CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 March 14, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
March 14, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on March 14, 2022 at 6:05 PM 6:00 PM STUDY SESSION
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present and announced that the Council would hold a Study Session and announced the business to be discussed.
A. Study Session on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee Studies
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive Report on Utility Pavement Cut and Construction/Waste Truck Roadway Impact Fee Studies
PW Director Petersen stated that they had in attendance, President Margot Yapp of NCE Consulting Engineers who helped with the presentation, as well Assoc. Civil Engr. Ryan Marquez who also helped on the project. She then began the presentation.
NCE Pres. Yapp continued the presentation.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the $952 was per unit.
NCE Pres. Yapp agreed, clarifying that they are all annual fees.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that she reported that they had 800 sq. foot multi-family unit and the figure of $952, and he asked if that was per unit.
NCE Pres. Yapp agreed, clarifying that it was the construction fee impact per unit. She then continued the presentation.
PW Director Petersen completed the presentation.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to Attachment 4, stating there was a whole gamut of different ways fees are charged. He mentioned that, in San Bruno, a single family unit is $4,615 per unit which he thought was higher than what they are talking about for our Attachment 4 that is being proposed. He stated that Santa Cruz County has $697 per mile, and he asked how they figured that.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 March 14, 2022
PW Director Petersen stated that different cities imposed fees in different ways, and in Santa Cruz County, they were making a determination for residents or a developer to tell them how far they are traveling back and forth to their development and they will charge per mile. She stated that it is the same fee but cities are choosing to charge it differently, and Santa Cruz’ process was more time intensive as they will be figuring back and forth for each development and how far it is from that development. She stated that, with the difference in the San Bruno fee, it was important to note that for these fees there is not an apple to apple comparison between the fees, and they can only be charged based on a scientific study specific to Pacifica’s pavements, how many they have, how far people are going to be driving back and forth approximately two developments in the city. She reiterated that cities choose to implement it in different ways.
She stated that Council could decide to choose to implement it a different way other than per square foot such as per unit or even per mile.
Councilmember O’Neill thought the $500 sewer lateral compliance certificate was if someone’s sewer breaks down because it is old and is an emergency type of situation.
PW Director Petersen agreed, stating that they would be the same people eligible for the grant program.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that there are a lot streets in Pacifica where the PCI index is zero.
He stated that there is only one road in, such as East Sharp Park Rockaway, Vallemar, and it is not that they are driving in and stopping but on a street that has a PCI of zero and they are wearing out the entire street as they drive, in theory. He asked if that would argue that they would have something like Santa Cruz County in those areas of Pacifica.
PW Director Petersen stated that they can look into that if Council desires, but she thought part of the problem is the staff capacity issue in needing to look at each development and calculate the distance to and from the development for each permit that comes in as they do go through a lot of permits and it would be more staff intensive. She stated that, if Council is interested in seeing that, they can come back when they talk about the adoption and provide something that would be based on a per mile rate.
Councilmember O’Neill mentioned that, if going into Linda Mar, there are a lot of different ways to get there, i.e., Linda Mar, Crespi, Terra Nova, Fassler, etc., but if going to Rockaway, there is only one road in there and he asked if they could adopt an ordinance where only certain specific areas have an extra fee to charge, such as per square foot fee plus $500 or $1000 to drive down that road to get to that house.
PW Director Petersen stated that there are impacts to all streets when construction vehicles drive on those roadways. She stated that, in discussing this previously with the team, it was also discussed with the attorney’s office and there was a discussion related to how it needs to be equally applied to everyone. If you are in one area of town and having trucks going across the street and impacting them versus other areas of town, all of them would need to be treated similarly.
Councilmember O’Neill thought that even if there is a difference, and he understood what she was saying but disagreed with it. He stated that the older the street, the worse the effects and if a street is rated zero, he asked if there was any way to do a higher fee on that street or is it due to labor and staff shortages that it would be harder to calculate.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 March 14, 2022
PW Director Petersen stated that it would be staff intensive. She thought the way the fee was developed was based on newer pavements and older pavements, and putting them in those two buckets. She stated that, with pavements that are older, they see a different fee related to cuts versus newer pavement, and that is the way a number of cities actually implement it.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked how many garbage customers are there.
PW Petersen thought, just having spoken with someone in the know, she heard it was around 20,000 customers.
Councilmember Vaterlaus sees that charge going directly to the customers and with gas prices so high, she can see additional charges the public is going to pay because of those prices. She was concerned that there are many new fees that they have added lately and she thought this one could rise up fairly quickly. She stated that most of the cuts are due either sewer long cuts or sewer lateral replacement, and sewer lateral replacement is a city mandated item for point of sale, and you are already charging the people to do a new sewer lateral at point of sale. She suggested that, instead of doing it in that manner, you take one street, go down the street, camera every single line, find out which ones need to be replaced and do a bond on their taxes and go through and pave that street after every sewer lateral has been fixed. She stated that this will keep happening because it is random, about 300 houses sell every year, so there are going to be cuts in the street again and it will bring down the pavement index. She referred to other trucks, UPS, Amazon, stating she sees Amazon going by up to 30 times a day and she didn’t think there was any way they can charge Amazon, but Amazon and UPS drive way more in Pacifica than our garbage vehicles and it is likely not a way to charge them to come here, but the vehicle trips are much larger.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that over years of hearing Councilmember O’Neill on occasion bringing up the idea of assessment districts and personally knowing less on the topic than him, he asked if they considered that as a means by which to raise revenue for specific areas, such as Vallemar. He mentioned Wynona which he thinks is a paper street but literally has no pavement whatsoever or in Rockaway with a hyperbolic trench down the middle of the street that clearly needs to be repaved. He asked, in those neighborhoods, if the neighbors have the interest of getting together and raising those funds, if that was an avenue they have approached.
PW Director Petersen stated that the City Manager during their Vision 2025 discussion has been talking about discussing some of the bigger picture items, such as assessment districts.
They are relatively complicated and take a long time and residents have to agree to it, but she felt it could be looked at. She asked the City Manager if he wanted to respond to that regarding Vision 2025.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, not specifically regarding Vision 2025, but the difference between large capital funding for reconstruction of streets which the city needs, over $100 million, to raise our PCI to a good level. He stated that the impact fees they are discussing now is to maintain an annual revenue that can be applied to street repair and maintenance, adding that tools like assessment districts or other bond measures are the property tax levies that are financing mechanisms for large capital improvements, thus a different financing approach for a different level of projects and the assessment districts are a possibility and they have information on how a neighborhood could pursue them. He stated that it is like apples to oranges as a financing tool to what they are talking about at this meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 March 14, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it was accurate that they talk about pavements every couple of years or so.
PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if this was that conversation or will they be talking about it other than this meeting.
PW Director Petersen stated that it is definitely the conversation having on pavements, and they could schedule another conversation on pavements at a later date if Council wants that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the last time they had that discussion they were talking about implementing the system under which they determine which streets they would be repaving so they catch the ones that are in better quality from falling into disrepair and it is less expensive so they can do more of them and it might lend itself to grant opportunities if they take that approach, asking if he recalls that correctly.
PW Director Petersen stated that he was correct and, when they put the five-year street maintenance program in place and there was minimally funding for the program, the goal would be to try to continue to keep those streets in good condition as that being the most cost effective way to deal with the streets and to take streets that were about to fall into complete reconstruction and cap them to prevent them from falling into complete reconstruction for several years while they try to identify other forms of funding.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they have begun to identify other forms of funding or still too nascent in the program that it would begin to appear.
PW Director Petersen stated that other forms of funding are the fees they are talking about at this time, and is the way many cities do to care of impacts to their pavements that are causing the pavements to degrade. She stated that, regarding getting grant funding, it was difficult to get grant funding for pavements. She stated that they do get money from SB1 that comes to the city every year automatically and Measure W which is a county pavement fund. She stated that they applied for a grant on Sharp Park Road and Francisco, getting them into their priority development area but unfortunately they did not receive grant funds for that. She stated that they look for opportunities when they can, but they tend to be few and far between.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, when driving down a street on Rockaway, he wishes that they could pave it asap, and knowing the effort from neighbors who feel exactly the same way.
He was ready to help in any way to find money for the projects, and was looking forward to hearing about opportunities as they present.
Mayor Bier check the time and stated that they have a couple of other questions from Councilmembers O’Neill and Beckmeyer and she thought it was also important that they hear from Ms. Porter.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has already spoken and passed to Councilmember Beckmeyer.
Councilmember Beckmeyer had one question, asking their expert if he has heard of cities that are charging some kind of surcharge for the delivery companies, such as Amazon, etc.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 March 14, 2022
Ms. Yapp stated that those delivery trucks are smaller than and weigh less than the garbage trucks and construction vehicles, and even though they see a lot of them, the impacts are not as high as they would expect.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if there are any policies in cities that mandate a certain size and limit the size of vehicles and not leave it to the delivery company but state as nothing above a certain size and weight. She knows we have a weight limit in Pacifica, but she was talking about making it more granular.
Ms. Yapp stated that there is a legal load limit that is identified for freeways and that would be like 18-wheeler type trucks and most all other vehicles would probably be a lot less on the city streets. She stated that the garbage trucks can get pretty heavy because they pack it all in, but it would be unusual for them to exceed a legal load limit.
Mayor Bier wanted to ask Ms. Porter a couple of quick questions as she felt it was really important to hear from her.
City Attorney Kenyon suggested that it was a good time to open public comment.
Mayor Bier agreed and opened public comment.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck reminded that they will need to fill out cards.
Mayor Bier agreed, and suggested that they fill out the card and give it to Chief Steidle.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they need to check to see if there are any call-ins for public comment.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated they had one call-in.
Mayor Bier suggested they take the caller before the in-house commenter.
Mayor Bier stated, as the caller did not respond, that they be patient as they figure out this process.
Cheryl Ammeter, Pacifica, stated she was a Pacific Coast TV board member.
Mayor Bier stated that she had to stop her as they were taking public comment on the study session about pavements, and she can call back when she lets them know when Oral Communications begins.
Ms. Ammeter apologized and stated she would call back.
Mayor Bier stated that they have one card, announcing the speaker.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she supports the fees, and commented on truck load impacts, specifically concerns in her neighborhood.
Mayor Bier closed public comments and stated that she would like to hear from Chris Porter, asking her to inform them if she has dealt with this before and how she did deal with it, etc.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 March 14, 2022
Chris Porter, GM of Recology of the Coast, stated that a couple of her sister cities have dealt with this, such as San Bruno, and she has worked on this with PW Dir. Petersen from the beginning and they are still in the discussion stage and will continue discussing it.
