CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/99091160676
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 990 9116 0676
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Cable Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 February 14, 2022
February 14, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on February 14, 2022 at 7:00 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Tina Wehrmeister, Asst. City Manager/Planning Director; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Dep. Planning Director; Dan Steidle, Police Chief; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief:
Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer; Irene Camarena, HR Manager; Beth Phipps, Food/Sr. Services Supervisor; Tommy Yu, IT Manager; Josh Montemayor, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.
City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having Council meetings pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361) which authorizes teleconferenced meetings under the Brown Act during certain proclaimed states of emergency.
She also explained that the public can observe and participate in the meeting via the Zoom link provided in the Agenda or by phone to the dial-in number and Webinar ID provided in the Agenda. This meeting can also be viewed live via local TV Channel 26 or online at www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream. City Clerk Coffey also gave information on how to present public comments via email or live if participating by Zoom or phone.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 14, 2022
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier explained that the Redistricting Item #11 must be presented at 7:30 so they will be having that item before Oral Communications to make sure they have enough time for public comments.
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember O'Neill
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation – Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame Week and 2022 Inductees Mayor Bier read a proclamation honoring Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame Week and the 2022 inductees, reading each of the inductees' accomplishments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmembers wanted to pull any items from the consent calendar, and seeing no one, she opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speaker.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that he was asking them to pull Item #4, and he urged Council to do a physical inventory of all contents of the Anza pump station as he believes that items paid with Federal and state emergency funds and allocated by Council were never installed and asked that they preserve all documents related to physical expenditures and allocations at the Anza pump station.
City Attorney Kenyon thought they should make it clear to the commenter that this is the opportunity to discuss anything that is related to the consent calendar.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember O'Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for 12/16/21 through 12/31/21.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 12/16/21 through 12/31/21.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the regular City Council Meeting City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 14, 2022
held on January 24, 2022.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
5. Continuation of Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).
6. Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council and the City’s Committees and Commissions to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council and the City’s Committees and Commissions to continue to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID19.
7. 2021 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report PROPOSED ACTION: Receive 2021 mandated fire and life safety inspections compliance report and move to adoptresolution acknowledging receipt of the North County Fire Authority’s mandated fire and life safety inspections performed within the City of Pacifica pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
8. Reclassify Child Care Technician to Recreation Specialist in the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and update the related job description.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to reclassify Child Care Technician position to Recreation Specialist within the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and adopt a Resolution approving updated Recreation Specialist job description.
9. Approval of Purchase Agreement with Polydyne Inc., via sole source, for the supply of Clarifloc WE-2123, the cationic polymer used at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant for wastewater treatment.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Approve the Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Polydyne Inc., via Sole Source, for the supply of Clarifloc WE-2123, Cationic Polymer used at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant for Wastewater Treatment in the Amount Not to Exceed $85,000 from February 2022 to June 2022; and Authorize the City Manager Execute all Necessary Documents.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 14, 2022
10. Authorize Agreement with Creative Digital Agency for Marketing Services PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Creative Digital Agency for Economic Development Marketing Services City Attorney Kenyon stated that it was 7:15, and the public hearing on the redistricting is not supposed to start until 7:30 so Council can move to oral communcations at this point and they will conclude oral communications and move directly into the public hearing on redistricting.
Mayor Bier stated that the last time they didn’t give the community enough time, and she asked if there was anything else they can do.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they could do Council communications at this point.
City Attorney Kenyon explained that they can hear all of oral communications, stating that whatever item they have begun they can conclude. If they begin oral communications and conclude them, they can do that, or if they want to begin and conclude Council communications, they can do that. She stated that they cannot start the public hearing until 7:30, but it is okay to start the public hearing later than 7:30, just not before 7:30.
Mayor Bier was fine with that as long as they can conclude.
City Attorney Kenyon confirmed that they can conclude all oral communications.
Mayor Bier stated that they will open oral communications but added that, because of the huge agenda, she is going to keep comments at two minutes and confirmed Council was okay with that.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that, in the last 30-day rolling Covid count in Pacifica, 1,380 Pacificans have contracted Covid and mentioned additional Covid case statistics in Pacifica. He then referred to the October 2018 Planning Commission meeting discussion on marijuana regarding consumables in forms that appeal to children, mentioning that much of the decisions passed by Planning Commission were subsequently overruled by Council and asked that they include all the Planning Commission October 2018 recommendations for marijuana with this meeting’s tobacco recommendations.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that they were looking toward a spring of transitions where the economic recovery in the pandemic has not been equitable, and now the state eviction moratorium ending March 31. She mentioned her concerns and put forth suggestions to help Pacifica’s community members in need.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, referred to the need for a well-written General Plan, mentioning some specific important issues to be addressed to complete the update and her concerns regarding need for input from the city on the various issues.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 14, 2022
Cherie Chan, Pacifica, referred to the mayor pushing for a 15-day extension on citizen input on the General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan.
Mayor Bier stated that it is going to be on the agenda and speakers cannot comment on that now.
Paul Chervatin, Pacifica, referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s question on need for Reach codes and he clarified what Reach codes are and made a statement on their purpose and government decisions, as well as expressing his thoughts on the subject.
Brooke Leonardi, Pacifica, urged Council to extend the comment period for the General Plan.
Mayor Bier stated that it was an agenda item, and she can comment on that at that time. She then closed oral communications. As they can’t start the public hearing until 7:30, she called a short break, then reconvened the meeting to begin Agenda Item #11.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. Redistricting - Public Hearing #2 to Receive Input Regarding Proposed Draft District Map, Composition of Council District Boundaries, and Communities of Interest.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive report, conduct the second public hearing in the redistricting process, and:
(A) Consider and discuss the draft Council District Map published as Map 505b and other draft map submitted by member of the public;
(B) Receive public input on composition of Council District boundaries, communities of interest, and draft maps;
(C) Provide direction on any revisions to draft maps; and (D) Confirm the date of the third public hearing in the redistricting process.
City Clerk Coffey began the staff report then turned the presentation over to Robert McEntire, consultant with National Demographics Corporation (NDC).
Robert McEntire, consultant - NDC, completed the presentation.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted clarification that he was saying that District 3's population was understated on the order of 900.
Mr. McEntire responded affirmatively, clarifying that, when adding up the population units on the map, the person who submitted the map left out one of the sections on the corner of District 3 with a population of 905 and the total population numbers they accounted for didn’t account for everything. He tracked it down to District 3 which would be the largest district at 8,183 population and would be the highest over-populated district. He stated that the total map has a total population deviation of only 2%, which was very slight marginally more than the existing map and both well within the 10% limit. He stated that he wouldn’t use population deviation as a criteria to choose one over the other now, but consider how one meets or does not meet governance consideration that they might have locally.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought her understanding was that the corrected population amount for District 3 should have been 8,183.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 14, 2022
Mr. McEntire responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he could state the population amounts for each of the districts.
Mr. McEntire responded that he could, and as drawn by the public submitter, District 1 of 7,996, District 2 of 7,456, District 3 of 8,183, District 4 of 7,411 and District 5 of 7,628.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked, if people wanted to draw additional maps, if this is the final time that they could have drawn additional maps or can other maps be submitted before their next meeting.
Mr. McIntire stated that it wouldn’t give them much time to process additional maps. If they were going to get them, they would need them in the next 3-4 days to get them processed and published, as they need to be published at least seven days for Council to be able to adopt an ordinance with a map that they choose, if not one of the two already published.
Councilmember Vaterlaus concluded that they are going to draw lines, as she thought it was difficult for her to see the map without street names on it. She thought they would be doing one similar to their existing colorful map.
Mr. McEntire agreed, stating that he will be putting this in the GIS software and will look exactly like the map they have now, but moving the lines to match what the author did. He added that they will have all the demographic data as well.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if they were to choose a different map or move boundaries, if that would affect this November’s Council elections or the next election in two years.
Mr. McEntire stated that the very next election in place would use the new map.
Councilmember O’Neill asked confirmation that he means this November.
Mr. McEntire responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted to clarify that as they moved congressional and state assembly seats and he wanted to be sure they followed the same pattern.
Mayor Bier asked whether there was still time for someone to submit a map and she asked that they be very clear about that.
Mr. McEntire stated that it would make sense to set a deadline of February 18 at 5 pm to City Clerk to give them time to process it for the third public hearing as the goal is that Council will deliberate after the next public hearing, whittle it down to one and introduce the ordinance.
Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, thought there were some serious flaws in the citizen’s submitted map and they shouldn’t waste any time processing it any further. He stated it was difficult to read the City Council Regular Meeting 7 February 14, 2022
map because it doesn’t have street names as already discussed, but it looks like it puts the neighborhood of West Rock away in District 5, and separates it from East Rockway, which is a community of interest. He stated that it also separates West Rockaway by putting it in District 5 from the Quarry and Mori Point, which are in District 4. He stated that District 4 is Vallemar, East Rockaway, and the back of the valley which is not a community of interest. He expressed concern that it separates Vallemar and West Rockaway from Sharp Park, which is much more the community of interest - Rockaway, Vallemar and Sharp Park. He concluded that it looks like it is breaking up some natural communities of interest in Pacifica and he doesn’t like this map.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, supported the concerns and comments expressed by Mr. Loeb, adding that this additional drawing does not add that much benefit for us and maybe we lose something where our existing boundaries are. He asked Council to favor the existing map.
Margaret Goodale, Pacifica, stated she was concerned because the hand drawn map has separated all the coastal communities. She stated that the majority of voters in each area up in the hills, far away from the coast, have often very little interest in coastal issues. She expressed that it is much more effective to allow someone to represent coastal issues for all the coastal communities as a group rather than splitting them up into smaller sections that will be subsumed into the further east residences.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Councilmember O’Neill thought they weren’t taking a vote at this meeting as it was a public hearing and asked if they were just giving direction.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they were just provided direction for the next steps toward selecting a map and introducing an ordinance. They were taking in the draft map submitted and the existing map under consideration and providing Council direction toward making selection of a map.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that City Clerk Coffey was correct. She reiterated that Council is going to give direction to the demographer, Mr. McEntire, to bring back the map Council wants to consider and possibly adopt. She stated she and the city clerk just gave general directions, and asked Mr. McEntire if he wants to elaborate more on what he needs, such as what maps he wants to consider for the next hearing when they will hopefully be selecting the map Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Mr. McEntire if he wanted to elaborate on what the City Attorney and City Clerk said before he comments.
Mr. McEntire stated that at this time, Council has two maps for discussion and to potentially move forward with, but he wouldn’t advise that they disqualify any maps, but if there was a consensus around drawing a new map or a variation of one of those two maps that Council might find more perfect from a policy perspective, now would be the time for that kind of guidance.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked the maker of map 506 and Council are used to hearing public feedback, and he hoped that anyone engaging in the process would not be discouraged by hearing the discussion as it goes on. He favored honoring the maker of the map by seeing what the demographics look like that are a result from that map. He stated that he is probably likely to agree with some of the community’s points and bring a couple of others to the table that would bear on map 505b being the one he is likely to favor, but as he doesn’t have that City Council Regular Meeting 8 February 14, 2022
demographic in front of him and he can’t see where the streets are, so he is not 100% sure that the comments were accurate and has difficulty reading the map. He would like to take a full look at what that map is before dismissing it.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she would also like to see that map as she cannot really read it without the street names. With the street names on the map, she can see it in a more clear fashion and as such, she didn’t think they should discount it. She agrees with Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck that this person went to a lot of effort to make the map. She stated that they had a lot of reasons for why they did the initial map. She concluded that it should be considered.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked Mr. McEntire for indulging her questions. She asked how does census tract bear on map drawings for purposes of districting. She can see it clearly in the hand drawn map that doesn’t show streets. She saw where the census tracts were and she thought that was what it was or asked if they were voting districts.
Mr. McEntire stated that, in creating user friendly maps for non-professional demographers, they cluster voting blocks and census tracts together into larger units. He stated that, when National Demographics worked with them to modify and come to a conclusion of map 505b, they were looking at the census block level and there may have been a couple of census blocks they broke. They try to avoid breaking census blocks where possible, but occasionally, if it becomes a necessity for various reasons, but it is a very infrequent thing. He stated that what they are seeing is that they traded the clusters for an ease of map drawing, and while not a perfect method, it is the one they find is the best when dealing with people who don’t do the work professionally. They aren’t dumbing it down, but just that the task can be so monumentally overwhelming for people new to the task. He stated that, once they get experience on the GIS software, they tend to draw dozens of maps because it becomes so much easier once you know what you are doing.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if she understood, they cluster together voting precincts and census blocks into larger areas or clusters which is what they saw with the dotted lines.
She stated that those are created by his firm.
Mr. McEntire responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that there is a code that they can be looked up that all demographers use.
Mr. McEntire agreed, adding that when he processes map 506, Council will be able to see all of them at the census block level and at the street address level they will be able to zoom in and out on the interactive viewer for both maps. He thought the ability to have a truly fair analysis will exist, not only for Council, but for the public, at the next meeting as they didn’t have enough time between receiving the submitted map and this meeting to provide that detail.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they will have the same for 505b.
Mr. McEntire responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed that as citizens have asked to see this, he thought they should flush it out. He stated that there were a couple of changes he would like, referring to the right hand corner where it says 905, as somebody in Park Pacifica is in the same grouping as the District 3 which he thought was by Fairway, Rockaway or West Manor. He didn’t like the little City Council Regular Meeting 9 February 14, 2022
tags, 905 and the one at the top, which he thought was 1316, as they were like islands of a neighborhood in another district. He asked if he followed what he meant.
Mr. McEntire stated, for clarity, he was suggesting they draw a third map moving the 905 currently in the bottom of District 3 into District 4 and the 1316 in the west part of District 3 moved into District 2.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed.
Mr. McEntire stated that they would be moving 2,200 people out of that district and that might create an imbalanced map. He asked, if he could only do one of them and keep a legally compliant map, which he would select, just in case he finds himself there.
Councilmember O’Neill understood it was the population he was looking at. He stated that he was concerned about one guy in a block and across the street is a different district than the other one. He thought the 1 and 2 issues in that neighborhood would probably be fairly similar but the issues in 905 would be different than the rest of No. 3, so he thought keep 1316, if he could only do one.
Mr. McEntire thought that was clear to him. He then pointed out the proposed change on the map. He then stated that they were talking about moving the section labeled 905 from District 3 into District 4 and that would maintain the population balance of the two districts or at least very close. He will check on that as it would bring District 4 up to 8,800 and that will be real close to hitting the top end of what they can do, so he will check if that meets the population balancing requirements. He stated that was the exact voter area that was left out of the population count in the map, and why they restated the population for District 3 at 8,183 when they added this in.
He then asked if there was a consensus of Council to have a third map moving this one area.
Mayor Bier asked Councilmember Beckmeyer if she had something to say before they answered that question.
Councilmember Beckmeyer didn’t think so. She was just trying to put it all together.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the idea of West Rockaway and those changes, she thought it was difficult to see it, and if they make a third map, she asked if they can change that.
She stated that, once they see this in a different format, there may be things that would be good to change.
City Attorney Kenyon thought they need Mr. McEntire to respond to that question, asking him to keep in mind timing and talk about the reality. She stated that one question was that he did not have time to process this map appropriately and the reason they have so many questions. She suggested that they let him respond to that question in terms of timing, but she wants to help Council understand that they are not making a decision on the map tonight, but just deciding what direction they want to give the demographer in terms of what she anticipates will be the final maps they consider at the next hearing. She stated that, in order to bring back more than just these two maps submitted at this time, they need a consensus from the majority of Council that they would like the demographer to tweak the public map slightly to create a third map that will reflect the comments that Councilmember O’Neill made. She asked them to keep in mind that is the direction they need to know, presently two maps they will be bringing back and have direction from one councilmember regarding additional input for a new map and she asked if there is any other input from other councilmembers that would agree with Councilmember City Council Regular Meeting 10 February 14, 2022
O’Neill or have different directions for maybe a 4th map. That is the kind of direction they are looking for, and she asked Mr. McEntire to address the timing.
Mr. McEntire stated that they need to complete the process before the middle of April and anything they do that pushes out the Council’s ability to introduce and adopt an ordinance pushes them up against that deadline and why staff was very cautious and careful in trying to get as far in front of this as possible from a date perspective. He stated that they definitely don’t want to throw the gates open more than they need to in order to effectuate this process. He wished they had more time to follow a more exploratory path as he thought it felt more satisfying when all voices are thoroughly vetted but, if it is curiosity, he suggested that they don’t pursue additional maps, but if there is a policy discussion driving a variance on one of the two maps then that tends to be worthwhile because it is driven by policy conversations. When it comes to community interest, they do the best they can to keep them together but population balancing was always going to cause them to break up several throughout the city regarding how much and where.
Mayor Bier needs the map fleshed out. She didn’t like to see any of the neighborhoods split and it bothers her, but she doesn’t know if she can see that for sure and as such, would like to see that map come back. She stated that the 905 does seem out of place and she agreed with Councilmember O’Neill.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was happy to agree with the Mayor Bier and Councilmember O’Neill to see that third map, and he asked Mr. McEntire if that third map push them past February 28 and how much work does it take on his end to do another map. He thought his point is well taken that a curiosity itself doesn’t warrant a map but when doing one, what does it look like on his end.
Mr. McEntire stated that processing the existing map and making the other one with that minor change is not overly laborious from a GIS perspective. He stated that his comment was more that, if the requested change wasn’t back by some policy criteria that they would use to substantiate that map choice, given the amount of time, he wanted to be sure they are anchoring the pursuit of any changes around policy that would be used in justification for supporting the selection of a map.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he heard a community of interest idea put forth by Councilmember O’Neill and he agrees to a third map as well.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had something else to say. She tried very hard to be respectful of former councils that did work because she wasn’t sitting in the chair and didn’t have the issues before her. She recalls hearing, as part of the audience, a policy discussion about including a portion of the coast in each of the districts, and she deferred to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck as he has been at every Council meeting for at least six or more years and also deferred to the councilmembers who were on the Council at the time that this was done and stated that, if staff can recall and enlighten them about that, as they heard public comments that said the opposite of that. She referred to Councilmember O’Neill’s comments with a nervous stomach as she thought it opens pandora’s box, and she has to agree that she has a really hard time with the line being down the middle of the street. She stated that they saw that in the last election as people became aware of where the lines were, she stated that, to the degree that they can tweak that without throwing it off the entire process, this affords them the chance to do that. She asked that they speak to the issues of how the first lines were drawn and the need when they first do this. She stated that, when you first go from a general election situation to City Council Regular Meeting 11 February 14, 2022
districts, one factor that has to be taken into account, if she recalls correctly, is where are the current councilmembers living and that is not on the slide they saw earlier as they are not in that situation now, but they were in that situation when this began. She raises the question of whether there have been decisions made that were somewhat forced by the fact of where a certain councilmember lives and they may not have that constraint. She thought there may be an opportunity to fix a few of those and take care of that in this process.
Mr. McEntire stated that the consideration of incumbents is the traditional criteria and not federal or state law, but like the comment he made where they try to respect the will of the voters in the last election. He stated that, if the voters put you in office, they should decide if you stay or go rather than the demographer’s pen. He stated that, sometimes that is impossible to do, depending on where the incumbents live when they are drawing maps. He states, if a councilmember buys a house in a different part of town and we have no choice because of population balancing to move some lines and that pushed two of them into the same council district. He stated that, occasionally, that is unavoidable and that usually is far more prevalent when they make the first move from at large elections to district elections, as once they go by district elections, they are electing people in a council district and geographically they have already been identified and then they only find people out of their district when they live right on the edge and they have to realign for population balancing after the census. He stated that those are the times when they find councilmembers getting put together. He stated that there is no prohibition against it, but just for National Demographics maps, he does his best to avoid it.
He stated that the voters chose to put you in office and they should choose whether you stay or go. He stated that, to the extent that he can draw them a legally compliant map and keep the councilmembers separated, he does that but occasionally it is not possible. He stated that there are also people who want to use the process for other political reasons, such as to intentionally put as many councilmembers in one district as they can. He stated that they have worked in jurisdictions where that was the case. He referred to her question about the line down the middle of the street, and stated that it used to be that the line for breaking up census blocks went down the back of property lines, but that changes several decades ago, and moved the census blocks to the middle of the street and there is no way to avoid throughout the city where they draw the lines between council districts to force the lines to the back of the property.
He understands that it is unsatisfying that it is no longer that way, typically on a major thoroughfare, usually not in the middle of cul-de-sac. He acknowledged that it is very unsatisfying.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he and Councilmember Vaterlaus were the two on Council when this was first started. He stated that they had unusual circumstances because he was going to be termed out. The election following the decision of districts was not going to be a district election but still a general election, and Councilmember Digre was termed out because of term limits and he is going to be termed out this year. He stated that Councilmember Martin would have been the only one in District 4 because he was going to be termed out. He stated that he was correct that it was brought up about having every district have a piece of the ocean or beach on there, but given the propensity of the population in Park Pacifica and Linda Mar, that couldn’t be accommodated but they still have a stake in beach management and water and sea rise management because that is the only way to get to their house and where they came up with District 4 being landlocked. He thought it was a good goal for everybody to have a piece of the beach, but practicality, given the population demographics, he didn’t know. He stated that the 905 thing he brought up was like an appendage off District 3 that is an intrusion in District 4 and he thought it would be best to avoid that. He stated that, if you look at Districts 1 and 2 appendage, they will probably have the same issues but District 5 would have different issues than Vallemar and Rockaway.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 February 14, 2022
Mayor Bier asked if they had a consensus and if Mr. McEntire has the direction he needed.
Mr. McIntire stated that he did.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the issue of streets and divided one side of the street from another is going to continue to happen as those are census track divisions, and they will still have that same issue that they had in the other map.
Mayor Bier thanked Mr. McEntire and stated that they will see him again next time.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
12. Resolution to Update the Park Development Impact Fee and Ordinance Establishing Updated Impact Fees and Quimby Act Dedication Requirements and In Lieu Fees PROPOSED ACTION: Move to:
1. Adopt resolution to update the Park Development Impact Fee within the City of Pacifica; and
2. Move to Introduce by title only and waive first reading of an “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California repealing Chapter 19 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Chapter 19 (Park Facilities Impact Fee); repealing Section 10-
1.803 (Park Land Dedication) of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) to establish updated Impact Fees and Quimby Act dedication requirements and in lieu fees imposed on New Development in the City of Pacifica”; and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
PW Dep. Director Bautista introduced the staff report then turned the presentation to Carlos Villarreal, consultant from Willdan Financial Services.
Carlos Villarreal, consultant, continued the presentation.
PW Dep. Director Bautista completed the presentation.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to a slide regarding mostly single family, and asked, if someone wanted to build a ten-unit apartment building, whether they would be paying for ten bedrooms and whether the fee was subject to multi-unit housing.
PW Dep. Director Bautista responded that he was correct.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if he understood the slide and calculations correctly, whether the school district property in the back would be over $1 million in fees as the last number he heard was 70 units and there was probably a mix of 1 and 2-bedroom units. He stated that, if everyone has a bedroom, that would be almost $1.5 million in fees, and he asked if he understood that correctly.
City Attorney Kenyon asked City Clerk Coffey if there was a way to put the slide that Councilmember O’Neill is referring to back up.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 February 14, 2022
Mr. Villarreal stated that, if there were 70 1-bedroom units at $24,066 per unit, the total fee revenue would be roughly $16.8 million.
Councilmember O’Neill questioned $16 million.
Mr. Villarreal corrected the figures, which are $1,684,000.
Councilmember O’Neill didn’t think it was that bad. He was concerned about that project as the school district has been working on this for quite a few years, and they mentioned something about dedication of land. He understood that in the latest plans, the fields at Oddstad soccer would still be there. He thought there needs to be some sort of consideration that they are leaving soccer fields which are parkland recreation for the kids as an offset to a fee. He asked if this was bordering on deliberation.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that Council should adopt an appropriate fee to mitigate for park impacts from development, whatever fee they feel is appropriate, and referring to Councilmember O’Neill’s point, on a case by case basis, which was not something they would decide now, there would be some consideration if there is some land dedication or public use allowed. She thought this would be determined during the project review.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted to be clear and stated that the way the school district was financing and building this, it will be a major fee for them, and he didn’t want Pacifica to be those who are killing 70 affordable units.
Mayor Bier suggested he stop.
City Attorney Kenyon thanked the mayor, and stated that Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister said what she was going to say and she would elaborate on that. She stated that it was important to remember that this item they are undertaking now is for the entire city and as she made clear, this is not the appropriate time to talk about specific projects or specific fees for particular areas. Based on the study done by the consultants, this is about determining what is the impact fees for the universal development that they are anticipating will occur in Pacifica.
She stated that the discussion about particular projects is not necessarily appropriate here if they are talking about trying to amend a facilities fee for a particular project. If they want to talk about amending the fees in general for every project, that is the appropriate discussion now, but not that a fee is okay for one project and not okay for another project. She stated that this study was done for a general understanding of what the city should be charging to its community for development that is anticipated.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that a discussion on whether they want to have lower or mitigation fees.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified that they are talking about waivers and this is not the appropriate time to talk about that.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if in general for affordable housing projects.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, in general, that is a question for the consultants in terms of when that is an appropriate discussion to have. She stated that she would defer to the consultant on that question.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 February 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill then asked Mr. Villarreal for a response.
Mr. Villarreal stated that different jurisdictions deal with affordable housing in different ways. He stated that it was a policy discussion that is outside of the technical analysis and he has some clients who have decided fees completely for affordable housing projects, given the housing affordability crisis and, as a policy decision, the city wants to encourage that type of development and they would waive those fees and that was an option that Council has at their disposal.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked how this applies to existing applications that are already in the city as well as accessory dwelling units.
Mr. Villarreal stated he would start and staff can chime in. He stated that, with regard to existing applications, the fees would go into effect 60 days after they would be adopted and he deferred to the City Attorney in the interpretation of where in the pipeline an application needs to be to implement the new fees. He stated, regarding accessory dwelling units, he didn’t recall that the city has a policy already, adding that state law does dictate how fees for ADUs are calculated in general. Impact fees for accessory dwelling units are prohibited for dwelling units less than 750 square feet by the state and dwelling units above 750 square feet, the state requires that they be charged proportional to the size of the unit and they would calculate the fees for a single family dwelling unit and then the fees for the accessory dwelling unit will be based on the relative amount of square feet. He stated that, if the single family dwelling unit was twice the size of the ADU, the ADU fee would be half of what the impact fee would be for a single family dwelling unit of that size.
City Attorney Kenyon didn’t know if the Planning Director wanted to respond to that last question about vested rights or she can answer it.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that the City Attorney may need to correct her, but she thought it would depend on the project. If there is a vesting tentative map that would freeze all new fees that would be approved and some of the housing laws, such as SB330 application, that may have an impact, but those are very new to her and she may not have that exactly down right. She said that, for our ADU regulations, it is consistent with state law that over 750 square feet, if Council decides that a proportional fee is appropriate, it can be charged.
City Attorney Kenyon concurred and added that, in terms of an application being submitted, that is not enough to warrant essentially being tied to full fee. She stated that they have to accrue a vested right in some fashion with different ways to get vested rights, but the most common is for them to file a vested tentative map application and another way is to have spent a significant amount of money in processing their application. She stated that, if they are talking about adopting it within 60 days of Council’s action, the implication of applying the fees to projects is not a big concern because there are not a lot of projects that will be coming in the pipeline that quickly that will not be subject to the new fee. It is just those existing projects that have vested rights, and she and the city manager didn’t know exactly what those projects are but that is how it would work.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that her questions are along the same lines as Councilmember O’Neill’s, and with regard to affordable housing, she asked how or whether it was in our ordinance as Attachment C on packet page 213, in a section that speaks to separate City Council Regular Meeting 15 February 14, 2022
arrangements for specific kinds of projects which is a clause that is used to address projects such as affordable housing.
City Attorney Kenyon thought it was a question for the consultant.
Mr. Villarreal stated that he could defer to the city’s legal counsel, but the ordinance would be the place to put in any considerations with regard to exempts or discounts for affordable housing which is how it is typically done.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had another question but she will wait until after public comment.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer asked his question and he was interested in what it will look like to put that into the ordinance, but he thought he was starting to tread on deliberation questioning and will wait.
Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked Public Works for doing this work. She commented on how low our current fees are and haven’t been looked at since 2012, as well as other development fees. She agreed that there should be exceptions or reductions for types of projects, and mentioned her thoughts on affordable housing.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked staff for bringing this forward as it is an important topic. She addressed her thoughts on the subject of various situations for fees related to visitors to the city, and not just residential.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Mayor Bier stated that the numbers were shocking to her because she wasn’t used to seeing this. She doesn’t own property, has never built a home and she doesn’t know what it means, but has been learning about it. She was concerned about too many development fees, as they need developers to come in as we have our RHNA numbers. She is concerned about affordable housing and was curious about Ms. Abbott talked about, i.e., commercial fees. She asked Mr. Villarreal if he knows anything about that.
Mr. Villarreal stated that typically park impact fees aren’t charged to commercial development because the relationship between that development and the use of parks is not as well established as it is between residential units. He wasn’t saying they couldn’t calculate a fee for non-residential uses if Council desires. They discussed it with Planning and Public Works staff when they were putting the study together and they felt the contribution from visitors for demand for parks was fairly low so they didn’t pursue that further, but if Council wishes, it was certainly something they could look into.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, as Mr. Villarreal mentioned, they considered the expansion of this fee to cover commercial development, and it wasn’t just a small portion of development in land area in Pacifica, but Planning staff has done prior work assessing the potential for various development impact fees on commercial development. He stated that, due to the weak commercial development environment in Pacifica, the numbers don’t add up when City Council Regular Meeting 16 February 14, 2022
you look at the ability for commercial development and the rents that they are able to charge to support significant additional development impact fees. He stated that they could explore it, but it had the potential to chill further commercial development in Pacifica and make it financially infeasible based on prior work they did on a different type of development fee, but they could undertake that analysis as Mr. Villarreal mentions and see if it yields a different conclusion.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked him for his comments. She stated that one type of commercial development she was thinking about that was of interest in a visitor serving economy is a hotel, and she thought hotel visitors may have more of an impact in terms of parks and use of parks such as mentioned by Ms. Abbott about using the beaches, etc. She didn’t know if it is their analysis and that would be carved out separately but she would be interested in knowing.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he didn’t recall at the moment the development prototypes they used, but it was a handful of likely types of commercial development on the smaller scale as they can imagine more typical of what they actually have seen come in recent years and they have not seen medium to large size hotels pursuing applications in Pacifica as other communities have. He stated that using different prototypes with different economic assumptions could yield different economic ability for development to cover those types of fees, but it would be a separate endeavor and wouldn’t necessarily have to be part of this particular fee adoption and it could come as a subsequent update if Council wanted to move forward with this fee.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that her earlier question had to do with the table, mentioning packet page 153, that shows the amount for different amounts of bedrooms, what a remodel and add on fee per bedroom would be. She sees a relatively straight line on the table, but when she looks at the difference between one bedroom and two bedrooms and she correspondingly looks at the difference between two bedrooms and three bedrooms, she is not sure she is reading the chart correctly. She asked for an explanation about how a two-bedroom remodel addition is $12,000 but a three-bedroom is $7,000.
Mr. Villarreal stated that the fee schedule is driven by the number of people per dwelling unit.
He referred to the prior slide.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they didn’t have that in their packet.
Mr. Villarreal stated that table is in the impact fee study which in the packet but not a separate item. It is the density and number of people per dwelling unit which drives the fee, and the difference between the density from one dwelling unit to the next drives the incremental fees.
He stated that, when they look at the average number of people per dwelling unit, when they go from 1-2, it is a much bigger jump than 0-1 which is what is driving the difference in the fee per dwelling unit. He realizes the $12,698 sticks out in going from 1 to 2 bedrooms. The idea when they look at the numbers, the 2-bedroom units house the most number of people per bedroom compared to the other types of units, based on the data which is what is driving the differences between the fee schedule.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has an interest in figuring out where they are putting their ordinance and sending back to staff, and some kind of way of putting something in their ordinance around affordable housing, whether it be tiered, related to the ABAG below market, far below market ratings, but that is what she would like to see.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 February 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill referred to the use of the funds, and stated that they had purchasing new parkland and he didn’t see them doing that in the future as there is not a lot of land available to purchase and using this for capital replacing the play structures and putting in a field. He asked if these funds are restricted to capital, stating that he thought remembered that they cannot use it for operating funds in terms of paying for the guy to mow the lawn, pay for water to water the lawn, etc.
Mr. Villarreal stated that there are three fees, one fee for the in lieu of land dedication that they will charge to subdivision and it can be used to acquire parkland and can use to rehabilitate parkland but not for ongoing maintenance or services. He stated that one of the other two fees would be a mitigation fee for park acquisition to acquire parkland to serve new development and cannot be used for maintenance for operations. The third fee, payable by everyone, is the fee for park improvement and that cannot be used for maintenance and operations and can be used to fund the expansion or intensification of use of park facilities, either on new acquired land or on existing land in the city’s inventory but you are expanding the capacity to serve new developments and adding amenities and enhancing its carrying capacity.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if you have someone buys an old school site, wants to buy 50 houses and the city requires them to dedicate a certain portion of the land in the school site to be a top lot or a park and he asked if that would be included as part of their mitigation fee.
Mr. Villarreal responded affirmatively, stating that they would get a credit against the land component, depending on how much they dedicate relative to what their requirement is but conceivably they could get it as credit against land component and only have to pay the improvement portion or, if they dedicate and improve the parkland, perhaps they could get a credit against the entirely of the fee. He stated that would be in the details.
Councilmember O’Neill thought he would be safe in saying that this could be used for the expansion and improvement of parks but not for the ongoing maintenance of water, cutting grass, replacing plants that die, etc.
Mr. Villarreal responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to the previous comments about charging for businesses, and stated he agreed with the concept, but if you have a hotel, this would be a fee that people would not want to see in a hotel. He added that they would more than make up for it because of the transit occupancy tax which would fund the ongoing operations to maintain the parks that the visitors in the hotel would be seeing. He would be reluctant to look at these type of fees for hotels as it is visitor serving but they are paying a transit occupancy tax that would fund the ongoing maintenance of those parks. He asked confirmation that the five acres is not including state, county or federal parks in Pacifica, only city-owned parks.
Mr. Villarreal responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck echoed Councilmember Beckmeyer’s comments about affordable housing discounts and exemptions and the idea of figuring out the best approach in terms of tiered models.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, with affordable housing, he agreed with what everyone said that we need to do something about these fees for affordable housing, but he thought they have to look at the subsets too. He asked if the fee will be the same for senior housing or only on City Council Regular Meeting 18 February 14, 2022
family units and does it include the inclusionary required by zone for a for-profit developer that 15% is being held back because of our inclusionary ordinance. He would like to turn this back to staff, asking if someone can answer his question of whether they can have the first reading so they start the clock ticking on this and when staff comes back with suggestions for putting it in an affordable housing component for the second reading.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they cannot.
Councilmember O’Neill knew she was going to say no. He stated that he fully supported some sort of mitigation for affordable housing, but he wants to start this so, if any developers do put in an application, they have the clock ticking.
Mayor Bier stated that she feels very strongly about the tiered approach for affordable housing and she would like to see what that will look like and have a larger conversation around that the next time they talk about this. She thought they were in the middle of all these different cities, and she asked if they were able to talk about making it lower or higher.
Mr. Villarreal stated that the fees that are identified in the study are the maximum justified and you wouldn’t be able to charge higher than what the report says, but as a policy decision, they could always adopt something less. If they want to implement 50% or whatever it is to be, that was up to Council’s discretion.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they went back and worked on the affordable housing and the topic of ADUs also came up so he wanted to receive clarification from Council if that should be looked at as well.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was going to ask Planning to have that included but it then gets into another branch and is hard to address because is it an ADU policy or park policy related to ADUs. They know ADUs are not all used for housing. She asked, in terms of tiering, whether there was a way of tiering around the intended use. She knows they cannot control that, but she asked if there was a way they can require a certain amount of time that the unit be used for housing. She spoke to the City Manager earlier that she wouldn’t be opposed to having a lower fee if the ADU is being used for housing and she holds the principle that ADUs are naturally affordable because they are smaller versus someone who is renting an AirBnb.
She stated that the dilemma is whether it is an ADU question or a park policy question.
City Attorney Kenyon thought Mr. Villarreal needs to answer that question on how he approached this issue in other communities and they are relying on him to get them some guidance on how to address it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before he answers the question, he has a clarifying question. He stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer was talking about ADUs being used as affordable housing, not just housing, and he believed Dep. Planning Director Murdock could correct him, but our ordinances don’t allow ADUs to be used for short term rentals.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, and he wanted to clarify that our current ADU zoning regulations require that ADUs be used for rentals of 30 days or longer which would prohibit short term rentals by the city’s municipal code.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that it would be affordable.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 February 14, 2022
Mr. Villarreal stated that he has seen some jurisdictions waive impact fees altogether for ADUs regardless of size, and that is their policy decision which Council can consider. With regard to the AirBnb, it doesn’t seem to be relevant since they don’t allow AirBnb’s in ADUs, but he hasn’t seen any impact fee program make a distinction between short term and long term rentals in terms of implemented impact fees and that would be unusual for impact fee programs in California.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked Mr. Villarreal if he mentioned earlier that an ADU under 750 square feet would be exempt from a fee.
Mr. Villarreal responded it would, based on state law.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought Councilmember Vaterlaus would have a better capacity to visualize what size this looks like, and he asked how much bigger than 750 square feet to ADUs get or is that a regular size.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, in most cases, you are going to see a maximum of ADU size of 1,200 square feet, which is the maximum floor area that a detached ADU can be and likely based on the ADU applications he reviewed where the larger of the ADUs are being constructed. He stated that it is possible under zoning that an attached ADU could be larger than 1,200 square feet but that would require the primary residence to be more than 2,400 square feet which is relatively large for Pacifica. He stated that those homes are out there, but we don’t see many of them, given the typical housing stock.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, within the context of the fee structure they are discussing, if they could help him on what the fee structure would be the fee schedule for ADUs.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that they would first calculate the fee based on what the associated primary unit is, such as a 3-bedroom Linda Mar rancher, and that fee would be what is stated in the report of whatever is adopted by Council and they would have to divide the number of square feet for the primary unit and multiple that by the size of the ADU so that the fee is proportionate by square footage in relation to the primary unit. He stated that requires a conversion of the bedroom fee that they will ask Council to adopt into a per square foot fee but a conversion of the state law requires them to do that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, as he tries to figure out what he wants to do, he needs to know what those numbers look like. It might be a small enough fee that it doesn’t bother him, but he doesn’t have that table so he has no idea. He thought it might be high enough that he will want to ask for a smaller fee for ADUs, but he needs the information to be able to compare them.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he doesn’t have the data, but anecdotally from his observation, very few ADUs are over that 750-square foot threshold. He stated that they can explore that, but he thinks they are affecting a relatively small subset of ADUs as compared to those he has seen coming through.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that is very helpful.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that a 3-bedroom, one bath Linda Mar rancher is 1,040 square feet and 2-car garage is 440, which is an average number.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 February 14, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated that information.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked, since they are having something brought back and they are not going to be able to take action on this at this meeting, in light of the Mayor’s comment about where we fall relatively fall to other cities, if it is not too much trouble, if they can know what their standards are. We know Pacifica is five acres and she thought she read in the staff report in excess of five acres, so she asked what is it in Belmont, Millbrae, etc., as those are areas that relatively mirror Pacifica in terms of the residential portion.
Mr. Villarreal stated that he will try to see what he can dig up, as they have to find the nexus studies. They aren’t always published, but they can make phone calls.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated if it is possible at least in the ballpark area would be helpful.
Mayor Bier asked if they could see what 75% of that total fee would look like, questioning if they could go lower.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agrees with Mayor Bier as these fees took a huge jump and they seem almost exorbitant as this is two fees added on to sewer fees, etc., and it just makes it so people won’t build. She stated that they have to meet our numbers or at least closer to our numbers than 64. She stated that, if they make the fees high, they won’t build at all and our goal is to have more housing which is also the goal of the whole state. She just thinks they are very high.
Mayor Bier agreed with her. She suggested that they see what 50% looks like.
Councilmember O’Neill also thought they have to be respectful of the new realities that there are a lot of generational here in Pacifica. He stated that, in 2000 when the kids were losing their houses because of foreclosure in the financial crises, they moved back in with mom and dad and brought their kids in and they had three generation households and maybe they are adding a bedroom. He thought they need to look at the realities that a lot of parents still have their adult children living at home. He stated that a one bath house for 5-6 adults doesn’t work very good, and he felt they needed to be respectful. He agreed that the fees should be higher, but he wants to look at some mitigation for affordable housing and he thinks they have to be mindful, as the Mayor mentioned, of the generational lifestyle now in the Bay Area.
Mayor Bier asked if they have enough direction.
PW Dep. Director Bautista responded affirmatively, adding that they won’t will be looking at the affordable housing reduction tiers and ADU options in terms of lowering those fees and taking into consideration what the standards of other cities are, as well as looking at what specific tiers 75% reduction, 50% reduction, and they have direction.
Councilmember O’Neill asked him if these were fees that could be used for the bike park.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they can be used for trails, but if it is expansion of the park, and they will sell the park, he agreed that part of it could be used in that respect.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that he triggered another question when he referred to trails.
She stated that so many properties within our city’s jurisdiction, such as a recommendation from OSPAC on trail maintenance, but the land of the trails they are referring to are not owned by City Council Regular Meeting 21 February 14, 2022
Pacifica but part of GGNRA. She thought it was a legal question, but if there were to be a partnership between the city, would they be able to use it for trail maintenance. She thought it was getting a little esoteric but as long as they are looking at all this stuff, and knowing the percentages of our land mass and dedicated to permanent open space that isn’t owned by Pacifica, she thought it was a valid question.
City Manager Woodhouse thought she might be referring to the trails out of the Jean Fassler parking lot, the Ahni Trail, and that is city land.
Councilmember Beckmeyer didn’t think it was that one, but and felt the OSPAC thing went broader than that, but that is one of the areas.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the Council doesn’t have to discuss or decide this at this meeting and can do it when they bring this back, but while the fees seem high or might strike them as high, they are a reflection of the increased cost. He stated that, to do a simple trail rehabilitation project like that can be several hundred thousands of dollars if not more depending on the rent and the cost of land, doing improvements to the land and playground equipment are all costs that are very high and what developers sell housings for is way more than they used to be. He wanted to keep a respective on what seems like a high cost may not be in the context of those expenses. He stated that, if they are going to be able to have revenue enhancements to afford these types of capital projects, which they can discuss later on as part of the vision 2020-2025 and beyond discussion.
Mayor Bier thanked PW Dep. Director Bautista and Mr. Villarreal for being them with Council at this meeting.
No action taken.
Mayor Bier stated that they will take a five-minute break, then reconvened the meeting.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended the Council of Cities in San Mateo as a Zoom meeting and their next meeting in Millbrae will be in person and is looking forward to meeting them in person.
She stated that they had staff appreciation and she stated that they are all so thankful for everything staff does. She stated that they work harder than any people she has ever seen and they sometimes get no respect from the public. She thought that was unfortunate and she would like to ask the public to be more respectful of our staff as they are important to us and they don’t want to lose any of them. She attended the Fairmont Subdivision meeting and they talked about local issues affecting Fairmont streets. She attended the Covid Recovery Coordination Council and there are new grants coming up for small businesses. She recommended going to SAMCEDA if they are interested in any small business grants as they have people during this crisis. They talked about child care, food issues, housing issues, etc.
She attended the LUNA ribbon cutting on Palmetto. It was one of the largest ribbon cuttings she has ever attended, probably 40 or 50 people, and it was nice to see so many people come out to celebrate two small businesses on Palmetto and it was a great family event.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they had Council meeting and staff appreciation day. He had the police department and went to Guerrero’s and got lunch that would work for a 24-hour shift because there is no place for the midnight shift to go eat except 7 Eleven and those hot dogs get old quick. He echoed Councilmember Vaterlaus’ comments regarding staff. He thought some of the letters and emails the public has been sending regarding our draft EIR are totally City Council Regular Meeting 22 February 14, 2022
inappropriate. He stated that it shows a lack of professionalism or common respect from some of our citizens to our staff. He thought beating people up all the time does not make them receptive to hearing what you are saying. They are keeping track of all the comments but he thought they could be delivered in a more personal, professional manner with some respect for the intelligence and professionalism and education of our staff. He stated that they had a special meeting of the Airport Roundtable and the NIITE HUSSH flight plan was passed unanimously despite the objections of several people from San Francisco. He stated that they also added an amendment that they are going to look at the feasibility of extending the NIITE HUSSH starting a little earlier and ending later in the morning, about 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning. He stated that it is going to take them a while as they are trying to get the FAA and there is pushback from the FAA about coming to a public meeting and talking to the public. He had the liberty with last month’s Economic Development Committee meeting John Hutar, Executive Director of San Mateo County Convention of Visitors Bureau came and spoke to the committee about the services they offer and how we might be able to leverage them to try to increase visitors to Pacifica. They said one of the problems was that there was not a lot of places for groups to meet in Pacifica. He stated that one of the hotels doesn’t even have a conference room. He put together a tour of different facilities in Pacifica that he has gone to for group conferences and he gave a tour with 9-10 people with several Yulia Carter and Daisy Fong of Economic Development Committee part of the tour, at the gym and multipurpose room at IBL, Little Brown Church, the archery range and they didn’t even know that place existed.
They were impressed with the restaurant at Sharp Park Golf Course where they went for a conference meeting and they went to Terra Nova High School’s theater and they were impressed with that, adding that taxpayers of Pacifica should be very proud as that was the most professional high school theater in the entire Bay Area, mentioning lighting, sound system, etc. was impressive. They went to Pedro Valley Park and showed them the group picnic areas and did a drive by of Sea Bowl as they have a private room at Pacifica Brewery. They went to Sanchez Art Center and the Sanchez Adobe to see the interpretation center for the Ohlone.
They went to the Pedro Point Fire House. He stated that he has a commitment from the Ohlone Café that they will cater the Council of Cities event for Pacifica. When they host different city councils from the peninsula this August, they will be eating Ohlone Indian food.
He stated there was a Library JPA meeting also and they voted on a lot of issues.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that our staff was amazing and they are so professional and so respectful. She stated that, while they are encouraging the community to be professional and respectful, she was amazed at such an even temper and so thorough our staff is in responding to inquiries from the public and she commended them. She had such a great time with staff appreciation. She was working with Public Works and Engineering and it was great and fun. She reported on her two liaison commitments, Beautification Advisory Committee and the Economic Development Committee. She stated that Beautification’s work is continuing on the bioswale on Crespi and was personally involved in that. She stated it was very important to get the plant started and, with the heat last week, that was dramatic and lots of watering needed to occur but there is partnership with Cabrillo School, community and it has been great. She stated that there is an upcoming work day scheduled for the Beautification Advisory Committee in March for the Palmetto bump out. She stated that all the groups that have adopted are being approached by the Beautification Advisory Committee volunteers on whether they are renewing and if not and are relinquishing the space as there is a waiting list. She stated that from Economic Development, it was so refreshing to see the volunteers to have all of the seats filled.
She stated that Councilmember O’Neill’s work continues to bear fruit, as one of the subcommittees is working on reaching out to Half Moon Bay, talking about strategies and social media and contacts, etc., which are a lot of things he brought forward, including work with some of the business support agencies. She stated that the new people are picking it up even though City Council Regular Meeting 23 February 14, 2022
they weren’t there when those presentations were made but they are working in their subcommittees with people who were until the work continues. She thanked him on his leadership on that. She stated that they had the mayor at the meeting for the first time, and was a great meeting. She was looking forward to Pacifica’s Sports Hall of Fame upcoming dinner and she will be reporting on resource management and climate protection committee meeting as well as Coastal Cities group meeting coming up before the next Council meeting. She clarified that one of the callers earlier in the meeting made a statement that she wasn’t sure what a Reach code was and she clarified her comment that she switched to minutes to remember what exactly that she said as she was very clear on what Reach codes are. She stated that she was asking Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck for clarification because he had mentioned either that night or the previous meeting an item from Peninsula Clean Energy about refreshing our Reach codes. She wanted to get detail on what way are they looking to refresh the Reach codes, along the same lines as the caller was referring to. She mentioned interest in energy being put forward in that regard in many communities, and Pacifica was a leader in adopting Reach codes. This is not about a new test but more how they make it work best for our community.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he met with PCE staff the past week to discuss Reach codes. He stated that there are two different ways to approach Reach codes but one of them was essentially to refresh them every three years or so. He thought all of the communities are going through the refresher and some are passing them as municipal codes and they won’t need to refresh them every three years. He stated that will be a decision they make in a few months when they discuss Reach codes as a body. He stated that the conversation he had with staff, when they refresh them, a lot of them will be essentially what they already have, especially pertaining to new construction. He was interested in the conversation they will have around the burn out codes, replacing gas appliances with electric appliances. He stated that Half Moon Bay had a very robust discussion when it came time for them to discuss burn out codes. He favored having a discussion rather than an argument when the items are brought to Council as he felt it was more productive. He was trying to wrap his head around what burn out codes would mean for Pacifica and what would make a discussion that would actually bear fruit. He thought they would have a presentation somewhere between June and August, when they are through the General Plan updates as that would be the appropriate time to break PCE staff and start hearing about Reach codes. He attended the Complete Streets seminar and he walked away with methodology behind setting speed limits and productive approaches to that. He attended a meeting of a Silicon Valley leadership group about housing. The last Peninsula Clean Energy meeting was between the last meetings, and he stated that one thing that stood out from the meeting the success of the e-bike rebate program and they renewed the rebate incentives for getting e-bikes which was a great way to get cars off the street, especially riding to the grocery store, bringing kids to school and they discussed the cargo bikes a lot. The rest was mostly administrative. He stated that their next meeting will be on the 24th for anyone from the public interested in attending. He enjoyed the Council of Cities meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer. They were discussing the 101 express lanes and how they are trying to approach it from an equity standpoint and they are often referred to as “Tesla lanes,” implying that it is only the wealthier who will be able to afford them. He stated that, what was unique about our areas is that we are trying to approach it from an equity lens to make sure that those who can’t afford a Tesla but have large families to ride with and can’t afford the express lane will be able to afford it as it is not just for the super-rich. He had his employee appreciation day with Wastewater. He echoed what his fellow councilmembers have said. He stated that the word that occurred to him as he was hearing them speak was abuse and he would also like to implore the community that there was absolutely no intention of it coming off this way. A lot of the messages they are receiving towards staff are frankly abusive, and as somebody who City Council Regular Meeting 24 February 14, 2022
knocked on every door he possibly could to earn their votes to do this job, he did it knowing full well that the tenor of what some comments could be after sitting in that chair in the front row for the better part of a decade, he has heard quite a choice word being uttered toward Councilmembers and he was happy to put himself in the position to hear those choice words to sit through for the words that are the most helpful toward our community and go from there. He expects the abuse and with every kindness intended to his cohorts, he expect them to be abused as well as it is what they signed up for whether or not they knew it. He stated that the staff was extraordinary and he thought he will start talking about Planning staff at their next agenda item but he got to hang out with the staff of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and he brought them some pizza and they would have a slice of pizza, say thanks and take off. He was struck by how excited everybody was to talk about their job. He stated that he has a day job and he has become cynical in his job to a point. He expressed that the people who work for us love what they do and are extraordinarily knowledgeable about what they do and passionate about what they do. He stated that you don’t see Wastewater Treatment staff unless it gets bad, but you usually don’t see them because it doesn’t get that bad. He stated that they are dealing with some of the messiest on a technical level that is extraordinarily mindboggling to someone who doesn’t deal with that kind of engineering on a daily basis. He stated that it is impossible to describe how extraordinarily heart rendering it is to spend time with those who take time to put so much heart into the job they do. He attended the JPA Library San Mateo County meeting and attended in the audience as Councilmember O’Neill was the liaison. He stated that Sarah McDowell of San Carlos talked about possibly bringing some funds to speak on mental health issues. He spoke about finding ways to pro-actively include efforts supporting mental health initiatives and specifically referenced the Mayor’s mental health initiative. He thought of her and made a public remark to the effect of supporting it. He was hoping to see that in the budget when it comes through. He watched the short film, Chosen, about human trafficking and he was inspired by the presenter. He stated that there is a movie series that they are doing, with the next couple about males and human trafficking and this one was about grooming young women for sex trafficking. He stated that, if anyone wants information about the forthcoming movies, he will be happy to supply it. He got to attend a dinner in which Jackie Speier was speaking at the Rotary Club meeting, which was a joint meeting between Millbrae, Pacifica and Half Moon Bay that took place in Half Moon Bay. He stated that it was always extraordinary to listen to her speak, as she strikes him as a rather extraordinary individual. He stated that it looks like our state level mask mandate will be closing out shortly in a few days and he encouraged everyone to be mindful. He stated that we wear masks to protect others and that, whether or not you decide to wear a mask, respecting people’s space and understanding we are in the middle of a pandemic and how easy it is to pass this thing on. He stated that, if you get vaccinated, that would probably help a nurse to not have that much more stress than they are already having when they are dealing with patients who have chosen otherwise. He asked that everyone to proceed with whatever precaution they are able to for the sake of those around you. He mentioned his place of business as Safeway is in the middle of a collective bargaining process with UFCW 5 union. He stated that the union is saying now that, if they aren’t having a happier conversation with Safeway by the end of the month, they will likely be talking about taking a strike vote and that affects the third largest provider of jobs in Pacifica and that might affect Pacifica in general. He wanted to make sure everyone was aware that there are serious rumblings going on that a strike vote might be imminent.
Mayor Bier stated that she did sign up to get abused, but to serve her community. She stated that she was present to talk to them but she will not take any abuse. She thanked her colleagues for staff appreciation as they took it and ran with it. She stated she was at the Community Center when Councilmember Vaterlaus’ pizzas were delivered and everyone was so happy. She stated that they deserved Council’s attention and respect. She knew everyone City Council Regular Meeting 25 February 14, 2022
was hearing it a lot during this meeting but she didn’t care if she is saying it over again. She stated that the city staff works so hard. She stated that they all know there are other places that pay more money and we have to take care of staff every way we can as we do not want to lose them. She stated that she got to feed the firemen except she probably bought out Mazzetti’s and they probably weren’t happy about that, and next time she will place an order. She stated it was fun and she thanked everyone for participating. She referred to Mayor pro Tem mentioning the Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative, and she stated that there will be some money coming from our county and they will be bringing mental health first aid into our community. She stated that there were four of them in the planning team, Pacifica, South San Francisco, San Carlos and one other. She stated that they will be bringing Mental Health First Aid into those communities first and they already have funding approved by San Mateo County and they will be paying for all the training in all those communities. She thought it was exciting to be able to come together and get something done. She stated that they will also be advocating for mental health bills on the legislative agenda to see what is out there and how we can promote all the things that are coming at the state level and they will be discussing that as well. She stated that they did commission presentations and she went to the Mental Health Commission and did a presentation and all those commissioners want to jump in and do training also. She stated that bringing people in from the county was fun and May is mental health awareness month and they will be rolling all this out in May. She felt it was gratifying to work with people across the county, and she was proud of it. She attended the CCAG Bike and Pedestrian meeting where they saw presentations for 12 capital and planning projects, including Ryan Marquez talking about our Palmetto project, and she will have City Manager Woodhouse talk about it during his communications. She stated that it was good to hear Ryan Marquez and other councilmembers support him and Pacifica. She mentioned that they have to score the applications and she was in the process of reading the applications and score them before they are chosen. She thought having Councilmembers support it before they are scored was nice. She went to Council of Cities, attended a climate action plan 101 which was a follow up from a previous session “Code Red”, and she had an opportunity to talk to other cities about their climate action plan and committees. She went to her first Economic Development meeting which was great to hear about all the different work groups and they seem excited for the work they are doing and she felt that excitement. She attended Housing Our People Effectively meeting which had updates on the Home Key project - Shores Landing, Pacific Inn and Coast House, and how they are succeeding. She stated there is a lot of good work going on in our county and communities.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, on behalf of staff, he sincerely thanks each and every Councilmember for the staff appreciation actions that they took. He has heard a lot of positive feedback as they observed when they were doing their appreciation activities. He stated that it means more than they could imagine to each staff member in the city’s organization. He stated that there is an immense workload happening with a pandemic going on and on, and it has been tough and that kind of recognition goes a long way. He stated that he wasn’t around for it, as he had the opportunity to go to a 2.5 day meeting, Cal Cities City Managers Department meeting.
He stated that it was an exceptional 2.5 days of sessions and seeing colleagues from around the state that covered the gamut of issues that are relevant to all of us, on the state level for financing, federal level, ARPA funding, etc., diversity equity inclusion issues that they are all working on, organizational culture and innovation and a lot of discussion about decorum of civic discourse which is a statewide issue. He stated that housing and homeless solutions are always discussed. He thought it was a great productive 2.5 days meeting. He stated that he was reminded by the city clerk to mention that we have committee and commission recruitments out now, with a deadline of February 18 and positions for the Beautification Advisory City Council Regular Meeting 26 February 14, 2022
Committee, Planning Commission and Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission. He stated that the information is available in the electronic newsletter and on the city’s website. He encouraged applications for those committees. He wanted to turn it over to PW Director Petersen who will talk about the Palmetto Esplanade Pedestrian and Bike Improvement project that the Mayor mentioned.
PW Director Petersen stated that Ryan Marquez did an excellent job in presenting the Palmetto Esplanade Bike/Ped project to the CCAG BPAC. She is letting everyone know what the project is about. It will be starting on the north of Palmetto at Westline Drive and they will be putting in a class 2 striped bike lane going down to Esplanade and take a detour to the coast, then comes back at Avalon. Within that location, they will have the bike boulevard and a class 2 bike lane.
Once it comes back to Palmetto, it will continue down with the class 2 bike lane to Paloma. She stated that, within the proposed project, there is a couple of intersection improvements, one at Manor and Esplanade and one at the crossing of the Highway 1 ramp next to the San Francisco RV Park. They are looking at putting in signs and striping and maybe some flashing beacons at that location, but has not been finalized yet as it is at a 35% design at this point. She stated that Ryan Marquez has done a great job.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that completes his report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she wanted to follow up as she had the date wrong for the Planting day, which was not in March, for the Palmetto bump outs is February 26, 9:30 to 11:30 am. She stated that information will be going out through Connect with Pacifica. As it is coming up quickly, she wanted to mention that. She also forgot to mention about the Yiftee Gift Card promotion going on now which is a Shop Local Project of the Economic Development Committee and the city. She stated that, if you purchase a card for $50, you receive a card for yourself for $25. She stated that they can be used at 14 different businesses in town. The information is on the city’s website. She stated that this promotion ends February 20 or while supplies last.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he and City Manager Woodhouse attended the Pacifica School Board meeting last week and the Board indicated their willingness to support the city in their feasibility study for the affordable housing at the corporation yard. He hasn’t heard anything officially from the Superintendent but, by counting the Board, it seemed to pass. He stated that everyone should be getting their property tax bills soon, and he wanted to let them know that the bond hat was passed to build employee housing for the Jefferson High School District and they will be having a grand opening in May and the first faculty and staff should be moving into that building in Daly City in May. He mentioned that they are finishing the curbs, play structures, etc.
Mayor Bier thanked the taxpayers for that as the staff that are applying for the housing are so excited. She stated that it was beautiful.
CONSIDERATION
13. Extension of Public Comment Period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan.
PROPOSED ACTION: Extend the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan by 15 days beyond the current 45 day comment period.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 February 14, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.
Mayor Bier asked, if there are no questions, she would go to public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer has her hand up.
Mayor Bier stated that she didn’t mean it, and she opened public comments, reminding the public that this is only about the extension of the public comment period and she will stop anyone if they talk about the contents in the document.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that he was an environmental advocate and thanked the City Manager about talking about the requirements of the quarry site specific plan and the extension time, mentioning the various specifics involved that not everyone is aware of and asked that they extend the comment period on that site plan.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, thanked the Mayor and Council for having this item on the agenda as he strongly supports the 15-day extension, mentioning some of his thoughts on these long and complex documents.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, thanked Council for considering this extension, hoping they do extend the comment period as the document deserves additional time for public consideration, mentioning some citizens who were not aware of this item or redistricting and expressing her concerns.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, appreciated our overworked city staff, beginning to mention her thoughts on the issue.
Mayor Bier stated that the public comment is about extending the comment period.
Ms. Boles referred to the difficulties regarding the process and concern for the public notification, as well as the work by Mr. Shoemaker who modified the documents, etc, and everyone needs more time and she requested that they approve extending the deadline to fix the documents.
Cassie Leonardi, Pacifica, echoed concerns about the brief comment period for the General Plan update, mentioning some of her concerns and urged Council to extend the comment period.
Brooke, Pacifica, mentioned her concerns about the complex document and urged Council to extend the comment period for the general plan to allow the public more time to provide input and echoed all the concerns mentioned from speakers.
Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, hoped they decide to extend the comment period as it will help with all that is going on.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify a statement Ms. Boles made about the city denying an extension request to Fish and Wildlife, and he stated that was not what happened. He stated that there was a phone call between city staff and Fish and Wildlife staff and Fish and Wildlife staff expressed that they were overworked as well and requested an extension for their agency.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 February 14, 2022
City staff’s reply was that, if the comment period was extended for their agency, it would need to be extended for everyone and they would let them know immediately if Council granted an extension to the comment period.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck supported extending the period for 15 days. He heard some comments asking for forums to address concerns about the General Plan update and he didn’t know how long the speakers have been following but a part of the issue of having a 12-year long process to extend a 40-year-old document. He stated that he only tuned in about eight years ago and there are various degrees of awareness as to where they are in a very long process. He thought the majority of staff is new compared to when this started. He wanted to be clear that there were many forums developing the General Plan updates over many years.
He stated that, after they get past the draft environmental impact report phase, they will move into Planning Commission meetings where there will be a public forum to discuss all the documents, at least one meeting depending on how things go, and then there will be at least one Council meeting depending on how it goes. He stated that, because of Covid, it seems like they have had a desert of public interaction. He stated that it is a very long process and the forums will be available as they go along. He reminded everyone that, if they extend this comment period at this time, after that 15-day period, they will review the documents before the Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the public comment period on the draft environmental impact report has a set date, but as they are discussing the extension, the public has between now and the Planning Commission meeting that he thought will be in May or possibly June. He stated that, in terms of the whole General Plan update, Sharp Park Specific Plan update, there are many more months and the public can continue studying it and send Council comments on it. He stated that, the more time they give Council on their comments, they will give them a more robust answer as they will have time to ask questions in advance.
He referred to Suzanne Moore mentioning a survey at Mazzetti’s, and he thought the city has done a fine job informing people as many ways as possible, and he thought it might be a good idea to send a postcard to everyone before the first Planning Commission meeting to give everyone an opportunity to be more aware even though it is costly but it may be a good approach.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that people pushed for Council to get this General Plan and Council pushed to get it out, and then people didn’t want it out. Now, they want extra time. She thought it was fine to give them extra time, but she believes this is the end of the extra time because it takes them out further to get it accomplished which is the goal of everyone to get it done. She referred to the questions at Mazzetti’s, and if you asked those people to name one person who sits on Council, they likely couldn’t answer that either. She stated that people choose to get involved or choose to not get involved. She didn’t think they can drag them to the General Plan, and they can try their best and send out the information but they can’t make them read it.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update and Sharp Park Specific Plan by 15 days beyond the current 45-day comment period; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 February 14, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
14. Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adding Chapter 32, “Sale or Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes” and Chapter 33, “Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products and Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products Prohibited” and amending Section 5-31.03, “Limits on Tobacco Retailer Licenses” within Chapter 31 of Title 5, “Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Ban the Sale and Distribution of Flavored Tobacco Products, the Sale and Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes and to Prohibit the Sale of Tobacco Products at Pharmacies in the City of Pacifica
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to waive the first reading of and introduce by title an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adding Chapter 32, “Sale or Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes” and Chapter 33, “Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products and Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products Prohibited” and amending Section 5-31.03, “Limits on Tobacco Retailer Licenses” within Chapter 31 of Title 5, “Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Ban the Sale and Distribution of Flavored Tobacco Products, the Sale and Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes and to Prohibit the Sale of Tobacco Products at Pharmacies in the City of Pacifica.
Police Chief Steidle presented the staff report.
Mayor Bier referred to exemptions on stores that sell Hookah products or that they can only sell Hookah products.
Police Chief Steidle stated that it was those who sell Hookah products. If you have a 21 and over store, and they sell tobacco, but they also sell flavored tobacco that are Hookah products, they would be allowed to continue those as long as they continue to hold that 21 and over only stats.
Mayor Bier concluded only flavored Hookah products.
Police Chief Steidle responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Shawneece Stevenson with Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council, thanked them for bringing this topic back due to their unusual issue last time. She stated that she leads the flavored tobacco education policy initiative, detailing work with Ingrid B. Lacey Middle School Peer Program in 2019 and other groups and programs.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, referred to California’s bipartisan landmark law, giving details on the ups and downs of the results by organizations.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 February 14, 2022
Jen Grand-Lejano with American Cancer Society, stated that she is the government relation director and is part of the Cancer Action Network. She thanked Council for addressing the issue and she urged them to adopt the policy to end the sale of all flavored tobacco products, expressing concerns about specific issues.
Bob Gordon with San Mateo County Tobacco Education Coalition, mentioned the issues of concern regarding the products negatively impacting children and put forward some positive suggestions and thanked Council for this next step.
Mayra Diaz with San Mateo County Tobacco Prevention Program, highlighted some data that she thought might be helpful for the Council’s decision, giving some specific concerns and suggestions and offering support.
Tricia Barr with San Mateo County Tobacco Education Coalition, stated that she is also on the high school site council with teachers, administrators, staff and students, and shared their thoughts and recommendations and commended Pacifica on taking steps to bring this ordinance forward.
Claudia _____, Pacifica, referred to problems at this time with the pandemic, etc., and she was pushing for the enforcement of the ordinance while giving retailers time to make adjustments.
Jaime Rojas stated that he represented many retailers of the national organizations of tobacco outlets, sharing his thoughts on updates of statistics, and asked that, if Council moves forward, they combine the enforcement date to January 1, 2023, and they would appreciate making that change
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor Bier stated that she works for Jefferson Union High School District and implements surveys, and she stated that 19% of 11th graders reported using vape products in the last 30 days. She stated that our transitional age people are also using these products and becoming addicted to them and she wanted to verbalize that data.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it is a hard issue as she doesn’t want to see children doing any of this. She stated that she also talked to the retailers and asked if they will have to go out of business. She talked to people who said they use the vape products to quit smoking but she hasn’t heard that at this meeting but has heard it in the past. She questioned that we have liquor stores, marijuana stores, and those are the choice of people 21 and older. She stated that she knew that kids did alcohol and it was a hard situation and she asked if they are limiting choice for people who may be using it to quit smoking cigarettes and are awful things.
She referred to studies on vaping, and certain products are bad, but they are better than cigarettes. She stated that it was hard for her and she wasn’t sure how she will vote.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that this is hard for him as well. He stated that, when it comes to prohibition, he has a specific internal hard politic on it. He stated that to vote to limit a substance goes against how he looks at the world. He supported keeping the Hookah sale at the last meeting. He stated that his grandfather was a pharmacist and he didn’t think a cigarette should be near a pharmacy, and he has respect for the fact that children should not have access to especially E-cigarettes but any cigarette. He stated that a part of him wants to ban tobacco throughout the world and the other part of him is fundamentally anti-prohibition. He was happy to vote along with what he agreed to at the last meeting, but if more than that were City Council Regular Meeting 31 February 14, 2022
to be entertained by Council, he would favor taking all these products, sticking them in stores for 21 and over, if there could be a mechanism for greater enforcement of making sure that people under the age of 21 are not all allowed in those businesses. He likes the idea of extending the period of getting rid of their stock, if they pass it, to January 1, 2023, respecting the economic fact that the entire state is about to take this vote and allowing those businesses extra time to build revenue during these times when money is harder to come by in terms of business. He stated that it is hard for him, as someone who doesn’t like tobacco and used tobacco. He would make it illegal, but he doesn’t like making substances illegal so that is where he is now.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed with what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck as she tends to not be restrictive. She stated that she works in a school with kids and she knows when eighth graders are vaping and it is disturbing. She stated that the first time this was brought to her attention was by Councilmember O’Neill a long time ago, as he was pushing for a healthy kid survey and he wanted more education at a younger age as they have to catch them before they are engaged in it. She was disturbed and uncertain about the pharmacy piece, but when she read in their packet that American Pharmacy Association, California Pharmacy Association and the California Medical Association called for the adoption of state and local prohibitions of tobacco sales in drug stores and pharmacies, she thought it was not the pharmacists that wanted it but the large retailers. She stated that she has decided to support this ordinance as written. She asked Police Chief Steidle of we have any limitation on the number of 21 and over businesses that sell tobacco products.
Police Chief Steidle stated that we do not as we do not classify them as 21 and over tobacco product businesses and there is nothing in our code or retail permits that does that nor does the state. He stated that this is something that the businesses put on themselves. He stated that, for the purposes of this report, we have 21 and over only businesses and they would have to .call and talk to them to find that information. He stated that they don’t have a cap and they don’t permit them in that fashion.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the marijuana stores were 21 and over or is it 18.
Police Chief Steidle stated that it was 21.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that the only business entities the city has that are 21 or over are bars where they serve liquor and marijuana.
Police Chief Steidle stated that he was correct.
Councilmember O’Neill would like to keep things simple for the staff. He stated that, if all licenses are renewed on October 31, he would go for that date. He didn’t think they needed to create a third entity of 21 and over but just ban it from the pharmacies and from all places of retail. That is his thought.
Mayor Bier agreed with everything Councilmember O’Neill just said, but she was okay with going forward with the ordinance as it is written.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to waive the first reading of and introduce by title an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adding Chapter 32, “Sale or Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes” and Chapter 33, “Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products and Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products Prohibited” and amending Section 5-31.03, “Limits on Tobacco Retailer Licenses” within Chapter 31 of Title 5, “Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct” of the Pacifica City Council Regular Meeting 32 February 14, 2022
Municipal Code to Ban the Sale and Distribution of Flavored Tobacco Products, the Sale and Distribution of Electronic Cigarettes and to Prohibit the Sale of Tobacco Products at Pharmacies in the City of Pacifica.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can change it to any licensed pharmacies by the State of California in Pacifica.
Police Chief Steidle stated that they have language in the definition that covers that.
Councilmember O’Neill then moves as stated in the staff report.
Seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
City Clerk Coffey stated that it was 11:00 PM and they need to make a motion to extend the meeting.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to midnight; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (to extend the meeting to midnight)
15. Vision 2025 & Beyond – Fiscal Sustainability Analysis, Potential Revenue Options, and Ballot Measure Analysis & Communications Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive, discuss, and provide direction to the City Manager on the updated 10 Year Financial Forecast and Options to Maintain the Current Level of City Services.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they have Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter and Brian Moura of RGS to help with the presentation. He began the staff report, then turned the presentation over to Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter continued the presentation.
Consultant Moura completed the presentation.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to their projected budget for 2021-2022 and, were it not for their fund money, it was already in deficit, and she thought part of their challenge at that time was the uncertainty around vehicle license fees and they didn’t include them in the base budget.
She asked for an update on whether the issue was resolved or substantially resolved. She had another question regarding the special tax that Belmont is doing, and if she understood the City Council Regular Meeting 33 February 14, 2022
presentation, Belmont’s concern is that they are applying the tax to new residential development only, and their ability to service the new development exceeds the revenue they would generate by that development. She asked if that was correct and that they need to have the tax to even that out.
Mr. Moura stated that he would defer to Ms. Carter and the City Manager to talk about the VLF and he will answer the Belmont question.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the VLF in lieu has two parts to it, first that they had over $2 million short fall that the state is due to cover and there is language in the governor’s budget bill to do that for the next year for Pacifica and all cities in San Mateo County, and the other part of the issue is looking for a permanent solution to the vehicle license fee in lieu short fall issue and that is continuing to be worked on and the most recent language they saw was not going to solve that problem for them and they have to work more on that. He stated that, if the current budget trailer designation happens, they should be funded that short fall for this year. He added that the funding won’t come in until the next fiscal year.
Mr. Moura then referred to her question on Belmont and the community facilities district. He stated that she was correct. He stated that Belmont has looked at potential development in the city over the next couple of years. They have done a study called MBS which works on revenue studies, and things like community facility districts. He stated that Belmont’s study says that, when they get projected business development, the revenue from those businesses will more than cover their cost of serving their businesses. He stated that the cost of providing services to the residential development they are anticipating will create a deficit that they project over the next several years of up to $2 million a year and they are proposing to create a community facilities district, known as a CFD or Mello-Roos and essentially what would happen is, initially, the properties in this district would be new residential development only because of the phenomena she described which doesn’t cover its cost. He stated that they also designed the district to allow for annexations or expansions of the district in the future to cover other parts of the city and other types of development. He stated that an interesting thing of these special taxes, i.e., CFDs, is when they were first allowed under California law, they were primarily done in Southern California to create infrastructure for new development and would fund things like sidewalks, traffic lights, sewered water, a one-time capital. He stated that, over the years, cities have been using them now for things like maintaining and replacing those infrastructure improvements and, in some cases, if the residential, in some cases commercial, but Belmont’s is residential, new development also results in increased operating budget costs. There are certain categories under the state law that also can be covered. He stated that state law allows you to cover things like a lease, fire and under certain circumstances, even library, park and rec services under a CFD but not other city services and is somewhat restricted. He stated that Belmont is also exploring those options. They are putting in infrastructure, maintaining infrastructure, replacing it over time and providing a higher level of operating services, initially would identify a handful of areas where there would be new development and leaving their options open to further expand the district as additional development may come online. He stated that it was a tool that started out as infrastructure only but it has been used a lot in Southern California and they are seeing a lot more in the Bay Area now, such as Stockton, and San Francisco, etc., and it was an interesting tool and, if it is something of interest to Council, it could be explored for Pacifica.
Councilmember O’Neill asked what the difference between the CFD and Mello-Roos district.
Mr. Moura stated that they are one and the same.
City Council Regular Meeting 34 February 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have the same horse but are changing the spots on the zebra.
Mr. Moura agreed, explaining that the law that implements this type of special taxes is called the Mello-Roos community facilities act of 1983, but the more common terms these days is community facilities district or CFD but they are the same thing.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, since it is an assessment on the property owners and paid through their property tax bill, if it is going to require a vote of the people and what would be the difference between that and forming an assessment district.
Mr. Moura stated that there are a couple of differences between a facilities district and assessment district. He is right that they are similar, and one thing that happens is, if you set up a CFD in an area where it is commercial property rather than residential, it requires a two-thirds approval of the commercial property owners but doesn’t require a vote of the people. If it is residential, then it can trigger a vote of the registered voters. He stated that the other thing that the community facility district has in its favor is that, unlike the assessment district which has requirements for an engineer’s report and for determining special benefits and general benefits, etc., the community facilities district formulas and fundings are much more flexible. One of the things that is attractive to some cities in using the CFD is that, when you use an assessment district and determine general benefit, which are things that, if you put an improvement like landscaping or sidewalks, it is deemed to be beneficial for everyone who lives in the community and the city has to pay for those. In a CFD, if you put an improvement, the entire cost of the improvements can be borne by the property owners and the city contribution may not be required at all. That is one of the reasons these days they see more and more cities using this community facilities district tool rather than an assessment district. He stated that a lot depends on the infrastructure needed and the type of project as both financing tools are used. They see more and more people using these Mello-Roos CFDs and that is the path that Belmont is looking at. He stated that it wouldn’t surprise him if, when Burlingame does more research on their special tax for infrastructure, they might go down the same path.
Councilmember O’Neill thought they would need to look to see if a CFD is possible for the quarry.
Mr. Moura stated that is a great example. When you have a piece of land that is currently undeveloped, you could do that. The other tool that they might use for something like the quarry is the so-called EIFD, enhanced infrastructure district which works sort of like redevelopment used to in that you initially set up the district, borrow money to put in the improvements and then the growth of the property tax over time repays the debt and also funds other improvements in that area. He stated that, in some cases, some cities use those two tools together because, in a CFD, you can raise the money in the early years of a project whereas an enhanced infrastructure district, and EIFD, it takes a while for the tax increment to increase in value to start generating some money. If you want to put in the infrastructures in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, you won’t have it yet if you are using the EIFD. He stated that, in some cases, they use the expression stacking both of them together, and that is another option the city would have for something like the quarry.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, since Pacifica has to have 1,900 units they have to hit with RHNA and they have some land that is one story commercial, such as Linda Mar Shopping Center and they rezone the air space above for residential, whether they could do a CFD for City Council Regular Meeting 35 February 14, 2022
residential above the existing development.
Mr. Moura stated that they could work with the property owner in that scenario and could set up a CFD.
Councilmember O’Neill thought you were basically subdividing the air space above the property by doing a condo, townhouse or apartment and you zone the air space for housing and you could do a CFD to pay for the infrastructure for that increased use.
Mr. Moura stated that he was correct, adding that they could do the same thing for a commercial development if someone was redeveloping a shopping center or any other commercial space, as it is not limited to residential but, in the case of Belmont, they decided to do theirs that way, but there is no requirement in the law to do that way if Pacifica wanted to go forward with something like that.
Mayor Bier asked if they might want to consider extending the meeting longer, possibly 12:30 if they need that much time.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.)
Councilmember O’Neill asked the mayor if they could get public comments.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speaker.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, suggested that, if they want a transparent process with robust public input, they schedule the rest of this meeting for some time other than 12:00 AM, and he made several suggestions that they ask Mr. Moura.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the City Manager stating that rarely is there a pleasant conversation about any revenue measures to be put before voters. She stated that, if anyone is sitting in the audience in the first row for ten years, they know the history of the voters appetite for revenue measures. She recalls their appetite for a revenue measure for the library project.
She stated that having this conversation is difficult, especially with the recent measures and their outcome, but they have to have this conversation, not because they asked for it. She stated that they didn’t want it scheduled at midnight, but that is just how it worked out. She knows it sometimes happens, and as the City Manager said, this is the beginning stage of this and they have to explore all options. She is concerned about the timing and she wanted to have a thorough, robust and transparent process because this is like many issues that many former Councils have deferred on, and a few tried but failed tax measures and another was a UUT that failed. She stated that she has already heard from some of the community that they are revving up their mimeograph machines to get ready if they choose to pass such a measure.
She stated that they aren’t doing that at this time, just having a conversation so they can look at City Council Regular Meeting 36 February 14, 2022
all of the options. She stated that they heard something at this meeting that she had not realized were options, and she felt it was the beginning. She asked Mr. Moura, with MelloRoos, is this the case where you have the ability to exempt certain demographics from the measure, whether by age or income level.
Mr. Moura knows they can exempt certain types of properties, but he would defer to the City Attorney or do additional research on whether they could exempt by income levels or age.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they can look into that as there are some restrictions on that.
Mayor Bier asked Mr. Moura if he sees any TOT tax above 15%.
Mr. Moura stated he has not yet, but he thought the 15.5% in Palo Alto is the highest one in the Bay Area and he could look but he thought there might be one that is at 16% in Southern California. He can get that information, but he hasn’t seen anything significantly above that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus likes the TOT tax because it is borne by the people who are staying in the rooms. She has never called anywhere on a vacation and asked what their TOT tax was to determine whether she was going to stay there or somewhere else. She thought TOT at 15% sounds good to her. She stated that there are so many options to go through and it is a lot.
She stated that would be her first choice for one item.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was doing some searching and he saw that San Mateo County’s current sales tax is 9.625% and the highest in the state is in Hayward and San Leandro which is over 10.75%. He didn’t know if that would be a detriment, as we don’t have any big ticket retailers in Pacifica. He would be concerned about making our small merchants more competitive as you are putting 10% more onto the tax bill. He would also like the Transit Occupancy Tax but he liked when they were at the League of Cities conference, and the city of Sacramento called it the city infrastructure tax. He thought it would be good to do that to support tree maintenance and sports fields for the kids because our sports teams would be able to have tournaments that would increase our Transit Occupancy Tax because the teams would be staying in Pacifica. He stated that there was a lady who is working on trying to bring sports to San Mateo County as she thinks that is an under-utilized youth sports. He stated that, when Oceana has a swim meet, you cannot find parking up there and every hotel room is booked. He would push for city infrastructure tax with a provision for some tree maintenance and youth sports in combination with the school district as the school district’s fields are the majority of sports fields in Pacifica. He stated that, in terms of modernization, the utility users tax, they have done that and we lost so we need to move on.
Mayor Bier asked about sales tax. She asked if that has to go to the voters.
Mr. Moura stated that it does.
Mayor Bier asked if that has ever been tried before in Pacifica.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she also prefers sales tax as it is spread around the people who are using it. She stated that a lot of the tax with Mello-Roos is based only on homeowners and they have to pass it on to the renters and the rents are very high already.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that sales tax is the most regressive forms of tax because those who can afford to go over the hill to buy it will do that. He stated that, even at a quarter of a City Council Regular Meeting 37 February 14, 2022
cent, our sales tax would be over 10% in Pacifica.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought sales tax was the last one tried and thought it was a resounding failure.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that the last one tried was the modernization of the utility users’ tax and lowering it down to 5% and spreading it out over Cable TV, cell phones, etc. He stated that we do have a maximum in our utility users’ tax of $500 a year. He didn’t know how many businesses would actually be paying more than $500, but he imagines that Safeway’s electric bill is more than $500. He stated that the utility users’ tax would be more than $500 for Safeway. He stated that the issue with that is that it is like the gas tax, as you go more toward solar power and you’re losing that utility users’ tax just like cars go electric or increase their gas mileage, and they use gas tax revenue.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, if we want to incentivize them going solar, he didn’t have a problem with that.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that there are unintended consequences with everything.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he would like to throw out a couple of points for consideration, Mr. Moura covered a slide on it, which is the difference between a special tax and a general tax. If you are designating a use for the tax, then it is a two-thirds majority vote, but if it is a general tax, it is a majority of 50%. He stated that the other point is the discomfort about the conversation is that every community has had many tax measures attempted and failed but that doesn’t prevent them from trying out of necessity to do that again and voter populations change over the years and the tax evaluation process includes researching all that and surveying and polling about what would be feasible. He would suggest that, rather than think of the measures based on what happened in the past, they think of them about what could be the possibility in the future so they can do the research and exploration about whether that is feasible or not and see if things have changed.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated how Pacifica politics on this issue historically falls, but he is also very curious on what the urgency of their current predicament might bear and it doesn’t strike him as a bad idea to begin that investigation to see if they are likely to fall into the historical trap they usually do or perhaps it will be well taken by the community that there is a greater urgency now than what we have seen historically.
City Manager Woodhouse added that, to that point, part of the financial analysis that they have done and the budget struggles that he has worked with over the last four years, based on that information, his professional judgment is that the can has been kicked down the road as far as it can be kicked down the road. He stated that the option in coming years is going to be more and more dramatic expenditure containment by cutting programs and services to balance our annual budget. He added that they are working on every strategy possible, and that is why it is important that they are talking about non-taxing strategies, economic development and pursuing grant funding left and right, OES funding for capital projects, etc. They must do everything they can, but looking at an operational deficit of between $1 and $2 million one year from now is a daunting vision just to maintain our current struggling level of services and that is why they are having this conversation.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they can talk about the VLF again. She asked if she heard that they are going to get this year’s VLF but not until next year.
City Council Regular Meeting 38 February 14, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what rate they anticipate that to be.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it should refund the short fall from this current year which is $2 million or $2.1 million.
Chief Fin. Sustainability Officer Carter confirmed it is $2.1 million.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it will be received in 2022-2023.
Chief Fin. Sustainability Officer Carter confirmed it would be 2022-2023.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that short fall or back fill will be critical to attempt to balance the budget for next year in addition to the ARPA funding that we have and the other innovative programs they are trying to use ARPA funding for as well.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that the problem is that Pacifica has become addicted to one-time monies. He stated that ERAF could disappear with the stroke of a pen, mentioning that there are five counties in the state that get that money.
City Manager Woodhouse thought it was four.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that four counties get that money and 54 counties do not, and it would be very easy for the governor to balance his budget by taking that. He stated that you get the VLF which has been a constant thing that has been raised every year by the state. We continue going from one time expenditure and ARPA funds are now the drug of choice this year to get us balanced. He stated that, eventually at some point it will stop. He stated that every time we have had a tax measure fail in Pacifica, the average person has never seen any repercussions because of that failing. He stated that we have cut staff, don’t fill positions and less cops on duty on the midnight shift. He stated that they kept covering it with band-aids.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, while they work hard to keep that operational stuff invisible to the public, it is not as invisible as it used to be and to him, it was not sustainable at all to continue that way. He stated that the organization is going to implode under that pressure.
Councilmember Vaterlaus was on the financing city services committee years ago and they cut every little detail and went over paper and every detail of every department and cut what they could. She stated that her issue is that they are always in the same boat, barely making it.
She stated that, if there was some way they could make enough money so they weren’t always scratching the surface and trying to get by, that would be the best solution of any of it so they were not always struggling and they could provide the services that people want. She has heard people get up at Council meetings and say you need to do things, but they would never pay another cent in tax. She heard someone say that in one sentence and she found that discouraging. She stated that they want things and have additional staff but they don’t want to pay for it. She stated that they need to convince people that it is important to pay this for the city and for their enjoyment of the city.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the point she just made is really what the spine of vision City Council Regular Meeting 39 February 14, 2022
2025 study is to hear what is the vision for services five years from now. He asked if the vision for the city to be an entirely contract city with minimal services or to have robust great services that are thriving, what are they, and what kind of infrastructure projects. The financing strategy gets built from what is necessary to achieve that vision and, unfortunately, some of those financial strategies require a vote of the people. If the voters turn down measures, then the vision gets revised. He stated that is what this process is all about and that is why this conversation is so difficult. They have to talk and think about what the possibilities are. He has heard a couple of comments to try to coalesce, comments of openness regarding looking at TOT as a starting point.
Mayor Bier thought they should look at sales tax.
Councilmember O’Neill thought they should try sales tax.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that one of the points about sales tax, and Brian Moura can correct him if he is wrong, but there is a cap so what happens with sales tax is that, if we don’t do the local add on, but the county does the local add on and it is not exempt from that cap calculation, you could lose out with your own bandwidth for your local add on and there is a time game. He asked if he is correct.
Mr. Moura stated that he is correct. He stated that the other thing that is interesting about Pacifica is that one of the reasons that the revenue estimates are so high for Pacifica for their quarter cent and half sent add-ons is because so many of the residents shop in other communities and they are actually going to benefit more from a half cent or quarter cent add-on than other cities would. He stated that the City Manager is correct as there is a limit, countywide, as to how much add on you can do and things like Measure A and other countywide taxes eat into that and, if you stand by and the county jumps ahead, and eventually uses up all the cap space in the future, if you decide later on you want to do one of these, it may be too late.
Councilmember O’Neill recalls meeting Kevin Mullin had where they passed legislation to raise the limit because of the county taxes, managed lanes and Measure A, etc., He thought it would be interesting to know what is the county limit.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that was what he referred to, not that it raised the limit, but that the tax doesn’t count towards the limit and above the limit, which is the way to think of it.
Councilmember O’Neill read that Hayward is at 10.75% and we are at 9.625% in Pacifica. He didn’t know what the limit is, but he thought it would be interesting to find out. He stated that a lot of those are special, 3% of the sales tax we pay is county special taxes for highways, buses, CalTrain, etc, and a lot of which we don’t get service for in Pacifica. He stated that he has never ridden a train in Pacifica and isn’t old enough for Ocean Shore.
Mayor Bier stated that the county does a millionaire’s tax. She asked what the fund is for the Mental Health ServiceAact (MHSA), which she thought was a half cent tax.
Councilmember O’Neill never heard of that.
Mayor Bier stated that it is funds MHSA.
City Council Regular Meeting 40 February 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, as mayor, he will take her word for it.
Mayor Bier didn’t know how many millionaires we have.
Councilmember O’Neill asked the City Manager if he has the wisdom from Council.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he is hearing partial interest in exploring TOT and sales tax feasibility, but only from a couple of councilmembers.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, since they are asking Council if they want to authorize staff to do an RFP to do polling data to see what tax would fly, then he didn’t think they charge per question. He stated that, if they hire the research people to aske, utility users, transit occupancy tax, or sales tax to see which one would fly, he thought that would help frame the discussion at a later date.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they would move on that and be needing to come back to Council in April time frame.
Councilmember Beckmeyer didn’t think the time was right for this. She thought they are just coming out of the pandemic and it is not good timing. She didn’t know how they would stretch it another year but it is not really a year but two years because some of these taxes, if not all of them, have to be on a ballot where Council members are being elected. She stated that they can’t put it on a mid-year.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is a primary.
Mr. Moura stated that the only way they can put one of these on is in some circumstances you can have a 4/5 vote of Council and declare a state of financial emergency which is rarely done.
He thought their challenge, in terms of timing, and the City Manager is right that there is never a good time to have this discussion, it is if you don’t put one or more of the revenue measures on this November, you are going to hit your $900,000 deficit before they get to the next general election in November 2024 and you will have about a year and a half where you are going to be in deficit without revenue, and that is the challenge. He stated that, with the VLF and the ARPA money, the next budget you adopt this summer is probably going to be okay, but your problem is the following July 1, you will be in serious trouble and, if you haven’t taken action this November, you will have to wait another 1 1/2 years to get to the next election and, in the meantime, as the City Manager suggested, they are probably looking at some significant cuts.
Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested that, before they go to a poll, they have community conversation regarding do you want to pay taxes. She knows it sounds like she is being pessimistic but she thinks she is being realistic and the idea of tabletop discussions need to happen before they put something on a ballet. She didn’t think they can decide to put something on a ballot and then back into it, but work with the community to have people understand the scenario that they are facing.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, stating that the engagement component to Vision 2025 is part of the scope of the economic opportunities study and there are traps that are moving in parallel out of time necessity, but through the economic opportunities study, there is tabletop conversation about vision and opportunities and what that looks like, and then information about the financials as well and he envisions sessions where there would be updated information about feasibility of different types of measures, refine cost estimates, what it would look like.
City Council Regular Meeting 41 February 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is 12:23 AM and he personally didn’t want to go past 12:30 AM.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t want to go past 12:30 AM either. He asked if TOT goes to a voter of the people?
Mr. Moura stated that it does.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, if the question is that you are going to lose your police in a year, and what kind of tax would you like to pay to be able to keep them, that might garner a slightly different response than merely whether you want to be taxed.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she has heard these discussions from many councils, and it is always a difficulty discussion. She stated that they are all working through this phenomenally.
She stated that this is usually an hours long discussion because it does have so many implications. She stated that the one thing she wanted to point out that she has seen works successfully is, as referenced by Councilmember O’Neill, hiring a polling consultant. What happens in that process is that is community engagement. There are surveys that go out, and the whole purpose of that is to figure out if your community is ready for this measure. She stated that the issue is they want to get that moving quickly so that you can start that engagement and have those questions that they all have answered, and that is what you use the polling consultant for.
Councilmember O’Neill thought to paraphrase the City Attorney, you also get the main issues that are a concern to the public, is it police, fire, open space.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated is it the roads.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, is it pot holes, etc., all those questions. She stated that there are many consultants who do this type of work and it is a science for them and they are amazing.
She has also seen cities hire those consultants, go through some polling and some surveying and, based on those results, have decided not to place something on the ballot. She stated that, because Council is making steps, this is step one, and they are not committed to any certain path, but just giving staff direction now to continue to move forward and they can take it one step at a time.
Mayor Bier thought they should have an ad hoc committee to work on the outreach as they will need some kind of outreach. They don’t have to talk about it at this meeting, but they will need to be a part of the outreach.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed. He stated that he had earlier mentioned that option when they were talking about the economic opportunities study that Council may want to put together an ad hoc committee related to that outreach component.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the City Manager had his direction.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he heard what Councilmember O’Neill voiced was interest in just looking at feasibility of the three types of measures UUT, sales tax and TOT as a starting point and gather that information for a more informed conversation.
City Council Regular Meeting 42 February 14, 2022
Mayor Bier thought it sounds good.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they spent some time talking about community facilities district and she didn’t know if it is premature as it strikes her that the nature of this conversation is to drive them towards November and it seems like they are not prepared to talk about a community facilities district at this juncture. She asked if she was correct.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, since they are very similar, he suggested that they throw assessment districts into the mix and come up with verbiage for the pollster to survey for that.
He has talked to people in Vallemar who are interested in an assessment district, with the many issues there with trees and undergrounding, condition of roads, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:45 am.
Councilmember O’Neill feels that deterioration of decisions goes bad after midnight. He said his piece.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he heard a lot and he thought they had direction. He agreed that, with CFDs, maybe a little further out when they are looking as they have talked about EIF fees for West Sharp Park, CFD for quarry site, Rockaway but that may be more in alignment with evolution of those development areas. For immediate terms, it is really type of measures.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked would Bradley-Burns be part of what they are going to hear back on from the sales tax point of view.
Mr. Moura thought, if they do polling on the three items the City Manager indicated, the UUT, the TOT and sales tax, they would hear about the add-on sales tax, and the way they do it when they hire a pollster and an outreach firm is that they will typically do three different surveys and will ask one group of people about the UUT, one group about the sales tax and one group about the TOT. He was familiar with this.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the Council either needs to move to extend or they must shut down.
Councilmember O’Neill seconded the motion made by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:45 a.m.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (to extend meeting to 12:45 a.m.)
Mr. Moura stated that, what will happen is that the pollster will ask people in one of the three taxes, they don’t ask each person about all three. He stated that the other thing he would mention, and one Councilmember touched on this, was that, in San Carlos, there was a brief discussion about UUT from the environmental community for exactly the reason he believes one of them raised, which was, from their perspective, it was an incentive for people to use less utilities, and he had never heard that point of view until they did the public outreach, but he thought it was a very interesting observation.
City Attorney Kenyon wanted clarity from Council. She heard Councilmember O’Neill suggest City Council Regular Meeting 43 February 14, 2022
that there be some polling done and that the City Manager engage, under his authority, a consultant. She stated that they need confirmation from the majority of Council if that is the direction that they all want the manager to take prior to their next discussion on these issues.
Councilmember Vaterlaus and Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck responded affirmatively.
City Attorney Kenyon concluded that was an affirmation by three councilmembers.
Mayor Bier and Councilmember Beckmeyer also responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill asked the City Manager if he has everything he needs.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively, and he thanked them all for the conversation.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 12:32 a.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 2/28/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor