Pleasanton council to debate face mask enforcement

After several prior attempts to agendize the matter earlier in the pandemic, the Pleasanton City Council is set Tuesday to consider ways to encourage and enforce the wearing of face masks in public amid the coronavirus.

Vice Mayor Julie Testa and then-mayor Jerry Thorne voted last year to make the matter official council business but were unsuccessful in securing a third vote from their colleagues needed to agendize it. At their Feb. 2 meeting, a majority of the new council asked to hold a discussion “about additional steps to increase community compliance in using face coverings,” according to a staff report.

Nearly one year since sheltering in place began because of COVID-19 spread in the Bay Area, city staff said, “It is understandable that members of the community are experiencing ‘mask fatigue’ and so are not as committed to following the requirement as at the beginning of the pandemic.”

Some ideas being floated to encourage wearing face masks in public include “additional messaging to the community, additional signage at city-owned property, a face covering requirement for all city-owned property, and a citation under the Pleasanton municipal code.”

“The city has made substantial efforts to inform and educate the Pleasanton community about the benefits of — and requirements to — wear a face covering when out in public places,” staff said, including regular reminders on social media posts and in the city’s weekly e-newsletter, signage at all city playgrounds and recreation areas, and requiring all city employees and visitors to city offices and facilities to wear a mask, “except when alone in a closed office.”

When it comes to mask enforcement, Alameda County’s order “makes any violation of the order a misdemeanor punishable by fine, imprisonment or both to be pursued by the district attorney.”

Some cities in Alameda County, including Dublin and Livermore, “have taken additional local action by adopting an administrative fine structure for such citations in their community,” staff said.

However, “like Pleasanton and Alameda County, they are taking an education-centric approach and have focused their specific enforcement efforts on business establishments as the result of escalating response to non-compliance by the business,” staff added.

To date, Dublin has issued less than 10 citations while Livermore has not issued any.

COVID-19 cases in Alameda County have been slowing recently, with the case rate at 18.1 per 100,000, as of Friday.

Staff will also give updates on the city’s other actions taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including their rental assistance and small business relief support programs, and testing services at the Alameda County Fairgrounds.

The council’s regular online meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. on Tuesday (Feb. 16).

In other business

* The council will also revisit a recent motion to prohibit second-story accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on Tuesday, including those built atop detached garages, after they voted 4-1 last month — with Councilman Jack Balch the sole dissenter — to adopt the exclusion as a means of retaining some local control over increased density.

Since Jan. 1, California cities are now required to approve new detached ADUs with only a building permit — as is done for converted ADUs — and may not apply any standards except a maximum 800 square feet, 16-foot height limit and 4-foot setbacks.

In a report, staff “clarifies circumstances under which an ADU must be permitted on the second floor, as required by state law and guidance established by the Housing and Community Development (HCD).”

Lacking the ability to apply discretionary review, the council opted to support prohibiting two-story ADUs citywide — both detached and as additions to the existing primary structure — at their Jan. 19 meeting.

However, state laws requires the city to still allow ADUs “up to 16 feet in height, which could potentially accommodate two stories,” staff said, and those “created from conversion of existing space, irrespective of whether it would be over 16 feet in height,” such as an existing second story bedroom or office above a garage, or an existing two-story structure like a barn.

Staff noted the former instances “are likely to be limited due to minimum floor-to-ceiling height requirements for habitable space, an example is a laundry room or storage room below an ADU.”

“Because either situation could be interpreted as a “two-story” or “second story” ADU, and to avoid conflicts with state law,” staff said the ordinance does not specify a single-story limit for ADUs but instead requires that the units “shall not exceed 16 feet in height, except when the (ADU) is the result of the conversion of existing space.”

In addition to those changes, staff also recommended deleting text “that allowed an exception to the maximum 15-foot height for accessory structures in order to accommodate ADUs above garages.”

“Lastly, since two-story ADUs could still occur, the objective standards for two-story ADUs remain in the ordinance,” staff added.

* Another hearing related to local density and development will also take place that evening. At their Feb. 2 meeting, the council adopted a resolution on the consent agenda that expresses the city’s “support for actions to further strengthen local democracy, authority, and control as related to local zoning and housing issues,” and for the California Cities For Local Control Coalition’s (CCLC) state-level advocacy efforts.

The resolution came after the council backed several legislative frameworks in August, and also opposed multiple statewide housing bills that staff argued would eliminate local review and discretion, and hurt local tax revenue.

Around the same time, CCLC had formed in Southern California and started “seeking out allies for possible legal action against the state and/or to promote efforts for a ballot initiative to legislate the desired results.”

The council’s support for the resolution drew recent criticism from former Pleasanton City Council member Becky Dennis, who warned in a Feb. 1 letter that associating with CCLC’s efforts “may uniquely damage Pleasanton’s ability to get through the next Housing Element update while maximally preserving our local planning options.”

Dennis also said adopting CCLC’s platform “undercuts our own staff efforts” by positioning Pleasanton “as an outlier, hostile to addressing the statewide housing prices, and actively seeking to avoid providing housing for our city’s growing workforce.”

* Council members will consider affirming Mayor Karla Brown’s recommendations for new Planning Commission appointments.

* They will also discuss the city’s comprehensive annual financial report and other related audits for the 2019-20 fiscal year.