Mayor Bier asked if there were any more questions from Council, and seeing none, she stated she will open the regular Council meeting.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. She encouraged everyone to put a parking pass on their car in the lot and explained the process of filling out a card to speak for public comments.
Call to Order
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
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; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Ryan Marquez, Assoc. Civil Engineer; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer; Bonny O’Connor, Sr. Planner; Josh Montemayor, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Bier
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor asked if any Councilmembers want to pull anything from the consent calendar, and seeing no one, she opened up public comments.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, during the study session, they had their first pilot test for the phone in comment, and it was apparent, as anticipated, there is probably about a minute delay between the video and the streaming and what the person hears as to what is actually happening, which is why her response and comment came late. He suggested that as they are dealing with public comment cards for people in person, he explained that those who have called in should be prepared that after in person comments they will go to that queue and introduce the call-ins.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 March 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked if he was saying, as long as they dial in, they will be in a queue as Caller 1, Caller 2, etc., and not like their phone gets a busy signal and they dial back.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they will be in the queue and Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor is monitoring the call in queue.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that staff will also tell Council, as soon as public comment opens how many cards they have and how many people are on queue so the Mayor can decide if they need to lower the amount of time for each comment or not, and that will happen when the Mayor opens the item for public comment.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they are learning as they go.
Mayor Bier concluded that it will work better for them to take the cards first.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
City Clerk Coffey added for the call-in users who are called by their last four digits of their phone number and they would press Star 6 to unmute themselves to begin public comment and state their full name for the record.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, referred to Item #9, stating that she believe there were some mathematical errors and asked to pull it from Consent so they can have a presentation and mentioned the importance to discuss the concerns and ask questions, then mentioned some specific concerns in this item.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she needed clarification as she wanted to make comments on Items #9 and #11, and she asked if she does #9 and #11 or wait.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she does both, with her three minutes to comment on all consent items.
Ms. Moore understood, then asked if she could restart.
Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.
Ms. Moore then addressed the Pacifica’s sixth housing element that was different from past cycles in Pacifica and challenged to build 1,900 units and accommodate fair housing and made specific comments on where we were and what we needed to do to be more successful and keep us safe and was truly for the safe parking item and expressed her thoughts.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that safe parking should have been implemented when presented two years ago, and gave his thoughts on the process.
Carolyn Jaramillo, Pacifica, stated she is a homeowner and a member of several groups of the Pacifica Progressive Alliance, and is speaking in praise of the safe parking program designed by PRC and grateful that Council is willing to accept and implement it, giving her thoughts on the issue.
Therese Dyer, Pacifica, stated she didn’t have time to speak on all her issues, and stated that #7 was not clear, mentioning her thoughts and questions on the issue.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 March 14, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that she can’t answer her as they are not allowed to do that.
Ms. Dyer stated that it should be clear in the report or she wouldn’t be asking questions. She asked if they will get back to her with an answer.
Mayor Bier stated that she will personally get back to her.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there was one call-in and unmuted the speaker.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he was addressing Items #9 and #11. He commented on the ongoing process of #9 and some concerns on the accuracy in Item #9 and willingness to help the process. He stated #11 on parking was long overdue, expressing his thoughts on the process.
Sally Liu, Pacifica, stated she is a member of Reusable San Mateo County and was commenting on Item #10, mentioning the group’s support of the ordinance and shared their thanks for Council working with them, as well as their conversations with restaurants.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to comments, first, on Item #7 and stated that it was common language when passing these with a contingency amount and he asked if staff why they put a contingency amount regularly as a matter of best practice and where the various improvements are located, such as on the website.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding when contingencies become necessary, it was a standard practice when bidding a project and can handle that flexibility as there are often unanticipated necessary changes to projects.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, in regard to contingencies, they put them on projects for unforeseen conditions. He stated that there were times when they will dig something up and they didn’t know there was something, such as a waterline, that they might have to relocate.
They put the contingencies into the budget to pay for the unforeseen. He stated that this project happens to install 37 ADA compliant programs and he has a list of locations, with most of them on Gateway, Catalina Avenue, Rutland Drive, etc.
Mayor Bier asked confirmation that there is an attachment connected to the documents at this time.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that there is not a document in the attachment, but they can provide that through the City Manager.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to Item #9, with comments on it regarding questions raised may be better presented for Council goal setting session, and he thought they will be discussing the housing element in the next goal year. He referred to what this item is.
Mayor Bier stated that Dep. Planning Director Murdock was present, and asked of the City Attorney was calling attention to that.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t have a chance to City Council Regular Meeting 9 March 14, 2022
complete his question, but he was present to answer any specific items of interest.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was going to make a general statement for the purpose of this, and since he is present and wiser than he is on things of this nature, he will let him speak.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that this item comprises two different reports on the city’s General Plan. First is the housing element annual progress report (APR), and is a report on the city’s implementation of goals and policies in the housing element, as well as a report on the city’s applications received and approvals granted to housing projects and it summarizes the city’s activity which is a cumulative report from year 1 through year 8 of the housing element cycle, and this is the 7th housing element APR of the current 2015-2023 housing element. He stated that, as in the report, the city saw significant uptick in housing related approvals of building permits, 142% increase over the prior year, with the prior year matching the city’s in first place prior to this year for the most number of housing related approvals. He stated that, related to the 801 Fassler housing project of condominium townhomes, as well as a 20-unit accessory dwelling or ADU project at the Villages at Pacifica apartment complex. He stated that those two combined help to explain the significant increase. He noted, as a final point on the housing element component, that all 20 of those ADUs that will be constructed will be affordable to persons of low income as a result of the affordable housing regulatory agreement that Council approved and entered into between the city and the property owner. He stated that it was an outgrowth of that important work Council approved in 2020. He stated that the second component of this item is an implementation report on other elements of the General Plan besides the housing element and outlines accomplishments to implement policies across a number of elements and they run the gamut from circulation and conservation through land use and safety and seismic safety, etc., other than the housing element. He stated that the city has a variety of programs and activities it undertakes to cross the entire spectrum of issues contained in the city’s General Plan.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought the primary purpose of the report is to send the report to the state.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock agreed, specifically to the Department of Housing and Community Development and the governor’s office of Planning and Research.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they will be discussing the nuances of the housing element when they are past the General Plan updates.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that it was generally correct, adding that there are two key points to his thinking, one is to public comments or questions or concerns as to the level of implementation and resourcing of implementation of current housing element policies and programs and is a Council goal setting question. Regarding all the various issues and demands on staff time, to do something often requires them not to do something else, and where the weight of that effort and resources are placed is a question for Council and then for execution and implementation through the City Manager, and he thought the goal setting process was the most relevant place to set that high level of expectation on the part of the Council. He stated that the second component of that is related to the 2023-2031 housing element update which, as he mentioned, they will have to start in earnest following the comprehensive General Plan update because, as a public commenter noted, they need to plan for at least around 2000 new housing units, which will be a significant challenge based on the city’s prior progress through this point in time on the current housing element and will require some significant questions to City Council Regular Meeting 10 March 14, 2022
be answered and policy direction from Council.
Mayor Bier stated that they had a motion (O’Neill) and a second (Bigstyck).
City Clerk Coffey asked them to cast their vote.
Vote: 5-0 (Consent Items #1-11)
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Mr. Anaya from PCT has conveyed that, for those who call in on the call-in queue, and once they are in the queue, they can hear the meeting through their phone with no delay. If they are listening by streaming, it is delayed by up to a minute and if listening on TV, it is delayed up to five seconds. He stated that, if they are watching, once they call into the queue and listen through their phone, they will be on time.
Mr. Anaya stated that they want to turn everything else down and listen to only the phone once they are in the queue and they won’t have any delays.
Mayor Bier thanked him for that information. She asked the City Manager to feel free to remind her and keep them going as they are figuring all of this out.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for 1/16/22 through 1/31/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 1/16/22 through 1/31/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on February 28, 2022.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
5. Continuation of Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).
City Council Regular Meeting 11 March 14, 2022
6. Notice of Completion for the Emergency Sewer Repairs - SF RV Park PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Emergency Sewer Repairs - SF RV Park Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
7. North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvement Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvement Project:
A. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Construction Services Agreement with DRYCO Construction, Inc. (Attachment "A") in an amount not to exceed $305,500.00 and authorize a budget authority for construction in the amount of $351,325.00, which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amount; and
B. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a Master Services Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with 4Leaf, Inc. (Attachment "B") to provide Construction Management Services in the amount not exceed of $50,534 and authorize a budget authority for construction management in an amount not to exceed $55,389, which includes contingencies in the amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of Task Order No. 1; and C. Authorize staff to execute future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount.
8. Approval of the Final Map for 580 Crespi Drive
PROPOSED ACTION:
Approval of the Final Map to subdivide the airspace of an existing 100,846 square foot (2.3151 acres) parcel into twenty-five (25) commercial condominiums on the project site located south of the intersection of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road.
9. 2021 Annual Progress Reports on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element of the General Plan, and the City of Pacifica General Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution approving the City’s 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report on Implementation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and the 2021 General Plan Annual Progress Report on Implementation of Other Elements of the General Plan, and directing the City Manager to transmit the reports to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
10. Adoption 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 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica 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 find the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 March 14, 2022
11. Adoption of 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: Move to Adopt an Ordinance titled “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 find the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
7:15 PM - PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. Redistricting - Public Hearing #4 to Receive Input Regarding Proposed Draft District Maps, Composition of Council District Boundaries; Affirm Selection of Map 505b 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 Composition of Council District Boundaries and Affirm Selection of Map 505b; and
2. 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 Clerk Coffey presented the staff report.
Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speaker.
Cheryl Ammeter stated that she thought she may not be in the appropriate place as she is making a general comment.
Mayor Bier stated that she can come back when they announce oral communications which is after the public hearings.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that he was pleased that they went back to map 505b and he looked forward to its adoption.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to introduce an ordinance to 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; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 March 14, 2022
City Clerk Coffey asked them to cast their vote.
Vote: 5-0
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
13. Adoption of a Resolution to approve General Plan Amendment GPA-100-21 to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential, and introduction of an Ordinance to approve Rezoning RZ-201-18 and Development Plan DP-79-18 to rezone from the R-1/B-4/HPD zoning district to the P-D/HPD zoning district and to authorize a single-family residential use, filed by Matthew and Margaret Murphy, at the eastern terminus of Talbot Avenue (APN 016-270-110) in Pacifica (File No. 2018-057). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Class 3 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Resolution and Ordinance, and approved Specific Plan SP-169-18, Variance PV-526-18, and Parking Exception PE191-21 for construction of a 2,406-square foot (sf) single-family residence with a two-car garage on the 24,149-sf undeveloped parcel, by a vote of 7-0 on January 18, 2022.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to continue the public hearing to the City Council meeting of March 28, 2022.
Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister presented the staff report.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to continue the public hearing to the City Council meeting of March 28, 2022; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they were going to have public comment.
Mayor Bier stated that they do have one public comment, and she welcomed Commissioner Godwin for being at the meeting.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified that the public comment will only be on the continuance of the item.
Mayor Bier clarified to the speaker that he understood that he is commenting only on the continuance.
Gerald King, Pacifica, stated that he wanted to comment on the property at the terminus at the end of Talbott Avenue that is proposed and he has a concern because of living downslope.
Mayor Bier stated that they wanted to make sure that he understood that he can comment only on the continuance and not the project.
Mr. King understood and then mentioned that he lives downslope from that property and there are six properties on Talbot that were built after he moved into his property and expressed his concerns regarding their impact on his property.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 March 14, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she was sorry to interrupt but the motion is not to hear the appeal but to continue it until the next meeting. She stated that it will be back on the Council.
Mr. King stated that he got a letter that said he could come to the meeting and discuss this.
City Attorney Kenyon understood, and reiterated that now the Council was only deciding on whether or not they should continue this item to March 28 and they will not hear it at this meeting.
Mayor Bier told him to submit his letter.
Mr. King stated that he had three minutes.
Mayor Bier stated that, if he sends an email with his comment, she will gladly communicate with him.
Mr. King stated that he would rather submit the letter.
Mayor Bier thanked him for understanding their process. She then stated that they had a motion and a second.
City Clerk Coffey asked Councilmembers to cast their vote.
Vote: 5-0
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
14. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization for construction of a single-family residence on an undeveloped lot known as TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030); and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2021-018)
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD Planning Commission approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution.
Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report.
Mayor Bier asked Councilmembers to disclose any conflicts of interest or ex parte communications.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she communicated with Mike O’Connell, the builder, and with John Hanley, one of the appellants.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he also communicated with Mike O’Connell and a handful of the appellants.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 March 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he met with several of the appellants, but not Mr. O’Connell.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had a phone conversation with Mike O’Connell and a brief meeting with several of the appellants.
Mayor Bier stated that she also met with the appellant. She then asked if Council had any questions of staff.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to coverage, and when they were talking about the house itself and the garage as being what brings them to the calculation of 29% but, as he is looking at the schematics, it is hard for him to wrap his brain around the idea that it is less than 40%, let alone 29%. He thought it might be because of the ADU but a part of what plays into that question is the driveway to the garage and whether that constitutes coverage. He asked to be walked through that in detail.
Sr. Planner O’Connor asked to put up slide 1, and agreed that some of the sheets are so busy that it looks like there is a lot more coverage on it than may be proposed. She pointed out the landscaping plan of the project which she thought represents a simplified version of the actual coverage. She stated that the light grade areas are the areas that are generally being counted as coverage with the exception of the retaining wall structure. She stated that the driveway does not count as coverage and if they look at a more simplified version of what the site will look like, that may help.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the patios do not count as coverage either.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that driveways and hardscapes are not considered enough lot coverage calculations.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked her to elaborate why that is the case.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, as it relates to the percentage calculation of coverage for a project, that term is defined in the Pacifica Municipal Code which specifically provided for building coverage and excludes certain other types of coverage. He stated that it could be possible that, if Council wanted to regulate other types of coverage at some point, the current definition and standard includes only coverage related to buildings, including cantilevered floor area from second or third stories as mentioned by Sr. Planner O’Connor.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it might be a question for the applicant, but he asked if the driveway was to be constructed with permeable material.
Sr. Planner O’Connor thought it was impermeable.
Mayor Bier invited the appellant to speak, but she asked if he wished to reserve up to three minutes for rebuttal.
Leo Leone, applicant, stated that he could say he would like to reserve a minute if he has that much left. If he finishes his presentation and goes over, he didn’t want to risk being cut off at nine minutes. He stated that, if he can reserve what he has left over when he is done, he would appreciate that.
Mayor Bier stated that she will see if that is okay to do.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 March 14, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it was clearly up to the appellant on how he wants to divide his time, and the Mayor explained that he has ten minutes in total for the presentation as well as rebuttal and he can use however he wants.
Mr. Leon stated that he will reserve 30 seconds.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted to clarify that, if he does his presentation and finishes in six minutes, he would get the additional four for rebuttal if he wishes.
Mr. Leone thought that was fair, and that was what he was trying to get at. He stated that he heard talks earlier about buttons and trying to get familiar with buttons. He stated that he spent eight years in the room as a Planning Commissioner and a Planning Chair and he knows what they are talking about. He stated that, after two years of not being there, he was not familiar with the buttons either. He stated that City Clerk Coffey informed him that he would be operating a little clicker to operate the slide show and he didn’t know where it and what buttons to push. He asked how it works.
Mayor Bier stated that they will begin the timer.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they will set the timer for nine minutes and 30 seconds as he wishes to reserve 30 seconds.
Mr. Leone stated that he said that, and he understood from the City Attorney that, if he finishes earlier and says stop, he will have what is left.
City Clerk Coffey responded affirmatively.
Mr. Leone stated that he won’t reserve anything and wait and see what he has left which he thought was a better option. He asked her to set the timer for the full ten minutes. He is presenting the appeal on behalf of the appellants who happen to be him, and the adjoining properties to the project. He pointed out that the project has commanding views of the skyline, ocean, coastline and all the hillsides, virtually the entire site. He stated that the area below adjacent to the main structure looks really nice but it belongs to the property next door at 135 Sussex Way and he didn’t want them to be misled. He stated that, as neighbors, they were not opposed to a new home and the building site itself is in an area of historic landslides which has been documented, with all kinds of issues, and they desire a project that thoroughly addresses potential impacts and mitigation issues prior to project approval. He stated that they want to be consistent with Coastal Act 3006 policy and the public should participate in the building and project. They want to do that and comply with the Coastal Act. He stated that their main concerns are drainage issues, potential alternate designs, safety and accessibility and project approval needs to be consistent with neighborhood character, which this does not, and adhere to all the rules and regulations governing development which are numerous with many listed there. He stated that Olympian Way is an unimproved street and has no sidewalks. He stated that, in many places, you can only drive one vehicle through the street at a time. It has a history of incidents of trucks being stranded and they have asked for city’s help which was granted, and access for police and fire. He stated that one slide shows a truck with its wheels off the road just hanging in the air and they had to bring in a gigantic piece of equipment and it is next door to the project site and the wheels are hanging over into the yard. He stated that the current drainage system does not meet the recommendation of the geotechnical investigation and the geoforensic report said a percolation style dissipation system is not permitted for use at this site.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 March 14, 2022
He stated that they hired their own geotech professional engineer who said that same thing. He stated that Pacifica’s Public Works has guidelines for drainage review and they are very good and extensive and no additional runoff caused by development can cross the property lines and the storm drain systems shall provide protection of vetting outside properties. He stated that a discussion of rationale used to design the system and discussion of methods and tabulations, description of how excess drainage will be detained with no water off the site and descriptions of how discharge will be controlled to comply with city policy. He stated that, when looking at the Planning Commission’s package, they found that the guidelines weren’t in it. He didn’t think the Planning Commission even considered these as they didn’t have it to review for approval and the result was the drainage plan that was not permitted was approved and Condition 17 which speaks to those conditions and says it will comply with the recommendations of the geotech but it was not followed because he said it was not permitted. He then referred to the Coastal Act policy, which stated the development will be clustered and contoured into the existing natural slope of the design and scale which is subordinate to the land form that minimizes grading for access and for fire safety and grading will be regulated to protect the appearance of a land form and limit potential runoff. He stated that a structure on a scale with the site and neighborhood, particularly a single family dwelling which are much larger than neighboring structures are discouraged. He referred to a house on Sussex Way that is at the bottom of that main structure and is 34.5 feet next to a one-story building in a back yard. He then referred to visual impact and stated that a hillside development also has a potential to block or impair established views from existing development. He stated that a horizontal potential of a site should be fully exploited before increasing building height. He stated that the current location of that building cannot be moved because it occupies the entire footprint. He stated that, where feasible, they locate new buildings to minimize view blockage from primary viewing areas of existing development, and he stated that there are no visuals to determine where the project site sits in relation to its neighbors. He stated that they have an architect submit a conceptual plan and it was good, so he thought they should look at this and some other similar ones as this one removes all the retaining walls and improves access to the house, reduces grading and impervious surfaces and maintains the existing vegetation on the bottom part of the lot. He liked that, as it maintains the same living space as what the applicant was proposing. He stated that they also had site setbacks that are accessible for police, fire and safety. He stated that the 1980 General Plan conservation elements says new development should be designed to protect existing vegetation, particularly on slopes, and this was a 38% grade slope. He stated that the current design does not allow access to the lower portion of the home because they allowed the retaining walls to be built on the property lines and cross the entire project and there is no way the fire department could get down to the bottom of the property. He stated that the neighbors were not opposed to a new home, but they want the opportunity to participate on the traffic, drainage and grading before the project is approved. He stated that, once it leaves them, they have no input. He stated that they already made a couple of suggestions that were adopted and they could make more and help. They urged Council to send the Olympian Way TBD project back to Planning Commission, review and incorporate the Dept. Of Public Works guidelines for design review prior to project approval and ensure that all geotech recommendations from the geoforensics are followed and incorporated into the General Plan prior to project approval. He asked to not do it behind closed doors and create a plan for truck trips and vehicle turnarounds that ensure safety for the community and the project prior to approval. He asked that they consider alternative horizontal design and placement of structures on the property.
Mayor Bier saw no questions from Council, and then invited the applicant to speak for ten minutes, and can reserve three minutes for rebuttal.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 March 14, 2022
Mike O’Connell, applicant, asked if he gets the same deal with the time.
Mayor Bier stated that he did.
City Clerk Coffey asked if he wanted to reserve time for rebuttal or wait to see what he has left.
Mr. O’Connell stated that he will wait to see what he has left. He stated that he did talk a few councilmembers earlier, as well as a couple of neighbors and they tried to have a larger meeting but schedules didn’t align, as well as some reluctance to meet without the whole group and they didn’t get a chance to talk face to face before this forum, but they did some outreach. They were willing to talk to the neighbors. He stated that were some considerations they were thinking about when they designed this. He pointed out the views on the screen in the living room and master bedroom, and they wanted to utilize their extra frontage to allow them to create a driveway unlike the other houses on the street and allows them to create a nice usable yard on the same level as the main living area, pointing out the difference from existing homes.
He stated that they are increasing the pavement and the existing pavement is 12 feet wide and they are making it 22 feet wide, which is the standard in Pedro Point and they are creating a turnout and the intention with Public Works is that it is a parking space but the pavement width there is 30 feet wide and this will create a condition where it easier for a typical passenger vehicle to make a three-point turn in the street. He stated that there was not much he can do about the box truck hanging over the side as that truck driver was not supposed to drive on the street which is why he got stuck. He also pointed out the yard is facing south and east and gets a ton of light and is important in Pedro Point because they lose the light early in the day due to the mountain. He stated that the retaining walls help them as they can take all the spoils from the foundations and footings and put them behind the walls. He stated that their goal was to limit outfall and not have a million trucks. He stated that the neighbors had bad experiences on two recent projects on the street where they had cleared the site without permits and a lot of trucks and equipment showed up with no notice, and at one house the contractor had a lot of issues and it was a painful build. He was from out of town and not interested in doing anything to work with the neighbors. He stated that he is local and his partner, Mike, is the contractor who lives in the neighborhood and they were there to be helpful as they know what it is like to live next to construction. He wants to be on the record that they are both super accessible and people can come to them with issues, actually demonstrating it to the neighbors, i.e., talking to Irma, Leone and Chuck Gust. He stated that, regarding drainage, the original proposal was all designed per the city’s specs, including a 100-year storm and they do it on every project with a detention pipe reviewed by the city, third party, etc., and they had a productive meeting with Mr.
Gust who had an interest at 140 Essex, the site below them, and they agreed to double the size of the detention systems voluntarily and he understood they designed per the city’s spec but he asked them to increase the capacity and they split it into two systems and will take runoff from the garage and driveway and a portion of the house. He explained how detention works, i.e., with putting the detention further upstream the more it will attenuate the flow downstream, thus a majority of the site can drain to the upper pipe and they have the lower pipe at the bottom of the slope and the only way it works is when everyone behaves reasonably and he needs to be reasonable about the way he discharges his drainage as it goes across the property line to a neighbor’s site, and that neighbor needs to behave reasonably on how they accept the drainage. He stated that they can’t decide they don’t want to let it go through their property. He reiterated that they have two pipes and doubled the size of the system with a lot of redundancy, showing the site on his slide and explaining the process. He stated that it could change in the future when a site is redeveloped, thus, the need for people to act reasonably about the drainage. He then pointed out that the height of the house was roughly the same height as the neighbor. He stated that he had some renderings they put together today that he would pass City Council Regular Meeting 19 March 14, 2022
out and they can see how the building fits relative to adjacent sites and the views which show they aren’t blocking anyone’s view. He stated that their geotechnical engineer was present and they can ask him any questions they may have.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had questions for Dan Dyckman, his geotech engineer, as well. He referred to the added double size of the retention area following his conversation with Mr. Gust, and asked if that was referred to in COA #4 or attachment No. H.
Mr. O’Connell thought it was, but he would rely on staff to confirm that.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that it was condition of approval #17 which requires incorporation of the recommendations from the geotechnical report.
Mr. O’Connell thought there was a condition that says that it shall be as presented at this meeting or something to that effect on the drainage.
Sr. Planner O’Connor agreed, clarifying that it is condition of approval #4 that the design system shown, in terms of size and proposed discharge points, will match the system shown in Attachment H in this meeting’s staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that Attachment H reflects the changes he made after he talked to Chuck Gust.
Mr. O’Connell responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has questions for Mr. Dyckman.
Dan Dyckman, geotechnical engineer, introduced himself.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated there was a statement in the geotechnical report about a percolation style dissipation system being absolutely not something they can do.
Mr. Dyckman stated that the hillside’s percolation systems are ingredients for the landslide and they didn’t want to do that. He stated that the original design, which they reviewed the first time, is a detention system and its primary goal is to hold water and meter it out at a rate that matches pre-development rates for flow and does not percolate water into the ground. He stated that there was one detail in the plans, the catch basin at the end which had a small 4-inch diameter hole with a little bit of gravel underneath it, and the intent of that was to allow after the rain storms are gone, a little bit left in the pipe to percolate out so it doesn’t sit and fester as the next time they get rain, it can get smelly if it gets some organics in there. He stated that it was reasonable and he didn’t have a problem with it through the first go-around. He saw the letter from John Vicunich, and he told him, if he thinks that will be a problem, he didn’t think so but was willing to get rid of it as it will make a little bit of stinky water for the first rainstorm after it has been a couple of months.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he watched the Planning Commission hearing and, as a layperson, he stated that they have bubble up boxes as part of the system and, as a layperson, he stated that bubble up box sounds a lot like percolation style dissipation system. He understood that his description of the percolation style system they are removing is very different than the bubble up box, but he wanted a deeper explanation as he was a layperson and they were two different things.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 March 14, 2022
Mr. Dyckman stated that the concern he had as a geotechnical engineer, is that when they talk about percolation system, they talk about the whole large diameter holding storage facility being perforated with gravel around it and they are going to be percolating somewhere in the order of 90% of the water that comes in to that into the ground, and with the small bubblers and small percolation hole at the end of one of the catch basins, that is a very minute amount of the water that is actually going through the system that will actually make its way into the subsurface of the ground. He didn’t have a problem with it and didn’t see it causing a slope instability issue.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the foot drain, which he had recommended as not essential, and he was wondering how much, in general, those cost.
Mr. Dyckman asked if it was footing drain.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck responded affirmatively.
Mr. Dyckman stated that it depends on whether they are doing it as part of an original construction or later on.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck clarified as part of the original construction.
Mr. Dyckman stated that, as part of the original construction, the costs are usually relatively nominal, probably in the order of $10,000 to $15,000. While he is not a contractor, he can tell them that the one thing about an engineer’s estimate is that it is always wrong. He stated that the only one that matters is the contractor’s and his estimates are right.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that will be a follow up question for Mr. O’Connell.
Mr. O’Connell stated that they always install the subdrains behind the retaining wall as it is a building permit level structural design issue and if they don’t have a footing drain or subdrain, they are then required to design the retaining wall for hydrostatic pressure in case the water builds up behind the wall and the extra cost for the concrete and the foundation elements is much greater than the cost of putting the subdrain in and he concluded that they will all be back drained.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that he is planning on using it and putting a drain in.
Mr. O’Connell responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to staff report, page 6, regarding the site development having potential to block or impair established views. He stated that we don’t have a view ordinance, but that building is going to impact the views from a couple of the houses. He stated that he went through his presentation, and asked why he didn’t do like a Mediterranean style where it is out some, out some and down.
Mr. O’Connell stated “the wedding cake”, and stated that he didn’t know as it was a little bit architecturally not in now. He stated that there was a lot of that in there, especially with the Mediterranean, and when he thinks about the neighborhood, he thought it was an eclectic character and everything is different, not like a track subdivision. They were trying to have a simple structure that was elegant and why he pointed out the corner element on the slide where they got some articulation, a lot of glass, change in the siding halfway up on the upper floor City Council Regular Meeting 21 March 14, 2022
which is not commonly done and is a little different. He concluded that they were trying to create a structure that was simple, elegant with a late feel to it.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that the street is only 14 feet wide, and he stated that there should be a real long haul, at least a quarter of a mile to get to Grand Avenue, the next major street to get there. He referred to Mr. O’Connell stating that they will widen the street at that point to 20 or 30 feet.
Mr. O’Connell stated that it was 22 feet except at the turnout at 30 feet.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to his statement that they didn’t go for a Mediterranean thing and they are putting all the development down at the bottom of the hill, and he stated that in looking the guidelines from the Coastal Commission, they could locate developments below ridges and hilltops which they definitely did and he thought, if they had gone with the Mediterranean, his concern is the retaining walls would not need to have been done if there was a different style of construction there. He thought, with the retaining walls, they would have to haul in dirt.
Mr. O’Connell stated that they would not. He stated that is the goal and it is effectively balanced.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if, prior to their design, they got the 2020 Department of Public Works guidelines for drainage review.
Mr. O’Connell stated that he had not seen those guidelines until recently, but he has done 20 drainage projects in the city and they always do them the same way, and is consistent with what is in the guidelines.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if he was saying that what he is presenting and was approved by the Planning Commission is consistent with the guidelines.
Mr. O’Connell agreed, adding that it is consistent with the last two dozen projects he has designed in Pacifica.
Councilmember O’Neill thought, if he hasn’t seen them, it wasn’t fair to ask him if it is consistent.
Mr. O’Connell stated that, when he saw them, he reviewed them and made the determination that they were consistent with what they did.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the city will be abandoning the right-of-way we have on that street, as the appellant told him that the city has right-of-way there and a lot of people have their driveway even into the city right-of-way, and again asked if the city will be abandoning the rightof-way.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that there is no proposal to abandon the right-of-way in that area, and they will just build within it, probably through the approval of an encroachment permit.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they also mentioned that the water goes down, and at 140 Essex, it is now like parking but at some point someone might build a house there and he asked if they obtained an easement, encroachment, or whatever they want to call it so that the drainage to go through Essex at some point.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 March 14, 2022
Mr. O’Connell stated they did not, adding that it is generally not required as it is a historical drainage pattern.
Councilmember O’Neill asked the city attorney for input.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she didn’t know if there was a legal question.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that water flows downhill, and he said that the house at the bottom of the hill at 140 Essex, and the area this drains into is parking. He asked if, at some point 140 Essex wants to expand their house or redevelop that, is there any credence that there should be an encroachment or easement or something for his drainage to go through the other property. He gave an example that he had a PG&E easement across his property.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if there isn’t an easement that already exists, was he asking if there is a prescriptive easement or just an easement as a matter of law for drainage.
Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the answer was no except that she believes what the applicant was referring to from her understanding, and if there is an historical drainage pattern so the flow has historically flowed in that direction, it creates more liability if you change the natural flow of the drainage.
Councilmember O’Neill thought that would mean that 140 Essex would have to deal with whatever drainage issues might happen.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that her direct answer is that there are no legal issues associated with the drainage from the property at issue in this project to a lower property if the drainage has been an historical flow and they are not altering the historical drainage pattern.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock added that, as City Attorney Kenyon mentioned, that pre versus post development condition is also relevant in the sense that the evidence reviewed by the city is such that, consistent with the city’s drainage standards, the project would be designed so that the flow leaving the site, post development, would not exceed the pre-development flow based on the design storm. He stated that the engineer calculations provided by the applicant that the city has reviewed indicates that will be the case. He stated that the evidence that shows that this project would not increase the flow as compared to the pre-development condition, and beyond that, the applicant has expanded the capacity of that detention system even further than required to achieve that design bubble. He referred to his comment related to easements for drainage, and stated that this subdivision was subdivided in 1908 and it preceded the modern requirements of the subdivision map act in the city’s Municipal Code to provide easements for drainage in new subdivisions, and this historical existing condition exists throughout the neighborhood based on the age of the subdivision. He stated that the provisions for subdivision or lack thereof existed at the time in 1908 and this property is not unique in that existing storm water drainage patterns were not integrated into the design of the subdivision in all instances, and it is something that this applicant has to design around and he thought he has made a reasonable effort to do consistent with the city’s drainage standards.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked applicant for the document as it encapsulated a lot of what she wanted to ask, but having been just delivered, she wasn’t sure she was interpreting it correctly and wanted to ask a couple of questions. She referred to what it looks like for total City Council Regular Meeting 23 March 14, 2022
truck trips for this project.
Mr. O’Connell asked if he can explain.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she can ask her question.
Mr. O’Connell responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, if she was understanding it correctly, total truck trips for this project are 90, however 82 involve cuts and then there are 8 that would need to be imported.
She asked if he can explain how the numbers work for her.
Mr. O’Connell suggested that she not think of the cut section as cut, as it was just a way that the engineers back out the earth work. He stated that, from the finished grade, there is an intermediate grade that is lower than that and accounts for the thickness of the concrete and base rock and you have to account for that. On the next item of top soil, when they do their landscape areas they bring in some top soil, and the next item of slabs, which is the same as the concrete. He stated that there is a volume for the piers, which is material coming out of the pier holes for the foundations and an item for footings which is the volume of dirt that they are replacing with concrete and then they have utilities, and there is a volume of dirt there that they are replacing with utilities and sand with which they have to backfill the trenches. He stated that all of those items are material they need to bring to the site but it takes up space in between the existing grade and the final grade. He concluded that, when you look at the total fill of 1,413 yards, that is the difference between the existing grade and the finished grade, and they need to account for the items above it in their earth work analysis, otherwise they are essentially double counting. He hoped he explained that correctly. He then referred to the trucks, stating that these are trucks for these construction activities and concrete trucks and dump trucks and it is not meant to be a total number of trips because there are other deliveries, like lumbar, roofing material, tile, and specifically the lumbar truck costs $35 to have the lumber company send out a smaller truck and have them send two or three trucks and that is what they intend to do with deliveries like that. He stated that there was only so much they can do with the concrete truck as they only make them in one size, but for any delivery where they can get a smaller truck, that is what they intend to do.
Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated his explanation as this isn’t her area of expertise and she may be a little simplistic and asked them to bear with her. She understood that we were not importing all of this material to the property as some exists on the property and will be dug up and moved around and used in a different way.
Mr. O’Connell responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what the net number of trips for the materials of this nature only was.
Mr. O’Connell stated 90.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought so, and then he stated there is lumber, tile, roof materials, etc. She stated that they heard earlier that they had a lot of talk about this and one of the items that was brought out was 20 truck trips for a single family home, and she thought that was more.
She did recognize that there were some site challenges, such as Olympian Way which is very narrow, and she understood that part of the agreement with the Planning Department in working City Council Regular Meeting 24 March 14, 2022
through this plan, and was approved by the Planning Commission, is that they will be widening a portion of that road to 20 feet and 30 feet in certain parts.
Mr. O’Connell stated that it was 22 feet and 30 feet. He stated that there was a logistical component to this which was that they were interested in doing that portion of the work first because it provides a nice staging area for materials, deliveries, parking, and he and his partner discussed using a pilot car or shuttle car to reduce the number of cars from the laborers and other people on the site, and he thought that will be documented in the traffic control plan and logistics plan.
Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated the visuals he provided with the large format documents, and she noted there were not visuals like this included in the applicant packet, and asked if she was correct.
Mr. O’Connell responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there was one visual that did give a sense of the view from different points of view, adding that there have been discussions in town over time with different projects around story poles and different mechanisms which she realized were costly and time consuming, but she suggested that it would have been helpful to have a better sense of what this project looks like from different directions, including from the ocean since it is in the Coastal Zone, which she thought was a vantage point they have to factor in with this particular site.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the appellant had an alternate design with no retaining walls, and she asked if he could explain why he has so many retaining walls and if this would work with no retaining walls.
Mr. O’Connell stated that he couldn’t say that it would work or not as he hasn’t seen that design and he can’t make it out from the screen and he didn’t feel it was appropriate to comment on it.
He stated that retaining walls are necessary on the portions of the site that require a cut and are beneficial to the project in the sense that they provide some usable level space and greatly reduce the truck trips as, instead of hauling off all that material, they have a place to keep it on site.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it says they will have to make eight truck trips in terms of fill because what they will be doing is moving the cut that they take and moving it around and it isn’t going to require hauling off or bringing more on except for those eight truck trips for that.
Mr. O’Connell stated that is what they anticipate, being just a little bit short.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to lot coverage in terms of driveway specific, and he is trying to understand, when talking about the drainage, if they are factoring in all the actual impermeable surface on the lot or just talking about the drainage they think is coming off the 29% lot coverage as stated.
Mr. O’Connell stated that the drainage analysis includes the roof areas, impervious patios and driveways and accounts for landscaping as that still generates runoff even though it is pervious.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the impression he got from the geotechnical report was that the driveway itself cannot be constructed of permeable pavers because of the geology of the City Council Regular Meeting 25 March 14, 2022
hillside, and he asked if that was accurate.
Mr. O’Connell stated that you could construct it out of permeable pavers if you had adequate subdrainage beneath it so it doesn’t percolate into the native material below. He stated that it was possible there is another issue which is that initially the driveway as you come down is relatively steep and 15 or 16% and then levels out and good design practice with pervious pavers is to not have them on slopes that exceed 5% and you really need the concrete that tires can really grip to for that initial descent. He stated it would be possible to install them at the area of the driveway where the slope is less severe but he thought it creates a funny aesthetic to have it mix and match.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck added that the updated drainage plan in Attachment H that they have the potential to put through at this meeting takes into account all impermeable surfaces on the site.
Mr. O’Connell stated that he was correct.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there was a lot of discussion at the Planning Commission meeting about working with the neighbors in terms of drainage at the end of the day, and if this goes through at the meeting, he asked if he will still make that effort to reach out to the neighbors to further address drainage with them as a collaborative.
Mr. O’Connell stated that, outside of the scope of this project, he was willing to collaborate as he thinks staff wanted to virtually kick him when he brought that up at the last meeting as it created a lot of confusion. He was trying to convey to the neighbors, who feel that there is a drainage issue with the street and the area, was that the solution is not anything that happens or doesn’t happen on this lot and everyone needs to collect their drainage and it has to go through someone’s property and go to the existing drains and gutters and channels on Sussex.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they still have public comments and deliberation, and he understands he is asking a question that is, ultimately, outside the scope of what they are discussing, but it was helpful for his understanding that, should they put this through, there will still be an ardent attempt made to collaborate with neighbors for the sake of the hillside, which he thinks is a mutual concern of Council.
Mr. O’Connell stated that he would be happy to lead that charge.
Mayor Bier stated that, going last, everyone already asked all her questions and she then opened the Public Hearing reiterating the process.
Robert Boles, Pacifica, stated that he felt this project was way overblown for the steep hillside, and mentioned his specific concerns, concluding it would be a good idea to send it back to the Planning Commission.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated her concerns about the project as well as the process and suggested they uphold the appeal, continue the item and give everyone a chance to look at the documents.
Mayor Bier stated that the next speaker was Kathy Gust.
City Clerk Coffey stated that she was an appellant and she can speak during the rebuttal period.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 March 14, 2022
Mayor Bier thanked her for that information and asked if there were any call-ins.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were no call-in speakers.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they must have the rebuttal, with the appellants first then the applicant.
Mayor Bier asked the City Clerk how much time do the applicants have for rebuttal.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they had one minute and 21 seconds.
Mr. Leone stated that he will talk and then Kathy Gust is going to come in. He wants them to send it back because the Planning Commission and the applicant need to comply with Public Works and the drainage report must be submitted to the city for review. He stated that the Planning Commission did not review it and they want it all reviewed. He stated that all of the design elements in the Coastal Act policy 26, the development shall be clustered and contoured into the existing slope and needs to be fully exploited for the horizontal possession and they didn’t even touch that. He then yielded to Kathy Gust.
Kathy Gust, appellant, stated that she was speaking for her brother who couldn’t be present.
She stated that her brother didn’t agree on anything with Mr. O’Connell, and he wanted to give to Mr. O’Connell that he had a plan B and if plan A worked for the drainage, why did he have a plan B except for hiring our own consultant.
Mayor Bier asked how much time the applicant had for rebuttal.
City Clerk Coffey stated that the applicant also has one minute and 21 seconds.
Mr. O’Connell stated he wanted to address 4-5 things he heard. He stated that Mr. Boles said the detention pipe length was deceptive and he stated that it is not. It is 30 feet, and there are two of them with 60 feet total. He stated that the heritage tree that was going to soak up all the water was dead as documented in the arborist report. The drainage report was submitted and was in the Planning Commission materials and reviewed by Public Works, by CSG and by their geotechnical consultant and it is in the record. He referred to a comment about submitting the extra materials. He stated that they know about the comments as they were shared with them, and the supplemental materials are meant to answer questions they know are coming and, while he heard that it wasn’t fair as no one saw it, he stated that he didn’t get to see the alternative design that was presented until it was on the screen. He referred to his meeting with Chuck Gust, and regardless of agreeing or not, they left the meeting with the understanding that he would go above and beyond on the drainage and voluntarily double the size of the system.
Mayor Bier closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the issue of the drainage report, and asked if the drainage report was submitted to the city vis a vis the guidelines for drainage review that the appellant was referring to.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that those are guidelines that the Public Works Department have prepared and she will invite PW Dep. Director Bautista to fill in more details of how they use those. She stated that those guidelines, as she understood them, have requirements that the City Council Regular Meeting 27 March 14, 2022
reports be prepared by a qualified professional, meet the 100-year storm standards and the post construction drainage doesn’t result in a runoff rate that is greater than pre-construction. She turned it over to PW Dep. Director Bautista.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that engineering does look at the drainage report and all the calculations and reviews them as bodies in regard to all their standards, including 100-year storm and they reviewed to make sure that post-construction flows are either equal to or less than the pre-construction flows and concluded that they do review all aspects of drainage.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his other questions are fire related as there were a couple of issues in regard to fire that were brought up. He asked if they had a representative from the fire department and, if not, he would defer to Dep. Planning Director Murdock.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he has a sense of what the question may be and he thought it may have come up in a recent project and he would respond to that based on his question.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his first question was, regarding other houses on Olympian, presumably the Fire Department has a plan for how to get their trucks in and out in worst case scenarios, with the second question regarding the length of the fire hose and whether or not it would be able to get to the property as shown.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated, regarding the first question, it would need to be addressed by Fire as to operationally how they respond. He stated that he has had detailed conversations with the prior Dep. Fire Chief Barry Biermann, with respect to fire access along Olympian in relation to a different project, and it was an area of concern as the streets are narrow and there is no fire turnaround, but it is an existing condition and they do their best to work within the limitations as they are. Regarding the second question, he stated that the 150- foot hose pull distance is the basic standard, however, if you read the fire code, there are exceptions for what is known as an R3 occupancy such as this proposed project. If that occupancy is proposed or if the building is fully sprinklered, as this building would be, then they can exceed that 50-hose pull length. He stated that, whether Fire reviewed that not, he cannot attest to that specific fact, but he can tell them that this project is not bound by a 150-foot hose pull length.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, regarding the previous deputy chief expressing those concerns, if there were any suggestions about how to address those concerns or was it that they will deal with it when it happens.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, from that conversation at a high level, the particulars of the other project were different and it provided an opportunity to potentially improve the fire turnaround condition and why they were engaged in that detailed conversation.
He stated that, for this project, it was a different site configuration and he didn’t think it immediately lends itself to the same potential range of solutions that Dep. Chief Biermann and he discussed.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck mentioned how difficult it was to sign off on this when he feels like at every stage there are certain elements that are introduced in such a way that he is seeing it for the first time and wasn’t entirely comfortable with that. He was interested in his fellow Councilmembers think, but he has hesitancy now. He stated that they don’t need to require community meetings for any given project, they need public transparency and, in some of the City Council Regular Meeting 28 March 14, 2022
data he is looking at is initially reassuring to him, it was close to feeling like a step was skipped to allow the public the full ability to comment on the particulars of this and this is the current fence on which he is sitting.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she was with him, as she has a lot of concerns about the project. She stated from the information that was brought forward with the renderings and data, and appreciated the clarification about how that occurred as an attempt to be responsive to questions from the public and she appreciated that. She would like the Planning Commissioners to have the opportunity to weigh in on this. She stated that, from her point of view, the specific request she would have is to send this back to Planning to specifically work the applicant or condition some kind of understanding of what the project is going to look like.
She stated that the renderings she saw was in space and only during the presentation did she felt she had a good sense of the view from different points of view, not about protecting views, but the massing and size of the project, while meeting the city’s requirement for the lot size, etc., and she was not comfortable about how it fits in the neighborhood. She stated her next concern was about fire safety, and saw the location of the fire hydrant and noticed it was far away. She appreciated the clarification about the sprinkler system but, if there are alternate ways if siting the house on the property that addresses some of the concerns raised at this meeting, she would want the applicant to have the opportunity to explore all of those as well as the neighborhood to have the opportunity to participate and understand what that looks like. She also commented that Mr. O’Connell and she had a conversation earlier and she used the phrase of construction fatigue and she thought the neighborhood had a certain amount of construction fatigue, and it doesn’t mean the project can’t go forward, but that there has been some unfortunate practices by some of the builders on this street. She thought it would be beneficial to have an opportunity to work through a safety and traffic plan that the neighborhood has an understanding of how it is going to work. She said the way she read the report was that it was going to be done later to the satisfaction of a specific staff member, but it didn‘t seem that the Planning Department was engaged with or the public had an opportunity to understand before it happened and would live with it after the fact. She stated that she contacted the City Attorney earlier as she wasn’t sure it was fair for her to ask for those things but that is what she thinks is needed for this project.
Councilmember Vaterlaus felt it was hypocritical for the appellant to say that the applicant submitted documents after when they just got this full packet from the appellant, stating that it goes both ways and both submitted items after the fact that they didn’t see prior to this meeting and was one of her concerns. She stated that one item said that the property doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood and she checked about 20 houses, mentioning specific addresses on the same street and the street right below and the great thing about Pedro Point is that there is a house that is 900 square feet and one that is 4,000 square feet, so to say that this one is oversized for the neighborhood is not true. She feels that it was cited off the street for less visual impact as, if they had a massive house at the street, there would be a lot more visual impact than setting it further down the hill. She will listen to others, and may come back.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, regarding fire safety, he looked at the PUC map of fire zones, and this is not considered a high fire danger area which surprised him. He asked Planning when they take and do this, do they run it by North Coast Water.
Sr. Planner O’Connor clarified that he was asking about the water district.
Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 March 14, 2022
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that these plans were not submitted to the water district.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to the fire issue, stating that one of the reasons they are rebuilding the water tank on Sheila is to provide better fire suppression water pressure to lower Linda Mar. He was concerned about a 14-foot road with a pavement that has a useful life of zero, and he didn’t notice where the fire hydrant was, but he was concerned about the fire suppression. He thought, if they could see what the fire suppression is in these wooded areas, that could be put in the system as something we do. He was surprised that the floor area ratio, per the Municipal Code, doesn’t include driveways, etc.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it was floor area.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that he was talking coverage.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed that he was talking lot coverage. He asked if they could have a floor area ratio and a separate one for total lot coverage would be helpful, especially with retaining walls. He stated that he thought the applicant said it was impervious pavement in some parts but, where the grade was real heavy, it was not. Then he thought staff said it was pervious. He asked if he heard someone wrong.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that she identified the driveway as impervious, i.e., a concrete driveway.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the area was pervious where the hot tub and patio are.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that she did not comment on that but believes it is all impervious.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if a pervious area lessen the need for the drainage and put less burden on the drainage and the percolation issues or make it worse.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought it was something that city engineer and PW Dep.
Director Bautista or the applicant would have to comment on. He stated that earlier mentioned was that pervious paving has particular design parameters and, given the steepness of the site, it may be appropriate in some places if supplemented with an under drain so it is not actually infiltrating into the hillside and it is something that could be explored, depending on the location on the site and the steepness of the area.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, if it is impervious surface, the developer would have to take into consideration how much runoff is on that impervious surface to make sure that the detention on site will accommodate that flow. He is assuming that, in the consultations he gave them it was all reviewed in that respect and all that runoff was taken into consideration in the storm drain as planned.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated, if he understands the question, he thought he was trying to understand, if Council were to require additional pervious paving, could that reduce the off flows of storm water from the project.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed, asking if pervious paving increased or decreased the need for drainage systems.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that the big picture, suggesting that the applicant City Council Regular Meeting 30 March 14, 2022
confirm, given the significant size of the detention system already designed at the end of the drainage system, they may not see a net difference in the outflows at the end of that system if they were to add pervious pavement to some component of the project but may have a localized impact on how the water is retained and how long it takes to get into the system but they may not see a difference in the overall outflow from the system.
PW Dep. Director Bautista agreed with what he just stated.
Councilmember O’Neill commented on a statement by Harry Truman saying you wish you could get two economists, one left-handed and one right-handed to agree on things.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that she needed to correct one statement she made, the plans were distributed to the water district for comment and the applicant did provide some documentation to show the water supply sufficiency for fire suppression.
Councilmember O’Neill thought more pressure was what the issue was with fire suppression.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that the project will need to demonstrate, if approved prior to issuance of a building permit, there is typically a separate permit application directly to the fire authority where they review specifically the water pressure calculations provided by the water district and the fire sprinkler system designer demonstrates that the system can provide the appropriate level of fire suppression, based on the available water pressure and it is a veery specific technical review that the city does perform before it would issue a building permit to ensure that the project is constructed safely and in accordance with the fire code.
Mayor Bier thanked everyone, stating that it has been her experience with Mr. O’Connell that he is very willing to collaborate and, when the comment came up that it was confusing to staff, she realized that they were not able to make them collaborate but it is the best practice for them to work together as a community. She thought there were opportunities to do that simply because there has been all the information given to them from both sides that haven’t been reviewed by the Planning Commission or each other. She stated that it was an opportunity to look at these things and start conversations again, and she agrees with Councilmember Beckmeyer that it needs to be sent back to Planning Commission because there is all this new information and there is an opportunity here.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it was sounding like three votes for going back to Planning Commission and he apologized for not coming sooner to Commissioner Godwin. He asked if he might lend them any perspective that they don’t already have or any thoughts that may be flowing through him as he is observing.
Commissioner Godwin stated that, when they reviewed the project, it was an interesting and fairly complex one with a high degree of slope on the lot. He thought they went through everything they can realistically do looking at this, and he didn’t think there was any big concern about the project. He thought that, at this point, they have some new information but it is probably not going to change the outcome of a second review.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated his comments, adding that it was good to see him and he thanked him for being present.
Mayor Bier asked if they have a motion.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 March 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated in regard to consideration of the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permits, CDP-430-21 and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization for construction of a single-family residence on an undeveloped lot, known as TBD Olympian (APN 023-037-030; and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; he moved to remand back to Planning Commission.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, if she can clarify that motion before it is seconded, the motion would be to refer it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they will need a second to discuss it.
Seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer, and she asked if there was any specific direction that they would give to the Planning Commission about the areas in which they would want them to review.
Councilmember O’Neill heard that there are concerns about the traffic plan and he thought the traffic plan could be fleshed out, which he heard as the big issue and drainage. He thought they have done about everything they can for drainage.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she meant that there has been some late amendments to what the Planning Commission had last seen.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they have a motion on the floor. She stated that there is a second to that motion as stated, and she asked if there is going to be an amendment to that motion.
Councilmember O’Neill stated there was.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the maker of the motion would like to make an amendment and they will check with the seconder to make sure the seconder is still seconding the motion.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if there were any other amendments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it might be helpful to retract the motion for a moment and discuss what they would like to see before making a motion.
Councilmember O’Neill was okay with that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the seconder agree with that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed with that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the maker of the motion is withdrawing his motion.
Mayor Bier asked what they want to see with it.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that she wanted to test them about it.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 March 14, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that was essentially what they were doing, i.e., talking about fire, about what the renderings look like, safety and traffic report and drainage. He stated that a big reason why he was inclined to send it back is because he has all these pieces that have done everything except for click into place and it looks like they do. He recommended that Mr.
O’Connell reach out to the neighborhood to have a discussion prior to that meeting. He didn’t think anyone agreeing with the size of the project itself but when it comes to something like drainage, just having a discussion of what their vision of drainage looks like so the neighbors aren’t concerned about the hillside falling out from under them might be a big piece to this. He stated that having a full package to bring to Planning Commission, drainage safety renderings, fire.
Mayor Bier also added the discussion about the views as it would also be a good discussion to have with the appellants as he brought them some images that they haven’t seen yet and it might be soothing for them to understand that he has looked at these things and the views are not obstructed and how it really plays out. She thinks those documents are really important to include in the packet going to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember O’Neill made a motion to remand this back to the Planning Commission with the amendments discussed by Council and the direction that they have given of issues that they would like to see.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if they can list what those issues are again.
Councilmember O’Neill listed the issues as fire, drainage, safety, traffic, and the renderings.
Councilmember Beckmeyer seconded the motion.
City Clerk Coffey stated that it passes with a vote of 4-1 with a no by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Mayor Bier called for a break and then reconvened the meeting.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Beckmeyer
NAYS: Vaterlaus
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Robert Hutchinson, Pacifica, referred to the budget approved in April and asked questions on specific funding items.
Therese Dyer, Pacifica, referred to the transferring of all the departments at the Community Center as well as location of future Council meetings, and expressed her concerns and questions on those, as well as various other issues.
Anita Rees, Pacifica, reminded the community that they are open with regular office hours and mentioned the process for appointments and gave update for various programs.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, apologized for her previous outbreak on the delay for Oral Communications, then mentioned her concerns on delays in her requests for information from City Council Regular Meeting 33 March 14, 2022
the city and her suggestions to facilitate these requests and thanked Council for extending public comments for DEIR and General Plan.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the speaker.
Cheryl Ammeter, Pacifica, stated that she was a PCTV board member, and she was making a positive report regarding their plans to purchase their unit at 580 Crespi Drive, adding that they need public support. She also updated them on future plans and events with details.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he got an email six hours ago that the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is holding a subcommittee hearing on aviation noise on Thursday, March 17, 7 a.m. our time, 10 am their time and he will not be available, but he will forward the link for the live hearing to the City Manager. He stated that it was their chance to talk to Congress, the boss of the FAA and see about doing something. He stated that they are developing the rules and regulations for supersonic transport which cannot go over land. He stated that they will look at it and mentioned that, at the corner of Crespi and Highway 1, they crush the button and go boom. He encouraged the community to watch it. He stated that he will be calling Anna Eshoo, our upcoming congressional person as she has always been very support as Jackie Speier was at the Airport Roundtable about this. The City Manager, mayor and he met with Mitch Postel about hosting the Council of Cities dinner in August, and the mayor has it under control and it will be unique in the annuals of Council of Cities. He spoke with Stacy McLaughlin, their facility for Council Goal Setting. He was disappointed that Council will miss the PCT open house as they are all going to be in their goal-setting session on that day.
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended a phone meeting with Senator Becker and Assemblyman Mullin and they discussed a California rent registry, with bulk sales of foreclosers which is harmful to the people who live in them and giving the people who live in the foreclosers the first option to purchase instead of selling them in bulk. They also talked about the RHNA numbers, with Kevin Mullin would like all converted units to be considered in the RHNA numbers and he is pushing for that which is a positive thing for Pacifica. She had lunch in the senior Mardi Gras day and it was great food. She was really surprised as she thought it would be bland but was Mardi Gras style. She stated that they will have another one coming up on St. Patrick’s Day but she didn’t think she can go. She went to the Fairmont Homeowners Association meeting which she does every month to let them know what is going on in the entire city as well as what is happing in Fairmont. She stated that they will have the pedestrian improvements going on in the north end of Pacifica starting soon and will get to some street improvements in the north end. She attended the CCAG legislative meeting where they discussed the latest bills that come forward about housing, storm water and transportation. She attended the CCAG regular board meeting where they had a presentation by 21 Elements which did our city housing meetings and they opened one of the 101 managed lanes. She attended the Chinese Real Estate Association installation and very briefly talked to Senator Weiner there.
Councilmember Beckmeyer had a Beautification and Advisory Committee meeting and notifications have gone out to groups that formerly adopted Palmetto Avenue bulb-outs and the response has been good with a waiting list She stated that they will be getting something coming forward to them very soon about the Beautification awards process which is being revamped and made more frequent. She stated that she didn’t bring her notebook and regarding the Economic Development meeting, she was trying to remember if there was City Council Regular Meeting 34 March 14, 2022
anything urgent there. She stated it was a really productive meeting in terms of the subgroups and the subcommittees are working well together on their various charters regarding outreach to businesses and working well with Financial Sustainability Officer Carte and Alyssa Barranti, and it was great to see some movement from a lot of plans that have been going on for some time.
She had a planning meeting with Mayor Bier and Jenny Walter from Coast Pride and Katy Brookshire from Table Wine, getting started on some plans for our Pride celebration in Pacifica this year, stating there will be more to come on that. She stated that, on upcoming Wednesday and Thursday, she has Research Management and Climate Protection committee meeting for the county and Coastal Cities group for the League of Cities.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he didn’t have a lot of meetings scheduled and took that as an opportunity to get some much needed rest which is sometimes important. He attended the PRC board meeting on March 2 and they accepted and past their audit and their financials are in good shape. They passed the RV parking program on the board level where they had prior passed it on the City Council level. They were having a discussion about updating some website design. He stated it was good to know the hours of operation are back up in full swing.
On the 9th, there was a meeting about sea level rise on the south coast. While it doesn’t directly pertain to Pacifica, at the end of the day, we are all sharing the same coastline and he wanted to be sure that he was staying up to date accordingly. He was invited to visit his family in Southern California, and regarding news not related to Pacifica, he stated that the Rotary Club in Idyllwild dedicated a bench to his late grandfather in front of the pharmacy he used to own and as a result, on very short notice, the entirety of the family was called home to Idyllwild to meet with the Rotary there.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it was hard to hear someone speaking when people in the audience are speaking.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked her, then stated that the local fire department showed up as well and it was a lovely moment to honor his grandfather and nice to see all his family on a spur of the moment. He received a text today that looks like Safeway decided to decline further negotiations with his union and he takes that to mean that they will be having an impending strike vote soon and he was looking forward to continuing his job as a picket coordinator after they take that strike vote if the company does not decide to come back to the table. He then stated that he is looking forward to goal-setting on the 25th and 26th. He thought it will be a great opportunity to be a little less formal with his fellow Councilmembers as they do development work and have the proper goal-setting session on the 26th to figure out what they are doing next year.
Mayor Bier met with Roy Earnst from Age Friendly Pacifica and they are looking at the upcoming workplan for this year, and see how they can continue the project on which they are already working and maybe come up with some new ones, and she is excited about that. She thanked him for all the work he does for our Age Friendly city. She went to read across America at Sunset Ridge and believes that Councilmember Beckmeyer also did that. She read to Ms.
Freeman’s fifth grade class. She stated that she got a booklet of thank you cards from the fifth grade class and one of the girl’s said in her card “I can’t believe I met the mayor. I can’t believe that I saw you and you saw me.” She stated that it was beautiful and those are the things that fill her cup, going out in the community and she needed it. She thanked Sunset Ridge. She stated that she and her colleagues, Sara McDowell from San Carlos to Val Hale from Redwood City and Eddie Forrest from South San Francisco are the planning team for the Mayor’s Mental Health First Aid initiative. She was proud of the work they are doing, as they are bringing mental health first aid training into all of our cities and all but four cities have signed on to their City Council Regular Meeting 35 March 14, 2022
initiative and they will be doing activities all through May which is Mental Health Awareness Month and they will be having a mental health first aid training in Pacifica, with more news to come on that. She stated that all of the training has been paid for by San Mateo County and they are really lucky to live in a place and, as she loves to collaborate, it has been great for her and all of them to come together with something so important and have such huge support from the county by giving them money to do the training which is wonderful. She stated that she met with Councilmember O’Neill and the City Manager at the Sanchez Adobe to talk about our Council of Cities dinner which will be fun. She was looking forward to that in August and she was very excited about Pacifica’s Pride event as they have never done this before and they are working partnership with Coast Pride and seeing what they can come up with. She has a meeting with Pacifica HotRodz coming up to see if they will be willing to do a car parade that day and get everyone involved, adding that Pacifica loves good car parades. She stated that she feels like she needs to say something, as a caveat, she does not have any responsibility to reply to emails that contain personal attacks and she would much rather go to the fifth grade classroom. She stated that she has attended two memorial services in the past two weeks for young people, one who was involved in one of her programs and one who is a recent graduate from Terra Nova High School, all killed by being hit by drunk drivers. She stated that, because of the work she has been doing for a very long time, it has hit her hard and she wanted to throw out there that drinking and driving is a really bad idea and our young people are dying. She would like to close the meeting in honor of T. J. Nilson. He and his mother, Jenna Gilman, and his father, Terry Nilson, were community members for a very long time here, and Jenna was a therapist and saw a lot of our young people and it was their son who was lost. She attended a beautiful service for him on the beach on Saturday followed by a reception by the Skate Park and she wanted to make sure to honor them the best that she can.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse started by giving thanks for the team that has worked to bring them back in person for Council meetings. He stated that it doesn’t seem like much but it was a big effort to do this and City Clerk Coffey was the foundation and Management Analyst Montemayor is spearheading the phone in pilot test they are conducting and it has gone pretty seamlessly at this meeting as they have adapted to the delays. He stated that the Public Works team came in and did a deep cleaning and signage and other work and the IT team did a lot of work and the entire staff has been working on this, as well as City Council who has given direction over numerous meetings dating months ago as they have navigated the roller coaster of Omicron.
He stated that, in early March 2020, when they had their last meeting in the City Chambers, they were thinking how it was going to work when they are not going to meet in person, and two years later, they are back in person and trying to figure out how are they going to meet in person He felt it has been quite a roller coaster with a lot of effort from all staff, and the community members for bearing with the ins and outs and technological glitches. He stated that the patience and understanding was really appreciated on behalf of everyone so they can make this process work. He was sure he missed some people, but they all work together as a team to make this happen. He stated that mayor pro Tem Bigstyck mentioned that they do have Council annual goal-setting coming up on Friday afternoon, March 25, and all day Saturday, March 26. He has been working with the facilitator, Stacey McLaughlin, who conducted it last year as well as the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem in the design of that. He stated that it was likely to occur at the Community Center, both on Friday afternoon and Saturday, but they are still finalizing those details, and the agenda will be out and posted by March 22. He stated that, related to goal-setting, he wanted to draw attention to the status update on all of Council’s priorities that they just completed and was posted on the website under Council goals page. He stated that the update also includes a long list of non-discretionary projects, about 30, that the City Council Regular Meeting 36 March 14, 2022
city is working on and undertaking and a total of about 50 projects are described in that status report. He stated that it provides background to Council’s goal-setting discussion that will occur.
Mayor Bier referred to the report that City Manager mentioned, stating that when she went to print it out at her house, she thought there was something wrong with her printer, and thought it printed a bunch of duplicate copies because it printed for so long, and there is a lot of information in that report.
CONSIDERATION
15. Fiscal Year 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Update
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the adjustments to the FY 2021- 22 Operating and Capital Budget.
Chief Finan. Sustainability Officer Carter presented the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to revised fiscal year 2020-21 General Fund revenues and revised budget of $42.1 and with a net increase of $2.3 million or 6%, and they have two of their major income sources, Cannabis and TOT, both showing negatives. He asked if the net increase should have been black as she has it as red.
Chief Finan. Sustainability Officer Carter stated that he is correct. She listed everything that was changed in red.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that the color is wrong, not the numbers.
Chief Finan. Sustainability Officer Carter stated that the numbers are correct. She thanked him for that good catch. She continued the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that senior meals and a lot of senior programs are something like 90% covered by grants, and when the cost of meals go up for senior lunches, he asked if the grant goes up.
Chief Finan. Sustainability Officer Carter stated that it does, and stated that you can see increases in revenues and expenditures.
Councilmember O’Neill understood that the income is increasing with the expenses.
Chief Finan. Sustainability Officer Carter responded affirmatively. She then continued the staff report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to other funds, and asked about the $0.5 million fire overtime and whether there was a lag in our receiving the reimbursements from CalOES and do they carry that on their books for a time and then eventually they get the money or is pretty quick.
Chief Finan. Sustainability Officer Carter stated that they typically don’t budget for that which is why you see the adjustment here. It wasn’t budgeted as expense or as reimbursement and now we are capturing it and you can see it is a wash.
City Council Regular Meeting 37 March 14, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the TOT which was down by $55,000, and asked if they know what the occupancy rates are now, and are they receiving the information routinely or in another way.
Chief Finan. Sustainability Officer Carter didn’t have the information, but she knows there is a BID meeting coming up and she can ask the question.
Councilmember Beckmeyer knows that the Fairfield Inn by Marriott just officially opened. She would love to go to those BID meetings but they seem to fall in the middle of her work day, but if there is a way for her to get that information early for projection’s sake so they can foresee when they are coming up. She stated that it starts to rebound which they know it is going to, and her question is when.
City Manager Woodhouse added for clarity that the reimbursement is for their mutual aid when they send crews to fight wildfires around the state and it is an impossible thing to budget for, and it happens, but it is all reimbursed through Cal OES.
Councilmember O’Neill added that there is a lag time, as at one point, it was six months to a year.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that he didn’t know what the timeline schedule is on that, but there was definitely lag time and not prompt.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was why they have reserves because those funds don’t wash immediately.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that all those personnel was paid for by the city while they are doing it and they don’t need reserves for that, and it does create overtime in Pacifica, but we get reimbursed and that balances it.
Chief Finan. Sustainability Officer Carter completed the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, before they begin asking questions, he wanted to remind the mayor that it was now 10:50 p.m.
Mayor Bier stated that they need a motion.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck. Vote: 5-0.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated she had a question about the transit occupancy tax and whether it includes Airbnb, sharing a resident’s situation, as well as her thoughts on the data and process for Airbnb issues.
Mayor Bier asked if we had call-ins.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated they did not have any call-ins.
City Council Regular Meeting 38 March 14, 2022
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if staff wanted to say anything about Airbnb, but thought they may not be prepared to. He stated that, as mentioned, what they might put on goal-setting, it’s taken even better at goal-setting. He thanked her for her comments and suggested she bring them again on March 25 and 26.
Mayor Bier asked if he wanted someone to talk about Airbnbs.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated yes, if they are prepared.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are in the process of auditing Airbnbs, and HDL is on board as of late last calendar year when they transitioned the audit contract from the previous provider to HDL who does most of their tax auditing. He stated that Council had raised the question earlier on wanting to get enough data about that in case it was time to revisit some policy aspects of that ordinance and why they are doing that work. He didn’t have an idea of the timeline now, and it hasn’t been the most pressing thing on their plans, but they realize they get a significant amount of revenue from Airbnb in TOT as well as hotels and it is important to be on top of that.
Mayor Bier thanked him for acknowledging that Council was concerned about it and asked about it.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to adopt a resolution authorizing the adjustments to the FY2021-22 Operating and Capital Budget as specified; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey stated it passed with a vote of 5-0.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
16. Follow-up Information about Council Chambers Improvements or Relocation of Meetings to an Alternate Location
PROPOSED ACTION: 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.
Mayor Bier stated she would talk first as she was the one to bring this up, and her main reason is that she wanted a more welcoming space to our community and a space that allows them to work with each other seamlessly. She stated that the welcoming piece is important to her, and she felt, if they create a space where people want to come, feeling comfortable and welcome which she thinks is a win for everyone. She mentioned that there are a lot of things that are old and it would be great to have new ones, but her original idea for a replacement dais was to be able to see them. She can see them and she will add that to the discussion.
There were no public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 39 March 14, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, one of the things mentioned in discussing the idea of friendly-ing up this space was the opportunity that they might have to feature art, interesting things to look at and let people have an opportunity to submit things. She didn’t know what workload it would create or how it could be implemented, but she liked the idea. She discussed with someone that it looks like the last mayor they ever had was Len Stone, and she wasn’t sure how to address that. She thought there was some benefit to those pictures and some not benefitted, considering that the record is not complete. She stated that, utilizing that space for community art or something that might be more in keeping with where she was going with the original thoughts which she would support.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, when art was mentioned, he immediately thought of Cindy Abbott. He stated that, depending on the improvements they make, it doesn’t necessarily need to be on the backs of staff. He thought Ms. Abbott could come up with something. He thought the chairs could be more inviting, more so than the carpet. He asked how the mayor was feeling about the dais, aside from it being old.
Mayor Bier stated that she feels that she can see him, so she didn’t think that was as important as she thought it was.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t feel the need to comment further on that. He thought he was someone who was easily satisfied, adding that the point is well taken to make this a warmer atmosphere.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought some improvements in the Chambers are long overdue, and things such as paint and no wallpaper, different kind of carpet, would change the whole atmosphere. She stated that when it is hot, maybe windows that we might be able to open instead of them falling out if they tried to open them. She appreciated that they changed the lights at one point and added heat as they didn’t have either in the past and now they can see people. She appreciated those improvements but she thought the physical improvement will do a lot for this building, and she thanked the mayor for bringing it up.
Mayor Bier thought they might have an opportunity to have an ad hoc committee to talk about the art or maybe the Beautification committee.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he would rather see kids’ art. He stated that every school would get a month to put something up there. He didn’t have anything against Sanchez Art Center but bringing in youth.
Mayor Bier stated that they can do both.
Councilmember O’Neill suggested that they just have the current President photo on the wall there.
Mayor Bier thought it would be helpful if they had an ad hoc committee to talk about it and specifically the art programs.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding the committee suggestion, he thought the City Attorney would say that, for the Council to actually appoint an ad hoc committee formally, they would need to bring it back to Council. He offered that perhaps the way to start, not just for brainstorming a public art program, but if they were to do carpeting or other cosmetic City Council Regular Meeting 40 March 14, 2022
improvements, what would those look like. He stated he could work informally with two Councilmembers, probably the Mayor being one of them, to brainstorm ideas and decide if there is a formal action Council needs to take on the next step and bring that back. He thought there might not be, and maybe it would be something the BAC would take up related to a rotating kids art program.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the work would require a coastal development permit.
City Manager Woodhouse didn’t think so, but he would defer to Planning Director Wehrmeister.
He stated that she was shaking her head no. He stated that some of the cosmetic improvements might require a building permit, such as the windows, but not too involved if they are just doing cosmetic stuff. He thought one thing to seek would be maybe the cost of building a new dais, which might not be something that is being recommended, but they would need to get a sense from Council of the scope of improvements when talking about this building, as they haven’t talked about the Community Center or Oceana Theater, but it sounded like they were honing in on the Chambers which would be the easiest and quickest to move forward. He stated that a sense of the scope, such as doing the carpet, walls and windows.
Councilmember O’Neill thought the windows would be good because it would be nice to open them up when it is warm, and they are warmer when it’s cold as they now have heat. He thought they can get new carpeting. He stated that there is a place in San Francisco that, for non-profits, they get old chairs from hotels, etc., and maybe replace the chairs with that. He thought it would be nice to get ones on wheels for some of our older people.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought these chairs were donated.
Councilmember O’Neill responded that they were. He thought the staff ones were donated.
Mayor Bier stated that there are chairs that don’t have an armrest and not everyone can sit in an armrest chair.
Councilmember O’Neill was okay with the dais being as it is, maybe new buttons.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that getting rid of the armature of the monitors would be really good.
Mayor Bier asked if the screen doesn’t work for her.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated the monitor should just go away. That was her two cents.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, when they are on Planning Commission with seven people, it was interesting as it is tight.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they only have five monitors for seven people.
Mayor Bier thought that was interesting.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his one comment on the dais was, if they are going to have a new one, it should be designed so that, if they ever wind up moving from this room, it can move with them, as in theory they will hopefully not be there forever or much longer. He thought, if they make that kind of investment, it should be capable of coming with them.
City Council Regular Meeting 41 March 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they would then be faced with designing the new City Council Chambers around a piece of furniture. He stated that it is kind of like a fireplace and you have to put your furniture around the fireplace. He thought they should keep this one for the next 2-3 years, adding that he won’t be there, but he thought it was better to keep this dais as that is the big ticket item for the cost.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s point, it might be nice if the monitors could be a little bit more movable, if possible.
Councilmember O’Neill asked of the City Manager have direction.
Mayor Bier asked the City Manager if he had enough direction.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, if Council wanted to select a second person to work informally with him in addition to the mayor, that would be great.
Mayor Bier stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer will fill that position.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he will work informally with Mayor Bier and Councilmember Beckmeyer.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 11:12 p.m. in honor of T. J. Nilsen and his family.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 3/28/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor