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 23, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
May 23, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on May 23, 2022 at 4:30 PM 4:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation- Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (One potential case) Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session. Mayor Bier announced the business to be discussed. 5:00 PM - STUDY SESSION
Study Session - Tree Ordinance - Community Outreach & Benchmarking Study PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a report regarding the Tree Ordinance - Community Outreach & Benchmarking Study and provide direction to the City Manager regarding next steps for Tree Ordinance revisions.
Mayor Bier called the study session to order at 5:03 p.m.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that Allison Steere and Tina McKeand from Davey Resource Group were also present. He then introduced the staff report.
Allison Serafin Steere of DRG made the presentation.
Mayor Bier stated that Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was attending by phone and Councilmember Beckmeyer was due to arrive to the meeting shortly. She then asked if there were any questions.
Councilmember O’Neill suggested that they have the public hearing before they have their discussion.
Mayor Bier agreed to open public hearing, requesting that City Attorney Kenyon guide her through the agenda.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is a study session so whatever the Council decides is fine.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 May 23, 2022
Mayor Bier wanted the public to share comments and opened public comment.
Paul Totah, Pacifica, stated he was commenting for himself and fellow Tree City Pacifica members in support of this issue, mentioning some suggested changes with respect to expanding notifications, appeal period and fee, goals for urban forest tree canopy, etc.
Sandy Ayers, Pacifica, stated, as a member of Tree City Pacifica, he was speaking in support of this issue, mentioning some suggested changes with respect to mitigation tree replacement ratios for residential and development, in-lieu fees, evaluation of trees requested for removal by certified arborist, etc.
Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated, as a member of Tree City Pacifica, she approved of the presentation, but added suggestions of points that are missing from the proposed ordinance, referencing best practices from other cities that they would like to see in the ordinance, supporting the two to one plant-back ratio, concerns about lack of enforcement of the current ordinance, suggesting in-lieu fees, etc.
Jennifer Chaloemtiarana, Pacifica, stated that she appreciated the city’s efforts in protecting heritage trees, adding her concerns and suggestions for additional considerations of other trees that are left behind by this policy, concerns with large trees that are dead and dying that cause property damage and risk of fire due to debris drying out.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, appreciated all the work on this subject, and expressed support of the additional points presented by Tree City Pacifica and added her concerns and suggestions regarding mitigation recommendations for replanting, in-lieu fees, and the need for clear standards and penalties, the need to build a maintenance fund, better community communications and suggesting online resources for announcements and history of tree removals.
Aren Clark, Pacifica, stated he had no objection to increasing the canopy of the city, but he expressed his concerns about this ordinance, concerns about non-native invasive trees, trees that are dying dropping limbs and increasing fuel load on city property, suggestions for planned maintenance of habitats.
Kai Martin, Pacifica, stated he was a member of Tree City Pacifica and appreciated the efforts of staff and shared his thoughts on the ordinance and suggestions already made by speakers, supporting the diameter going to 12-inches, supporting the definition of native species and categorizations of heritage and protected trees, taking into consideration of extreme fire risk and the formulas and checklists proposed.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-ins.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked staff and DRG for their work on this ordinance, and shared her concerns on past problems with respect to trees on development projects and put forth her suggested additions to the ordinance, such as no trees being removed or logging operations prior to a permit being issued. She gave examples from past development projects and issues with respect to trees.
Susan Miller, Pacifica, stated that she is a member of Tree City Pacifica and agreed with most of the speakers, and put forth her suggested additions to the ordinance such as permits being City Council Regular Meeting 3 May 23, 2022
required to prune more than 25% of a protected tree and no person shall destroy a tree without a permit, supporting a tree construction zone, penalties if trees or their roots are damaged, and no tree being removed in construction until building permits are approved.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, appreciated having this study session and allowing public input and she supported the Tree City Pacifica additional recommendations, and expressed her further thoughts on this issue and concerns about retroactive permits, need for transparency supporting the online recommendation for notification.
Mayor Bier closed the public comments, then opened for Council questions and following that, they would have a discussion to provide recommendations for staff to prepare an ordinance.
Councilmember Beckmeyer understood they had general questions they were asking now, but she asked if they want to follow staff’s report with the bullet point questions of the guides to make sure they get through all of them.
Mayor Bier stated that, after they all have something to say, they can follow it.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she also referred to Tree City and they have to go back and forth between the two documents.
Mayor Bier thought the documents kind of mirror each other.
Mayor Bier stated that Tree City also recommended using the ISA basic tree risk assessment form, asking if they were familiar with that. She then went through the bullet points, beginning with definition for heritage tree. She thought they should adopt that and use the 12-inch diameter instead of the 14.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought in the report she thought they should change from heritage tree to protected tree then they added other information into that, not just heritage tree.
Mayor Bier stated that was the next question.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked how you approve one and then the next one. She stated that, if she says yes, she wants to approve the definition for a heritage tree and then goes to the second one and she then says she didn’t want a heritage tree but called a protected tree.
Mayor Bier agreed, stating that they rename it as a protected tree.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she was looking at the packet but she understands that they are moving from what is currently in the ordinance and the definition of a heritage tree and are now calling it a protected tree and a new definition for a heritage tree is what is on packet page 4 with the bullet points.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that she is correct.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if the diameter breast height (DBH) difference is for the Toyon because it is naturally a smaller tree.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 May 23, 2022
Ms. McKeand stated that the reduction in DBH is for protected trees as heritage trees could be any size if they are significant for some reason.
Mayor Bier asked if that makes sense, and how Councilmember Vaterlaus feels about that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it says to use the current definition of a heritage tree and maybe they have one name instead of two as it is the same thing. If the heritage tree is a historic value tree and if large, it will fall into that category anyway, the habitat value.
Mayor Bier thought they were renaming it.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they agreed to recommended definition of a heritage tree and the next thing is they will adopt the recommended definition of a protected tree, and it says all heritage trees will become protected trees.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it might be beneficial if they swap the two question so the heritage and protected go first. He stated that they have a current definition of heritage trees and they are going to keep that but call it protected tree instead in the proposal, and they have a full new definition of what heritage tree means. He asked staff to help him understand the delineation, i.e., what is the difference between how they would approach their protected tree versus how they would approach the heritage tree if they have the two different definitions.
Ms. Steere stated that it would be addressed through the point system they mentioned in the presentation. She stated that, if the tree is a heritage tree, it would carry more weight to the decision of whether or not to approve or deny a permit.
Mayor Bier asked if the point system comes from the assessment form.
Ms. Steere stated that it would be based off the parameters set in the ordinance and staff would use it internally to help assess those permit applications.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, within that context, our new definition of heritage trees would make that subset of trees more difficult to cut down versus this new title protected tree which is essentially our current heritage tree. He didn’t think it would be easy, but there will be a difference in how they approach the two. He favors yes and yes for the first two questions.
Mayor Bier asked if they can talk about the 12-inch diameter instead of the 14.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he is in favor of 12-inch.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they are going to define what the current heritage tree definition is so they aren’t confused.
Ms. Steere referred to Section 4 of Chapter 12-02 of the ordinance under definition, heritage tree shall mean and include all trees within the city of Pacifica, exclusive of eucalyptus which have a trunk with a circumference of 50 inches, approximately 16 inches in diameter or more measured at 24 inches above the natural grade or a tree or grove of trees, including eucalyptus designated by resolution of Council to be of special historical environmental or aesthetic value.
She stated that would be a protected tree. She stated that the definition of a heritage tree would be more specifically defined, recognizing trees that are historically significant or culturally significant, even visibly prominent in the community, species such as native Toyon that are City Council Regular Meeting 5 May 23, 2022
currently not covered by the current definition of heritage trees.
Mayor Bier asked if they got enough feedback for the first two questions.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to make sure Councilmembers Vaterlaus and O’Neill are okay with 12.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the Monterey pine is in this definition, and she asked about that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought the question they are most worried about was hazard and illness or health of the tree, and it sounded like it would be defined later under part 2 of the process.
Councilmember O’Neill thought, if they are exempt, such as eucalyptus is agreed to be exempt, a homeowner can cut any size down with no issues. He stated that, if they exempt Monterey pine, they put it in the same category as eucalyptus and you have someone come in and you spend $400 on arborist report to find out if all six of their Monterey pines are diseased and have to be cut down, and if they exempt the Monterey pine, they can be cut down and the person doesn’t have to pay the $2,400.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that he is assuming that they look at it and say that it looks diseased, blocking my solar and my neighbor’s gutters.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they had a city arborist state, and in the conference he attended, that virtually every Monterey pine has defined cancer or bug.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked that it is pine pitch canker.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if they have it and dead, he thought they should consider exempting Monterey pine and eucalyptus only.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated if they qualify and they are dead.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they are more fire prone if they are in a weakened state.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if he was asking staff that question.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was asking Aren Clark as he is an arborist.
City Attorney Kenyon stated he is not on staff and Council needs to ask this staff.
Ms. McKeand stated that, depending on how stressed the tree is, it could make it more fire prone but she thought that is an arborist determination and she would not recommend that they allow the general public to make those decisions.
Councilmember O’Neill asked what she means by the general public, such as the public hearing they had.
Ms. McKeand stated that a tree can appear to be dead to someone who doesn’t understand the biology of the tree.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 May 23, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill understood.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck heard from a certified arborist that I should be concerned after allowing Monterey pines to remain on the heritage list which is his understand of his comments. He asked city staff how concerned he should be about Monterey pines.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that he sees Director Petersen coming up to answer that question.
PW Director Petersen thought they were talking about, if there is a diseased or dying tree, they will want to take it out and she didn’t think they would want to blanket it and say that all Monterey pines are dead and dying trees. She stated that staff is capable of going out and looking at the tree and seeing if they are dying and they will not make someone go through a heritage tree permit to get that tree removed.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if someone wants to cut down a tree, is she saying that they come in, fill out their application and Council is going to send a city staff member to look at it and see if the tree needs an arborist report or automatically give a list of approved arborist and tell them to call them.
PW Director Petersen thought they were talking about whether they should be requesting arborist reports in certain situations, and should they be requesting them for all heritage tree removals and protected trees that may have a pathogen or a pest. She stated that is the question they are talking about at this time, and currently it’s a bit of a gray area which is why they are here to get clarification so they can get the ordinance clearer for everyone, including the residents as they move forward. She stated that, obviously if the trees are dead or dying, they are going to let the person take it out, but if there is a question of whether that tree is healthy, they think they probably need to get an arborist report because staff deals with a lot of trees and thinks that tree looks healthy so it is that kind of scenario currently.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded it is professional judgment.
PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that his question is what the process is, i.e., if he fills out an application to get a permit, is Pacifica going to send someone out to look at the tree and, if they look and see that it is dead and no need to have an arborist or it might be but you need to get an arborist report. He asked if staff can give permission for a tree to be torn down if they feel it is dead.
PW Director Petersen stated that they can and will let them take it down as it is a hazard for the home, a fire hazard.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that will be part of the process if they move forward.
PW Director Petersen stated that he is correct and they will still do that.
Councilmember O’Neill didn’t want to see residents spend $400-$500 on arborist reports for trees staff looked at and are dead.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 May 23, 2022
PE Director Petersen stated that it would be a situation where there was a question, but if it was obviously dead, they will let them take it down.
Mayor Bier thought they all agreed on the trunk diameter, and the city should adopt the standard for measuring tree diameter at 54 inches above natural grade, and she thinks they agree to that.
Should the diameter for the protected trees be decreased from 16 to 14 or 12, and she thinks they agree to 12. Next decision is should there be a separate permit for trees in construction zones that will not be removed. She thought they agreed that no tree should be removed before there is a building permit. Regarding requiring developers to hire an arborist to prepare a tree protection plan, she thought they all agreed on that.
Councilmember O’Neill added that, for clarity, if no trees on the property, they don’t need to hire an arborist as there is no need to have a tree protection plan.
Mayor Bier concluded they were in agreement. She then asked if developers should be required to protect trees on adjacent properties, as they question if it will affect the roots and if that is how it is defined.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have setbacks on property, and he asked if that generally covers the root systems of most trees.
Ms. McKeand thought likely not if it is a protected or heritage tree.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they were saying that, if the roots of the neighbor’s tree goes underneath the property, they cannot build on that property.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they were saying they need to protect it and create a tree protection plan, stated that it would be a case by case, and it would be about the plan.
Mayor Bier concluded she meant the tree protection plan.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought, if you have a tree that is 50 feet in diameter roots and you are on a 50 x 100 lot, that means that they have just taken your property and you can’t build at all.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if you can build on tree roots.
Ms. McKeand stated that what would typically be considered in those conditions would be the reasonable use of the property. She stated that tree protection doesn’t mean not doing anything around the trees, just that if you are not constructing or removing that tree as part of the process, you need to avoid stacking material and compacting the soil, spilling chemicals within the tree line, avoid parking under the tree for compaction. She stated that it may mean that, cutting off irrigation to the property during construction, they need to apply water and it is protecting a tree that was determined by that project to be a tree that needs to be protected.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if the neighbor doesn’t want whatever is being built next door, can there be a tree protection plan developed if the neighbor says you can’t go on their property.
Ms. McKeand stated that you are only protecting the part of the tree that extends on the property being developed, not the entire tree and it would be considered the same as any other City Council Regular Meeting 8 May 23, 2022
protected tree if it were on the property.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if the neighbor doesn’t want what is being built, they can’t prohibit the builder to develop a tree protection plan for the tree on the other person’s property.
Ms. McKeand stated that some of that is up to the Planning Department but they didn’t think that was the case.
Mayor Bier asked if the developer be required to protect trees on adjacent property, and they were in agreement on that. The next item was if a point system be developed to provide guidance to staff on requested tree removals of protected and heritage trees, and they were all in agreement in support of that. The next issue is if there should be a separate permit for pruning protected and heritage trees, and they were all in agreement.
Councilmember Vaterlaus suggested they add a percentage of 25% because she might want to trim one branch and should be allowed.
Ms. McKeand stated that was not their recommendation, but Tree City Pacifica’s recommendation. She stated that they recommend there be a permit regardless of how much they want to prune because 25% could actually be extensive on a heritage tree or protected tree as they are typically older and mature and don’t react as well to more pruning and 25% would be the maximum they usually recommend for any tree and for an older tree, the threshold would likely be lower and they recommend that a permit be required to prune a heritage or protected tree so it gives staff an opportunity to provide guidance about what they should or shouldn’t do.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if she was saying even one limb.
Ms. McKeand stated that it depends on the size of the limb and the alternative would be to have some guidance on the city’s website that says they can do things but, if they want to do certain things, they need a permit. She stated that they don’t recommend a flat 25% threshold as it could excessive.
Councilmember O’Neill if they want to lower the 25% to 15% or so.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she doesn’t want to get a permit for every time she trims her tree.
Councilmember O’Neill thought, every time they trim the tree is excessive but if they are saying 25% is too much, maybe they lower the percentage and he was throwing out 15%.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought they would be happy as they suggested the 25%.
Councilmember O’Neill thought they have to be reasonable, i.e., if the tree is dangling and going to go through a window, they will want to cut it off before it breaks the window or power line.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if staff had a recommendation of what threshold would be reasonable for the sake of the tree.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that Tree City members say 25%, the arborist lady says 0% and you get a permit for cutting everything off a tree.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 May 23, 2022
Ms. McKeand added the alternative of providing some guidance on the website that tells people what to prune or what not to prune.
Mayor Bier thought that would be helpful.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought guidance would be good.
Councilmember O’Neill stated they could have 15% plus the guidance.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he doesn’t know if 15% is still harmful to a heritage tree.
Ms. McKeand stated that it can be, i.e., if pruning a large branch off and it is only 15% of the tree, it could cause the tree to become a risk or it could kill the tree, and why they suggest guidance on that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck liked the idea of making information available and having a process where someone taking it upon themselves and are wrong, they get fined accordingly and should have looked at the information available and you need a permit.
Mayor Bier agreed that they have a discussion.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she is hearing permit.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck is saying put it on the website and permit for everything and Councilmember Vaterlaus is saying she doesn’t want to get a permit every time she cuts but she seemed to be happy with 15%. He suggested 15% and the information on the website.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded he is saying 15% and guidance.
Mayor Bier stated that was fine and they are okay with 15%. The next topic is should an arborist report be required to remove trees based on poor health, pest pathogen and/or when a tree is a heritage tree.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that PW Director Petersen said, if they go out and say that the tree is bad, why would you have to get an arborist report.
Mayor Bier asked how they would know, clarifying if she is speaking about city staff.
Councilmember Vaterlaus confirmed it is staff, and she thought an arborist report or a report from city staff.
Mayor Bier stated that, in the perfect world, they would have an arborist.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.
Mayor Bier concluded that there would be an arborist report.
PW Director Petersen stated that, to clarify things, she stated that they can see that the tree has something wrong with it but it doesn’t mean that the tree is going to die, and she thought the goal of this recommendation is that, if you look at the tree and conclude you don’t know if it will City Council Regular Meeting 10 May 23, 2022
be a problem or not, and they will ask for an arborist report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked how they change the bullet point to say what she just said.
PW Director Petersen thought it was generally understood that, if staff is taking a look at the tree and see it is dead, they will say they can take it out, but if staff is unclear that it will die, they could get an arborist to look at it and then makes a different assessment based on the actual situation and at that point they would ask for an arborist report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that the bullet point as written is confusing her as they are combining two things, should an arborist report be required to remove a tree based on poor health, pest pathogen, and she thought that might have a different answer than should an arborist report be required to remove a tree when it is a heritage tree. She stated that those three things are in one bullet point and that was what was tripping them.
Ms. McKeand thought the intent was that, if you want to remove a tree for construction and making a case of reasonable use on the property, it doesn’t matter about the health of the tree, but if you are saying the tree isn’t healthy and that is why you want to remove it, it requires a professional opinion which is the intent of those three distinctions.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought the point of having to pay $400 or $500 for an arborist report was different from a professional opinion as an arborist report is a specific thing and cost.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he was okay if city staff says the tree is dead and there is no point in getting an arborist report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that the bullet point doesn’t say that, and the way it is written, they would be saying that they need an arborist report.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he disagreed with that conclusion.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that is why she is asking how they fix it.
Councilmember Vaterlaus suggested staff recommendation or an arborist report, depending on staff’s recommendations.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if what she was saying is that a staff recommendation or arborist report should be required.
Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
PW Director Petersen stated that, typically, if staff sees that the tree is dead, they will suggest that they take it out. She stated that they want some backing to say that, if that tree has pest or pathogens, they will request that they get an arborist report. She stated that the way the verbiage is stated works, and they can add in, if people think they have a dead tree, that would be assessed by staff but if you have pests or pathogen and a protected tree, they should get an arborist report and if a heritage tree, they have to get an arborist report.
City Attorney Kenyon added that, this is not a yes or no answer, just the majority deliberating on this and giving feedback will help them in drafting an ordinance. She commented that they are running out of time and they may not finish all of these points, but there was no need to agree City Council Regular Meeting 11 May 23, 2022
with each bullet point and give them their thoughts and they can surmise from that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer assumed they have what they need on this one with Council’s concerns about dead/dying.
Mayor Bier then stated that should protection for groves of trees greater than six inches in diameter be added to Chapter 12, and all Councilmembers agreed.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought it should include eucalyptus as they have had issues in the past where people clear cut eucalyptus on whole hillsides which was a problem.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that was what prompted the heritage tree ordinance.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated they used to exempt all of the eucalyptus trees regardless of how many they cut down.
Councilmember O’Neill added that they are highly flammable, and asked if she was saying she didn’t want to exempt eucalyptus.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, if you are going to have the groves, you still have to have some protection against clear cutting but if you eliminate eucalyptus from that, someone can take down all the eucalyptus they want with no regard to what the wind patterns, soil patterns, and other issues that occurred when that happened.
Mayor Bier concluded they agreed it should be part of that. She stated they haven’t talked about any of the ratio replacements.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it was 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Bier acknowledged that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they draw the line here.
Mayor Bier stated that there are a few different things they didn’t get to talk about and they can talk about them next time. She thanked everyone’s time.
City Manager Woodhouse asked for clarification, since they didn’t get through all the questions, if it was Council’s preference that they continue the study session at a future date to be determined or work on developing a partial ordinance to bring back and finish the other questions.
Mayor Bier liked his suggestion regarding the partial ordinance and continue.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they just ask the questions they didn’t answer, and they finished most of them.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that the one they didn’t get to was about penalties, fees, ratios and they are big topics.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that she thought they could draft a partial ordinance and she asked Council if they want staff to look into penalties, remedies, in addition to the $1,000 City Council Regular Meeting 12 May 23, 2022
fine. If yes, she stated that they can come back with some options for Council.
Councilmembers all agreed.
Mayor Bier called a short break before starting the regular meeting.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the regular meeting at 7:06 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Remote
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call, with Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck participating by phone.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Dan Steidle, Police Chief; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Raymund Donguines, Sr. Civil Engineer; Mike Perez, PB&R Director; Josh Montemayor, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember O'Neill
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, during the closed session, Council determined that they were going to initiate litigations and the specifics of the litigation and more details will be made known to the public after the filing of the litigation. She stated that the vote was unanimous by Council - 5-0.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Wildfire Awareness Month - May 2022
City Council Regular Meeting 13 May 23, 2022
Mayor Bier read the proclamation for Wildfire Awareness Month.
Dep. Fire Chief Pomicpic accepted the proclamation, and reported that wildfire season is now year round, and while they continue to be a threat to homes and communities throughout California, there is a need for wildfire prevention and preparedness at both community and homeowner levels. He reported what Pacifica’s Fire Department is doing to have preventative activities in place and stated that, on June 11, 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m., , there will be a Pacifica wildfire preparedness event in the Community Center parking lot, with the presence of the North County Fire Authority, Pacifica Police Department, Fire Safe San Mateo County and California Department of Insurance, and mentioned the topics for discussion. He thanked the City for the proclamation recognizing Wildfire Awareness Month.
Mayor Bier invited Council to comment.
Councilmember Vaterlaus observed that they are talking about Wildfire Awareness when they were previously talking about trees as they go hand in hand and it was important for everyone.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted to acknowledge our Fire Department as he didn’t know of Pacificans know that, every time there is a call for a wildfire, and Pacifica has a green engine because they promised to respond and they have at least one crew at those fires and on the line including having to send a second shift to relieve the first, with those costs reimbursed by the state. He mentioned all the cities in California where we have gone, adding that he didn’t know if they ever went out of state.
Dep. Fire Chief Pomicpic stated that they have gone out of state to Washington, Colorado and all the way to the Mexican border.
Councilmember O’Neill acknowledged that Pacifica’s Fire Department goes international, adding that they still maintain our fully staffed fire houses and mutual aid kicks in from the county to cover everyone. He referred to the fire in Rockaway that was at the same time as the gas exploded in San Bruno and they had firefighters from Menlo Park fighting in Pacifica. He commended them all for their diligence in going international and to many states to fight fires.
Councilmember Beckmeyer highlighted the depth of training they have and the commitment and how they serve alongside our hospital ambulance crew, adding that they are often the first ones to get there, i.e., in her house when her mother collapsed. She commended their courtesy and professionalism which made her feel good that everyone in Pacifica is getting that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck echoed what his fellow councilmembers have said. He felt they were all heroes doing a heroic job, and he sees them all over town. He is deeply grateful that they are in our community. He was looking forward to attending the event on June 11.
Mayor Bier stated that she will also be there on June 11. She stated that she had the opportunity to get to know some of the firefighters and see the family that they are. She thought it was important for our community to understand how much they care for one another and they build each other up and keep each other healthy. She stated that their job is extremely important and seeing them treat each other with love and respect was inspirational for her.
Dep. Fire Chief Pomicpic thanked her, adding that he has been a firefighter for 38 years and loves every minute of it.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 May 23, 2022
They then took a picture.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember O’Neill asked to pull Item #6 off the consent calendar to have a deeper explanation as they got many emails about it.
Mayor Bier also wanted to pull Item #3 to have a conversation on that as well. She opened public comments.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that comments on Items #3 and #6 would come when Council considers those.
City Attorney Kenyon asked the Mayor to list the items on consent that people should be coming to discuss, that would help them decide if they should come now or later.
Mayor stated that Items #1, #2, #4, #5 and #7 are available for comment now and opened public comment. She asked if they had any call-ins.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that they have callers but no hands raised at this time.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to accept the consent calendar minus items #3 and #6; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5 - 0 (Consent Calendar, excluding Items #3 and #6) Item #3 Discussion:
Mayor Bier wanted to pull this item to talk about concerns they have in the community about the resurge of Covid and public meetings, and she thought they need to address that at this meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the city, after two years, continues to have to act nimbly with Covid and, with the recent surge and anticipation of a Councilmember needing to call into a meeting, they put the AB361 certification back on the consent agenda since they were meeting in person. He stated that this allows the flexibility, based on health concerns, to return to fully virtual meetings with significant Council items coming in June and potentially July. One of the questions for Council to determine they should return to fully virtual Zoom meeting for a certain time period to ensure that all Councilmembers or Commissioners can be participating as well as the public.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they are voting on this item to revert to virtual meetings.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there are two issues raised by City Manager in Item #3, adoption of the AB361 resolution and, if they choose to adopt that AB361 resolution, is Council interested in moving to all virtual for a limited period of time given the latest Covid outbreak.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 May 23, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked if what they decide will carry over to commissions and committees also.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that was what they would look to do, and the most immediate pressing meeting is a Planning Commission meeting for the Plan Pacifica documents on June 1, and they could redo the notification required for that to meet the legal standards and hold that meeting virtually.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they would need to set a time certain, such as through the end of July or a specific date.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there is obviously a need to decide for the Planning Commission meeting and the next Council meeting, but they can decide after every Council meeting and have this resolution on the agenda if they want to decide to go back to virtual for a limited period of time. She stated that a number of cities have gone to all virtual for June only, but they can do it for two weeks, four weeks, etc., for whatever period of time they want.
City Manager Woodhouse added that typically Council does vote on the next agenda about not holding the second meeting in July for summer vacation break, and if that were the case and Council were to consider setting a date, they could go through the first meeting of July and they wouldn’t be back in person until the first meeting in August.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they have to have public comments.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck if he had any questions.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he did not.
Mayor Bier opened public comments and asked if they had any hands raised.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated they had two hands raised, and asked if she wanted to start with call-ins.
Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speakers.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that he encouraged them to open it and begin to use it as soon as they can, but he won’t mention this again.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked the Mayor for bringing this up as she thought it was important as they are going to have some large meetings, and mentioned some technical concerns that, when they move back, tech staff can look at to make the meetings more accessible to everyone.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, appreciated Council taking this up as he is among those who is more vulnerable and being isolated for a second time, and mentioned his thoughts in future important meetings.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 May 23, 2022
Summer Lee, Pacifica, stated she didn’t hear all their deliberations, but she encouraged the tele meetings, then mentioned the tech problems for call-ins now compared to Zoom call-ins.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he had no problems either way but, with general plan meetings, he can’t think of any venue in Pacifica that would have social distancing, and he will go with the majority of Council.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed, adding that whatever they decision they make should apply to all commissions and committees.
Councilmember Vaterlaus liked seeing everyone in person, but she understands as they got a letter from someone who is worried about trying to call-in and people have problems calling in.
She sees the big issues coming that they will need to have in virtual meetings.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck noticed, with the call-ins, when you unmute, you wait up to 10 seconds before you hear the voice say you are unmuted. He stated that maybe Councilmember Beckmeyer is the only one who had this experience, and he stated that after you press the button, you will wait another 10 seconds before you are able to talk, and he was using this process because he was exposed and has shown symptoms but is doing good and better to get back to life in three days. He stated that he is the poster child that they should go back to virtual until the surge stops.
Mayor Bier asked for a motion.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to move all commissions, committees and Council meetings to virtual until August 1.
City Attorney stated that the motion would be to approve Item #3 with direction to Council to move all meetings to virtual until the first meeting in August.
Councilmember O’Neill stated what the City Attorney said; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Item #3 AS AMENDED)
AGENDA ITEM #3:
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O’Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Item #6 Discussion:
Councilmember O’Neill stated he pulled Item #6 off the Consent calendar as they got many City Council Regular Meeting 17 May 23, 2022
emails about it and he wanted the city attorney to clarify why it is on the agenda to vote on so the public will know why.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there are several reasons why they want to remove Article 10.
Article 10 requires that the rates be updated by ordinance, but the best practice is to update them by resolution and they wanted to fix that. She stated they are removing it because it references Health and Safety Code, but the rates are not required to be adopted pursuant to the Health and Safety Code. With the remove of Article 10, they will still be following all Prop. 218 notices, which is more notice, with 45 days prior to the hearing where the rates will be adopted and goes out to all owners and with a majority protest, it will come back for Council to determine if there is a majority protest and by removing Article 10, Council is not removing notice requirements under Prop. 218. Anytime there is an increase, there will still be notice prior to the hearing, protest allowed at the hearing and a Council determination.
City Manager Woodhouse asked Councilmember O’Neill if his question was generally why this adoption of an ordinance is on the consent calendar or was he specifically asking about the Article 10 piece. He stated that the ordinance was introduced on the May 9 meeting and, like the growth management of Item #7 on the consent, this is the formality of adoption.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have received many emails about it and he wanted clarification for the public that they are basically bringing their outdated ordinance in conformance with the state constitution and, while they applied Prop. 218, they are clarifying the ordinance to match Prop. 218 which they always did in practice. He stated that they are not removing public review, public noticing but just clarifying it to bring it in line with the state constitution and state law and amending our ordinances.
Mayor Bier suggested that, because of the extensive agenda, they limit the comments to two minutes for everything on the agenda. She asked if that was agreeable.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed.
Mayor Bier opened the public comments.
Vicki Sundstrom, Pacifica, stated that she thought this was an addition to what was required by the state, mentioning her understanding of past discussions on this and asked if they were repealing the regulation that allowed for that annual discussion.
City Attorney Kenyon wanted to clarify that very good question, thanking her for asking it, and she stated that Prop. 218 does not require it every five years but anytime there is any increase to the rates and they will be bringing it back anytime there is a rate increase and follow all Prop. 218 requirements and it is a state constitutional requirement.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-ins.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, thanked them for pulling this for further discussion, and she expressed her concerns and thoughts on this item.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that he doesn’t understand this, but asked questions to hopefully get answers.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, appreciated the opportunity to talk about this item, specifically her City Council Regular Meeting 18 May 23, 2022
thoughts on the Sharp Park pump station and concerns on this issue.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, referred to concerns expressed by other speakers, and gave his thoughts and concerns on this issue.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve Item #6 from the consent calendar; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they could have a discussion before voting.
Mayor Bier agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted to ask some clarifying questions. He asked if there were still annual reviews.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that each year they come before Council during the budget development process and Council approves projects for the next fiscal year and for the wastewater rates, if there is no intention to have it exceed 3.5% increase for the next year, there is not a Prop. 218 notification process if necessary but in any given year Council could consider and approve a lower rate than the adopted 3.5% for five years under the Prop. 218 process.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they get to review all of this every year.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, for clarity, they would come forth with the capital program, present the recommended wastewater capital program for the next five years, including focusing on the next fiscal year and the rates approved at 3.5% are sufficient to fund the program and the debt service to finance capital projects.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked why they fund the wastewater system through fees rather than bonds.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Mr. Lawrence asked an excellent question, and he would try to take a stab at clarifying how this financing mechanism works, adding that Ms. Carter can add if necessary. He stated that when you debt finance, whether a bond, there needs to be a revenue stream that secures that, and in the case of wastewater capital projects, the revenue stream would be the ongoing wastewater rates that we have, and that is the security for the lender for the financing capitalization that the city would get to borrow $20 million necessary to start to do the capital projects. That debt service is paid back by the ratepayers via the rates.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Item #6)
AGENDA ITEM #6:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O’Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 19 May 23, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that, before oral communications, as they have the Chamber people and the BID people present, she would like to request that they move their Item to the beginning of Considerations, ahead of Item #8.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he had no problem with that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if they want to take a vote, where do they want to move it.
Mayor Bier stated she would like to move Item #10 before Item #8, at the beginning of Consideration.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if that was a motion and is there a second.
Mayor Bier made a motion to move item #10 to the beginning of Consideration; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Amend Order of Agenda to move Item #10 to the beginning of Consideration) CONSENT CALENDAR, EXCLUDING ITEMS #3 & #6:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for 4/01/22 through 4/15/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 4/01/22 through 4/15/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on May 9, 2022.
3. Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council to continue to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19.
4. Agreement with Telecommunications Engineering Associates for Information Technology Equipment and Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve an Agreement with Telecommunications Engineering Associates for Technology Equipment and Services Related to Radio Communications Infrastructure, and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents City Council Regular Meeting 20 May 23, 2022
related to this project.
5. Adoption of Resolution to Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2022-23 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding for the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution next in order, “A Resolution by the City Council of the City of Pacifica to request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission the allocation of Fiscal Year 2022-23 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding” for the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project; committing up to $37,240 of General funds for the required matching funds; and authorizing the City Manager to execute any documents required for the grant.
6. Adoption of an Ordinance titled “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 Relating to Charges for Sewer Service and Connection Fees.”
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt an Ordinance titled “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 Relating to Charges for Sewer Service and Connection Fees.”
7. Adoption 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 adopt 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.”
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated he is commenting on the certification of the release of the General Plan EIR and the certification coming up with that document, commenting specifically on the problems when it was released as they have a lot of comments coming in and it is proposed to drop on Wednesday right before a holiday, he encouraged thinking ahead to encourage public engagement and he wanted both sides to be polite and respectful.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speakers.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that San Mateo County released preliminary numbers from the County’s one-day homeless count, and mentioned some specific facts and proposed solutions as well as concerns.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 May 23, 2022
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she agreed with everything Mr. Shoemaker said, then shared her efforts and concern about the timing and necessary process for the General Plan and offered suggested options for the process.
Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, reiterated PRC’s times when they continue to be open to the public and encourage calling for a phone appointment or schedule an in person appointment, the grocery distribution dates and details of other programs as well as assistance/outreach programs.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, echoed remarks by Mr. Shoemaker, adding that the community is about public engagement and he expressed concerns about the public not hearing the public comments in any public forum as well as his concerns and thoughts on options for the process on this issue as well as on the housing issue.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, referred to the General Plan coming out during the holiday week, and expressed her concerns and thoughts on the process.
Jim Kremer, Pacifica, stated that an issue that he cares the most about and most qualified to comment on is the release of the planning documents which have many public comments, and he shared his concerns on the quick process.
David Whitney, Pacifica, referred to the sewer fund for the Beach Blvd. Project and expressed his concerns about the future problem with the recently passed rate increase.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended the Fairmont Homeowners Association board meeting and City & County Association of Governments Legislative meeting and City & County Association of Governments regular meeting even though she was on vacation. She attended the Pacifica Emergency Preparedness Meeting for Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck and a lot of their information is published on NextDoor. She stated that Red Cross has a program for smoke detectors and they will install them for homeowners. She went to PW Open House and had fun riding up in the bucket truck. She also went on a tour of the sewer plant for the first time and found it interesting and recommended everyone going on a tour. She went to the Council of Cities and they talked about downtown plans which was interesting, and the Democrats, Peninsula Clean Energy and Christina Corpus who was running for sheriff.
Councilmember Beckmeyer attended the Coastal Cities group meeting and there is a Webinar coming up in June. There is a Webinar coming up that Cal Cities is promoting which will explain the various grant programs available through the Coastal Commission in support of local coastal plans, adding that Pacifica has already submitted ours but this is for all coastal cities. There will be a local government workshop coming up with the Coastal Commission in a July or August Coastal Commission meeting but a definitive date has not been confirmed yet. She will check the website to keep Council informed. She stated that the opportunity is for coastal cities and counties to have direct interaction with the Coastal Commission regarding the framework being worked out for addressing infrastructure that is primarily public because some of the Coastal Act doesn’t address those specific issues. She stated their goal is to bring staff and commissioners together with the Cal City staff and the Coastal Cities group members to discuss these issues and she will keep them posted on that. She attended the Democrats meeting and heard a very beneficial presentation from Peninsula Clean Energy. She is educating herself on their goals City Council Regular Meeting 22 May 23, 2022
around Reach Codes as she wants to be sure she understands the implications will be for Pacifica property owners. She spent a lot of time on the weekend meeting with constituents.
Councilmember O’Neill attended LAFCO. He attended Jefferson High School’s 100th anniversary and groundbreaking ceremony on Friday, May 13, and met with a couple of people, one on Reach Codes, one on Tree City. He attended the Boys and Girls Club meeting on the 16th where they went over what was happening with the club. He stated they interviewed some applicants for the committees / commissions. He attended the Public Works open house and got to watch Councilmember Vaterlaus go up in the cherry picker and they use it for fixing the street lamps. He attended the LAFCO meeting on Friday and reelected to LAFCO again by Council of Cities and attended the Congestion Management meeting for CCAG Council of Cities dinner. He stated that this coming Friday he will be attending the awards dinner that the Lion’s on the Peninsula puts on for the Police Department and will be dining with the Chief of Police.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has been enjoying his quarantine at home due his Covid experience. He stated that he 100% back despite having a viral prohibiting him from entering the room but he is in good spirits. He stated that it is on the rise, as he is a case in point. He was glad he was vaccinated and he urged anyone listening who has not been vaccinated to do it as, from his experience, he had mild symptoms. He also suggested that they wear a mask as often as they can while experiencing the spike. He mentioned that Ukraine is in his mind and his heart and will continue until there is a peaceful resolution. He stated that, on May 14, he attended the mental health first aid meeting at the Community Center. He thought it was fascinating and he felt more confident if he should wind up in close proximity to someone who is experiencing some form of mental health condition, even friends or family, as well as customers or neighbors. He stated that a major take away from that was that different cultures perceive mental illness in different ways and, depending on your culture, there could be different stigmas attached. He had a big emphasis on saying the word suicide, and recommended that they not be afraid to talk about it. If that is the topic at hand, he suggested that they have the conversation as it may be uncomfortable, but it may save a life and can lead someone to seeking greater help. He stated that there was an interesting psychosis exercise and it gave him some perspective. He stated that they stressed the acronym ALGEE which stands for assessing risk of suicide or harm, listening non-judgmentally, giving reassurance and information, encouraging professional help and self-help and other support strategies. He recommended seeking out other Mental Health First Aid opportunities as they may arise and recovery is the goal. He attended the Library JPA meeting on the 16th where they were talking about budget with a presentation about the services of the County Library system. He didn’t know until that meeting that libraries in our county give out backpacks that have state park passes and equipment and drove home the idea that libraries are not merely books anymore.
He also attended the Boys and Girls Club meeting at the Yosemite Clubhouse. He stated that it was a hard meeting but, at the end, it felt like they were coming together as a community but they felt they had a long way to go. He stated that they took the first steps to creating our Pacifica Boys and Girls Club chapter and they made sure that, as long as there is Pacifica, there will be a Boys and Girls Club that will remain open. He stated that he started checking in with the County and State to see what funding opportunities might look like, even if just a onetime grant. He enjoyed the LAFCO meeting on the 18th which Councilmember O’Neill was chairing. He was there to learn what LAFCO is about and what they do. He stated that Joshua Cosgrove who retired from LAFCO had been on LAFCO longer than Councilmember O’Neill had been. He has known him for a number of years and was happy to see him at his last meeting.
Mayor Bier stated that she went to Housing Our People Effectively Inter-Agency meeting, City Council Regular Meeting 23 May 23, 2022
Sustainable San Mateo Awards. She met with people to talk about the Reach Codes which Peninsula Clean Energy spoke about at length at the Democrats meeting which she also attended. She attended the Jefferson Union High School District centennial and Staff Housing.
She thanked staff and Director Perez and Sophia at PB&R for hosting the Mental Health First Aid training. She appreciated all the work that went into that. She attended the Terra Nova Car Show and talked to the Pacifica Bike Park people. She attended the Boys and Girls Club meeting, met with Tree City Pacifica, participated in committee and commission interviews, attended the Open Space meeting. She was asked to be moderator for Working Together to end Homelessness, with a series of three workshops or Webinar. This was about from the street to interim housing and it was an honor to moderate that event. She stated that everything is online and you can hear the whole event. There was important information. She stated that, in the past, they have heard that the programs don’t work but, as they learn about the different processes and how all the agencies are working together, you can see that it does work and we have an infrastructure to address homelessness. She thought we should all be proud of that and find out everything we can about it so people say the families are suffering, they know what to do. She attended San Carlos Council of Cities meeting, attended Pacifica Sports Club Breakfast of Champions, went to a couple of baseball games at Fairway Park. While she was there, a bunch of young people helped her clean off the plaque for her nephew which was covered in dirt and moss. She stated that all the players gathered around, cleaned it off and talked about Johnny which was awesome.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse had a few quick comments. Regarding Councilmember Beckmeyer’s question, the Coastal Commission and sea level rise local government working group webinar is on Thursday, June 16 at 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., talking about the grant program for LCPs.
He didn’t have the date for the follow up workshop will be. He mentioned that, as mentioned by councilmembers, the Public Works appreciation week and the open house held at the courtyard was a fantastic event with several classes from Oceana High School and younger kids as well that came to the event. He stated that, when he was having lunch with some of the PW staff, he heard many testimonies from the employees and their engagement with the kids and stories from the PW employees about how they got into the work that they do, which is that they went to similar open houses when they were young and had no idea what they wanted to do in life.
He stated that it was a great thing to do which was temporarily interrupted by Covid and they hope to continue that in the future. He stated that it took a lot of work from the PW staff to organize it and bring it together, and he congratulated all of them for a great job. He mentioned that May 24 is the Civic Center groundbreaking event which is open to the public at 3:00 p.m. at 170 Santa Maria Avenue where they will be breaking ground for the Civic Center renovation project. He stated that they were notified by Congresswoman Eshoo, supported by Congresswoman Speier, that a project Pacifica had submitted for federal funding through various infrastructure bill funding mechanisms for the Sharp Park Priority Development area access resurfacing project, i.e., a paving project, was selected by Congresswoman Eshoo as one of her top 15 submittals for consideration and they were pleased as that is a good milestone to achieve and they will wait and see if they get the funding of approximately $0.75 million for the project.
Mayor Bier apologized for scheduling a 7:30 a.m. meeting on May 24.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 May 23, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
8. FY 22-23 General Fund Base Budget Report
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the report and provide feedback and direction on the proposed FY 2022-23 General Fund Base Budget, position recommendations, Master Fee Schedule, and the FY2022-27 Capital Improvement Plan. [Item #10 was discussed / considered prior to Item #8 as the first item on Consideration.] City Manager Woodhouse introduced the staff report.
Chief Financial Sustainability Carter presented the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse continued the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill asked him how many records clerks does the city presently have.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he believes they have two, with one who announced retirement and they are down to one, and he asked the Chief if that was accurate.
Police Chief Steidle stated that they had one records supervisor and one regular.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that we had two when most cities have five. He stated that it says they risk falling out of compliance, and he asked what that is referring to.
City Manager Woodhouse suggested that Chief Steidle come up and elaborate on that one.
Police Chief Steidle stated that each year our legislators create more laws that have to do with sealing of records and different ways that Police Departments have to process records and are time consuming processes, such as juvenile sealings where they have been inundated and the timeline has been reduced to 30 days, and once they get a request for a juvenile sealing, the court says we have 30 days to seal that record and put it by the wayside and, at any given time, they have a stack of them. He stated that the RIPA data reporting and transition to the CIBERS and NIBERS data reporting for crime statistics for the Department of Justice in California, as well as the FBI nationwide, and these are a couple of things that take an enormous amount of time. They did a study about two years ago when they had volunteers working for them, and the two people full-time and fully trained, nobody knew that they were 100 hours a month in personnel hours under what they needed to do to keep up with what they were doing and were using volunteers to take care of some of those tasks.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if he was talking about when you stop and there was a field interrogation, which he mentioned at a previous meeting, and an officer has to guess the ethnicity.
Police Chief Steidle agreed, and the new programs have caused is rather than the records department processing police reports, they have to process the police reports and work on that data component and our records department touches each and every single incident electronically that the officers handled.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 May 23, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse continued the staff report.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter continued the staff report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked her if she was saying that, in the second column saying “adopted” and then (amended as of September 27), the bottom line number of negative $1,700,000 is what our deficit would have been this year if we didn’t have the ARPA money.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter said that was not what she was saying. She stated that you can look at the same surplus deficit line in the middle and the budget was adopted at $1.2 million surplus and what you see is a negative number that is reflecting the capital transfer.
She stated that they gave a one-time capital fund toward the Civic Center project and those numbers should not be counted to structural deficit as they are considered to be one time.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it was the second green line.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter stated it was the second green number. She then continued the staff report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she can ask Police Chief Steidle about the police department line item and has a question for PW Director Petersen on the Public Works line item on the slide. She stated that, if she is understanding this correctly, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter is telling them that, if they didn’t have the ARPA money, there would have been a 6% cut but departmentally it is a different amount as it reflects the amount of the General Fund that each of those departments draws.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter agreed, adding that they can see that everyone is getting, and they ask what a 6% cut would look like for each department.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, when you look at the line item and see 25%, it looks like it is a 6% cut, but this would be 25% of the General Fund allocation for the police department, and she asked her if that was correct.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter agreed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Police Steidle what that would be.
Police Chief Steidle stated it would be five police officers.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked how many they have.
Police Chief Steidle stated that they currently have 31 and they are authorized 32 with the 33rd frozen now.
City Manager Woodhouse thought that the percentage was the distribution of the $2.7 million to the departments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if of the ARPA money.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was of the $2.7 million deficit so 25% of that, if you City Council Regular Meeting 26 May 23, 2022
divide it up, falls to the police department but not 25% of the police department’s budget.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter stated that each department would have to submit programmatic changes or reduction options that would equal 6% of the operating budget, and for the police department, they are looking at $667,000 in this case.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked her if she can give her a quick response to that question on Public Works when she looks at this number. She clarified that she wants to couch it in terms that they have ARPA money and this isn’t the actual situation but the hypothetical that they asked for when they were talking about this budget a long time ago.
PW Director Petersen stated that ultimately it would depend on which positions were cut but it would represent 2-3 position in their department and, as the City Manager already discussed, they are typically about 23% lower in staffing than comparable cities and that would be very difficult for us to absorb.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted to clarify that this was not from the sewer plant which is an enterprise fund as these are the people who respond to trees falling, cutting, maintaining, pave the streets, flooding emergencies, sea wall breach, and that is what Public Works department is.
PW Director Petersen stated he was correct, that they are the staff out there when we are having big storms, and we may not have as many people who can respond.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter continued the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, before they go into the capital budget discussion, he wanted to point out the difference in what they were talking about in operating revenues and expenditures and the deficit that exists there. He stated that, while there is a relationship between operating revenues and one-time funding for capital projects, there is a significance difference in the budgeting viewpoint of that. He stated that a lot of the capital projects they are seeing recommended, i.e., non-discretionary essential recommended things, are one-time funding projects and they can use different sources and different funds that go to funding street paving that you can’t fund general fund staff out of that type of thing. He stated that it is very important for this conversation as well as the conversation they are going to have later about potential tax revenue measures and there is a very distinct point between annual operating revenue to pay the mortgage on your house versus the savings account that you sometimes dip into for the one-time purchases, and that also runs out if your annual operating revenues run out but they are different financial buckets.
PW Director Petersen stated that PW Dep. Director Bautista is also present and can help to respond to any questions Council may have regarding the PW capital program. She then continued the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that this was our local match for grant funding for other projects, and asked if there were any of these projects that, if not done, endanger losing other funding.
PW Director Petersen understood what he meant, and stated that, if they have something listed next to the project in parenthesis as grant funded, those are projects they will lose grant funding if they don’t move forward with them. She stated that, if they have questions related to any particular projects, she can answer that.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 May 23, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill referred to the school cross walk beacon replacement, and he thought Safe Route to Schools initially funded all those, and they aren’t responsible for the ongoing maintenance or they won’t replace their stuff that is failing.
PW Director Petersen stated that, once we put it in, it becomes our maintenance responsibility and they are very maintenance intensive, and many cities are now removing these in street lights and moving toward rectangular rapid flashing beacons which is a much better product.
She then continued the staff report.
PB&R Director Perez continued the staff report.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter completed the staff report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to beach use not including surf events, stating that is what he was referring to before where it was $200/day and she asked if now they were adding for a larger group bigger than 50 people.
PB&R Director Perez responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they have a fee for filming.
PB&R Director Perez responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he could help her find that.
PB&R Director Perez referred to page 183.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to film photo shoots.
PB&R Director Perez responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it was $900/day. She asked if they have reviewed that fee anytime recently.
PB&R Director Perez stated that they decided they weren’t going to raise it this year and it seems to be fair, and they were talking about hand full of events. For a lot of beach events, some of the fees are about a handful of events a year that fall into any of these categories, and not like they are getting weekly or evenly monthly film shoot request. He asked if she had a question about the lower cost or higher cost.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it was more about the major commercial filming at $900/day, not that they have 5 million people calling every day, but, if they called tomorrow, she has anecdotal feedback that our rate is very low.
PB&R Director Perez stated he would be interested to hear more about that as he didn’t think that tells the whole story. He stated that is not the only fee that they pay, as they would also pay if there was extra Public Works needed, extra staffing on the beach, the police, reminding them of the movie, Chasing Mavericks, was filmed in Pacifica in two locations and that was one that tested how we did a real Hollywood film. He stated that, from one perspective of they can pay, but every day they are going somewhere to shoot and we are not allowed to charge them more than what it costs the city to do that and it was made abundantly clear when they did that.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 May 23, 2022
They were also able to charge them for parking spots before they had a parking program because they had a proposed fee and they used the parking spots with staffing and the city was right to the edge of where they might have said no. He stated they have had more recent ones but not quite as big as that one.
Mayor Bier opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments.
Mayor Bier called a break then reconvened the meeting.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
9. Vision 2025 & Beyond – Potential Local Revenue Options, Public Opinion Research Findings, and Council Direction on Next Steps on Potential Ballot Measures Related to Transactions and Use Tax, Utility Users Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and discuss public opinion research findings on potential local revenue options available to the City, community priorities and perspectives, and provide direction to the City Manager about which potential revenue measure needed to maintain the current level of City services, if any, should advance to the next phase of City Council consideration, including the development of a draft ordinance and related documents to place such a measure on the November 2022 General Election Ballot and return to City Council to consider such actions at an upcoming City Council meeting in June 2022.
City Manager Woodhouse introduced the staff report.
FM3 Consultant Curt Below continued the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse completed the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the half cent cap the county could take up if the city doesn’t in the not too distant future, and he wondered if they could give a deeper explanation on how that works as he is curious as to how quickly the county might jump on that if Pacifica doesn’t take the opportunity while they still have that half cent leeway.
FM3 Consultant Below stated that, under California state law, there is a 2% cap on implementing local transaction and use taxes. One thing to point out in the discussion is that a transaction and use tax that Council could place on the ballot and voters could adopt if they wished is a little different than the 1% local sales tax, i.e., the 1% local sales tax is applied for businesses that are based in and operate in Pacifica. In a transaction and use tax, which is what they are talking about here, is applied to purchases by individuals who live in Pacifica, i.e., if someone is in Pacifica and they buy something online, the half cent applies, even if the online seller is not in Pacifica and if someone from Pacifica bought a car in a dealership in Colma or Daly City, they wouldn’t get the 1% but they would get the half cent and one of the interesting thing is that part of the study shows that a lot of residents shop outside their community and the half cent transaction and use tax brings in the same amount of money, the $2.6 million, as your 1% current sales tax does. He stated that is not true in many cities that have a large sales tax or retail base, but it is true in Pacifica because of the amount of leakage Pacifica has. He referred to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s question about the cap, and stated that the county and the county transportation agencies over the last several years have passed transaction and use tax City Council Regular Meeting 29 May 23, 2022
measures that exceed the 2% cap and have passed 2.125% in local transaction and use taxes which they were able to do because they were able to exempt the last two measures they passed, Measure W which was a 2018 transit district tax and Measure RR which was a joint powers tax using state legislation. As it effects Pacifica, this answers a question that some may have which is in 2009, the city went for a 1% local transaction and use tax but today they can’t do that because the county went out in 2013, four years after Pacifica’s 1% measure and passed Measure K, a half cent measure and they are left with a half cent measure. He stated that there are five cities in the county that have a half cent sales tax and two cities that have a quarter cent sales tax. He stated that, if the county were to go out today after the final half cent, it could not be countywide because of those seven cities. He stated that there is always the possibility of getting legislation exempting a measure from the cap. He stated that one of the interesting things about that is that this year there was legislation proposed in Sacramento, not in San Mateo County but another one, to exempt a proposal from the cap which passed the legislature and vetoed by Governor Newsom. He stated that, even if they tried to get an exemption or raise the cap from a half cent to a higher number, there is no guarantee that, even if the legislature passed, the Governor wouldn’t veto that as he was vague in terms of why he vetoed the measure in that other county. He stated that, today, their choices are, if they move ahead with the local transaction and use tax, they can only go up to half cent but not beyond that today.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, if they went the route of the state which sounded like a painful proposition for Pacifica, it would take as much as a swipe of the governor’s pen to deny Pacifica a great deal of hard work and he is interested in taking the half cent allowance while they still can.
Mayor Bier mentioned that it is 10:30 and asked if they have a motion to extend the meeting.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (extend meeting to 11:30 p.m.)
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they can do both measures at the same time, the TOT and the half-cent sales tax.
FM3 Consultant Below responded that, based on his experience, they can but it would be challenging when both measures are double purpose measures and funding a similar set of services as one of the measures could be perceived as a tax that other people would pay, the TOT, versus a sales tax that local people would pay. He stated that, if you want to benefit for public safety and other services, and on reading the words, one might seem more appealing, i.e., TOT, and they might cut into the sales tax of both are on the ballot at the same time.
Mayor Bier opened public comments, stating that there were no cards and asked if there were any call-ins.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor said there was, and introduced the call-in speakers.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, liked Council supporting the idea of the actual sales tax as a good idea, and added his suggestions regarding looking at considering the joint services under Vision City Council Regular Meeting 30 May 23, 2022
2025.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, added her support for the sales tax and TOT and expressed her thoughts on the community supporting them to function better as a city. She referred to Mr.
Tan’s comments regarding the police and mentioned her thoughts on ways to pool our resources including applying for grants.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor Bier agreed with the public comments that we need to go forward with the half-cent sales tax, and didn’t see what choice they have.
Councilmember O’Neill supported that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated reluctantly, as she is concerned about the cost of living, gas, etc., and didn’t think it was reflecting the value of staff or the need to bring in revenue to make sure they are funded but more about a pessimistic economic state of affairs which she thinks will make it more challenging, but concluded that it is what it is.
Councilmember O’Neill thought it was the opportunity for the public to decide how much services they want as they have clearly stated that, if it doesn’t happen, there will be five police officers, and three or four PW staff affected as services will have to be cut. He stated that they have to balance the budget, unlike federal government, and if they vote no, they will have to decide what departments to cut.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the comments they are getting regarding the General Plan process about the speed our citizens would like to see, and he sees what the staff is going through and holding together with a shoestring budget we have. He stated that we are talking about losing what ground we have currently. He thought it would be nice not to worry about maintaining the status quo, which is heroic given what we have to work with, but to actually get ahead by one or two persons to fill an extra pothole and listen to concerned community feedback and say they can change direction in a slight way because of wiggle room to be able to do something with having more to work with than we have now. He stated that it was frustrating going through the numbers and seeing the intense work our staff does on a constant basis, and wanting to become more functional than we currently are, and yes he is in favor of a half-cent sales tax.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to receive and discuss public opinion research findings on potential local revenue options available to the city, community priorities and perspectives, and provide direction to the City Manager about which potential revenue measure needed to maintain the current level of City services. He asked if he needed to read that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated he needs to decide what revenue measure he wants staff to do.
Councilmember O’Neill moved that they bring forth the transaction use tax to the November ballot; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Item #9)
City Council Regular Meeting 31 May 23, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked the City Manager when he will be bringing the fireworks advisory vote to Council.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the fireworks advisory item for Council to consider putting it on the ballot will most likely be June 13. This item will be brought back on June 27.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that they will have three Council races, fireworks and this transaction tax on the ballot.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
10. Resolution of Intention to Continue the Business Improvement District Program and Levy the Annual Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Confirming the Annual Report of the Advisory Board of the Pacifica Hotels and Business Improvement District (BID) and Declaring the City Council's Intention to Continue the BID Program and Levy the Annual Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 at the Same Rate as Levied in the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Without Change" and set the date of June 13, 2022, for the Public Hearing on the annual levy of assessments on hotels within the BID.
[Item #10 was discussed / considered prior to Item #8 as the first item on Consideration.] Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter presented the staff report.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor stated that they had a few callers and they needed time to sign in, then saying that there were no hands raised.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember O’Neill asked for clarification on what they are doing, referring to Ms. Carter saying that they had a deadline and then they are being asked to continue this to June 13. He asked if they are voting now to continue it to June 13 and then talk about it or is he voting to accept and adopt this.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter stated that the action before them is the resolution of intent to continue the assessment. She stated that, on June 13, they will have a public hearing, assuming that they vote recommending a public hearing to continue the assessment and levy the assessment and continue the BID.
Councilmember O’Neill asked what areas of concern does she have and did she address it with the BID management about reporting, accountability, etc.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter stated that they have a chance to meet with the BID City Council Regular Meeting 32 May 23, 2022
members so that is why the added this recommendation so the team today and on June 13, they will hold the meeting and they will be able to get some clarity.
Councilmember O’Neill assumed that, on June 13, they will have the answers to some of the questions and concerns the two of them discussed.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter stated that was the staff’s intent.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted to confirm that all he is doing today is continuing this to a resolution.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter stated that they are setting the public hearing date for June 13.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has questions, concerns and comments and he wants to be sure he gets to make them.
Mayor Bier added that she was concerned about their relationship and she would like to be a part of a collaborative effort so they can come to the table and talk to each other. She didn’t attend the last Economic Development meeting and she would love the opportunity to sit down with them as it would be good for all of them. She thought they need to be included, i.e., Councilmember Beckmeyer and her, because they are both on the Economic Development committee.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are recommending to adopt the resolution to have the hearing on June 13, but when staff reviewed the BID work plan, budget and report out, they had several questions about it, as the report talks about having had meetings and tried to work collaboratively about the city’s marketing plan and how to achieve our mutual goals and they need to continue those conversations as indicated and he was recommending that they get direction from Council to convene that meeting with Chamber administration and BID members to talk further about how the money is being used and what the marketing plan is for next year and how they can collaborate together to support our hotels and the conversation should include the Economic Development committee liaisons. He stated that one detail they will need to confront is, which the City Attorney can elaborate on if necessary, if there are substantive changes to the work plan, there might be an extra hoop to re-adopt the resolution of intent for a public hearing and hold that at a later date. He thought they needed to achieve clarification with the Chamber of Commerce administration that supports the BID on how that $1 per hotel room is being used. He knows the representative are present and, if there are any questions for them, they should feel free to ask them. He stated that, depending on the meeting and conversation, when they come back on June 13 or a later date, and Council is going to hear about whether to continue the $1 fee, that is when they will have more information and Council would have a series of alternatives to choose from at that time.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to echo her concerns about having meetings as, based on what she read in the report, it looks like there is some overlap with what the city has been planning on and what Council has approved in terms of the marketing study and short term marketing plan. She wants to be sure they are not duplicating efforts but using all the funds in the most productive way possible to promote our hotels. She stated that they have determined that our visitors help our budget and TOT is a big thing for our city. She stated that maybe it was Mr. Mora’s presentation, but she remembers being shocked when she realized or learned that there are 21 hotels in Half Moon Bay and seven in Pacifica. She thought the magnitude of City Council Regular Meeting 33 May 23, 2022
the number of rooms, when they figure TOT, it is not a big wonder why Half Moon Bay has so much more to work with. She stated that one of them is the Ritz Carlton. She stated that, even for a plain room rate of close to $800, when you go and google it and look at Pacifica’s rates of $200 and the number of rooms we have which is smaller and we are in Covid recovery which is going well. She thought we were at a juncture where we need to leverage every bit of everyone’s effort and money to move Pacifica forward. She stated that was what ARPA money is for and what they are using it for, and she would love to see collaboration and cooperation and growth in working with the BID. She didn’t know if they need to formally request that they establish a meeting with BID members but she was asking for that to echo what the mayor said.
Councilmember O’Neill thought there will be a meeting before June 5 with the BID or bring a resolution to stop collecting the dollar per room. He stated, having been on Council for several years, they have been told that they have very little control over the BID and it is the management. He stated, if City Attorney Kenyon needs to send them an attorney client privilege letter detailing what the city’s rights and duties and abilities for BID are, he would appreciate that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they can provide that.
Mayor Bier reiterated that her main concern is their relationship and she looks forward to that meeting and she hopes that he does also.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to continue this item to the June 13 City Council Meeting City Attorney Kenyon stated that he needs to adopt the resolution.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he moved to adopt the resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Confirming the Annual Report of the Advisory Board of the Pacifica Hotels and Business Improvement District (BID) and Declaring the City Council’s intention to Continue the BID Program and Levy the Annual Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 at the Same Rate as levied in the Fiscal Year 2021-20211 Without Change” and set the date of June 13, 2022, for the Public Hearing on the annual levy of assessments on hotels within the BID and give direction to staff that there will be a meeting no later than June 5.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if that will give staff enough time to include it in the staff report.
Chief Financial Sustainability Officer Carter stated that they will start working on setting up the meeting tomorrow.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that will be part of the action and City Attorney will draft a letter for City Council on exactly what their rights and responsibilities and duties that they have with the BID; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Item #10)
City Council Regular Meeting 34 May 23, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
11. Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations for Council Chambers Renovations PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the City Council Chamber Renovation Project:
A. Accept report from Ad Hoc Committee; and
B. Approve the following actions recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee; a. Approve a project budget of $170,000 from unallocated General Fund Balance. b. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with various contractors to perform project tasks within this amount.
PW Dep. Director Bautista presented the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they could do a virtual remodel which will be cheaper.
Mayor Bier asked if there were any questions.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he has no questions but will have a statement at the end.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor introduced the call-in speaker.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that Council should consider improving the broadcast system as the slides on PCTV are blurry as a priority on the renovation.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to accept the report from the Ad Hoc Committee, approve the following actions recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee to approve the project budget of $170,000 from unallocated General Fund balance, authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with various contractors to perform project tasks within this amount; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
Mayor Bier asked if Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted to say something.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he did, i.e., given that they will be out of the space through July, it will be interesting to see how much they get done between now and then.
Mayor Bier wanted to comment on Mr. Tan’s comment regarding the screen. She was looking at the screen today and it has been blurry the whole time and she was curious if they can talk with PCTV during the time that they are not meeting in person to see what they can do to make it more readable.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Item #11)
City Council Regular Meeting 35 May 23, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
12. Appointments to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission; Beautification Advisory Committee; and Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission: for one partial term to expire May 2024 and two full terms to expire May 2026; 2) Move to appoint one (1) applicant to the Beautification Advisory Committee for a full term to expire March 2026;
3) Move to appoint applicant(s) to the Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee for two full terms to expire May 2026.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she could ask the City Attorney and City Manager a question before they move on to this item. She stated that she wasn’t at the interviews, but she did screen the applications. She wanted to know what the practice is about whether she should abstain or if it is recommended that she vote.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there is no legal reason why she cannot vote if she reviewed the applications and made clear that she feels she has enough information to make a decision, but there is no legal requirement that she interview all applicants, if she feels competent to make a decision.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Hernan Muirragui, Pacifica, stated that he has lived many years in Pacifica, and was local and attended Westmoor High School, stating that he wanted to join the Beautification Committee, providing his experience for being on this committee.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if she could make a motion to do all three at once.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved, for Parks, Beaches & Recreation, they accept Cindy Abbott; for Beautification Advisory Committee, they accept Hernan Muirragui and, for Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee, they accept Arlene Patton.
Mayor Bier stated that, for PB&R, she has to say whether the full term or partial.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it is for the full term; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Item #12)
City Council Regular Meeting 36 May 23, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier stated that, before adjournment, she wanted to inform everyone that this is Mgmt.
Analyst Montemayor’s last night. She thanked him for all his service in the past years. She stated that they will adjourn in honor of him.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wished him well in his next step in his amazing career.
Mgmt. Analyst Montemayor thanked them, and appreciated their comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he did the right choice on the side of a pandemic.
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 10:56 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 6/13/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor