Pacifica City Council
May 9, 2022

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 May 09, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
May 09, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on May 9, 2022 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION.

Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session. Mayor Bier announced the business to be discussed.
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION- Existing Litigation. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9 : Geary et al. v. City of Pacifica, United States District Court, Northern District of California(San Francisco), Case No.3:21-cv-01780VC.
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. She stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer would be participating via phone, and she will be checking in with her to be sure she is participating.

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 Remote
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call, adding that Councilmember Beckmeyer is participating via phone.

City Council Regular Meeting 2 May 09, 2022
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer; Dan Steidle, Police Chief; Bill Glasgo, Police Captain; Christopher Clements, Police Captain; Chuck Pomicpic, Dep. Fire Chief; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Ryan Marquez, Assoc. Civil Engineer; Nelson Schlater, Senior Engineer; Maria Aguilar, Wastewater Plant Manager; Brian Martinez, Wastewater Collection Sys. Manager; Paul Lavorini, PW Field Services Manager; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Josh Montemayor, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgement.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Bier
Mayor Bier asked if Council was open to moving Item #11 up to first public hearing, and all agreed.

City Clerk Coffey asked that they have a motion for the agenda order change.

Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to approve moving Item #11 to the first public hearing; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (amend order of agenda)
Closed Session Report
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated there was no reportable action.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Life Saving Award Medal - Officer Sheedy
Mayor Bier introduced Police Chief Steidle to make the special presentation to Officer Matt Sheedy for a Life Saving Award.

Police Chief Steidle stated that Officer Sheedy was present to be presented with a Life Saving Award, and mentioned that a little over six years ago in 2016 he was awarding Officer Sheedy a Medal of Valor after taking a double attempted homicide suspect into custody who had fired a shot when Officer Sheedy was attempting to take him into custody. He stated that they have another good story to tell from March 2020, delayed due to COVID and they wanted the award presented in person rather than on Zoom. He reported about officers responding to a call in Melrose Court for an adult male experiencing a mental health crisis. When Officer Sheedy responded and was attempting to make contact, and when hearing screams inside the residence, he requested assistance from additional officers. When the male subject exited the residence bleeding heavily on his left arm and Officer Sheedy immediately called for medical assistance and instructed the officer to put pressure on the wound, and learned that he had just stabbed himself with a knife through his arm and punctured a major artery. Officer Sheedy ran into the house and grabbed a towel to wrap around the wound and took control, instructing an officer to remove a tourniquet he was carrying on his belt and Officer Sheedy safely applied the City Council Regular Meeting 3 May 09, 2022
tourniquet and stopped the bleeding. During this process, the male subject was losing consciousness and Officer Sheedy assured the male he was going to be alright and continued to ask questions to keep him alert until medical personnel arrived. He gave the medical personnel a complete update of the actions taken and a fire department captain on the scene advised them that, if not for Officer Sheedy’s quick actions, this man likely would have died based on the extent of the wound and large amount of blood lost. He stated that tonight Officer Sheedy is commended for his quick action and life saving measures which saved a life and a mother can hug her son. Officer Sheedy is awarded the Pacifica Police Department’s prestigious Life Saving Award.

Officer Sheedy thanked everyone, including all the officers he works with every day, and stated that he does it for them and the citizens.

Mayor Bier stated that they were grateful to have him. She asked for public comments and then introduced Captain Clements.

Police Captain Clements acknowledged that they were recognizing swift action by an officer, adding that this isn’t the first time Officer Sheedy has been recognized for his swift decisive action in the midst of crisis and were proud that he was a local product of Pacifica and they are proud of what he has accomplished and how he has served his home town community.

Mayor Bier thanked him and knew he was home-grown. She thought they sometimes take police officers for granted, but she felt we have a safe place because of officers like Officer Sheedy, and she thanked him.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has the privilege of seeing him in Pacifica on a regular basis, and he heard he keeps stickers in his pocket for children if they are wandering by. He often gets to have the pleasure of observing him being awarded for his heroism and he is a model of what service looks like. He thanked him for putting his physical well-being at stake.

He is honored to try to serve the community he is serving and he thanks him.

Councilmember O’Neill thanked all our officers, and especially Officer Sheedy for his awards.

They all do a great job, with some tasks as unsung, or some like this one. He thanked Officer Sheedy as well as the command staff who keep all of them on the straight and narrow.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked him for knowing what to do in this situation and doing it, as that is sometimes very difficult. She thought it was amazing that he saved someone.

Councilmember Beckmeyer added her congratulations and appreciation of Officer Sheedy for what he has done for our community and continue to do. She also thanked the Chief and acknowledged the spirit of family that is always brought forward in our police department and their focus on training which enables them to make right choices and rely on that training in that moment of crisis. She also thanked his mother, just having celebrated Mother’s Day, and she had the opportunity to spend time with his mom in the past and she knows how proud she is of him. She believes a lot of who he is comes from his mom, so she thanked her and Officer Sheedy.

Mayor Bier asked if he wanted to take a photo.

They then took the photo.

City Council Regular Meeting 4 May 09, 2022
B. Proclamation - Emergency Medical Services Week: May 15-21, 2022 Mayor Bier stated that Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck would read this proclamation, and acknowledged the presence of Dep. Fire Chief Pomicpic.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck read the proclamation honoring Emergency Medical Services Week - May 15-21, 2022.

Dep. Fire Chief Pomicpic stated that the North County Fire Authority on serving Pacifica have worked tirelessly as they go through the Covid-19 pandemic to make sure all emergency medical needs are met with grace and quality. They appreciate the proclamation recognition at this meeting.

Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked them for all they do, stating that they need them and appreciate them.

Mayor Bier thanked them also.

C. Proclamation - National Public Works Week: May 15-21, 2022 Mayor Bier stated that Councilmember O’Neill will read the proclamation and PW Director Petersen will say a few words.

Councilmember O’Neill read the proclamation honoring National Public Works Week - May 15- 21, 2022.

PW Director Petersen appreciated this. She stated that they have an amazingly hard-working dedicated Public Works employees and she is so proud of them and she thanked Council for this recognition.

Mayor Bier thanked them, adding that it was nice to see all of them at the meeting.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that PW is near and dear to her and she was proud of all the work they do, mentioning all the middle of the night work and quality of life work, and about keeping us safe and healthy. She thanked them for everything they do.

D. Proclamation - Mental Health Month: May 2022
Mayor Bier read the proclamation honoring Mental Health Month - May 2022.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had the pleasure of learning more about this at the Progress Seminar a week ago. He thought mental health was too often overlooked, if not taken for granted. He thought it was an invisible thing and easy to look at someone who is actively bleeding and say they need a bandage, etc., whereas with mental health, it is more difficult. He thought learning to balance your own mental health is difficult, especially during a pandemic and threats of war, climate change, and we need to pause and reflect mental health means to each of us. He stated that, on May 14, there is a mental health class going on at the community center and he signed up for it and there are seven more spots available and he encouraged others to sign up for that, and added that there will be more mental health related events.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if anyone wants to pull any items from the consent calendar.

City Council Regular Meeting 5 May 09, 2022
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t want to pull any but wanted a quick clarification on the minutes, and asked Councilmember O’Neill to clarify something in his report to Council. The minutes referred to the Jefferson Union High School staff housing and reflected that it was a taxpayer bond in Pacifica. She asked that Councilmember O’Neill clarify the jurisdictional line where that bond was passed.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that it was a bond passed by the citizens of the Jefferson High School District, of which Pacifica is part of that district, along with Daly City, Brisbane and Colma. That was the startup funding and they took an additional COP, certificate of participation, for additional apartments.

Mayor Bier opened up public comments. She saw no cards and asked if there were any callins.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated there were no hands raised at this time.

Mayor Bier closed public comments.
1 - O’Neill
2 - Vaterlaus
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked, before voting, if there was any clarification or desire of the Council to amend the minutes or was it just to clarify for Councilmember Beckmeyer’s information on that section of the minutes.

Councilmember O’Neill stated, if they want to amend the minutes, it was fine with him as it was probably better as he gave a clearer explanation tonight than he did at that meeting.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if he was amending his motion.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he amended the motion.

Councilmember Vaterlaus amended her second.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Consent Calendar, with Item #2 as amended)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

1. Approval of Disbursements for 3/16/22 through 3/31/22.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 3/16/22 through 3/31/22.

2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on April 25, 2022.

City Council Regular Meeting 6 May 09, 2022

3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.

4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.

5. Continuation of Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).

6. Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park Play Structure Replacement PROPOSED ACTION: Approve a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Miracle Recreation Equipment Company (dba Miracle Playsystems, Inc.) for the purchase and installation of a new playground structure at the Pacifica Co-Op Nursery/Pomo Park in the amount of $97,624.23; and approve budget authority in the amount of $107,386.65, which includes a 10% contingency.

7. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 funded by SB 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 funded by SB 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

8. Adopt an “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California repealing Chapter 19 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Chapter 19 (Park Facilities Impact Fee); repealing Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) to establish updated Impact Fees and Quimby Act dedication requirements and in lieu fees imposed on New Development in the City of Pacifica”; and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt an “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California repealing Chapter 19 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Chapter 19 (Park Facilities Impact Fee); repealing Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) of the Pacifica Municipal Code and replacing it with Section 10-1.803 (Park Land Dedication) to establish updated Impact Fees and Quimby Act dedication requirements and in lieu fees imposed on New Development in the City of Pacifica”; and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

City Council Regular Meeting 7 May 09, 2022

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before oral communications, he wanted to provide a special staff communications before oral communications as he thought it will be valuable to potentially some of the public who want to provide oral communications on the issue of the Boys and Girls Club in Pacifica. He stated this issue has been on the minds of Councilmembers, staff, the public and particularly on the minds of the families and children served by the Boys and Girls Club. He stated that the city will be sending a letter, and he wanted to read the letter for the record to be clear. He then read the letter.

Mayor Bier thanked him and appreciated it.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can address that letter to the Peninsula Boys and Girls Club in North San Mateo County.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that it would make sense.

Mayor Bier opened oral communications.

Bruce Wright, Pacifica, stated he has been a Pacifican for 33 years, been on the Board of Directors of the Boys and Girls Clubs of North San Mateo County for nine years and he was present to give an update on the status of the club. He thanked Council for this opportunity and for sharing their concerns. He stressed that they are not closing, and then gave specifics on the issue, including correcting inaccuracies .

Erin Pickett, Pacifica, stated that she has sons at the Boys and Girls Club and they hadn’t heard anything so was difficult, upsetting and frightening to think they might close. She expressed her continuing concerns and suggested options.

Judith Bezverkh, Pacifica, expressed her thanks for them taking this seriously and listening to parents and she thought it would be nice if they could get on the agenda and speak more about it and get a dialogue going.

Ken Miles, Pacifica, stated he wanted to talk about fire safety. He thanked the North County Fire Authority and Coastal Conservancy for funding the chipper program, and expressed his concerns on the problems involved for residents regarding fire dangers and rising insurance costs.

Therese Dyer, Pacifica, referred to all the proclamations and thought they should thank PCTV for all they are doing to bring informational programs to television. She referred to the sale of the buildings at Crespi Center and expressed her concerns and solutions to help save them, and added her thoughts in agreement with Ken Miles.

Ron Maykel, Pacifica, stated he has been on hiatus from city meetings, and he wanted to express his appreciation for what the city has been doing to improve the city.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she and her husband are architects and built the first allelectric net-zero energy house in Pacifica in 2018 and they won an award for that from Pacifica Clean Energy last year. She shared their successful efforts, including with water preservation, as well as home tours and she was willing to share the information with anyone.

City Council Regular Meeting 8 May 09, 2022
Tom O’Toole, Pacifica, shared his concerns regarding the Boys and Girls Club issue and his thoughts on going forward for more information.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, thanked the family members for sharing their personal stories regarding the Boys and Girls Club, as well as the City Manager and Bruce Wright, and expressed her thoughts on going forward. She then mentioned her thoughts on the Pacifica safe parking program, including being close to implementation of the program and a path to permanent housing, and her continuing concerns.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speaker.

Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, stated that she wanted to update everyone to their present schedule and all their programs available to the public.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she hasn’t attended any city meetings as she has been on vacation, and she stressed that vacations are very important in terms of mental health issues to take time for yourself. She thanked Bruce Wright and the parents who have been advocating regarding the Boys and Girls Club, as it has been a trying time. She won’t be able to attend the meeting on Monday, but a lot of people will be there and she thought it will be a productive meeting. She felt the most important thing to keep in mind, as stated by the City Manager, Council does not control the Boys and Girls Club but they can set the tone for everything in the city which she thought they were doing that regarding the Boys and Girls Club. She stated that the Boys and Girls Club is a private non-profit and she thought there was a certain amount of expectation from the community that everything should be transparent and there should be 100% ability to demand information, but she felt they will have to work with the Boys and Girls Club of North San Mateo County and their board, understanding that there have been difficulties and it is hard to recover from that. She thought they have to take a deep breath and look forward to the future and work hard together to make them a success.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she went to Sacramento and met with Assemblyman Marc Berman, Senator Josh Becker and chief of staff Hugh Bauer for Kevin Mullin, Assemblyman.

They talked about housing issues and trying to get more funding for housing issues, which is a problem across the whole state. She was the lead testimony in the Senate Housing Committee on Senator Becker’s bill, SB1094, which we have 170 unit building that we converted to 100% affordable. She stated that, when we did that, we lost the taxes but because it is a conversion, they also do not get their RHNA numbers and the housing allotment numbers are not counted.

She spoke before the Senate Housing Committee and they passed it. It has to go to the Assembly, but it was a fluky kind of thing because she talked to him and he said he was adding it to his bill. It passed and was a good thing for us, and hopefully they will count towards our RHNA numbers. She attended different committees, Land Use to talk about wild fires, and insurance, taxation, federal issues, etc. She joined other Councilmembers at the Progress Seminar and they had various topics working to end homeless, affordable housing, venture capital, work that works for all, thriving in education and there was a presentation by Mayor Bier on the Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative and it was great to see her up there promoting that. She stated that the mayors have done great work so far and they will continue to do great work on mental health.

Mayor Bier thanked her for all that.

City Council Regular Meeting 9 May 09, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has not had a lot of meetings. He had several Zoom meeting for the county on LAFCO and they were picking a public member of LAFCO as the term is expiring. Regarding the Boys and Girls Club, he thanked Bruce Wright for all the effort and work he has put into this, as they have talked over the phone several times. He thought what was great about what is so far intended is that the Pacifica club is getting the building, the licenses which could take up to 5-6 months to transfer over if it didn’t come with them, and he is getting whatever is in their foundation which will lasts for a couple of years, and he has made a promise of not raising the fees until June 2023 at the earliest. He thought we have come out well in this merger and splitting of the clubs. He looks forward to help the Boys and Girls Club succeed, adding that it will take all of Pacifica to keep them up but this is 300-400 families in Pacifica and it is roughly 10% of the enrollment of the Pacifica School District and the after school program of at least two schools and the intermural and sports program for the middle schools, referring to eighth graders who graduate have their drug of choice chosen when they are going into high school and it was an integral part of a community based organization such as the Boys and Girls Club to keep our kids off the drugs. He stated that the sports program is a good prep to get them started for the high school programs and extracurricular activities in sports. He thanked Bruce Wright for his efforts in rebuilding the organization to continue serving the families in Pacifica, adding that he is the only board member from Pacifica on the club with eight from South San Francisco and the other side of the peninsula.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wished a happy belated Mother’s Day to all the mothers listening. He stated that Ukraine is on his mind and he wanted to voice that as he is thinking about them in their struggle. He thanked Bruce Wright for being here as he feels he can breathe more now than over the last month. He referred to the notion of trust being eroded and the idea of communication having to be reciprocal going forward. He appreciated that there have been so many legalities around this that were hard to wrap his head around as a Councilmember who has to deal with legalities, aside from any parent who may not have exposure to non-disclosure agreements. He referred to being told there will be a meeting on Monday and he thought it sounds like a meeting where everyone will get to converse to talk things through and find out everything they can. He was looking forward to being there, and this being a first step and a great deal of healing that needs to go on in Pacifica around this organization that has helped so many for so long and needs to continue to help. He stated that he used to go to the Boys and Girls Club and attended Oddstad Elementary and he would go there after school. He is looking forward to the healing and finding out everything that he can along with the parents and then taking a second step with all of us working as a community to figure out what our subsequent steps will be, appropriate level of city involvement and he was hearing that parents would favor some sort of parental oversight as Pacifica comes into its own. He thought parents being on that board is as close to parental oversight as possible for such an organization. He attended the Sheriff candidate forum for San Mateo County and it was great to see Christina Corpus there and the other individual which was a great forum for sheriff candidates. He attended the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting on April 28 where they went over the acronyms of CAP and AMP programs, which was about taking ARPA monies and distributing them to families who were having difficulty paying the bills and keeping the lights on. It was good to see how everyone maintains their power. They spoke about the bigger community choice aggregation, CC power, which is looking at the little CCAs of which PCE is one. They get together to procure energy which they will be doing around the 15th of June in terms of a new geothermal energy project. He stated the next PCE meeting is on May 26. He attended the Progress Seminar, and it was a great networking opportunity between various community groups and school districts and other electeds. He stated that there were a number of seminars going on, i.e., homeless and housing, as he heard the head of Life Moves tells them it was an “and” and not “or” approach to housing, as all housing was valuable. He stated that the last week when he was City Council Regular Meeting 10 May 09, 2022
arguing for low, low income housing, the mayor was right and they voted correctly. He stated that there was a thing on Venture Capitalism which was fascinating and a discussion about equity advancement pertaining to jobs and about dignity in jobs, living wages, and there was a comment made about the relationship between our regional housing need allocation numbers, RHNA and childcare and he thought it was a fascinating point brought up. He stated that the idea that, if one is doing well, they can be a network of one, meaning they can look to those who are in need of a job and reach out to them. He stated that last of the four breakout sessions was called education is everyone’s business and they told a story that, in Africa there is a greeting, “And how are the children?”, to which the appropriate response is, “The children are well.” He stated it was all about including children in every conversation that we, as policymakers, should consider how every decision we make ultimately effects children as being how they assess the wellbeing of our community. He stated that they then had a large group in which everyone was in the same room while they were discussing the mayor’s mental health initiative, some of which he went over earlier about the mental health first aid at the community center which he will enjoy with Anita Rees. He stated that, if they go to smcmentalhealthmonth.org, you can find a bunch of these events happening in which you can take a deeper dive into mental health and learn how to help those who need help. He stated that one overlaying themes of that information session was feel free to use the term suicide which is a word that we often shy away from, and in voicing it and talking about that word, maybe they can help someone who they know who is suicidal. He stated that he will have more to report after the May 14 session at the Community Center. He attended the employee appreciation lunch. He was inspired by staff as they have so many amazing employees doing amazing jobs everywhere they look. He was jealous of Sue Beckmeyer who got to thank Public Works as he has only seen a little bit of the job they do, and he is astounded by them and recognizing those who have been doing these jobs in our community for upwards of 40 years which is humbling. He attended the PRC board meeting later that evening and they had a few new board members and they are looking for board members and, if interested in joining, he suggested you reach out to PRC. He stated that, in an updated strategic planning process, they are discussing whether or not to go back to in person meetings and discussing a lease agreement for more staff space. They are keeping the current place where they are, but they need more staff for programing and they are getting authorization to lease accordingly. He had a conversation with a constituent about Reach Codes the other night, noticing that he will be looking at ADU specifically and reach codes in association with ADUs. One final update on Safeway is that they have ratified their contract and he won’t need to talk about it for another three years.

Mayor Bier wanted everyone to know how important it was what Councilmember Vaterlaus did for Pacifica in Sacramento, and she thanked her as it was important for her to be there and important for Pacifica to do what she did. She stated that she also attended the Progress Seminar and it was important for Pacificans to create relationships with other people in the region and other elected officials. She stated that it was an honor for her to do a presentation with three other mayors and the director of Behavioral Health and Recovery Services, Scott Gilman. While she was nervous, it went well and what she found out was that our elected officials and other people in the room were willing to go deep in conversations to talk about what has happened to them in the last two years. She stated that they arranged tabletop discussions for them to do that and shared resources. She felt it was a beautiful experience to see those around the table really letting their guard down and sharing openly with each other. She stated that is how we fill our cups. She referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s comment that they have a hard job. She agreed and it was helpful to sit around a table with others who understand what we are going through and share openly. She attended Doretta Youngdahl’s 100th birthday but she was not able to attend Therese Dyer’s 90th birthday and she wished Ms.

City Council Regular Meeting 11 May 09, 2022
Dyer a happy birthday, stating that they appreciated her and all of her civic engagement more than she knows. She stated that being with Doretta on her birthday was one of the most joyous experiences she had with her family and she thanked her for including her in that day. She wasn’t able to go to the staff awards and thanked them for being there, and she congratulated all the staff members who received awards. She referred to the Pacifica Collaborative, and thanked Cindy Abbott and the Sanchez Art Center for taking on the Pacifica Collaborative. She stated that they went to the Art Center and did some art related activities around emotions and feelings and it was wonderful. She thanked Cindy Abbott for always stepping up for us. She stated that, regarding the Mental Health Initiative, we were fortunate to get funding from the county to do these mental health first aid trainings in our city for free. She stated that is such a beautiful resource and she was glad that people are signing up. She stated that there are a few spots open and she asked anyone interested to sign up. She stated that there will be a meditation session at the Pacifica Library on May 11 and Be Sensitive, Be Brave is a virtual training on May 25. She stated that you can go to smcmentalhealthmonth.org and there is a full calendar of things. She thanked our firefighters for being present at this meeting, as they didn’t get to express that to them. She stated that they have been creating relationships with our fireman which has been very important for us. She thanked Jeremy Stafford for reaching out to us consistently. She stated that they got some updates about fires as there have been some fires in our community in the past few days. She thanked them for taking care of us. She then thanked Bruce Wright for being here and the parents for their consistent advocacy as it has been hard on all of them and all the families, as well as on staff as they really want to work with them and support them. She stated that she has been involved with the Boys and Girls Club for a very long time, as her daughter went there and kids she raised went there. She coached volleyball and basketball at IBL, sat on the safety committee and she is definitely as involved and care just as much as all of them do. She looked forward to the meeting Monday night and moving forward together as a community because that is how they do the best. When we have something we want to do and come together, we can do a great job and she looks forward to doing that.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she didn’t say anything about the Boys and Girls Club.

She stated that her kids also went to the Boys and Girls Club and they are in their 40s, late 30s and it has been a long time. She appreciated the club and appreciated Bruce Wright for being present at this meeting and all the parents for working so hard on this. She was sure that they will get to a mutual agreement and the situation will be solved.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in addition to the special communication prior to oral communications, he had a couple of brief communications. He stated that two relate to successful grant awards that the city has received. They received a $54,428 award from Cal Recycle for the AB1383 local assistance program, the law related to compostables in California and the funding will assist their support to the county organic procurement program which is one of the requirements of the law and they will get credit for our share of funding that procurement that will support farms and ranches in San Mateo County so the application of compostable material to the ground benefits the environment. He stated that some of the funding will also help our direct purchase of organic products. The other grand award was the Coastal Conservancy that awarded Pacifica the $260,000 grant for the pier repair project which augments the previously designated $0.5 million from the state and that project can be fully funded with the city funding the construction management portion of that contract and moving it forward this summer. He stated that the employee recognition event was mentioned by several councilmembers and they haven’t been able to do that since pre-Covid, i.e., 2019, and they had City Council Regular Meeting 12 May 09, 2022
a full lunch time with a lot of employees who were receiving their 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and even 40-year service awards. They had a great time and were able to tell stories about the great service and dedication. He had it in his mind that he wanted to add up all the years of service of all those employees at the five-year mark that were honored, and he failed to fit it in, it was thousands of years of service. He stated it was a great event to be in person and celebrating and recognizing employees. He thanked all of those who were able to attend and for mentioning it at this time.

Mayor Bier called a break and then reconvened the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. Public Hearing on Proposed Ordinance Amending Sections 6-6.403, 6-6.404 and 6-

6.406 of Chapter 6 (Sewer Charges) and Section 6-11.102 through Section 6-11.105 of Chapter 11 (Sewer Connection Charges), Title 6 (Sanitation and Health) of the Pacifica Municipal Code.

PROPOSED ACTION: If the City does not receive written protests against the proposed sewer charges from a majority of the parcels receiving wastewater service, staff recommends that the City Council adopt proposed charges for Sewer Services for Fiscal Years 2022/23 through 2026/27 and adopt the revised wastewater capacity fees.

Move:
1) Introduce the Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Chapter 6, “Sewer Charges” and Chapter 11, “Sewer Connection Charges” of Title 6, “Sanitation and Health” of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Revise and Increase the City’s Sewer Charges” be read by title only and that further reading be waived; and 2) Adoption of the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the New Wastewater (Sewer) Service Charges and Wastewater (Sewer) Capacity Fees for Pacifica Municipal Wastewater (Attachment 1).
[Agenda Item #11 was discussed prior to Agenda Item #9.] City Manager Woodhouse stated that he was going to kick this off with some introductory comments while PW and consultants are getting situated. He stated that staff was pleased to present this recommendation for a prudent wastewater rates increase for the next five-year cycle. He stated that the city has received comments from a small number of rate payers, as well as some individuals who don’t live in Pacifica or pay wastewater rates who expressed concern about the wastewater enterprise fund paying its fair share of cost related to the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, i.e., Beach Boulevard project, which is a capital project approved by Council to help protect and maintain wastewater infrastructure. He was expecting them to hear public comment at this meeting. He stated that this item is not about the virtues of the Beach Boulevard project as Council voted moving that project into its next stage of design, i.e., environmental review and permitting and continuing the funding strategy of local, regional, state and federal funding possibilities. The item is about rates necessary to fund expenses of the wastewater fund for the next five years, including a projected capital improvement program. He stated that each year Council approves the next year’s capital improvement program and next year’s rate increase up to but not exceeding the recommended

3.5%. He stated that, if there are ever major changes to the capital improvement program, Council can vote to lower rates if warranted but, with the Beach Boulevard project, the no-action City Council Regular Meeting 13 May 09, 2022
or managed retreat alternative would result in wastewater fund expenditures to relocate wastewater infrastructure that would equal or exceed the current estimated fair share of the Beach Boulevard project hybrid alternative and requiring at least the same wastewater rate increase being recommended at this meeting. He stated staff has done an exceptional job throughout the process in planning for the future of Pacifica’s wastewater infrastructure.

Beyond the normal wide outreach and noticing for this hearing, staff has responded to dozens of questions from the small group opposed to the Beach Boulevard project, created a detailed frequently asked questions to respond to question on this topic and misinformation being spread on social media and offered a tour of wastewater facilities for this group. He stated that, upon the group’s request, he offered to meet and discuss the rates recommendation with several of those who opposed the Beach Boulevard project, but they did not take him up on his offer. He stated that the recommendation before Council at this meeting is staff’s professional assessment about how to most prudently fulfill Council’s goals and priorities related to the future of wastewater infrastructure and services in Pacifica.

PW Director Petersen introduced Wastewater Sr. Engineer Nelson Schlater and Bartle Wells & Associates consultant Michael DeGroot who are experts in wastewater finance. She stated that they also have in the audience Bartle Wells & Associates consultant Doug Dove, WW Plant Manager Maria Aguilar, WW Plant Asst. Superintendent Dave Peel, WW Collection Manager Brian Martinez and WW Asst. Collections Superintendent Ray Mendez who are available for questions. She then began presentation of the staff report.

Consultant DeGroot continued the staff report.

PW Director Petersen completed the staff report.

Mayor Bier asked Council if they had any questions and, seeing none, she opened the public hearing.

Victor Carmichael, Pacifica, stated that the 3.5% sewer rate increase over the next five years makes good sense and worth the 7% in 2018. He thanked WW staff for the detailed explanation of what needs to be done, expressing his positive thoughts on all the planned projects but stated he was part of the small group opposing the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, expressing his thoughts on the Sharp Park seawall project.

Paul Chervatin, Pacifica, asked that they reevaluate the sewer rate increase, expressing his concerns on the proposed expenditures and requested more transparency and specificity.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that WW needed a forensic audit before they do any other fee increases, giving specific details regarding his concerns on several legal issues, and if not, the FBI will as he has sent his complaint to them as well.

Laurie Goldberg, Pacifica, stated that she was against this rate increase, and wanted more details. She mentioned her specific concerns regarding the burden being put on Pacificans.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, referred to Foster City residents who voted on a tax measure regarding a levee and seawall, and he expressed his concerns on this issue in Pacifica in detail and questioned the process negatively.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, thanked PW Director Petersen for explaining this issue, and he felt the sea wall was the core of the discussion. He expressed his negative concerns on this issue, and City Council Regular Meeting 14 May 09, 2022
felt the lives in the back of the valley were at stake in addition to the property.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that while they debate the increase in the sewer fee, they have to acknowledge the need for repairs in our current systems. She pointed out those Pacificans struggling financially, and she felt that they have to ask what cost is fair for our community. She stated that she supports the increase fees for current infrastructure maintenance and repairs, but not the $10-$30 million rate increase for the BBIRP.

Vicki Sundstrom, Pacifica, referred to legislation regarding sewer rate increases, and she then concluded that Pacifica’s proposed rate increase does not comply with the proportional rate requirement, mentioning some specifics. She concluded that Council should study the issues presented to determine when the rate proposal complies with California.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked PW for giving them a tour of Calera Creek WW treatment plant. She agreed that the infrastructure needs a lot of work and is in support of the majority of the fee increase, then shared some questions and hoped she will get answers at this time. She concluded that they need long-term planning.

Robert Boles, Pacifica, stated he was speaking for Stan Zeavin who wasn’t available to comment. He recognized much of the fee increase is needed to pay for ongoing sources and refurbishment, but he agreed with Mr. Zeavin that more information was needed before approving the increase. He mentioned specific concerns regarding the clear purpose of the use of the money, suggesting a possible bait and switch situation.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, thanked the City Manager on his clarifying introductory statement.

He was in full support of the sewer rate proposal as written, mentioning his thoughts on voiced concerns and the process of the project. He thanked all staff for trying to make Pacifica a better place.

Therese Dyer, Pacifica, stated that she thinks this is nothing but fraud and should be investigated, and shared an article in the paper questioning this project. She concluded that she was totally against it, adding that they will have some lawsuits if they pass this.

Ken Miles, Pacifica, expressed his thoughts on alternative options that may be cheaper than this tax increase. He understood Prop. 218 and thought it was not a good way to vote on this, and he would take the sea wall out and make it a vote for the people. He also asked if senior citizens will get a property tax break.

John O’Dowd, Pacifica, stated that he would like to set aside the sea wall, and expressed his concerns on the revenue required on covering at all the costs and maintenance, and was concerned about the minimum charge in the proposal. He expressed his thoughts on the heavier usage of businesses and questioned whether they took that into consideration.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speakers.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, thought the sewer rate charge is probably warranted, but he would challenge the $10 million for the sea wall, mentioning his thoughts on that. He stated there was no response without a challenge to the data presented and he felt this was a losing proposition.

He stated that they have to move that wall now and expressed his thoughts on this, adding that the Coastal Commission will never approve the BBIRP.

City Council Regular Meeting 15 May 09, 2022
Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated she represents the local San Mateo County chapter of Surf Rider Foundation. She stated that they encourage Pacifica to engage in longer term planning on sea level rise, etc., and the cost to maintain important city infrastructure in hazardous areas vulnerable to sea level rise, sharing their thoughts on specific issues, and they continue to oppose the proposed sea wall expressing specific reasons.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, presented his thoughts on his major issue with the proposed plan for taxes, referring to previous increase and they hoped this would reverse that one and protect some Pacificans with a rate break, and mentioned concerns regarding the RV park where he objected to Pacificans being charged and thought visitors should be charged. He also expressed his concerns regarding the sea wall.

Mayor Bier gave the fourth caller some time to resolve his problems connecting.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, before she close the public hearing, they will need to hear from City Clerk Coffey for the vote tabulation.

Mayor Bier apologized for the caller not being able to connect, and she asked her to contact them to get the public comment. She then introduced another speaker.

Robine Runneals, Pacifica, appreciated the study and report from staff regarding the needs for the entire sewer system, including supporting the future of Sharp Park sewer plant. She stated she was not happy to pay a higher sewer rate as it is already high. She mentioned her thoughts on the previous process and also mentioned her thoughts on the sea wall and infrastructure support which will benefit those on Beach Boulevard as well as the entire neighborhood. She expressed her thoughts regarding the sea wall needing governmental financial support to put up the best sea wall possible.

Mayor Bier asked City Clerk Coffey to give them an update on public response.

City Clerk Coffey stated that the city received and tabulated the written protests received against the proposed sewer rate charges and would be considered valid if they meet the criteria, i.e., identifying the affected property by either address, assessor parcel number or customer North County Water District account, and including the original signature and name of the recorded owner and indication of opposition of the proposed sewer rate. In that regard, the city has received, including those submitted at this meeting, a total of 154 written protests. She stated that, for the majority protest, a total of 6,418 parcels would constitute a protest majority of the parcel owners.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, before he ask questions, it was 10:52 and he will make motion to go until midnight; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (extend meeting to midnight)
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the City Manager making a statement about the over tenyear amount of time of $40 million proposed for the sea wall project, and he thought the City Manager stated that, if they were to build the wall or move the infrastructure, either would be City Council Regular Meeting 16 May 09, 2022
about $40 million.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that his point was that the estimates for the fair share is $40 million based on the master plan study in 2021, rerouting the wastewater infrastructure and the recommendation was that it was more cost effective to pay the fair share for the sea wall to protect the infrastructure. He stated that the point is that the rate revenue that would fund that capital project, and if in the future the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project didn’t come to fruition, there would be other capital projects related to relocation of infrastructure, if that is what Council decided, and that would cost at least that much as well. He stated that the rate increase recommended at this time is needed for whatever the future capital projects are.

He stated that it was based on a projected capital program for the next five years and the study factors out to ten years to provide that long-term planning component.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they approved the capital improvement program every year.

City Manager Woodhouse agreed that the capital improvement program is approved every year and the wastewater rates up to the maximum recommended of 3.5% are deliberated on and approved every year.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they set the 3.5% and what they do with that is not etched in stone as they mention what they think they will do with it, and should some major reversal in Council thinking take place, and they aren’t thinking of the Beach Boulevard resiliency infrastructure, the sea wall would be the say to go but they should figure out a way to move infrastructure and use it for that if the Council chooses.

City Manager Woodhouse said they could, adding that the long-term capital planning, program and project design and construction, if interrupted by major policy shifts, that is not the most fiscally responsible changes to the community, but it can happen.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t favor playing with $40 million as if it is a rubber band, but he wanted to understand how flexible that money is as they try to plan long-term. He referred to a speaker’s question about Proposition 218 and asked the city attorney if she tracked that question, but he hopes she can help him.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she was not sure which speaker he was addressing, but there was a question about whether this is an assessment. She stated that it is not an assessment, but a Prop. 218 wastewater fee measure and the attorney’s office has been involved in working with staff to ensure that it complies with Prop. 218.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t have any questions and was comfortable with the report as presented. She thought the course they are on is the correct one and she tends to make a motion as soon as comments are done.

Mayor Bier referred to mention of 6,000 protest responses they would need to have, but she felt that 154 plus the ones they have at this meeting are a lot and she wants to address that. She stated that, anytime in the past where they have seen 154 emails come in or 154 people in their space, they pay attention to that and she didn’t want to diminish it because it is not 6,000 needed to show the majority. She stated that there were some questions asked such as how the minimum charges were calculated.

PW Director Petersen thought Michael DeGroot could talk about that.

City Council Regular Meeting 17 May 09, 2022
Mr. DeGroot stated that, when looking at the sewer enterprise costs, they are mostly fixed and they are charging a volume extra grade and they want to be sure they have a stable source of revenue and they design the minimum charges to collect at least 60% of their costs, and they are based on four units a month of water usage.

Mayor Bier stated that a lot of them talked about a tax and she asked if they can explain it so they can understand it better.

PW Director Petersen stated that it is not a tax, but considered a fee as it is funding only uses for wastewater and the sustainability of the system. Without that, they wouldn’t be able to have a system. She stated that the difference is that the wastewater fees are directly used for everything related to wastewater and there is a benefit to users of the system and that is where the difference lies.

Mayor Bier stated that there were a lot of questions about the sea wall, and she asked, if the Coastal Commission doesn’t approve the project, they money they set aside from the fees, whether the fees can be put forward to whatever happens after that.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there are no legal requirement that the rate only be based on projects that have been approved or are certain to go forward. She stated that the utility revenue requirements are always based on projected costs which often spans planning periods of over a number of years, as discussed at this meeting. She stated that it is by necessity because utilities involve major infrastructure projects that require long-term planning to fund and this is how they have to plan for projects going forward and why it is an appropriate way on which to base the fees even though they don’t have a final approved project. She stated that the projected costs should be included in the planning documents as discussed, but they are always subject to change as circumstances and technology change over time.

Mayor Bier stated that there were also questions about exemptions for seniors, and she asked if they can discuss that at this time as to what that looks like now and in the past.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought Michael DeGroot might be able to speak to that, but she didn’t think exemptions were contemplated as part of the rate study.

Mr. DeGroot stated that they aren’t allowed to use that, as with Prop. 218 the cost has to be proportional and they aren’t allowed to have one class of customers subsidize another. If they were to implement a low income discount, that would need to be funded through General Funds or non-rate sources of revenue. He stated that this study did not look at a low income discount but just determining what the costs are and what the rates should be to recover those costs. He recommended that, if they were to look at a low income discount, it be considered through another process.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they knew what the numbers were for protests they have gotten in the past protests of Prop. 218.

City Clerk Coffey stated that she doesn’t have the exact number available, but it was on the order of 1,000 or so during the last consideration of the major increase in 2017.

Councilmember Vaterlaus wanted to reply to someone who said this just affects Sharp Park.

She stated that it doesn’t just affect Sharp Park but everyone as this is a huge sewer project City Council Regular Meeting 18 May 09, 2022
that affects the whole town, as they can’t have a sewer project without one portion of it. She stated that, if they did the do nothing item in our Local Coastal Plan, they should consider that they might not have Highway One anymore. She stated that it is a huge issue that people aren’t taking into consideration when they say it only affects 40 houses. It affects more than that.

She stated that there are so many parts of it and they have had so many meetings about the Local Coastal Plan, the sewer system and sea wall, etc., and she was sorry that they weren’t at all the meetings and listened to all the facts on this.

Mayor Bier stated that a lot of people asked specifically what the money would be spent on regarding the money that is being set aside for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project and she asked if it was possible to get more detailed information about where the money would go than they have put out already.

PW Director Petersen stated that they are currently looking at the big picture of what is going to be needed next and they don’t have those types of details at this time. They can only say that they are moving in to the final design so the money would be used towards final design and environmental permitting and what that looks like at this time. She stated that they don’t have all the specifics for it, as, in any capital project, they wouldn’t know at this point until they actually start doing the work and getting a cost estimate from a consultant for what that would be. She stated that it is important to note that all these things would come back to Council for approval and anything they will move forward with, whether final design, environmental permitting, would be back before Council for approval and will give the public an opportunity to speak on them.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to asking the City Manager about the money that would be put toward the fair share cost of the sea wall, and he felt it was important that, if something should shift, that money will be needed, and it is not etched in stone. He likes to remember that, when they have heated discussions, at the inception, this was a 51% vote to make Pacifica a city after the third vote. He stated that was the flavor on how they discuss things. He stated at the last meeting, when they were experiencing the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, he began to firm up what his understanding is regarding the conversation going on. He thought it started with the sea level rise discussion years before, and he didn’t attend as many of the sea level rise meetings as he would have liked to, but one time, he found himself in the Community Center’s main room while they were having a major sea level rise discussion and there were members of the community who were freaked out by the concept of managed retreat, yelling at decision makers, how terrified they were of their property being stripped away from them unceremoniously. He stated that the sea wall discussion was not quite that pitched, but a great deal of heated discussion about the environmental ramifications of what it would mean to do this major costly project. He stated that so many people came out from either side to tell each other how terrified they are of what they are perceiving as an ideological approach that will strip from them what they hold dear. He stated that they hear a cry about sea level rise and climate change, and that they are all going to die unless they do the right thing, and they need to start moving things as it will take a while to do that and they need to plan properly. Then on the other side, they hear that they are trying to take away their home, their business, their life, affordable housing, before they even get to the discussion of how they think they have the revenue to move all the infrastructure it would take to do that if they don’t even think we have enough money to create a sea wall. He apologized that this is a sewer rate discussion, not a sea wall discussion, but it became usurped, but the conclusion he came to which he tried to articulate is much clearer and the reason is that armoring around the pier has a remaining lifespan of about ten years. He then turned to PW Director Petersen, and asked her, if they were to move the infrastructure and start doing that planning, how long would it take from starting the process of City Council Regular Meeting 19 May 09, 2022
planning and actually breaking ground on moving it, and she responded that it was approximately 15 years, so 10 years of infrastructure failure versus 15 years when they start moving it. He stated that, if they do a rush job on moving all of this infrastructure before the lawsuits start pouring in because they aren’t protecting the homes and businesses, and they turn to the Coastal Commission and say the visitor serving accessibility thing they are always talking about went out the window because they need to do this now, and no one is going to be able to have access to the beach while they figure that out. He didn’t look at things in terms of 10 and 15 years as being a long time, but a short time, and with quick math, it looks we have about a ten-year lifespan left before we start needing to worry if we don’t start armoring that. He stated that 50 years looks like a proper timeline to plan moving things if that is what we want to do, and start doing that. He didn’t think this statement is probably not making anyone happy but it is his understanding and that is what he is voicing.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she appreciates that.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, from his perspective, he thought it was a fair share contribution that they need to armor that essential infrastructure and they need to armor the area to make sure we are safe. When everyone calms down because they are worried about their livelihood and whether they will be able to afford their insurance, they can then have the other discussion of whether they are capable of moving things and, if so, how soon.

Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated those comments. She stated that she looks at it as a longer term view and the idea of relocating the infrastructure they are talking about, the former wastewater treatment plant on Beach Boulevard. She stated that they don’t have the land that they would move it to and have to acquire it which is a cost, so not a $40 million price tag altogether but a small portion of what the overall cost would be. She stated that the sea wall and infrastructure, the sand retention and replenishment, etc., is also a higher cost than what they are talking about at this time, but as they heard earlier from PW Director Petersen, the cost and complexity of relocating infrastructure is intense and hasn’t been studied. She stated that there is the characterization that doing any sort of Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project is only going to protect 40 homes when some of them who oppose it have stated that it, in fact, affects about 40% of the households of Pacifica. She stated that, as the decision maker and whose responsibility it is to make the best decision for the greatest number of people in Pacifica, she thinks it is prudent for them to move forward with what is proposed at this meeting.

She referred to a statement about the Equalization Basin and why should they have to pay for that as it is in the south end of town, but when our city is sued by multiple agencies and nonprofits because of sanitary sewer overflows, the millions of dollars that they have to pay out, not to mention the harm to the environment, is all of our responsibility not just those adjacent to the Equalization Basin. She stated the best course is to continue with the course they outlined.

Mayor Bier stated that they might have to have her repeat that as they are getting a really bad interference and it is hard to hear her, and she has to repeat at least the last section of it.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano suggested that they could come back to Councilmember Beckmeyer.

Mayor Bier stated that they will come back to her and see if they can make some changes to fix that. In the meantime, she stated that it is very clear that they have to raise the rates and they are worried about the project. She stated that, if they are able to have enough information for the community to understand where the money is going, then she is comfortable with raising the rates. If they can come back and talk about exemptions at another time, she would appreciate City Council Regular Meeting 20 May 09, 2022
that as well as she felt they needed to look at that as a Council. She asked Councilmember Beckmeyer to try to talk again. Then stated that it was still not working.

Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested that she call in again.

Mayor Bier agreed that she could try hanging up and calling back. She asked the City Attorney what they should do.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they could take a break or have her call back in. She stated that they could also continue Councilmember deliberations if there were other councilmembers who want to speak on the item before she calls back.

Mayor Bier called a short break and then reconvened the meeting. 4:22:40
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she could hear her.

Mayor Bier stated that she can barely hear her.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked again if she can hear her.

Mayor Bier stated that she can hear her but it is really garbled. She stated that they will move forward. She stated that it was 11:24.

Councilmember O’Neill asked if she had a question.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was trying to make a motion.

Mayor Bier stated that they cannot hear that.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer said she would like to make a motion.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if they can’t hear her, someone else should make the motion.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to introduce the Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Chapter 6 Sewer Charges and Chapter 11, Sewer Connection Charges of Title 6, Sanitation and Health of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Revise and Increase the City’s Sewer Charges” be read by title only and that further reading be waived; and Adoption of the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the New Wastewater (Sewer) Service Charges and Wastewater (Sewer) Capacity Fees for Pacifica Municipal Wastewater (Attachment 1); seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Item #9)
Mayor Bier stated that they have a decision to make as they have two items left and it’s 11:30 and she stated that they might want to consider moving and pulling an agenda item.

City Council Regular Meeting 21 May 09, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought the next item will be quick, but he didn’t know about Item #12.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

10. Introduction of an Ordinance to approve Text Amendment TA-121-22, initiated by the City of Pacifica, to extend the Growth Management Ordinance codified in Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, which has a current termination date of June 30, 2022. The Ordinance to be considered would affect property citywide in the A (Agricultural) zoning district and HPD (Hillside Preservation District) overlay zoning district. Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a vote of 5-0 (with two absences) on April 18, 2022.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Text Amendment TA-121-22 to amend Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to extend certain provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance.” Acting Planning Director Murdock indicated that he was joined by Planning Commissioner David Leal and Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if he said the RDA allotment does not apply because she asked how that would fit into their RHNA allocation.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that SB330, a state law enacted in 2019, it prevents cities from adopting or implementing any provisions in local code that would limit the number of permits or require some sort of numerical allocation for housing development permits. Staff recommended, and the Planning Commission supported, was keeping on the books the provisions that are in the Municipal Code. They were adopted and enacted by the voters and, to respect the will of the voters, keep them on the books although recognizing that the city is unable at this time to implement them. He stated that there is a sunset provision through 2032 at this point in time. He stated that after that, the city could resume implementation of the RDA process, but for the time being and the foreseeable future, they would not be able to do that.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.

Acting Planning Director Murdock wanted to clarify one statement, i.e., the sunset date is January 1, 2034.

Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked staff for their work on this and encouraged Council to approve this five-year extension of the Growth Management Ordinance, mentioning her thoughts on this item.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speakers.

JoAnne Arnos, Pacifica, asked Council to approve the Growth Management Ordinance for another five years, especially the agriculture and HPD segments of the ordinance, mentioning City Council Regular Meeting 22 May 09, 2022
her thoughts on the issue. She also asked that the city respond to emails commenting on their position on an issue to avoid misunderstandings.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, thanked them for their work on this and he urged Council to approve this extension which is important, mentioning his thoughts on the issue.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, thanked Council and Planning for bringing this forward, and mentioned his thoughts on the issue.

Mayor Bier introduced a speaker.

Paul Chervatin, Pacifica, urged Council to renew the growth control ordinance, mentioning his thoughts on this issue.

Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had comments but it is a long meeting and it is a nice to have something that everyone seems to be able to get behind and agree upon. He would be happy to vote yes.

Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if Planning Commissioner Leal had any comments from Planning.

Planning Commissioner Leal stated he did not have any additional comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t have any comments and would be happy to make a motion.

Mayor Bier encouraged her to make the motion.

Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Text Amendment TA-121-22 to amend Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to extend certain provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (Item #10)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

11. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, and Recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, filed by Brendan and Eamon Murphy, for construction of a three-building mixed-use project with 3,165-square feet (sf) of commercial floor area City Council Regular Meeting 23 May 09, 2022
and 19 residential units, and associated condominimum subdivision, at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420).

Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2016-004).

PROPOSED ACTION: Open the public hearing, take any public comment, and move to continue the public hearing to a date specific of June 13, 2022. [Agenda Item #11 was discussed as the first public hearing prior to Agenda Item #9.] Acting Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Mayor Bier asked if they go through the same process.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they would but they have agreement from the appellant and applicant to continue the hearing and they could consider waiving making their presentations if they so choose.

Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmembers have had any conflict of interest or ex-parte communications.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has had communication with Eamonn Murphy, Ian Butler and talking to Margaret Goodale about communicating with her.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she also talked to Mr. Murphy.

Mayor Bier stated that she spoke with both the appellant and Eamonn Murphy.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he spoke with the Murphy’s, developer, and a couple of email exchanges and they set a date to meet then the staff report came out postponing it and he didn’t physically meet with him.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she had a conversation with the developer, Eamonn Murphy, and was working on scheduling a meeting with the appellant but they haven’t had the opportunity because she has been out of town.

Mayor Bier opened the public hearing and invited the appellant to speak.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked, before they open the public hearing, if there were any questions from Council to staff.

Mayor Bier asked if there were any questions and there were not. She then opened for the appellant to speak.

Margaret Goodale, appellant, stated that she just heard she had a choice of waiving the presentation but she has asked for the last five days about that, and she wants the clock stopped as it was not fair. She reiterated that she had five days with the question about the legality of her talking. She wrote a two-minute discussion and she will read what she had before this afternoon. She stated that there is normally an opportunity for mutual agreement to the timing of the change for an appeal and she was not extended that courtesy and she should City Council Regular Meeting 24 May 09, 2022
have been asked five nights ago, not just informed before this meeting. She stated that the process has been entirely irregular. She stated that, until hearing the city attorney, she did not know that she would be presenting any appeal at this time, as she does not have her appeal to present. She stated that it was ridiculous.

Mayor Bier stated that she wasn’t expected to give her presentation at this time.

Ms. Goodale stated that they were offering her ten minutes and she asked if staff will remove any future opportunity and, if so, she will continue with what she is saying as she is angry and needs to be able to give a presentation in the future since she had never been told that she had ten minutes at this time. She stated that presentation may change as some parts of it may be mooted by the revisions that began nearly a month ago. She stated that staff has not directly or completely answered her questions and she asked what she is to think. How do they proceed? She stated that the developer wants to extend the time and the city staff wants to extend the time, and she would be happy to extend the time if the project can be made better, as she thought it could be a wonderful project. She stated that they need to all agree to a mutually agreeable hearing date which has apparently happened. She didn’t know that might preclude the opportunity for a Planning Commission meeting. She needs an agreement allowing her to amend the appeal and add any new grounds that may arise from the planned revisions. She needs an agreement with the city that she will be notified promptly and provided with all copies of every document received and she needs an assurance at this time that the process will now preclude anyone, including her, speaking to the appeal or about it in the future. She stated that she did not know she could speak at this time. She stated that there is much more to be said and she thought they should talk about it at some point. She thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer for asking the City Attorney for clarification. She wished that she had gotten that clarification. She asked forgiveness for her frustration and anger. She continued to believe that this needs to go back to the Planning Commission and she does not intend for her agreement for a changed date to constitute a consent for continuance if that precludes having the Planning Commission getting this again. She stated that the project could be marvelous and a huge benefit to Pacifica but as it stands now, it is not.

Mayor Bier asked if they have any questions. She stated that she might not have explained it well enough before she came up, and she apologized for that.

Ms. Goodale stated that she is the appellant and has lived in Pacifica for 45 years and watched Pacifica grow and change and watched staff change and she is unhappy.

Mayor Bier understood and asked if any councilmembers had questions for her.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t have a question for Ms. Goodale but she has a question for staff. She asked if she asks that now or is there a staff presentation.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that staff has made their presentation and they should stick to the format and the next process would be to ask the applicant to speak and when Council closes the public hearing, they can ask questions of staff.

Mayor Bier invited the applicant to come up.

Eamonn Murphy, applicant, stated he is a co-developer with his brother, Brendan, on the 570 Crespi project and he was present with his wife. They are both locals and have lived in Pacifica for 47+ years and their parents are still living in the back of the valley. He stated that they met City Council Regular Meeting 25 May 09, 2022
at Safeway when they were in their early 20s, and working their way through college. He stated that they have two amazing sons. He stated that they are fully invested in Pacifica, their home.

He spent 15 years coaching youth baseball little league, CYO basketball and soccer. He stated that his wife is a founding mother of the Friendship Playground and a first grade teacher at Vallemar School. He stated that they weren’t the typical outside developers. The purchased the infield project seven years ago, and when they purchased it, they had a beautiful vision of that property as it was a great location and they knew it had some awesome potential. When they first got there, his dad, brothers, all went down there and they moved about 3-4 yard bins of garbage. He stated that those wetlands were filled with tires and they cleaned it up and it was still an eyesore today but it is in better condition than it was when they first purchased the property. He stated that they read the appeal and he asked the appellant why them, as there were bigger fish to fry in this town. They have the Linda Mar Woods, the mega church in the back of Cape Breton, the high rise they are talking about on Highway One, the quarry is back and now they are talking about tearing down Sea Bowl and he asked the appellant why their infill project. He stated that there is talk that there should be more commercial in the project and that was unsustainable. He stated that, if you look at the e-sewer project and you have the Crespi Center and there are about 15-20 commercial condominiums sitting there now. East of that, they have Kenny’s Chinese food, the batting cages, the Pacifica Athletic Club, the Community Center to the left and the Quickstop across the street and the surf shop and they have Puerto 27, and he asked why they need more commercial. He stated that he talked with m any of the tenants there and they have all said the same thing, that they don’t need more competition but more customers. He stated that place is the right spot for more housing. He stated that the front of the property is going to be a beautiful commercial building, and behind that, they will have residential homes, condominiums with three below market rate units. He stated that, to build 19 units in Pacifica is taking them forever and has been a painful process.

He stated that they are ready to take it to the next step. He stated that they heard talk about encroachment on the wetlands, but they are not encroaching one inch on the wetlands and they spent the last several years working with a biologist and making sure they are not stepping one inch on the wetlands. He stated that there is talk about the parking and they are putting 13 parking spots on the Community Center site and they aren’t even in the calculations for the project and they are a net positive for parking. They are building a beautiful driveway where the seniors can now pull up to the front of the Community Center, get dropped off and continue on out with an awesome flow of one way in and one way out. The exits will meet in the center and they can pull right out of there and parking is not going to be an issue. He stated that the heritage trees were brought up as an issue by the appellant and they are taking some heritage trees down but they are putting plenty of extra trees, more than the 3 to 1 ration, and all the landscaping that will be happening outside their property and onto the Community Center side.

He stated that he sees the appellant’s frustration. She hasn’t been dealing with this for seven years, but they have and they have answered all the questions and are trying to keep everybody happy. He stated that they have done everything that has been asked of them and they are now at the finish line with an awesome project that is going to be a massive upgrade to lower Crespi Drive. They thanked Council for their time and they hope to see again. He wished they would reconsider the appeal, but he doubt it will happen at this time, but they look forward to seeing them in 2-3 weeks.

Mayor Bier invited public comment.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he wanted to clarify that staff did communicate very clearly the process to the appellant and the applicant, including very clearly that there would be a lot of ten minutes at this time, as well as ten minutes at the continuation hearing. He stated that Acting Planning Director Murdock can elaborate on that communication if Council wishes.

City Council Regular Meeting 26 May 09, 2022
Mayor Bier again invited public comment.

Ron Maykel, Pacifica, stated that he was new to the project. He was familiar with the property and he feels that the property has a biological and historical value, as some may know it is a remnant of a lake called Lake Matilda and mentioned his concerns and suggestions on the process for this project.

Victor Carmichael, Pacifica, stated that he prepared his response to coincide with the appeal to support the appellant’s position, and mentions his concerns about asking for a continuance, as well as specific concerns about the project itself.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that the project has so much potential, providing much needed low income housing as well as protection of a historic wetland, and she was grateful that the community has become engaged, but then expressed her concerns and suggestions about the changes in the process.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, stated he believes in protecting the environment and providing affordable housing, and expressed his thoughts and suggestions on the process.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that this was a painful process and she wished she wasn’t present to talk about it as it was a mess. She then mentioned her thoughts and suggestions on the project and the process going forward.

Ian Butler, Pacifica, stated that he has followed this site for a long time, and mentioned his thoughts and suggestions on the project and the process.

Mor Hirsh, Pacifica, stated that he is concerned about the process, and mentioned his thoughts and suggestions on that as well as the process.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that he sat through a similar situation recently in another county and mentioned his thoughts and suggestions on the process.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speakers.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that the thing is about the process, mentioning his thoughts and concerns on the process.

Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he wasn’t sure what the city can legally do at this point, but he mentioned his thoughts and suggestions on the project and the process.

JoAnne Arnos, Pacifica, stated that her recommendation was for this to go back to Planning, and mentioned her thoughts on the project and the process.

Dinah Verby, Pacifica, stated that she had sent in her written thoughts on this project but she was concerned about the process unfolding at this meeting, with several misrepresentations by staff and she felt compelled to share her thoughts to clear the record.

Mayor Bier stated that she owes an apology to the appellant as she didn’t feel she was able to explain the process properly for her to understand and she didn’t even ask her if she was going to set aside time.

City Council Regular Meeting 27 May 09, 2022
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it would be best to offer them each three minutes to allow the opportunity to rebut.

Mayor Bier stated that she would offer the appellant two minutes for a rebuttal.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified that they wanted to provide an opportunity for her to come up and respond to what she heard, but if not, it does not preclude her from providing her statements or presentation at the continued public hearing if that is what Council does.

Ms. Goodale stated that she has calmed down and appreciated all the support asking for reconsideration of this. She thinks there could be something wonderful to happen on the site and they have a marvelous opportunity for the site. She also thought it was time to let people talk about it rather than having everything going on since 2015 without any public study as not even the Commissioners got to study this in public or ask questions. She stated that it is time for people to talk about what is possible. She stated that the Murphy’s have been through flaming hoops which she understands, and they were led there by staff. She was sorry that they are the brunt of this, but they need something excellent, not just something that will hurt the wetland and doesn’t solve our housing problems.

Mayor Bier offered the applicant a chance to rebut but he chose not to so she closed the public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated what stood out to him as they were discussing an exercise in frustration was that the applicant and appellant had some form of mutual respect for one another and the community is here together no matter how they are feeling about the project itself. He feels like it is important to remind them of that before going forward. He referred to the last speaker asking about continuance and he was not privy to the communications that have been going on between the appellant and city and he asked the City Attorney to clarify if consent is necessary for that continuance before they make a motion for continuance so he can know that.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Council has opened the public hearing and it is within the Council’s purview to continue the hearing to whatever date Council desires. Staff has reached out to the applicant and the appellant as she thought staff would prefer to have the applicant and appellant to agree to a date so that there is no dispute about when the appeal is going to be heard and the appeal is thoroughly considered. She understood that Acting Planning Director Murdock has spoken with the appellant and applicant and they both agreed to the June 27 continued hearing date. She stated that he can elaborate on that.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the nuance is whether the appellant agrees or consents to a continuance and the question of whether he has vetted a date to conduct a continued public hearing. He will let the appellant speak for herself regarding the first item, and as to the latter, he has confirmed in writing with both applicant and appellant that the June 27 date is an agreeable date for a continued public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was not certain if he heard the appellant tell them that she agrees to the continuance.

Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he will not speak for the appellant on that, but he can say that he has confirmed with both applicant and appellant that the June 27 City Council City Council Regular Meeting 28 May 09, 2022
meeting is an acceptable date to hold a continued public hearing.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, in past that, it was in Council’s purview specifically. He stated that there were a lot of comments around perception and ultimately doing better and one spoke on behalf of good will, which is what he would like to cultivate. He felt doing better was a good idea. He stated that he would speak about where he made an error. He was uncomfortable placing blame on others but comfortable on himself. He stated that Ms. Goodale is seated behind the cameraman, and he appreciated his moving to allow him to look at her as he speaks. He stated that, when he started receiving her communications that she was sending to the city on Wednesday, he should have immediately followed up with the City Manager to make sure her questions were addressed, and he did not actively do that until after 2 p.m. this day and he was sorry that he made assumptions he shouldn’t have. He failed as the link in the chain of trying to communicate what he was hearing from her and he apologized. He will be following up with city staff to ensure that this does not happen again.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she acknowledged the frustration on the part of many people in this situation and she echoed what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck said about trying to get answers to questions on behalf of individuals. She stated that, when you are a Councilmember, the best thing for you to do is to speak directly to staff and stay out of the middle of direct communication, especially when talking about an appeal. She stated that this project has been going on since 2015 during the previous Council and when she was elected, she was thinking that the project would be underway before the election was done, and they are still here. She stated that they know there has been a lot of changes to the project over time. She stated that the site adjacent to where the Murphy’s property is located underwent a major construction project with the EQ Basin and there has been a lot of activity over the period of time since the project was first brought forward and it has changed form. She stated that was not unusual as projects change form a lot. She thought there were so many issues at play and they had a lot of communication going on to Council that raised a number of questions in her mind that led her to want to know the process and at what point in time would the decision be made for the issue to be sent back to Planning if that is what Council wanted. She stated that it has been in her mind as a possibility that Council needs to consider. She stated that there are questions regarding heritage trees, use of public land, suggestions that there is not enough affordable housing included in the project, traffic impacts, the definition of wetlands and buffer zones related to wetland. She stated that she has a question about Army Corp permitting and where that happens in the process. She stated that the public needs a better clarification about what portion of this project is on former public property because, on hearing some of the commentary, you would think the entire project was on public property which is not the case.

She feels that there needs to be better clarification when something is existing over seven years as when there is people’s awareness of one piece or another, then their continuity of focus on the project waxes and wanes. She listened to the Planning Commission meeting on this project and there were not all these questions that have come up at the end of the process and regarding the assertion about non-transparency and no access to what is being decided, she has a hard time understanding that because it was publicly noted at the Planning Commission meeting that anyone could attend. She stated that, in light of the pandemic and a lot of meetings through various means such as calling in from another country to participate in the meeting, she recognizes that not everyone’s awareness and continuity of every aspect of this project has been equal. Thus, she thinks they need to have more understanding for all parties.

She realizes they are engaged in an actual process with an appeal, and it is not a town hall meeting, but she hears from many parties the need for more information. She thinks the place for that to occur, given where they are in the process, is probably at the Planning Commission level. She stated that matter is something she still has to understand better from staff as to City Council Regular Meeting 29 May 09, 2022
what the options are and when Council can ask for or request those options.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has been going through his emails and the timeline, and he got his first email from the appellant on May 6 at 9:51 and he admits he is usually not quick but he happened to be online and he forwarded it to Acting Planning Director Murdock at 9:58.

He got a copy of the response from him to Ms. Goodale at 1:37. He stated that there have been various emails between the appellant and Acting Planning Director Murdock and he got a copy today, May 9, at 3:59 p.m. that says regarding tonight’s meeting, the applicant and appellant will each have ten minutes for public comment tonight, other public comments will be the usual 2 or 3 minutes at the Mayor’s discretion and the opportunity to speak at this meeting cannot be removed from the agenda. At the continued public hearing, the applicant and appellant will be given ten minutes for public comment and other public comments will be the usual 2-3 minutes.

He stated that the first paragraph clearly states the appellant and the applicant get ten minutes at this meeting and public input of 2-3 minutes and at the continued public hearing, whether they agree with it being June 13 or June 27, the appellant and applicant were both told they will have ten minutes then in addition to ten minutes at this meeting and the public will have the usual 2-3 minutes at that point. He stated that it says that he understands he cannot make the June 13 meeting date and they can also consider a continuance to June 27. He stated that at 3:59 this afternoon, the applicant and appellant were both told June 27 was an option. He stated that it does not state in his email that either one accepted it, but it does say that both were offered that date and they were both told they had ten minutes tonight and ten minutes at the continuance.

He stated that stating that no one was told this before the meeting was not accurate. He would make a motion to continue this to June 27.

Councilmember Vaterlaus seconded his motion.

Mayor Bier stated that she was surprised and feels bad about what happened with Ms. Goodale and she apologized to her if she was not clear in her facilitation. She stated that she has the same email changes as Councilmember O’Neill explained and she thought there were plenty of questions and she thought there was a general agreement between the two parties for June 27.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had a couple of questions before they vote. He appreciated Councilmember Beckmeyer’s thought about possibly turning this back to the Planning Commission. He would like to ask the question and think about his vote and whether or not he wants to vote yes on what is on the floor currently or whether he preferred to turn this back to Planning Commission.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she could give a comment when he is done about that issue. She understands that the time for them to make that determination would not have been tonight as the way the item is put before them at this meeting was whether they should continue or not continue to a date certain. At the time that the staff report was written, that date was June 13, but in later email communications, it was clear that it didn’t work for the appellant then another date was found as Councilmember O’Neill read from the email that it was June 27. She stated that it wasn’t on the floor for Council to decide to send it back to Planning at this time.

She stated that an outcome of the continuation of this item could be that decision.

Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked her for that clarification. He was ready to vote.

Mayor Bier stated that was her understanding as well.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

City Council Regular Meeting 30 May 09, 2022
Vote: 5-0 (Item #11, as amended to continue the public hearing to June 27) RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

CONSIDERATION

12. Introduction of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Base Budget, Position Recommendations, and FY 2022-27 Capital Improvement Plan.

PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the report, and provide feedback and direction on the proposed FY 2022-23 General Fund Base Budget report, position recommendations, and the FY2022-27 Capital Improvement Plan.

Mayor Bier asked if they need to extend the meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before they discuss extending, he conferred with Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter about the budget timeline impacts if they were to not hear the base budget and position recommendations in the initial capital until the May 23 meeting and it was possible to do that. The intended to bring the more flushed out Capital Improvement program back on May 23 after they initial input at this meeting on base budget and some of the limited term position recommendations, but they can do it altogether on May 23. He stated that the impact was that it just compresses their timeline in getting Council’s input, processing it and coming back at the first June meeting, June 13, for the proposed budget. If Council prefers a fresh mind in diving into the budget issues, they can do it on May 23.

Mayor Bier thought it was necessary after the night they have had that they move it to the 23rd.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

Councilmember Vaterlaus stated since they aren’t going to hear that appeal on that night, it gives them more time.

City Manager Woodhouse thought that was a good point, as in looking at their tentative list, they have on the 23rd a lengthy study session starting early on the heritage tree ordinance recommendations and the regular agenda is not overly impacted.

Mayor Bier asked if they need a motion.

Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, before they make a motion, they might open it up for public comment in case there is anyone present who wants to speak on it.

Mayor Bier opened up public comments and, seeing no one, asked if they had any call-ins.

Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that there were people on line but no hands raised.

Mayor Bier closed the public comments.

City Council Regular Meeting 31 May 09, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to postpone this item to the next City Council meeting on May 23, 2022; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.

Vote: 5-0 (to postpone item #12 to 5/23/2022 meeting)
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 5/23/2022 4:30 PM
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer

ADJOURN
Mayor Bier thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer for calling in.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked everyone for hanging in there.

Councilmember Vaterlaus wanted to adjourn the meeting in honor of Jean Headly who recently passed away and was a large part of our community for many years.

Councilmember O’Neill stated that she started the Fog Fest.

Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m. in memory of Jean Headly.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 5/23/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor