it's very tight there. I don't believe that the large trucks pulling out that much dirt will not cause damage or does not propose a liability to me and my family. If the brakes run out, the truck's coming right at my house. If the brakes come out going down the steep bay view, it's going to hit a neighbor at 680 Rockaway Street Boulevard. And if any construction vehicles are blocking my property into or out of my driveway, I will call the police each and every time. Okay? I'm glad mayor Bowles brought up all the errors in the drawings. I don't believe any other drawings based on that So thank you from I won't repeat that here the story poll example the excuse for that is the vegetation that they'll be disrupting and But yet again, they're going to plan to grade this entire area. Again, the same contractor on the Odstad project that was referred to a minute ago. Once they got approval, they graded that whole, I can see it from my kitchen window, they graded the whole thing, and then they abandoned the project. They cut down all the trees, all the bushes, flattened it, and then walked away. Finally, the easement. It was a very unusual way to me that the easement was delivered on the 1st of December. And I've lived here, like I said, 10 years. And Mr. Sablinski has called the police multiple times throughout the years complaining about live music down at Rockaway Beach Brewery, before that Pacifica Brewery, before that surf spot. That's a half mile away. And I'm to believe that he voluntarily signed an easement to allow months and months of construction noise, digging construction, when he's complaining about things that are miles and miles away. I just don't find that credible. And I believe he was coerced probably incorrectly.

Thank you. Your time is up. Appreciate your comment. Max Reinhart.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Max Reinhart. I live here in the city of Pacifico, not in Rockaway Beach, but over in the Manor District. Tonight I heard some things... and wanted to share my observations. I think that the project appears that it will remove a lot of vegetation, and I have to believe that in the end, more than what is stated in the documents will be disturbed. It is construction and staging equipment. I'm familiar with construction, and it can lead to this. So where do you put the equipment? Number two, both of the renderings suck, for lack of a better word. The first one really sucks and looks like a Hot Wheels ramp. The second one looks too soft and doesn't really have what looks like accurate heights of the walls. Speaking to the walls, measuring from the height, I didn't know, I was like, did I take an edible before this meeting? Am I high? How does this measuring even work? Number three, I am concerned with the calculation for the water runoff. Very frankly, it seems as though every 10 year storm is happening every other year and 100 year events are happening seemingly multiple times in my lifetime and unless I am 250 years old like this country, I look really good, I don't think I am. However, none of this changes other obvious things that I have heard and seen this evening regarding the project. I believe it is, in fact, CEQA exempt. I've got much love for Green Fire, but respectfully, they're wrong. Number two, the project was submitted in 2018. It appears that they've completed a significant amount of work in terms of the revisions that have gone into the project, and sometimes things like revising a project can lead to errors Amongst the team of professionals that are in good faith appear to be working diligently to get it done and that they have, in fact, tried to respond to concerns of the neighbors. From a direct neighbor of Mr. Sablinski to the neighborhood writ large to the best of their ability or are providing the appearance of such. Number three, it is not of significance and shouldn't be, but from my research, just cursory at best, the owners do not appear to be professional developers. A simple LinkedIn page of either of theirs would reveal this fact. Number four, the language used by some of the people speaking in support of the appeal to do things like put it back, push it out, and put it kind of back into a review stage, I don't mind development, but I just don't want that development here. It seems to speak contrary to Pacifica stands united in love. It seems to speak contrary to being a place of inclusion. It seems to speak contrary, if you were to put that language in the vein of anything other than a development project, you'd be called a bigot and thrown out of Pacifica. You'd be ridiculed. And so I think it is dangerous to use that type of language to me when it comes to a project for a development for a new home, in particular from people who may already be long-time homeowners to even a relatively long-time lot owner from 2018. Sorry if you bought your house in the last two years. Thank you.

Emily, how many raised hands do we have?

We have three raised hands. The first is for Gloria Stofan. Go ahead, Gloria.

Can you hear me? We can. Good evening, city council members and city staff. My name is Gloria Stofan, a longtime resident of Pacifica, and since 1971, a longtime Rockaway Beach Avenue resident. I come tonight to stand with my fellow neighbors in Rockaway Beach Avenue in hopes that the This appeal will be strongly considered. My biggest concern is the safety issue. I feel like a broken record due to the fact that I have come before City Council since the 1990s with the same concerns. My concerns are mud and rock slides, hillside runoffs, and a lack of alternative exit from Rockaway Beach Avenue. Mud and rock slides have appeared particularly during the 1990s. Pacifica then experienced severe rainstorms. Most recently, Rockaway Beach Avenue has a rock slide that still needs city attention. It's located just before 500 and 505 Rockaway Beach Avenue. Hillside runoffs are consistently present, especially after an intense rainstorm, and they're pretty intense. Presently, 633 Rockaway Beach Avenue has this constant problem. Also, 521 has had this problem as well. Also, the lack of alternative exit from Rockaway Beach Avenue is very much of a concern. There is only one way in and one way out from 500 Rockaway Beach Avenue to the very end of the 800 block area. As you can see, there needs to be more attention and consideration when it comes to developing more homes on Rockaway Beach, steep and unstable hillside. Thank you. Thank you, Gloria.

The next raised hand is for V. Go ahead, V, and please state your name for the record.

My name is Vera Tothvale. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead, Vera. Thank you. Hi, my name is Vera. I live at 125 Bayview Road. Honorable city council members and staff, thank you very much for taking the time to listen to all the commentary today. I first have to say I'm a little bit surprised to hear about the part about not having a legal right to park in front of our own homes, so I'm eager to hear the law that backs up that people can't park across the street from us. It's very, very rare that we don't see cars parked along both sides of the street, actually, on Bayview. And I look out my window as often as I can. It is a beautiful view. My comments primarily are around the fact that we're in a zoning district that is supposed to ensure a higher standard of development, which is clearly stated. But it seems like the planning documents and the planning commission's review of them has really been below that acceptable standard. And the commission seemed to have just given up because it has taken a long time to pass the project. And as others have said, there's so much complexity to this that is part of the reason why I think it has taken so long. Now, not being an expert in the challenging construction issues that this project poses, I'm not suggesting that a compliant development couldn't be completed on the lot in question, but I do feel, as many, many people have stated and lots of questions have been discussed this evening, that the plans submitted don't give adequate assurance that the proposed project can be carried out according to the legal requirements, ensuring that the neighboring properties and the environment of the hillside are not illegally compromised. So this is not just about us not wanting development behind our house. We're talking about several neighbors, as you all have heard, that would be compromised in several different ways and would be impacted if something were to happen, like all the different things we've talked about, the mudslides, the rain, etc., Along the topic of story polls, I just wanted to share and put it into the record that in doing some of the research, there are many, many jurisdictions that require the story polls. I was just looking at the one in Monterey. The visual data they provide means that people can have a sense of what this actually looks like. And the developer never erected the story poles. So that failed to provide the data the planning commission had felt was necessary to determine the viability of the project. And when we asked about it, or when they asked about it, the developer said they cited concerns about drilling causing too much impact. And I'm just sitting there going, well, the story poles are going to cause this kind of an impact. Then what is construction going to do? So just what I wanted to say that the requirement that we have doesn't seem to come up.

I'm sorry, but I think your time is up.

Thank you. Well, I want to thank you and respectfully ask that the project be sent back. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Is that what you were trying to tell me? That's fine. I'm sorry, the light went off after I was cutting her off. I thought you were telling me I should cut her off.

I understand that she was one of the appellants, so her... Oh, she shouldn't...

Right. Actually, yeah, I meant to ask about that. Yeah, I guess she was sending letters from the coalition.

You know, that's all right.

Okay, all right.

The last raised hand is for Jeff Morgan.

Go ahead, Jeff.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

I'm Jeff Morgan. I live on 150 Bayview Roads. We're essentially the house right across the street from the easement on the lower side below our neighbor, Great Lakes driveway. Just want to reiterate everything and fully support everything our neighbors have said so far. We are fully in support of this appeal. I want to say that we're not anti-construction. I think if you buy a plot of land, you should be able to build that house, understanding that there was a planned paper street at the top of our street that was built entirely for that process. We have a paper street right below us where the developer is going to have to build across, basically build out that paper street if they want to have their properties developed. So being able to take this, what was originally the plan and now build this easement, which we fully agree with, you know, our neighbors, you know, Mr. Seblinski was probably coerced. Again, he calls the cops about everything from noises to not curbing your wheels and all those different things. And so I highly doubt that he did this in right mind. But one of the things that this easement has created is that it's also going to put a huge red curve right in front of our home. And there's not a lot of parking on our block. And actually, we're in the process of submitting permits this month to the city. We've actually been in talks with you already. building an ADU and a junior ADU on our first floor, first story and second story respectively. And we built these ADUs anticipating elderly family is going to live there. And so we built these ADUs with paths directly from the street where they could use wheelchairs or walkers, very minimal stairs. And I know we're not entitled to parking spaces in front of our houses, so I'm not saying that. But eliminating those parking opportunities close to the property really kind of defeats the whole purpose of why we're building these. I know this is a win-win situation for us to have extra property in the city to help fulfill their quota around these building projects. And so this really puts a huge dent in this plan. We never knew going into these architectural plans almost two years ago that there was going to be no parking. in front of our house. That really eliminates a huge option, especially for elderly folks. So, you know, just want to, you know, again, fully support the appeal and everything our neighbors have said. I'm not going to reiterate those points again, but we were never, ever spoken to about, you know, the now not being able for anyone to be able to park in front of our property. That was not discussed with us. We never got a heads up on that. And it's a big issue. So I just want to go ahead and leave you with that. Thank you.

Thank you. There are no other raised hands. I will close public comment.

Now we have rebuttal. Should we ask if staff wants to answer any of the? After we close.

After the rebuttal? Okay. All right. So we have three minutes for the appellant to provide any rebuttal.

Thank you, Mayor and members of the Council. There's two points I want to address on rebuttal. The first is the applicability of the Housing Accountability Act. The Commission has suggested in their summary report that while the Council has discretion to determine the appropriate balance and priorities of the applicable city design guidelines for a project. The guidelines do not contain objective standards and cannot be imposed in a manner that effectively denies or reducing density of housing development project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. But there is recent case law, most recent case in 2022, Resnitzky versus County of Marin, in which the courts held that the HAA does not apply to single family dwellings. So it does not apply here to this single family unit dwelling. The second thing that I want to address on rebuttal is that we've heard tonight that the retaining wall structure will be seven and a half feet in height at the back of the Bayview, at the properties on parcel seven at 125 Bayview Road. Again, I'd like to reiterate that this is a structure within the definition of the municipal code because it is constructed. It's not just following the natural grade of the land. It's actually seven and a half feet in addition to that. And so it is something constructed or erected, the use of which will require the location of ground or the attachment to something having on location of the ground. Seven and a half feet is higher than the six foot maximum for the applicable code regulating fences and walls of other sorts. We've also heard about multiple inconsistencies that warranted recommendation of additional conditions of approval tonight and additional reconsideration. And there is an appropriate procedure for this, which is a variance. The municipal code section 943401 states that where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the general purpose of this chapter may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, as here, a variance may be granted as provided in this article. And so we recommend that the council approve the appeal, grant the appeal, and deny the site development permit, and find that it requires a variance to be in compliance with the applicable zoning code. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so we now have three minutes for the rebuttal from the applicant.

Thank you very much. Brownlee Mattione again. Several points. One, this project is being built as a home for the owners. This is not a development that's going to be flipped. Second of all, as we've said before, this is not a case for a variance. The project meets the zoning code. There is no reason to discuss a variance. It's not an issue here. Also, when it comes to The Housing Accountability Act, with all due respect, I believe the applicant is an heir, as set forth in the staff report. This project includes two or more residential dwellings, a single family, and an ADU, and is a housing development project for the purpose of Housing Accountability Act. Also, one other point. The property has a right to access Bayview Road. It has an absolute right an easement into that road. And then I'm going to turn it over to the project engineer.

Very quickly, there is no seven and a half foot retaining wall on the south side of Bayview. The seven and a half foot that I refer to is on the northern end. which does not impact the adjacent property. The story poles were not installed because temporarily we will have to remove vegetation without erosion control. That would be a recipe for disaster. They mentioned unstable hillside. We have our geotechnical experts in here. Please answer any question to them and put that item to rest. There is no landslide and unstable condition on site. Now, most importantly, I've been deemed the owner, developer, engineer, priest of the community, and so forth and so on. I design and I build the Harmony, and I am not the owner of that project. I did the same with the Fairfield Inn Hotel, and I'm not the owner. I did the same with Nick's, and I am not the owner. So do not tell this family that wants to build a home that they're trying to do other properties and other lots just to flip them and doing around. The project complies. Please look at the facts. And most importantly, are there errors on the plans? Yeah, there are certain things in here. But drawings for entitlements are not construction drawings. Drawings for entitlements are allowed to have conceptual drawings that can be modified and make them perfect for construction once the formal design is done. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Bowles. Staff just has a few points to clarify. The Housing Accountability Act does indeed apply to this project. It applies when there are two or more dwelling units. The project includes a single family and an ADU, so it is subject to the Housing Accountability Act. Also, just want to reiterate that this project meets all of the development standards in the zoning ordinance. A variance is not required. It meets all of the requirements of our zoning ordinance. I know that the appellant had mentioned definitions in the building code. The building code does not define or establish setbacks for zoning purposes. So there are no variances. In terms of CEQA, the added conditions of approval do not mitigate specific environmental impacts, but represent standard conditions. And new construction, any new construction in the R1H district requires a site development permit, which is a discretionary permit granted by the Planning Commission. There is no such thing as an over-the-counter approval of a single family home within the R1H unless they are invoking other state laws that allow ministerial approval. of between four to 10 units. So it just, there is no There's no over-the-counter approval for that. And also just wanted to reiterate what Deputy Fire Chief Whitner said. The building code requirements for local responsibility areas for the high fire hazard severity zone do apply to this project. Planning entitlements can't vest a project to building codes. And so the project will be subject to the building codes in effect when that application is made. Those requirements for the local responsibility areas are already in effect When you adopted the the new code the 2025 building code And lastly just that the Planning Commission did not require story polls. They're not a requirement in our code or our submittal requirements And we cannot require them as part of the review And that is everything I had, thank you. And I want to pass it to, sorry, Deputy Director Yip for some additional clarification.

I just have one, council members, if I may. So there was a resident who mentioned about hearing storm water constantly flowing even after the storms are over. So because of how the city's full of hillsides and there's groundwater all over, there's certain areas which during the summer constantly have flows. You can see it even in the gutters of certain areas like the Sharp Park Road and some areas near Malagra that there's just constant water in the gutters. And that may be what he's referring to. I just want to, point back to the magnitude amount of water that we're collecting with these storm drains. It's 3.4 inches per hour, which would be how much water your shower head is pouring down. And it's across this huge area. So these pipes are full of water. They're like six to eight inch plus storm drains that are just completely full of water. We're not talking about like a trickle coming into these pipes. It's completely full. If you've ever driven around Some of the storm drains will be full, and the gutters are flowing and gushing water down our hillsides. That's the kind of storm that we're talking about, not like a trickle. I just want to clarify about that.

Thank you.

Thank you both. Mayor Bowles, I just wanted to do a time check. It's 9.51 right now, and at 10 o'clock, council will need to consider if the council will complete the items on the agenda tonight or we'll need to adjust the agenda and or consider a potential extension of the meeting beyond 11 p.m. Okay.

With the chair's permission, I'd like to offer a motion that we extend to 11 o'clock.

That's fine. I just wanted to ask a question of City Manager Woodhouse first. There's another item on the agenda after this. Were you able to confirm if that had to be heard tonight or could be pushed to a later date?

Yeah, the other item after this relates to our wastewater master plan contract approval to get that work going. It's obviously important work to get going as soon as possible. And staff and a consultant, I believe, are here tonight for that item. There's not any, you know, RIGID DEADLINE OR REGULATORY DEADLINE RELATED TO THAT. HOWEVER, I WILL POINT OUT THAT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA IS VERY HIGHLY IMPACTED. AND SO IF YOU WERE TO PUSH THAT ITEM OFF, WE'D NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT. POTENTIALLY IT COULD BE ADDED AS A CONSENT ITEM OR A SHORTER ONE, BUT THERE'S TWO SIGNIFICANT HEARINGS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING AS WELL.

So it's sounding to me like we're not necessarily going to finish before 11 between this and the next item. And we need to decide that by 10? Sorry, I'm already tired because we started at 4.

Bringing that up for a potential discussion of completing the agenda, but a motion will need to be made before 11 p.m. to extend the meeting beyond 11 p.m.

Okay. And do we need a motion now to extend it to 11? No. No. Okay. All right. So we'll talk again.

There is a motion on the floor. Do I need a second? I was about to, and then the mayor spoke. Well, I actually just said we didn't need it.

We don't need it, Greg.

Then we don't need it.

But I would have seconded it. There was one other question from the public about construction staging. Okay.