CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/92690013329
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 926 9001 3329
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 28, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
February 28, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on February 28, 2022 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session. Mayor Bier announced the business to be discussed.
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION- Existing Litigation.
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 : Geary et al. v. City of Pacifica, United States District Court, Northern District of California(San Francisco), Case No.3:21-cv-01780VC.
Mayor Bier asked City Clerk Coffey if there were any speakers for public comment.
City Clerk Coffey introduced the speakers.
Joanne Rokosky, Pacifica, asked that her only comment was that, during closed session, Council consider the safe parking issue with an open heart and stated that they can speak to the item when appropriate.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, acknowledged that Pacifica was standing with the county, state and country to reduce homelessness, expressing her thoughts and thanked them all for their hard work..
Deeg Gold, Pacifica, stated that she acknowledged appreciation for Council’s efforts to help the homeless and looked forward to moving on with this item.
Paul Chervatin, Pacifica, referred to the safe parking program and expressed his thoughts on the program and on moving forward for the good of all.
Victoria Becker, Pacifica, urged Council to immediately implement the safe parking program and expressed her thoughts on the urgency of this issue.
Mayor Bier closed public comment and recessed to closed session.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 28, 2022
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting at 7:05 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; Leah Castella, Asst. City Attorney; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Ryan Marquez, Assoc. Civil Engineer; Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Bonny O’Connor, Sr. Planner; Josh Montemayor, Management Analyst; Alyssa Barranti, Management Analyst; Ken Fong, IT Support; 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.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier commented on the need for Public Hearing #9 being held at 7:30 or shortly after, and they would decide whether they will have time for oral communications before that hearing.
Mayor Bier asked to pull Item #7.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer had raised her hand.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 28, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she was checking to see if that was the item she had a question on, and concluded it was. She asked if the mayor was pulling it as an item for another agenda or as a separate item at this meeting.
Mayor Bier thought they should have it on another agenda.
City Clerk Coffey explained that, if they are pulling an item from the consent calendar, it would be a consideration item.
City Manager Woodhouse added that it would be on this meeting’s agenda.
Mayor Bier opened up public comments on consent items only, and asked the public to mention their name and the item on which they are commenting, with two minutes allowed for each speaker.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Jaime Rojas, Pacifica, stated that he represented an association that represents tobacco retailers in Pacifica.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it was an item on the agenda.
Mr. Rojas stated that it was not, but was Item #8 on the consent calendar. He explained why he was asking if they could pull the item for consideration of the enforcement date.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, asked for clarification that, as Item #7 was pulled, they wait for comments until that time.
Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.
Alejandra Warren, Pacifica, stated she wanted to speak on Item #11.
Mayor Bier stated that she must wait until that item comes up to comment. She then asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck if he had his hand up.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he did, but he will save his comments for after public comments.
Trisha Barr, San Mateo Tobacco Education Coalition co-chair, and expressed her reasons for asking that Council move the date up or going forward as is.
Claudia Martinez, Pacifica, expressed her thoughts on the process for tobacco retailers to make changes and asked that they consider giving them more time.
Shawneece Stevenson, Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council member, expressed her thoughts on asking Council to consider moving the date up to help tobacco retailers make the necessary changes for their businesses while protecting children’s health.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, had comments on several items, first thanking them for pulling Item #7 and suggested adding it to another agenda to give more time to study it. On Item #2, she pointed out an error on PW Dep. Director Bautista’s comments about fee reduction tiers for City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 28, 2022
affordable housing. On Item #4, she thanked Chief Fin. Sustainability Officer Carter for the new forms she prepared to help the report more understandable. On item #5, she mentioned her thoughts on the PW improvement project.
Joseph Smith, Pacifica, asked if this was the time to talk about Item #7.
Mayor Bier confirmed that they pulled Item #7 and he will be able to speak on the item later.
Rich Campbell, Pacifica, stated that he will speak on Item #7 later.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wondered if staff would like to address the concern about the ADA upgrades on Item #5, i.e., the costs. He would favor hearing the particulars. He then mentioned PW Dep. Director Bautista’s comment on previous meeting’s minutes, and he couldn’t find it and he wasn’t sure if they want to address it. He was inclined to vote regarding Item # 8, but wanted to follow up with the question asked about permits for expanding refrigeration. He asked Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister if it takes a long time to get a permit for expanding refrigeration if you are a small business.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that she will assume it is all tenant improvement within their space and it shouldn’t take long to get their permit. She did think it was fair to say it is unknown how long the actual project will take and how long it takes to get materials, but she didn’t see the permit taking any longer than a few weeks to a month.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked what the ballpark limit was of how long the improvement could take as it was expressed as a small improvement.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated she didn’t have the expertise and a contractor in that area would be able to answer that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck acknowledged that she said it was up to a month for the permit itself.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the comment about packet page 20 which she thought it was packet page 32, regarding PW Dep. Director Bautista’s statement. She would prefer if he could look at the language and clarify if it is accurate and, if not, they can fix it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he just read the quote and he believes that what staff indicated when they bring the park fees back is that they will be looking at those different tiers and it would be a simple minute change. He stated that he can confirm.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that there was direction from Council to look at those different tiers.
Mayor Bier stated that they can make that correction.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to approve the consent calendar with Item #7 removed and Item #2 amended regarding PW Director Bautista’s comments; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 28, 2022
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
CONSENT CALENDAR (EXCLUDING #7):
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] (Item #2 AS AMENDED)
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for 1/01/22 through 1/15/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 1/01/22 through 1/15/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the regular City Council Meeting held on February 14, 2022 and the special City Council meeting held on February 15, 2022.
3. Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.
4. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2021.
5. Pacifica Public Works New Office Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for Public Works Department Office Improvements (New Office Project):
A. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Services Agreement with BEAM Construction, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $132,664.00; and B. Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $150,000.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed thirteen percent (13%) of the Construction Services Agreement amount; and
C. Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount.
6. Fairmont Park Play Structure Replacement Parts
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems, Inc.) for the purchase and installation of replacement parts for the preschool age play structure and the school age play structure at Fairmont Park in the amount of $77,842.66; and approve budget authority in the amount of $85,626.66, which includes a 10% contingency.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 28, 2022
7. Consideration of a resolution adopting interim guidance, rules and regulations to implement Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) and directing the preparation of an SB 9 implementing ordinance.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the attached resolution adopting the interim guidance, rules, and regulations to implement SB 9 and directing the preparation of an SB 9 implementing ordinance.
8. Adoption 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 adopt the 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.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they were at 7:25 p.m. and questioned whether they would have time for oral communications. She suggested that they proceed with the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. after a short break.
Mayor Bier agreed, calling for a break then reconvened the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. Redistricting - Public Hearing #3 to Receive Input Regarding Proposed Draft District Maps, Composition of Council District Boundaries; Select Final Map and Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Title 2, Chapter 9, “District Elections” to Repeal and Replace Section 2-9.02 “City Council Districts Established” of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code to Adopt City Council District Boundaries Based on 2020 Census Data
PROPOSED ACTION:
1. Conduct the Public Hearing to Receive Input Regarding Proposed Draft District Maps and Composition of Council District Boundaries; and
2. Select Final Map and Introduce by Title Only and Waive the First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Title 2, Chapter 9, “District Elections” by Repealing and Replacing Section 2-9.02, “City Council Districts Established” of the City Of Pacifica Municipal Code to Adopt City Council District Boundaries Based on 2020 Census Data; and finding ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
City Council Regular Meeting 7 February 28, 2022
City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report, then turned it over to Robert McEntire, consultant from National Demographics Corporation (NDC).
Robert McEntire, consultant - NDC, completed the presentation.
Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, thought they should stick with the current map, mentioning that she had previously sent comments on the flaws of map 506 and specifically pointed out some of those concerns.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, added to Ms. Verby’s comments to share her thoughts on those issues and supported re-adoption of the 505, current district boundaries.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, agreed with the two previous comments, adding her thoughts in support of keeping the existing map, adding her thoughts on a discrepancy in the report and what is on the city website and suggested staff carefully compare the existing map and the one shown in the report.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated he wanted to make the same points already made, and pointed out map 506's significant problems and that they should not waste any more time on it.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, hoped Council will retain the current map, then mentioned his concerns about the general process.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, echoed Mr. Kremer’s comments, and shared his thoughts on the Council having difficult decisions but stating that this should be an easy one.
Patricia Kremer, Pacifica, expressed her comments that the history should be kept except if there is a compelling reason, and then shared a brief historical perspective, concluding that map 506 makes no sense.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that Jim Kremer’s hand was raised but he already spoke.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck commented that sometimes someone else in the family wants to speak, and asked if Mr. Kremer lowered his hand or did staff.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that he lowered his hand himself.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked the author of 506, as he thought it was important that people were engaged and giving feedback about what they are looking for, but he felt was 505b is his preferred map. While they are going through the required process required by the census, he respected that someone is putting their opinion out there to be analyzed and he honored them for taking the time to do it and their participation. He asked Mr. McEntire about a couple of City Council Regular Meeting 8 February 28, 2022
speakers’ comments on conflict of interest by Council and he asked how it was not a conflict of interest that Council can decide their own map.
Mr. McEntire stated that the comments were interesting, and he understood why they made their comments. He stated that the city was obligated to go through the process and they have to hold at least four public hearings to solicit community input whether you love or hate your map. He stated that the goal is to obtain public input so Council will consider before making their choice. He stated that, as written by law, the Council makes the final decision as city residents voted them in to do that on every issue, including this one. He understood it may not feel copacetic to some people as the way it was presented, but it is presented as in law and City Counsel can probably speak at length on this topic.
City Attorney Kenyon added that Mr. McEntire is correct that they are legally obligated to adopt a new map. She stated that this is not the first redistricting hearing she has been through this year, and every Councilmember, Board of Supervisor, is voting on a map that involves their particular area or potential district.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck acknowledged that they are obligated to do it, but he didn’t think it was a waste of time to take the opportunity to hear the community and he favors map 505b and is the way to go.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked the demographer to take a look at the city’s website, as she did, to take a quick glance at Birch Lane and double-check to make sure that what she is seeing is accurate and regarding the current 505b in packet page 211, she thought what may be happening is the version of the map on the city’s website has a slightly different background color to it and they have the different color layers on top of each other. She thought it was clearer in their packet where the green and blue are, and on the city’s website, it looks like a third color that is bluish greenish, but more blue than green and that skinny part of District 2 that extends to Birch Lane is the southernmost portion of District 2, the little finger that sticks out along the coast. She believes that has been there all along, including the last time they used these districts, even though they didn’t vote in District 2 the last time. She thought it was consistent, and wanted to raise that question because it was asked by the public.
Mr. McEntire stated that, in processing the map with the new census data, they pulled the shape file that was created during the last process and sent to the County Clerk for processing a fair election and they pulled the same shape file down to reprocess the new census data and she was correct that it does hold the same boundaries.
Mayor Bier stated that she would not want to split Vallemar, which she considered a bad idea, thus, she would go for the other map.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they are voting on this at this meeting or hearing it.
Mayor Bier stated that it calls for a motion.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it calls for a motion. They have conducted the public hearing and they must select the final map, introduce by title only and waive the first reading of the ordinance. She stated that, if they select the map, they would identify the map and say that they would like to collect the numbered map and move to introduce by title only and waive the first reading of the ordinance.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 February 28, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to select Map 505b and Introduce by Title Only and Waive the First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Title 2, Chapter 9, “District Elections” by Repealing and Replacing Section 2-9.02, “City Council Districts Established” of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code to Adopt City Council District Boundaries Based on 2020 Census Data, and finding ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Item #9)
AGENDA ITEM #9:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Mayor Bier stated that they were ready to move on to Oral Communications and she knows there are a lot of people wanting to speak on Item 10, and it is only talking about the safe parking program. She stated that, if they are going to speak in Oral Communications, stick to other things as she knows there are a lot of people who want to talk about it so be careful so they don’t have to stop them.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they have to do discuss No. 7 which was pulled from the consent calendar.
AGENDA ITEM #7 DISCUSSION (pulled from CONSENT; considered following Agenda Item #9):
Dep. Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has a question, but she thought she should wait until after public comments.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the mayor said they would have two minutes.
Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she is trying to gather further understanding of this issue.
She knows that SB9 is being challenged in other California cities, and she expressed her understanding and thoughts on standards and the next process.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, discovered this item was on the agenda an hour before the meeting and she joins in request of others to postpone this item, expressing her specific concerns and thoughts.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 February 28, 2022
Rich Campbell, Pacifica, stated that he was joining in the suggestion to agendize this issue and give the citizens more time to look at it, expressing his surprise that it didn’t go before the Planning Commission first, and gave his specific thoughts on the possible process.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he has been looking through SB9 during his requests from clients, and expressed his thoughts on the issue and process.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she sent staff an email earlier referring to a loophole in SB9, and expressed her thoughts and suggestions regarding the process and city implications.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated that Pacificans have a history of wanting to be engaged in dialogue in the decision making process, and she shared her thoughts on hazards, insurance, etc., and citizen involvement in this process.
Joseph Smith, Pacifica, applauded staff, as state housing laws have been extreme, and commented on SB9 and his only request was to remove the garage requirements, which he addressed and explained in a letter to staff. He also addressed his thoughts on the process.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, questions who is in control, and expressed his thoughts on that and the process. He asked Council to explore this deeper, understanding that the city needs it but they don’t need to relinquish our responsibility.
Jordan McWherter, Pacifica, thanked Council for bringing this up and being in compliance with state law as they move forward on SB9. He expressed his thoughts and concerns about SB9 and the big issues in Pacifica regarding housing. He also echoed Mr. Smith's thoughts.
Daniel Smith, Pacifica, stated he was a real estate agent and expressed the fact that many people cannot compete in the housing market and he expressed his thoughts on this issue.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify what this process is, and Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister or Dep. Planning Director Murdock can answer any questions. He stated that it was a two-stage process. He mentioned that Council voted to oppose SB9 when it was being considered, as well as a lot of cities, but it passed. He stated that it is a state law they are trying to abide by, and the first step in the process are the guidelines to bring clarity to the criteria of evaluation of projects for city staff and applicant’s support of the community. He stated that the second phase was staff having to do a lot of work for community engagement to develop an ordinance to implement SB9. He stated that the interim steps they are trying to achieve, based on a lot of public comment and different standards changing across the state, are things that can be factored into the permanent ordinance, once that is adopted. He stated that, if they don’t adopt a guideline, there is no clarity to staff in evaluation of projects or to the applicants which doesn’t benefit anyone. He stated that they need to follow up when they have staff time available to develop the permanent ordinance which is months of work. He stated that they don’t have the planning resources, given all the other priorities, to work on that now.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had a hard time hearing all the comments at this meeting, as those were the same things going through her mind and which Council discussed at length when they brought this item forward last year regarding their opposition to SB9. She stated that it wasn’t a popular position to take with local elected officials but they took that City Council Regular Meeting 11 February 28, 2022
position as it was in the best interests of Pacifica. She wanted to say that as Council is often criticized and they did everything they could do to push back on SB9 at that time. She had a request for clarification which she thought may need to be addressed in a larger statement from the City Attorney. She stated that, in regard to public comments at this meeting and in writing regarding the garage issue, she needs to understand the nuance of that issue as she is not clear on what the city can and can’t do or must or must not do around that. She stated that anything City Attorney, Planning Director or Dep. Planning Director have to say on that would be helpful to her.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she will start, knowing that Dep. Planning Director Murdock will have a much more articulate response, specifically regarding the garage issue. She wanted to note is that there are definite concerns with SB9 and the legislation. She heard comments about legality and vagueness, ambiguity, and lack of clear direction for cities on how to implement. She stated wholeheartedly that the reason her office recommended that they adopt these objective guidelines is specifically to provide more regulatory authority to the city to interpret what is currently a vague, ambiguous potentially legally suspect on legislation. She then let Dep. Planning Director Murdock address the garage issues.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, with respect to the interim regulations at this time, they are seeking to clarify the application of existing zoning regulations. He stated that the existing regulations in Pacifica’s Municipal Code related to off-street parking for one and twofamily dwelling units, which are the subject of SB9, they are required to have a two-car garage for their off-street parking requirements. He stated staff has clarified the application to the maximum extent they can of the existing zoning regulation, which is complying with the maximum one parking space requirement that SB9 allows while retaining the other objective aspects which is to locate that one space within a garage. He stated that Council has the discretion to apply a different off-street parking standard for projects subject to SB9, and would appropriately be done during the ordinance development process. He stated that, in his opinion, to do that at this meeting would be to apply a new standard which would be subjective of different legislative process rather than clarifying the application of existing zoning standards.
Mayor Bier stated that everything that has been said showed where her confusion was, and that was why she wanted to pull it. She feels she has better clarification now as they gave her a well-rounded view.
Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to an item in Section 3, i.e., you cannot take an existing rental and split it into two rental properties. She asked if that was what it was saying.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that Section 3 contains standards based on provisions on SB9 related to rental housing. He stated that it reflects the fact that they cannot affect those units subject to rent control or where an owner took control of a rental unit through an Ellis act eviction. With respect to the 3.D, you can’t convert a unit that already has a tenant in it in order to displace them to create the additional unit.
Councilmember Vaterlaus concluded that you could take a property that has a tenant in it, subdivide it and put another building with another tenant in it, just not short term.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that SB9 prohibits the use of the new dwelling units for short term rentals and the intent is to minimize displacement of existing renters, i.e., you don’t want to solve one problem, which is creating more housing units but displace people currently in City Council Regular Meeting 12 February 28, 2022
housing units in the process. He stated that it was not the legal answer, but that is the theme in the intent of the legislation.
Councilmember Vaterlaus appreciated the explanation.
Councilmember O’Neill had a question for the City Attorney. He asked if he misunderstood this, but there is an ambiguity in SB9, and our Municipal Code is saying something different, and does our Municipal Code conflict with SB9 at this point.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that was not the issue. If our current code has essentially objective standards, staff has not done that analysis yet but will do it. She reiterated that this step is for the protection of the city and our regulatory authority, and this is giving the city more regulatory authority with regard to inconsistencies between our code and SB9 to the extent there is any, and the city will be resolving that, as alluded to by the City Manager, in the second phase and will address all of those issues.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that, if they pass this as an in term, emphasizing “in term”, that means that the four applications that are appending plus any other applications that are received up to whenever a new ordinance is done will all be handled the same way and give the city a legal defense from someone suing the city saying that they are not implementing SB9.
He asked if that was correct.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the purpose is to provide more clarification on how they are going to be implementing SB9 because, as she mentioned earlier, there is very little, if any, direction in SB9 and for the city to apply it objectively, a legal requirement at this point imposed by SB9, they need to understand what those objective requirements are so they have put them into the partial attempt to make that clarification, but the city is not done, just doing the best that they can, given the time constraints, and the fact that we have applications we are going to have to process before we go through the full scale process of addressing all of the zoning changes they are going to need to fully implement SB9.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock suggested saying it a different way. As the City Attorney mentions, there is quite a bit of vagueness in SB9, with a lot of “the city may do this and the city may do that, etc.” and the interim regulations do what they can within the guidelines of our existing zoning to say not only may we, but the city is choosing to impose those standards that are already on the books to these projects, so they aren’t challenged to say the city may but it hasn’t applied a particular zoning standard to an SB9 project. He stated that there may be many other types of objective standards that Council wants to impose on SB9 projects in the future, but those will have to be part of the development of a new ordinance. In the interim, the city is pointing to specific existing zoning regulations that will apply to SB9 projects to give the city more control and delaying may inadvertently give the city less control.
Councilmember O’Neill stated, by the nature of what they are discussing, these will all be infill projects and no huge new developments. He asked if this will all be considered infill.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he didn’t know if he would go that far. SB9 is limited to existing legal lots so there are existing legal lots in places where you may not consider them to be infill locations. If those sites are subject to single family residential zoning, as defined and identified in these interim regulations, and meets all the other criteria of SB9, the city may be obligated to approve a project in one of those locations. He thought, practically, most of them will occur in infill locations but they are not strictly limited to infill locations pursuant to SB9.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 February 28, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that we are behind the eight-ball either way, including the 1900 units mandated, and he concluded that each one of these units would count towards the RHNA number.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that it would count as housing units and different standards would have to be met for those units to count towards our low, moderate and extremely low income categories.
Councilmember O’Neill assumed that was another agenda item. He thought, for the four units pending, they have taken out loans or could be applying for loans and rates are rising and it will make it even less affordable for them to do this. He stated that, as this is interim, and they will come back with a regular ordinance at a future date, hopefully ASAP. He supports moving forward and passing this item.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock wanted to touch on one of the points related to the garage standard. He clarified that it was staff’s assessment that the garage area would not count as floor area against the 800 square foot size required by SB9. Under the Municipal Code, the garage area is exempt from the calculation of floor area so it is staff’s assessment that it would not apply to the 800 square feet allowed in SB9. He stated that, while there may be pros and cons for requiring the garage, to do so would be consistent with the existing zoning regulations and would not limit someone from getting the full 800 square feet allowed under SB9.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to clarify that she agrees with Councilmember O’Neill that this is interim, and her question is that, as called for by several commenters, when we have a more specific ordinance and have the opportunity to go beyond interim, will this be something that is brought before the Planning Commission and will it be something where they will have that opportunity that some of the commenters were asking for at this time.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that she was correct and all zoning ordinances are required to go to the Planning Commission first for review and a recommendation to Council and that would involve at least one public hearing and then they come to Council for at least one more public hearing for introduction of an ordinance and potentially multiple public hearings but at a minimum, a second consideration for adoption of the ordinance. He added that, for areas within the coastal zone, that ordinance would then need to be certified by the Coastal Commission before it would take effect in the coastal zone. He stated that there are multiple opportunities for in depth public involvement on the ordinance that will ultimately be adopted and that is the time for that detailed public participation that many people have asked for.
Mayor Bier stated that was one of her questions, adding that she thought all her questions are answered.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they were ready for a motion.
Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the attached resolution adopting the interim guidance, rules and regulations to implement SB9 and directing the preparation of an SB9 implementing ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 February 28, 2022
Vote: 5-0 (Agenda Item #7)
AGENDA ITEM #7:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O’Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, stated that he was speaking on the RVs on Francisco Boulevard, specifically explaining about an RV that has an expired license and other vehicular problems, as well as other vehicles, and questioned that they are not strictly being addressed by the police as the police have told him that they are not violating the required law.
Delia McGrath, Pacifica, was informing and inviting Pacificans to the Pacifica Peace People that will be starting a series of conversations called Pacifica Talks Race, giving the specific first event date.
Timothy Cotter, Pacifica, stated that Mr. Guillet said everything he was going to say, adding his thoughts on the RVs regarding safety of his children and neighborhood and would like to see them go.
Lynn Adams, Pacifica, stated that they have been doing beach cleanups all year and the tsunami delayed the Martin Luther King Day in January. She give the detailed statistics, and she invited Pacificans to their 15th annual surf movie on March 12, giving details about the agenda. She stated that they will be going forward on Earth Day on April 23 but will not hold an Eco-Fest but will hold a mini-Eco-Fest and they hope to broadcast it live and people can join and hear about the various subjects, and mentioned various other events.
Cara Brown, Pacifica, stated she lives in the Fairway neighborhood, a few doors down from where the RVs have taken up residence, and voiced she and her husband’s many concerns regarding their neighborhood and its safety.
Amy Guillet, Pacifica, voiced her safety concerns about the RVs parking by the golf course parking lot and the police favoring them over residents.
Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center Director, stated that their fire repairs are complete and they are reopened with regular office hours and available for appointments. She stated that they are also making appointments for tax return preparations, as well as grocery distribution details. She stated that they did the homeless count on February 24, and reached out to help them and the report will be completed in May or June, and mentioned help for housing issues.
Linda Acosta, Pacifica, stated she works for the San Francisco Public Health Department and, regarding the RVs, wants to know is why we aren’t following other cities’ services, mentioning City Council Regular Meeting 15 February 28, 2022
details, and as a tax payer, she would like to have input on how that is done for her to feel safe and they will have a safe place..
Sharon Lindsey, Pacifica, referred to Ridgeway where they have three little league fields with lots of kids traveling to the fields and she thinks they need a bike lane on Ridgeway for safety due to not addressing the RV 72-hour situation which are not vetted and should not be on Ridgeway.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he was embarrassed at the lack of compassion in this community. He agreed some work needs to be done with people talking to the homeless and some work talking with the people in the neighborhood.
Mayor Bier stated that, if he wants to talk about the permit parking program, he can do that during that item.
Mr. Lawrence apologized, saying he lost contact on Zoom and thought they were on that item.
He then asked why the Mussel Rock landfill omitted from the hazards that face our community when it is across the street.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that the conversation with the RVs indicates that the city has a serious housing problem and we have to build a lot more housing. He was glad SB9 was coming with the ADUs. He then mentioned his disappointment on the housing count and expressed his thoughts and concerns on housing costs and on rewriting the General Plan to address the RHNA numbers.
Phil Lindsey, Pacifica, expressed his concern of the absence of a bike lane on Ridgeway Drive, mentioning it being designated for a class 3 bike pathway several years ago. He urged Council to develop that plan, mentioning that a lot of kids rode bikes to the fields.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus congratulated Planning Commissioner Nibbelin who was appointed to County Counsel. She served with him on Planning and he is a great person for this position.
She attended the Democratic meeting and Anna Eshoo, the upcoming congresswoman, was the speaker who is looking forward to working with Pacifica. She also attended the Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame, and thanked everyone who attended.
Councilmember O’Neill apologized to Councilmember Vaterlaus because he was out of town and could not make her awards ceremony at the Sports Hall of Fame but he did congratulate her. He also congratulated John Nibbelin who is named the Chief County Counsel for the top lawyer for San Mateo County. He stated that the only drawback is possibly losing him as a Planning Commissioner and he is the lawyer for Pacifica School District and Jefferson Union High School District, as well as County Planning Department. He is sure he will do a very good job.
Councilmember Beckmeyer acknowledged Councilmember Vaterlaus who was one of the honorees on Sunday for the Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame, adding that she can’t even begin to enumerate her many accomplishments in weightlifting and many world records. She was honored to be at that event and congratulated her. She also echoed congratulations to John Nibbelin. She attended a ton of meetings but none of them are having immediate import, but City Council Regular Meeting 16 February 28, 2022
one she is excited to learn more about is the possibility of a library construction grant program in terms of Pacifica fit for that. She will share more information at the next meeting when they have more time for Council communications.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck congratulated John Nibbelin. He stated that he wanted to acknowledge that there is a lot of heavy stuff happening on the other part of the world and he thanked Cub Scout Pack 216, 5th Grade Arrow of Light scouts, Jack, Mateo, Nathan, Gemma and Cooper, and appreciated zooming in with them with information about Council. He attended the City Democrat meeting with Anna Eshoo and he later got to sign his name to her nomination paperwork and was excited that she will be our next representative. He attended the one-day homeless count on Thursday which was eye opening to wake up at 5 am, get there and he was paired with a housing specialist who took him to certain places where there are encampments and they did a bit of hiking. It was eye opening to see the needs in our community that we don’t always see from just strolling down the sidewalk, adding that they have work to do. He echoed Councilmember Beckmeyer’s sentiment about the library grant opportunities coming down the pike and thought it was good to see a potential funding source to get library needs addressed and hopefully starting the Library Advisory Committee up again.
He attended Council of Cities and the Sports Hall of Fame dinner. He referred to Councilmember Vaterlaus who apparently has 30 world records. He stated that, before Council’s meeting, he attended a UFCW, United Food and Commercial Workers Union 5 rally in Menlo Park at a Safeway and one was going on in Pleasant Hill at the same time. He stated that a Councilmember from Menlo Park, Ray Mueller, was there marching with them as was State Senator Josh Becker. He stated that they are at a point where they feel the need to rally to send a message to Safeway that they don’t want a strike but want them to pay them what they owe them as they need a reasonable pay rate. He hoped they won’t have to call for a strike vote, but they are starting rallies.
Mayor Bier congratulated Councilmember Vaterlaus and thanked a co-Council for jarring news on Saturday and everyone pulled together and showed up for her event. She thought she was amazing and apologized for not being able to be there. She spent a lot of time the past few weeks meeting with constituent groups, mentions several of them, and also met with the Firefighters at Station 72. She stated that we have the best firefighters as they are a part of our community. Even though the JPA administration is in Daly City, they are our firefighters and they want to feel like they are part of our community. She acknowledged it and looked forward to keeping that relationship. She stated that they will be trying to attend meetings to recognize them and treat them like they treat everyone else. She also attended the Pacifica Democrat’s meeting and Anna Eshoo was amazing. On looking at her notes, she realized that she had tried to call Susan Wallace who asked her to call Ms. Wallace but she probably wrote her phone number incorrectly and she asked her to email her and give her the phone number, she will call her.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated he was honored to attend Councilmember Vaterlaus’ celebration of her great achievements. He stated that it was a pleasure to be there and meet her family. He stated that the city is putting together a Vision 2025 and beyond financial sustainability study webpage that can serve as a repository of documents related to the study that can serve as information about the process, public engagement, financial forecast and other financial related information, etc., as they do for most of their major projects and they hope to have it up in the next week or so. He stated that Council’s annual goal setting session is set for the afternoon of Friday, March 25, and all day Saturday, March 26. He stated that Friday City Council Regular Meeting 17 February 28, 2022
afternoon will be more of a communications and team building exercise with Saturday as the major goal setting piece. He stated that many have heard that the mask guidelines continue to evolve related to Covid-19 and they are tracking the different changes. They are evolving rapidly, so he wasn’t going to dive into what those changes are, but they will be putting out information related to those as they take place.
Mayor Bier called for a break, then reconvened the meeting.
CONSIDERATION
10. Adoption of a Resolution approving the Temporary Safe Parking Program, Operations Agreement with the Pacifica Resource Center, and Funding for the Program; and Introduce an Ordinance amending sections of Titles 4 and 5 the Pacifica Municipal Code related to on-street parking regulations in order to allow participants of the Safe Parking Program to park on the street for more than 72 hours.
PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Move to adopt the Resolution approving the Temporary Safe Parking Program, the Operations Agreement with the Pacifica Resource Center, and Funding for the Program; and finding Approval of the Program Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
2) Move to Introduce by Title Only and Waive further reading of “Ordinance of The City Council of The City of Pacifica To Amend Article 12 of Chapter 7 "Traffic" Within Title 4 of The Pacifica Municipal Code To Add Section Sec. 4-7.1207 and to Amend Section 5-
2.03, “Violations: Abatement” Within Chapter 2, "Vehicles Parked For Seventy-Two Hours Or More”, Within Title 5 Of The Pacifica Municipal Code Relating To Temporary Safe Parking Permit; and finding Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Mayor Bier stated that, when they are talking about the temporary safe parking program, she realizes how contentious this could be and there is a lot of fear out there, as well as a lot of rhetoric going on and things that are not true. She stated that what she is going to do is share truth with the public at this time and they can make their decision based on that truth. She stated that, if they listen to all the rhetoric, they are not getting the truth. She asked that they move into the item together.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck mentioned to the City Attorney that Council received a letter from a constituent and may not be representative of others, and it was suggested that, because of his involvement with Pacifica Resource Center and spent several years on the Board of Directors and the former Vice President, there might be some conflict of interest as he deliberate with his colleagues, and he wanted to verify through the City Attorney that there is no conflict of interest for him in deliberating with his colleagues.
City Attorney Kenyon thanked him for the comment, adding that she saw that communication concerning his potential conflict. She looked into that as there is no conflict as he is no longer a PRC board member and, even if he was a PRC board member, the fact that he were a non-paid member of that board, there is no potential financial interest in his involvement in PRC and there is no legal conflict. He has every right and legal ability to hear and rule on this item.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 February 28, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that they had City Manager Woodhouse and Asst. City Attorney Castella doing the presentation, and PRC Director Rees, San Mateo Dep. County Manager Jensen and Chris Hunter on call.
City Manager Woodhouse introduced the staff report.
Asst. City Attorney Castella gave the presentation.
City Manager Woodhouse continued the presentation.
Asst. City Attorney Castella completed the presentation.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to provide a clarification about the coastal development permit process for the program and stated that Asst. City Manager Wehrmeister was present.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister clarified that the spaces in the coastal zone as part of this program are within the city’s Coastal Development Permit jurisdiction, and she stated that it sounds a bit funny but the city is both the applicant and the regulator in this case so she clarified that this wouldn’t be an application to the Coastal Commission.
City Manager Woodhouse requested that City Clerk Coffey bring Ms. Jensen’s phone number as she is calling in on her phone.
City Clerk Coffey stated that she could not promote her in as a panelist, but she has allowed her to talk and she can unmute.
Mayor Bier thanked Ms. Jensen for being present and they would love to hear from the county on this.
San Mateo Dep. County Manager Jensen stated that the Board of Supervisors, in allocating their recent round of ARPA funds considered $400,000 for Pacifica’s safe parking program.
She stated that the Board approved that in concept at their February 8 meeting but asked that they return with details when available. She stated that once Council considers this matter and decide to go forward with it, they will return to the Board to get confirmation of the County’s contribution of $400,000. She stated that they see this as a great opportunity to pilot a program. She stated that there is a safe parking program in Redwood City, but Pacifica’s approach is a bit different and they want to be sure that cities in San Mateo County are able to test as many ways as possible to address our homeless problems. She was happy to answer any other questions.
Mayor Bier stated that they also have PRC Manager Rees and she was sure they want to hear from her. She asked Council if they had any questions before they ask her to come up.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted clarification regarding our settlement agreement. He stated that the settlement agreement is for three years and the funding they will be using is from ARPA funds which have to be spent within three years. He asked if that was accurate.
City Manager Woodside responded affirmatively, clarifying that the ARPA funding needs to be obligated by December 31, 2024 and extended by December 31, 2026.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 February 28, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they have a fully funded program and a three-year commitment from ARPA funds and a three-year commitment for the settlement agreement. He stated that streets will be better maintained in terms of parking regulations, etc., as once this is settled they can start enforcing it.
PRC Manager Rees thanked the city for being willing to move forward with this project. She acknowledged that it has been a long time in terms of the process several years ago as well as lawsuits. She stated that there were good reasons to move forward to do this. She stated that PRC is committed to making sure that the program is a success for many reasons, not because of helping on the lawsuit, but also helping people moving towards long-term permanent housing.
She stated that giving them a safe place to park alleviates a lot of the stress and anxiety that often comes along with being homeless and allows them to work toward goals of returning to housing which may be living in an RV park. She stated that meeting them where they are and providing them a safe place is the starting point. They are looking forward to moving forward on this with the city and seeing what great things they can accomplish together.
Mayor Bier wanted to open public comments but wanted to give them time to raise hands and get the number of speakers and can decide how much time. If there are 40 people who want to speak, they will have to consider that.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were about 10 hands raised.
Mayor Bier asked Council for thoughts on this.
Councilmember O’Neill suggests two minutes.
Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested two minutes and, as in the past, if individuals have heard the same comment they wanted to make, they can acknowledge that is the case and don’t need to repeat the same thing.
Mayor Bier confirmed that Council was in agreement. She then opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Chaya Gordon, Pacifica, urged Council to vote yes on the resolution before them, the safe parking program operations agreement between the city and PRC, adding her thoughts on the program, PRC and staff. She considered it a critical step.
Ellen Hage, Pacifica, stated that she is a 40-year home owner and member of Faith in Action Bay Area and fully supports this RV permit program, mentioning her thoughts on this issue.
Deni Asnis, Pacifica, expressed support for the operations agreement for the safe parking program and recommends that Council adopt the resolution, expressing her thoughts on this program.
Delia McGrath, Pacifica, read thoughts from someone who lives in an RV and asked that a member of Pacifica Housing of All read it. She is a member and was grateful for sharing his thoughts.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 February 28, 2022
Timothy Cotter, Pacifica, stated that he was opposed to the program. He shared his personal family member’s situation and felt it was a lifestyle choice, sharing his thoughts and suggestions.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that she lives four blocks from the proposed parking sites for the Pacifica safe parking program. She was in support of the operating agreement and safe parking program as presented, sharing her thoughts on the homeless situation.
Andrew Witt, Pacifica, stated his thoughts that this program will reduce all the concerns that many residents have voiced and drastically reduce the number of RVs parked on the streets, sharing his thoughts on previous bans and alternate options.
Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, stated 56-year home owner and member of Faith in Action Bay Area and Pacifica Housing For All. She supports the operation agreement and recommends that Council adopts the resolution for safe parking program in Pacifica, sharing her thoughts on this problem and the support by PRC and Pacifica.
Carolyn Jaramillo, Pacifica, stated she is a member of Pacifica Housing For All and was speaking in praise of the safe parking program by PRC and was grateful for PRC and the city’s support and urged Council to adopt this program.
Joanne Rokosky, Pacifica, stated she is a member of Faith in Action Bay Area and was in full support of the temporary safe parking program, expressing her thoughts on the problems and solutions. She urged Council to approve the proposed plan and operating agreement.
Linda Acosta, Pacifica, supports the idea of safe parking program, and added her thoughts on the process and various options.
Amy Guillet, Pacifica, agreed with Ms. Acosta, and expressed her concerns on the issue and shared thoughts on alternate processes.
Ken Chan, San Mateo County, stated he is an organizer of Housing Leadership Council (HLC) of San Mateo County, and was voicing their support for the adoption of the resolution of the safe parking program and operations agreement and fund the program, expressing thoughts on the situation of the homeless.
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, echoed Ms. Acosta and Ms. Guillet’s comments, and covered a lot of his points. He voiced questions with concerns regarding the process and follow up options.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, was supportive of the safe parking program and ending the financial drain of the lawsuit which was unnecessary if we had such a program in place. She then put forth several questions on some specific issues and possibly some options concluding that this was a good first step.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated she was in support of this item, mentioning that several of the concerns mentioned were brought up in the lawsuit, and spoke in support of PRC.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, supported this measure as it was a step in the right direction, adding his thoughts on some caveats he felt were needed.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 February 28, 2022
Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, supports the safe parking program, stating that he knows people living in the RVs and shared his thoughts on their problems and why we should help them.
Victoria Sanchez DeAlba, Pacifica, stated she is a Pacifica homeowner and vice chair of the San Mateo County Health Care for the Homeless and Farmworkers Program, but is speaking on her behalf. She shared her thoughts on the solutions and programs in other cities for a pathway to permanent housing. She fully supports Pacifica’s safe parking program and hopes Council adopts the resolution.
Marj Davis, Pacifica, stated she is the president of the PRC Board, but is speaking as an individual. She thanked Pacifica and PRC, etc., for working to put together this safe parking program and operations agreement, stating her thoughts on the program and the report and her support of the program.
Dan Evenhouse, Pacifica, stated he is a 20-year home owner and member of Pacifica Social Justice as well as other organizations, and a professional social worker. He supports the safe parking program and thanked Pacifica and PRC Manager Rees for their efforts to help those unhoused and living in vehicles, adding that we can all help in what is going on locally.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor Bier stated that she heard a lot of concerns about enforcement and asked City Attorney to address that.
Asst. City Attorney Castella stated that one reason for settling the lawsuit and implementing the parking program is to increase enforcement of over-sized vehicles in Pacifica and parked outside the safe parking program. She stated that, as in the presentation, because the city’s ordinance was challenged, to manage the risk associated with the potential that the ordinance was struck down as unconstitutional, the city pulled back on enforcing it, but not entirely. They pulled back, specifically on towing. She stated that, once they resolved the litigation, that was part of the reason for implementation of this program, and they will be able to use all of the enforcement tools that are built into the ordinance to address OSVs that stay for more than 72 hours, have expired registrations, are consistently and clearly violating Municipal Code provisions that preclude blocking the sidewalk and impermissibly encroach on the public rightof-way. She stated that, before they can engage in the kind of enforcement that really has teeth, they need to resolve the lawsuit and make available to people a safe alternative for parking their OSVs which is part of what the safe parking program does. She stated that program itself will assist the city in ensuring that OSVs become good members of the community as part of the code of conduct and included in the program. She stated that, once they are in the program, they get a safe place to park for 29 days at a time and possibly for a few months, repeating that 29 days up to 3-5 times while they work with PRC to get permanent housing. She stated that, to get that benefit, they agree to a code of conduct that gives the city and CSO officer, who is going be a part of the program, the primary responsibility to monitor compliance of OSVs not in the program and in the program. She stated that all these elements will allow the city to improve enforcements to address the problem and commit to the notion that OSVs can be members of the community that don’t pose the problems that people are identifying and Pacifica can help with that once they get on the other side of this lawsuit and can enforce against some of the bad actors.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there was a lot of feedback about why they are not putting this program in a lot in a centralized location, and the Linda Mar Park and Ride was specifically City Council Regular Meeting 22 February 28, 2022
mentioned. He thought the Park and Ride is actually a Caltrans lot. He asked staff to talk about the various locations they have considered and why they came to this conclusion.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, as mentioned in the comments, there has been a long history to the evolution of this program, part of that was exploring the feasibility of different lots that exist and the city doesn’t own very many lots and none were determined to be feasible for this type of program. He stated that there was a community task force, the Unhoused In Pacifica Task Force that explored this in detail and came to the same conclusion. He stated that many of the lots are not owned by the city and those that are, as at the Community Center, are very heavily and actively used by seniors and the community. He stated that other lots are too small to serve any reasonable number of motorhomes and the 2212 Beach Blvd. site is due to be marketed for hotel development and currently serves as a Municipal corporation yard for storage of supplies related to storm response. He stated that there are a variety of sites explored and the infeasibility of any one of them is what led to the realization of Pacifica’s land for that kind of capacity unlike in Redwood City or Mountain View, and coming up with this innovative idea for safe permit parking on streets.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to trash being addressed in the staff report, and the concern voiced by the community was, if they have to go to a location to bring their stuff, why is that a good idea and will it lead to more waste being put out on the streets. He apologized if he “butchered’ their question.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, if he understands the question, the black water collection aspect of the program, as well as any other refuse or recycling components are part of the program and part of the code of conduct for proper disposal and sets up a compliance structure where proper disposals need to be met which is the expense of twice per month collection program for the black water and locations to be able to dispose of other garbage or recyclables which will assist with the problem the city has been having in recent years of public trash cans being stuffed and over-filled from too much material and material from participants in the program will be provided for proper disposal in other ways.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck mentioned his editorializing, and stated that, for someone taking the time to put themselves into this program and say to our community that we need help to find stable housing, he thought there should be a spot that is open behind them where RV parks is not a part of the program and they wind up being a bad actor. He thought that, if he were trying to get himself out of that situation and the person on either side of him who is not a part of that program was not doing things the way he was doing things, he might say that they might think that he is doing that and ask them to stop and tell them where they can dump their stuff and connect them to the PRC, as he didn’t want them screwing up his deal. He thought this is what they would be compelled to do if they sign up.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s use of the term “editorialized” and she would try not to editorialize now. She asked staff to address the question raised regarding finances of the project in year 3.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he can begin and perhaps Ms. Jensen can chime in. He stated that, as the currently identified finances indicate in the fiscal impact section, there is a short fall of $146,000 projected for year three; however, the county is that all will be working towards grant funding in the interim which will help fill that. He stated that the county has identified that, depending on the success of the program, the Board of Supervisors may consider additional ARPA funding, but he didn’t want to put words in Ms. Jensen’s mouth and City Council Regular Meeting 23 February 28, 2022
will turn it to her. He stated that, no doubt, with the success of the program, the innovation of it between grant funding or other sources of funding, year three will be funded.
San Mateo County Dep. Manager Jensen added that he is correct. She can’t commit to more than $400,000 as that is the direction they received from the Board, but she can tell them that, with all the work they have been doing around getting community input into their ARPA funding plan, they have much better connections with many of their philanthropic organizations and beyond potential grant programs the county has, possibility of additional funding through the County's second tranche of ARPA funds and there is also great potential, if the program is successful, for philanthropic funds to continue as this is an issue that exists throughout the county. She referred to those who say we need to have a variety of solutions because there is no one size fits all for all of our homeless challenges.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they often hear from members of the community that we should do what is done in other communities or why is Pacifica different or how come other cities don’t have this problem and we have it and we have to address it. She stated that there is a lot of answers to those questions but we really wouldn’t be here at this time had there not been a lawsuit. She thinks we have to bear in mind that, when there is a challenge that faces the community as this has faced us, as well as several Councils, we have to come to a resolution that is the best solution for as many people as it can be. She stated that not everyone is happy about the way this is being resolved, but she echoed former Mayor and longtime Councilmember Digre who used the term “torturous route”. She agreed that it has been torturous for everyone involved. She is proud that they have been able to come through this intact as a community and has not torn us apart, but they have had to work hard and invest funds to come to a resolution that they can live with. She stated that they suggested that 13 isn’t enough, and there should be vastly more spots than that, and she referred to consultation with our partners at PRC, with homeless and housing advocates and input from all of staff who are trained and professional, including our law enforcement staff. She stated that they have come up with a solution that is the right number, given the provisions of the agreement, i.e., the right number for people who want to work within the confines of the program. She stated that is not every single vehicular housed person they see in Pacifica, and she knows this with confidence because our former mayor, Councilmember Vaterlaus, showed strength and leadership in bringing this issue forward with what eventually became our over-sized vehicle ordinance and it wasn’t popular, but necessary. They worked hard and together to get it done.
She knows if they think about the past, they know the impact that had, as when implemented, it had a significant impact and changed the nature of how things were in Pacifica and brought us to this place. She stated that this lawsuit was filed because not everyone was happy with the implementation or felt it was fair and just. She stated that they have taken that input, worked further on it, invested in more dollars, sweat and thoughts, and she agreed with the City Manager that Pacifica is land poor, financially challenged and populated by a high proportion of environmental stewards. She stated that you put everything together and ultimately, as Ms.
Davis stated, above all else, Pacifica was a caring community. While we don’t always get what we want, but together they forged this agreement and she believes in it and having the opportunity to work through the process, accepting it, and moving forward with the resolution will take them to the next step toward resuming enforcement of an ordinance that worked very well for Pacifica but not now because we aren’t enforcing it, adding that you can’t do that when in the middle of a lawsuit. She stated that it is another step in the process, torturous but we’re coming through it intact.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed with everything Councilmember Beckmeyer just said. She stated that they have worked hard on it for years, studied all the places and said we should let it City Council Regular Meeting 24 February 28, 2022
happen. She stated that people are quick to judge what is going to happen, but they don’t know. She stated that we should let it happen and try to help these 13 people to try to get into housing. She stated that they may find it works a lot faster than they had anticipated, and they must at least try and not be negative to start with. She stated that it happens a lot, i.e., don’t want Panda Express, don’t want Grocery Outlet and they see the same people who complained shopping in those locations. She thought, if they would just let it take its course and let them do their jobs and see that this is for safety. She stated that there were a lot of reasons why it worked out this way, and then just give it a chance.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are where they are, and they can look at it as Winston Churchill said, “we are at the end of the beginning” and he thought it was an opportunity for us to move forward to try an experiment. He stated that it is easy to ask why we can’t do what Redwood City does, but Redwood City put their RV parking across the street from the women’s jail in a county-owned block, but Pacifica doesn’t have that resource. He stated that every place where they would have a parking lot is in somebody’s back yard and the person who said that is complaining because there is an RV in her back yard. He thinks this is just the start of an experiment to see if it will work. He stated that they don’t have the resources. He saw on Nextdoor people saying why don’t they put it out to bid. He stated that, according to the City Attorney, we have contractual government codes that say this does not have to be put out to bid. He mentioned, in addition, the program they are talking about that they hired LifeMoves is an entirely different program where the county purchased a hotel and you are having on site staff. He stated don’t always believe what you read in Nextdoor, as he said 80-85% of that is not true, just conjecture, fantasies or wish lists for some people. He stated that this is the end of the beginning, mentioning a major problem 2 or 3 years ago and they attempted to fix it and they have now gotten to the point where they are going to be handling it and will move forward.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck echoed everything his fellow councilmembers have just said. He had a question for PRC Manager Rees. He thanked her for being present and the PRC for helping form this program and being in partnership with the city. He referred to the three year program and he asked what kind of help they might be able to offer people, possibly a “snapshot” of a year or so, and the number of people PRC helped who are living in a home without this program in place.
PRC Manager Rees stated that, since 2021, for those who have been theoretically eligible for this program , they have helped house eight of them. She stated that it may not seem like a huge number but, given that at the time, they may have had 25 unhoused, that is a third of everyone who had been unhoused in an over-sized vehicle. She stated that five of them are RV and two are campers and one was a converted bus and all of them are currently housed now.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, at the end of the day, part and parcel with this conversation about a larger goal that he keeps hearing, and having those hanging around in their vehicles, this is a way to help some of them to no longer be on our streets in vehicles. He stated that was the work PRC was able to do without a specific program in place. He is looking forward to seeing what can be done when this specific program is in place as it is a compassionate means by which to assist people off the streets and the extra benefit that, once in place, it is a mechanism toward enforcement as mentioned earlier. He stated that they have heard a lot of concerns from the neighborhood around a lot of these spaces and he was sorry that they are experiencing that, and he thinks this is a part of the solution, even though he understands why, from their perspective, it probably doesn’t look like it now. He again thanked the Resource Center, and that we are tortured is a wonderful word. He stated that the process began when he was on the Board and speaking from the other side of the podium, and it was heart City Council Regular Meeting 25 February 28, 2022
wrenching then and is still not an easy conversation to have. He referred to Councilmember O’Neill’s mention of Nextdoor where it is amazing some of the things he reads and he hopes this program sheds some light where otherwise lacking. He stated that, as a former Board member, he has an idea of what the Board must have gone through to come to the conclusion that it would be wise to recommend implementation of this from the side of the PRC and he thanked Ms. Rees for working with the board and Pacifica to come to a place where they can put this through and start helping people and enforcing. He stated that, when he was not on Council and gave a speech in which he said something about what it means to help people. He reiterated it as it is as close as he can come to what he truly believes in regard to this program and why it is an asset to our community. He stated that he has had experience trying to help people and some wanted it and some didn’t, and when he put that kind of energy into play to try to help someone, one of two things happen pretty quickly. One thing is that the person he tries to help takes the opportunity given and do everything they can with it to make it happen. He stated earlier that someone who winds up in this program who really wants to be housed will take their own steps to address their bad neighbors. He stated that he uses the term “neighbor” loosely so as not to upset actual neighborhoods and apologized if it comes out otherwise, but he believes that someone who is trying to help themselves is going to go out of their way to address bad actors. He also stated that, when you are trying to help someone who really doesn’t want help, which he personally had from his perspective, they run away as quick as they possibly can, as someone who doesn’t want help but who claims they want help will claim it and you try to help them and they run away quickly. He thanked Ms. Rees and the PRC Board as he hopes the city is grateful that she is here to help them pass this.
Mayor Bier wanted to piggyback on talking about the Resource Center because this program is outside of all of the other work they are doing and she knows there were comments on Nextdoor about money, budgets, etc., and she assured them that they are asking a lot of the Resource Center and it is up to the city to make sure they can support them. She stated that the money the city is already giving to the PRC is already in their budget working on other things and this is all extra work and she appreciated it. She referred to the Fairway Park people, stating that there are a lot of spots in Fairway and they had to go back and forth a lot. She stated it was really hard to choose the places where they thought it would be safe, out of the way a little bit and they will see how it works. She stated that people were talking about lifestyle choices, and those who are living their lifestyle choice are not going to want to be around those who are in the program and there is going to be attention on those spots. She hoped what will happen is that, by having the secured spots in our neighborhood that have people who know who they are, know they want housing, know they want help from us and are complying, it will make it safer.
She stated that is the whole point, i.e., to help these people sleep at night, be working toward housing and get housed so they are not on the street anymore. She stated that we all deserve a place to live. She stated, going back to the Fairway people, she asked that they reach out to her and they have to see how this works. If there are problems, she asked them to come to us as she knows there are issues happening now and after all this is done and they start the program, they will be able to enforce more and that is an important part of all of this. She questioned what will happen after three years, and asked if someone can quickly address that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it is 10:55 p.m.
Mayor Bier asked for a motion to extend the meeting.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to midnight; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 February 28, 2022
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (extend meeting to midnight)
Mayor Bier stated that she thinks she has said what she needed to say, adding that she is super concerned about her Fairway residents and she has faith that this is going to be helpful, just like the ordinance was helpful. She thanked Ms. Rees and Ms. Jensen for being here, and appreciated all the work they do.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck: 1) moved to adopt the Resolution approving the Temporary Safe Parking Program, Operations Agreement with the Pacifica Resource Center and Funding for the Program; and finding Approval of the Program Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; 2) Move to introduce by Title Only and Waive further reading of “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Amend Article 12 of Chapter 7 “Traffic” within Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to add Section 4-7.1207 and to amend Section 5-2.03, Violations:
Abatement” within Chapter 2, “Vehicles Parked for Seventy-Two Hours or More”, within Title 5 of the Pacifica Municipal Code Relating to Temporary Safe Parking Permit; and finding Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Item #10)
AGENDA ITEM #10:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
11. Consider introduction of an ordinance repealing and replacing Article 4, “Sustainable Food Service Ware and Prohibited Plastic Products” within Chapter 5 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code to adopt new regulations regarding the use of disposable food service ware; and approve and authorize the City Manager to sign approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo to provide educational outreach and enforcement of the food service ware ordinance.
PROPOSED ACTION:
1. Move to introduce by title only and waive further reading, of Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Article 4, “Sustainable Food Service Ware and Prohibited Plastic Products” within Chapter 5 of Title 6 to add a New Article 4, “Regulating the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities” to Regulate the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware; and finding the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; and
2. Move to approve the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the County of San Mateo to provide educational outreach and enforcement of the food service ware ordinance Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo to provide educational outreach and authorizing the City Manager to execute the MOU and finding the approval of the MOU exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 February 28, 2022
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister introduced new Management Analyst Barranti in the City Manager’s office and focusing on economic development and environmental policies, who is presenting her first staff report and she will be there for support.
Management Analyst Barranti presented the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if he is correct that enforcements above and beyond the county would be subject to our code enforcement which are the same people who look at building violations, code violations due to zoning issues, etc.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that it would defer to code enforcement and they mainly focus on property maintenance and provisions of our code. She stated that it is something that is not typical for Pacifica and perhaps most cities with their code enforcement division to go in and look at operations of a restaurant but that would be the folks who would do that if we did need to enforce the regulations themselves.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if, when she says “folks”, that is being a colloquial way of saying the one person who would be looking at all code violations of zoning as well as this code.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer has a question about the grant programs available through the office of sustainability. She understands that there is a possibility of applying for a food ware mini-grant and she asked if Council should adopt this. She read in the staff report that there is some kind of grant program available and she wanted to clarify whether Pacifica is eligible for this food ware mini-grant in our zip code of 94044.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti asked if she was referring the question to Eun-Soo Lim, County Office of Sustainability Sr. Sustainability Analyst.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought so.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that they could not hear Ms. Lim.
Mayor Bier stated that they will come back to her for the answer to that question. Mayor Bier opened public comments, limiting comments to two-minutes.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Sally Liu, Hillsborough, stated that she is a member of Reusable San Mateo County and they are a coalition of community members and organizations working to reduce plastic pollution in our county. She stated that they are very supportive of the proposed disposable food ware ordinance, and mentioned their concerns regarding this problem and recommended other possible options to consider adding.
Alejandra Warren, Pacifica, stated she is co-founder of the non-profit, Plastic Free Future and they strongly support the provisions of the proposed ordinance and recommend amending the draft policy, giving the specifics, as well as details in SB1383.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 February 28, 2022
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated he is an architect and sustainability consultant in Pacific Manor and he urges Council to adopt the ordinance. He appreciated the presentation and agreed with the prior speakers regarding the amendment, commenting on specifics.
Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, gave his thoughts on the dining situation, etc., prior to plastic use and stated that everything was great then.
Daisy Fong, Pacifica, shared her concerns regarding the amount of plastic waste generated, and supports the city adopting the ordinance as a good first step, but mentioned her concerns regarding disposables and how Recology will work with businesses.
Matt Warren, Pacifica, stated he is co-founder and science advisor to the local non-profit, Plastic Free Future, and strongly supports this agenda item, and commented on the planetary plastic crisis and steps being taken by UN Environment Assembly, as well as the positive impact by Pacifica’s steps to do our part by adopting this ordinance including the amendment suggested..
Kimberly Williams stated she is a member of the San Mateo County Chapter of Surf Rider Foundation, and agrees with what everyone else has said and supports the adoption of this ordinance as well as the reusable ware for onsite dining.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she fully supports this ordinance as well as the amendment for the reusable utensils as plastics are made from petroleum products and we need to get off reliance on fossil fuels.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated there were no speakers, but Eun-Soo Lim, Sr Sustainability Analyst of San Mateo County’s Office of Sustainability, has joined by telephone.
Mayor Bier asked if they can repeat the question for her to answer.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she was wondering about Pacifica’s eligibility for the Food Ware Mini-Grant program, as she looked at the survey instrument on the Office of Sustainability website and it called specific cities and jurisdictions by zip code and she didn’t see Pacifica’s listed there and she wasn’t sure if that would be amended, we would be eligible or not eligible for some other reason, and asked for clarification.
Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim stated that they have a small amount of money set aside to give out to food facilities in vulnerable communities to help them make the transition from plastic to compliant disposable food ware and they selected 12 zip codes and they are based off of our County’s Covid recovery initiative, and identify specific zip codes in the county that are deemed especially vulnerable and they decided to stick to the same standards, same eligibility criteria.
She stated that, on looking at the list, there are no zip codes on Pacifica that are within the list, adding that it was just for the grant to support the switch from plastic to fiber-based compliant food ware. She stated that they have a second, bigger pot of money available to help food facilities switch from single use food ware to reusable food ware that goes beyond the county’s ordinance and voluntarily switch to reasonable food ware, and that is available for Pacifica food facilities to take advantage of.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck welcomed Mgmt. Analyst Barranti to the Pacifica family and team. He asked the City Manager, if they wanted to go with the mandatory reusables for dine in, whether they were prepared for that language at this time.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 February 28, 2022
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that they can assist with the motion by simply adding a couple of lines she can read when appropriate and they can incorporate the changes into the second reading which will come back to Council on the consent agenda.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wished to put forth to his fellow Councilmembers that he is absolutely interested in the mandatory dine in reusables amendment, explaining that the first time he attended a Council meeting was that plastics were causing some of his loved ones to be afflicted by cancer and anything they can do to get rid of plastics and reduce waste in general was an opportunity he wants to jump on it.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if there will be any assistance or funding available from the County for Pacifica to have additional cans for compostables only at places such as the beaches, etc. so they can put them in a different bin to get collected.
Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim stated that they currently don’t have any specific funding set aside to provide cities for purchasing bins for sorting. She stated that it would be tied to a different program, possibly another new state regulation, SB1383, that mandates residents and commercial properties to sort their waste into landfill, compost as well as recyclable. She stated that they currently don’t have any funding available but they have, in a separate program of the Office of Sustainability, a grant called the Four R's grant program which is an annual program where they distribute grant money to eligible organizations, including local government and Pacifica can apply each year to request funding for sorting bins that can be placed in the public.
She stated that they have funded different cities in the county to do very similar projects. She stated that they have this Four R's grant program open now and call for applications open until March 21 with information available on their website. She will be happy to talk to city staff to share that information as there is still a few weeks for the city to read through the application and take advantage.
Councilmember O’Neill thought that Mgmt. Analyst Barranti is the analyst for environmental and she can get her number. He then asked, if they were to do the amendment for reusable dinner ware in a restaurant, would that jeopardize any connection with the county program for advertising marketing support, etc.
Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim was glad he asked that, and stated that, if the city decides to pursue requirements that go beyond the county’s ordinance, including reusables for dine in, it will be the responsibility of city staff to do both education as well as enforcement around those specific requirements that go beyond the county’s ordinance. She stated that, if there is an opportunity for collaborating on specific education and outreach, they would be happy to do it, but if it does require additional funding for the county if they have to adjust their collateral, they would be looking towards the city to provide that additional difference.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if she thought the county may be adjusting their ordinance, as she mentioned that Daly City and Redwood City already have that additional ordinance, and they are two of the largest cities in the county. He asked if she sees the county adjusting their ordinance to require that.
Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim stated that, at this time, no, but added that they haven’t taken off considering these requirements in the future. She stated that the timing for them is not quite right because it has been a very challenging last few years because of Covid and other more recent challenges such as the supply chain issue they are having, pace with inflation and yields City Council Regular Meeting 30 February 28, 2022
higher food costs for restaurants and there has already been a shortage of labor and the restaurant and food industry have been hit hard the last few years. The County is looking to focus on the existing requirements and the roll out. The successful implementation of existing requirements for both local as well as the new state requirements that just came out before adding on additional requirements on top of that. She reiterated that they haven’t taken that off the table but when things get better in the future, which she thinks they will, that will be a better time for the city to reevaluate and consider and explore other options, including potentially a reasonable requirement.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to ask a clarifying question for either Mgmt. Analyst Barranti or Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim. He referred to the dine in at Half Moon Bay and Daly City, and asked if it was a mandatory part of their ordinance or is it optional.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated that it was optional, adding that Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim could chime in if she wanted to.
Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim stated that, for Half Moon Bay and Daly City, they did adopt a reasonable requirement but if they look at the language inserted into the ordinance, the city staff left it very open to interpretation to give food facilities a little bit more flexibility. She stated that both cities were very strategic, and the specific phrase they used in their ordinance was “where practicable, food facilities shall use reusable instead of disposable food ware”. She stated that they have it as a requirement because they use the word shall, but the phrase where practicable leaves it very flexible and open to interpretation.
Councilmember Vaterlaus also likes to eat her meals on plates with silverware but she thinks that they could make it voluntary for the time being since we won’t have any grant money to support it or enforce it. She thinks that later on, if the county changes and decides to help us out in that matter, we could make it mandatory. She also thinks that restaurants have suffered through Covid and some are barely hanging on. If they have to do the additional expense of going out and buying additional serve ware, she thought it could be an issue now. She knows we are supposed to be over but we are not over the Covid crisis yet and she would support the mandatory use in restaurants until things get a little bit better.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she would like to see them add the reusable amendment that Daly City and Half Moon Bay included in theirs at a minimum. She stated that, for all the reasons stated by Ms. Lim, she thinks putting burdens on our restaurants now isn’t a good idea, but she wondered if there was a way to have a different deadline or some other kind of process so it is clear that is where they are going, and she didn’t like the idea in a way that it was phrased as being optional. She stated that legally, wherever practicable, probably has some legal definition but it does mean optional and she knows the City Manager was expressing concerns in the staff report about cost for the city to enforce as we don’t have staff for that. She wants to see them do this, but she wasn’t sure that now is the right time. She was looking for guidance from staff on how they can get to that. She asked if that is a goal setting issue, and didn’t know what the right answer is, but she was not comfortable leaving it as they are not going to do it, but didn’t see it at all where practicable to add some language at this time and have a deadline or implementation date of October 1, 2022 as it doesn’t make sense to her. She was looking for help from staff and the city attorney on how they can move forward.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that, since it is an optional item, it is over and above the county’s model, as well as the state requiring it, and the city attorney can correct her if she is wrong, but she believes Council would also have the flexibility to select a City Council Regular Meeting 31 February 28, 2022
reasonable enforcement date of when they need to have their reusables purchased and being used, and if October is too soon, she thought a date in 2023, if Council feels it is appropriate to be selected.
Mayor Bier appreciated that language as she thought we need to do everything we can for our climate, and they need to get plastics out and help the restaurants to be able to do the reusable food service and she thought they mentioned that there is some money available for that.
Sr. Sustainability Analyst Lim stated that they have a small pot of money set aside to help impacted food facilities switch to reusables and voluntary to go beyond the county’s ordinance.
She also wants to be transparent in that it is not a bucket list of money and they have a set amount of money and have to allocate a specific percent to each of partner jurisdictions so that every jurisdiction has an allocation and can tap that bucket. She stated that, if a city chooses to supplement their allocation for that bucket, they could work with the city partners to augment to increase that amount specifically for their food facilities.
Mayor Bier stated that she would be in favor of doing exactly what Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister just described and having the language for the reusable food service and then giving it a later date for implementation.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted clarification, asking if they are saying it would be a later date and would be mandatory. He then asked Councilmembers what later date would seem appropriate.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated June 2023.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was in favor of that.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are looking at asking restaurants if they want to spend money to do parklets, etc. and he was for the reusables but, as someone said, staffing is going to be harder because they have to wash the dishes instead of throwing them out. He thinks June 2023 looks good, and if the world is in the chaos it is now then, they can always amend it and change it but he won’t be there.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he can ask them from down there.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he won’t be there at midnight asking them.
Mayor Bier asked if they can have a motion or is there more.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that she can read a revised recommended action 1 for consideration.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it would be most helpful before they get a motion. She stated that, in the event they do want to include that additional language, what would that language look like.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that she did not have the specific language for the ordinance written but she was going to say is amend recommended action 1 to state “ move to introduce by title only and waive the first reading of Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Article 4, “Sustainable Food Service Ware and Prohibited Plastic Products” within City Council Regular Meeting 32 February 28, 2022
Chapter 5 of Title 6 to add a new Article 4, “Regulating the use of Disposable Food Service Ware by Food Facilities” to Regulate the Use of Disposable Food Service Ware, with the addition of including a provision to require reusables for dine in customers within an effective date of June 2023 and finding the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they need to amend that motion slightly, as the motion is to move by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Article 4, reading the title with the following amendment to be prepared by staff and then the language that Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister just stated. She stated that Council is not making the amendment to the title but introducing and waiving the first reading of the ordinance identified in Section 1 of the recommended action as amended by Council in accordance with statements made by staff. She stated that will give them authority to go ahead and make the changes that they will see in the second reading.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated so moved; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister stated that the motion they want to include is Item 2 as well regarding the memorandum of understanding.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if she was saying she wants to make it one motion. She thought it was easier to make it two separate motions, dealing with Motion1 first and then Motion 2.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Item #11-1, as AMENDED)
AGENDA ITEM #11-1:
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to approve the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the County of San Mateo to provide educational outreach and enforcement of the food service ware ordinance Memorandum of Understanding with the County of San Mateo to provide educational outreach and authorizing the City Manager to execute the MOU and finding the approval of the MOU exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Item #11-2)
AGENDA ITEM #11-2:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Mike O’Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 33 February 28, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it was 11:50 p.m. and they have two more items on the agenda. He asked if they want to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.
Mayor Bier asked if that will give them enough time for both items, and suggested pushing Item 12 or is it time sensitive.
City Manager stated he would bring Director Petersen or Assoc. Civil Engineer Marquez on to speak to the time sensitivity of that. He thought it was slightly time sensitive, but he has an alternative recommendation that Item 13 which includes two parts, and one is just to confirm their return to in person in March and the other it to talk about the Council Chambers versus Community Center, etc., and they can choose to have the second part of that item at the next meeting to speed up the situation, but they want to get a confirmation about the first part of item
13. 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: 4-1 (No: Vaterlaus) (extend meeting to 12:30 a.m.)
12. Approval of 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report and direct staff to proceed with conceptual design of preferred alternative.
Assoc. Civil Engineer Marquez began the staff report, then turned it over to Neil Nichols of Moffatt & Nichols to continue the presentation.
Neil Nichols of Moffatt & Nichols continued the presentation.
Assoc. Civil Engineer Marquez completed the presentation.
Mayor Bier opened public comments, limiting comments to two minutes.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speakers.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he often walks on the beach in Pacific Manor and he mentioned the ramp erosion and rock revetment disappearing and asked question regarding how long Option 2 would last.
Kimberly Williams stated she is with the San Mateo County Chapter of Surf Rider. She stated that they will be submitting written comments, but she expressed her concerns about rock revetment, etc., and mentioned Coastal Commission recommendations regarding the coastal trails, and her group was encouraging Pacifica to do longer term planning, mentioning some specifics..
Christine Boles, Pacifica, objected to this item being on the agenda, and voiced her concerns about the process for public engagement, as well as damages that may be Coastal Act violations, and asked several questions of concern.
City Council Regular Meeting 34 February 28, 2022
Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated that this was a complicated issue, and expressed her concerns on the issue and impacts on residents, as well as need for moving infrastructure in their plan.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she was also disappointed to have an important item on late at night. She recognized there are a lot of things that need to take place, and agreed with Mr.
Williams’ comments as this is an important issue needing long term solutions.
Mayor Bier closed public comments. She then agreed that it was too late in the evening to talk about this as there is so much information that has to go out to the public.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Assoc. Civil Engr. Marquez if he can clarify the timeline and the urgency on this item so they have a better understanding why it is before them at this time.
Assoc. Civil Engr. Marquez stated that the schedule was laid out for them to come back at this time with the report and the urgency was to keep on their timeline for grant funding and they expect us to move things forward with progress and, if they don’t, there is the possibility of losing the grant funding.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that he gave a rough timeline earlier on work that could begin in April and she asked if they had any idea on the timing of the work in terms of cycles wave action, etc., and whether there is a window where they are trying to get work done and what would the impacts be of delaying this item.
Assoc. Civil Engr. Marquez stated that he apologized for not touching on the schedule of construction. He stated that, with most of the coastal work, they want to avoid winter if possible.
He stated that, if they move forward with alternative 2, the proposed work at the bottom of the bluff would be minimal compared to some other alternatives. He stated that, if they are delayed and a subsequent selection of a different alternative happens down the line, he could push it out, and if they miss a season, it could be a full year.
Mr. Nichols stated that he didn’t have anything to add. He stated that the revetment is performing now. He stated that the urgency of doing something that is potentially already there to a good degree, the actual construction work will be minimal.
Dilip Trivedi of Moffatt & Nichol added that the rock is there and is providing protection and work has to be done in the summer if it was a different alternative. He stated that the minimal amount of work being considered, and as mentioned by the public speakers, there is a natural winnowing of the smaller rock away from the revetment and there is some amount of patchwork of re-orienting and reconfiguring the rock itself. He stated that much of the work would have to happen next summer in 2023, given the timing of the CEQA document. He stated that this was an emergency temporary permission granted by the Coastal Commission. He stated that this process is trying to make that construction permanent, and is not new construction. If the Commission were to agree to the recommended alternative, it would be to make previous emergency work permanent. He stated that, if a different alternative, the timing is associated with the CEQA document. He heard the comment about public engagement, and he stated that it will begin after the CEQA document starts, and there would public comment, notification and lots of opportunity for Pacificans to chime in.
PW Director Petersen stated that this is related to an emergency maintenance repair, and this is just a process that they are moving the project forward to try to get to the permanent repairs.
City Council Regular Meeting 35 February 28, 2022
She stated that, at this point, they are trying to get to a point where they can complete all the environmental work to get it in front of the Coastal Commission and have the conversations.
She stated that everyone knows this conversation often takes a long time and it was important for them to keep moving the projects forward because they can be so lengthy and they continue to have the storms and other coastal issues. She reiterated that they want to be sure they are moving their emergency maintenance repairs forward and this is a different project from the Beach Boulevard infrastructure resiliency project, but a maintenance project. She stated that they need to make sure they are providing and the goal for the city in this project is to be providing some support for the city infrastructure in that area, and it is an emergency repair and they want to move it forward so they can continue on their timeline and be sure they continue moving forward with the grant department to become grant funded for this project. She stated that it is important to show that movement.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:45 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 4-1 (No: Vaterlaus) (extend meeting to 12:45 a.m.) Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Feasibility Report and direct staff to proceed with conceptual design of preferred alternative; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, before he casts his vote, he did not like doing it at this hour in this way without any opportunity to ask questions, adding that the point is well taken that they will have a robust public conversation later.
Vote: 4-1 (No: Bier) (Item #12)
AGENDA ITEM #12:
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
NAYS: Bier
13. Follow-up Information about Council Chambers Improvements or Relocation of Meetings to an Alternate Location and Update on Returning to In-Person City Council Meetings PROPOSED ACTION:
1. Hear an update about the status of the pandemic and confirm return to in-person City Council and Commission/Committee meetings beginning March 14, 2022; and
2. Receive follow-up information about Council Chambers’ improvements or relocation of City Council meetings to the Community Center or Oceana High School Theatre and provide direction to the City Manager about next steps.
City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.
City Council Regular Meeting 36 February 28, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked clarification that, by phone in, the chambers will be open for people to sit as well as phone in.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill also asked clarification that they would be live-streamed on Channel 26 but no Zoom for people to click on to talk.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speaker.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated he was disappointed that the Zoom option would not be available, as he didn’t think we will be completely out of the pandemic and thought it would be nice to have the in person, as well as the Zoom option.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked why we are not going to do the Zoom option.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that a video and phone hybrid model, such as the Zoom and in person combined, sometimes called room and Zoom would require significant technology improvements at the Council Chamber and ongoing cost and staffing necessary to implement that. He stated that we are not like other cities that have more contemporary technology and/or staffing available to run that kind of a system. He stated that months ago, Council directed the phone in hybrid instead of the room and Zoom based on that information.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they were to approve the improvements to Council Chambers as outlined in the staff report,
City Manager Woodhouse asked if they were discussing the whole thing.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he would rather not discuss that, and just decide person or no person phone on March 14.
Mayor Bier agreed.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was okay coming back on March 14 with phone in.
Mayor Bier asked where they are going to have the meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the Council Chambers.
Councilmember O’Neill stated it’s the last hurrah.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how the mayor feels about going to the Council Chambers to discuss making improvements without making improvements to Council Chambers before they do that.
City Council Regular Meeting 37 February 28, 2022
Mayor Bier stated it was backwards.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck preferred to go back to in person if he doesn’t have to wear a mask.
He wants to be audible and be able to hear everyone else. He asked how long it would take to get Council Chambers prepared if they were to do those minor renovations.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, depending on the renovations that they are directed, with the report talking about painting, removing wallpaper, carpeting, window replacement and designing and reconstructing the dais. He stated that there were different timelines for pieces of those as they didn’t know precisely. He thought some of those, such as carpeting and painting might be several months, but redesigning and reconstructing the dais would be longer as it involves electrical permitting and, depending on the cost, a percentage of associated ADA improvements to the Council Chambers. He stated that it is a many months timeline. He added that all of that work and the analysis of changing Council meeting locations is not something that staff has the bandwidth to make happen and they will need to re-prioritize in order to make changes. He stated what they don’t need to reprioritize is just going back to the Council Chambers now in terms of staff impact.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that, if they go back in person on March 14, they will have to go back to Zoom for a month or so because of construction.
City Manager Woodhouse stated they would not, as most of that construction can be done like they did improvements to the Council Chambers before, in between Council meetings. Even construction of a new dais, if that is directed, would be designed and constructed off site and they could set up a temporary type of dais.
Councilmember O’Neill thought that was fine for Council, but he asked about Planning Commission on the Monday nights when Council is not meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse thought the same thing can happen, as that was what they did before. They will work the schedule to fit it in. He stated that the windows would be an important thing, but some of the walls would be painted but the whole thing would not be painted and they would have a Council or Planning Commission meeting. He stated that they will work to figure it out. If there was a critical conflict, they could do one meeting down at the Community Center or some alternative location. He stated that, once they are back in person, he would recommend not bouncing back and forth between remote and in person. He stated that it also depends on the state guidelines related to Brown Act that could potentially change or other legislation that might be considered that they will have to track.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he isn’t voting for another extension and it is 12:36 a.m.
Mayor Bier asked if they have a motion.
Councilmember O’Neill moved that they go back to Council Chambers as is for in person and phone in on March 14; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 3-2 (Noes: Beckmeyer, Bier) (Item #13-1)
City Council Regular Meeting 38 February 28, 2022
AGENDA ITEM #13-1:
RESULT: ADOPTED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus
NAYS: Bier, Beckmeyer
City Manager Woodhouse asked if they need a motion for continuing the second part of the conversation.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to continue the second part of this, the improvements to the Council Chambers; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (continue Item #13-2)
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if he could ask Councilmember Beckmeyer a question before they adjourn.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the action is concluded, and she asked if he was asking a question on this particular item, because the action was taken and, if you want to make more statements, you can make clarifying statements on your vote, but in terms of questions, she believes that period has passed.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if he can ask her a clarifying question about her vote.
City Attorney Kenyon stated he could not.
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 12:39 a.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 3/14/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor