CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86083392833
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 860 8339 2833
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Cable Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 June 27, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
June 27, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on June 27, 2022 at 5:30 PM 5:30 PM - STUDY SESSION
Tree Ordinance Update - Amend Pacifica Municipal Code Chapter 12 - Tree Preservation and Chapter 14 - Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees PROPOSED ACTION: Receive a report and provide input on the Draft Tree Preservation and Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees Ordinances Mayor Bier called the study session to order at 5:34 p.m.
She stated that the study session will be on the tree ordinance update. She stated that study sessions should have a little bit more freedom and she hopes they will be able to hear from others, such as can they promote Tree City Pacifica members to panelist to ask questions. She asked the City Manager if that was okay.
City Manager Woodhouse thought it was Council’s prerogative about promoting people, but they do take public comment on study session items.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that her usual suggestion, as indicated by the City Manager, is that it is clearly up to Council, but they can ask questions of people in the public without moving them up to panelists and that is always okay during public comments, but not allowed during oral presentations when they have oral communications without subjects on the agenda, but when they have an item on the agenda, Council can ask questions of potential commenters with concurrence from the rest of the Council.
Mayor Bier introduced PW Director Lisa Petersen.
PW Director Petersen asked the City Manager if the PowerPoint will be available.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he needs to check whether Management Analyst Alyssa Barranti has the PowerPoint that was submitted and if she can share that, but if not, he can allow PW Director Petersen to share it directly from her computer.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated she will pull it up.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 June 27, 2022
PW Director Petersen stated that she would be joined with PE Dep. Director Bautista, as well as consultants from Davey Resource Group, Allison Steere and Tina McKeand. She then presented the staff report.
Mayor Bier asked if Councilmembers had any questions before they go to public comment.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that previously a Tree person mentioned the pines, and we have them as heritage trees. The tree person said every pine in Pacifica has pine pitch canker.
She asked why they still show them as heritage trees when everyone of them is ill.
PW Director Petersen stated that there are different degrees of pine pitch canker as some trees can have an infection but not something that is imminently killing the trees but there are some that are dying. She stated that is the assessment they do when they take a look at a tree. She stated that there are many Monterey pines and the goal was to not clear cut those trees but evaluated them to see how severe the disease is as it is hard to tell and only an arborist would know.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti announced the speakers.
Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated the Tree City Pacifica reviewed the draft carefully and emailed their request for changes and additions to all Councilmembers on Sunday. She then addressed the highlights of those requests.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked staff on the work they have done on this important issue for the climate and our community. She also appreciated the work Tree City Pacifica has done to analyze and document their requests. She then expressed her thoughts and concerns on this issue and that citizens have the possibility to give input. She also thought the PB&R Commission needs to be a key partner in the process.
Mayor Bier closed public comments. She thought it would be a good idea to go through the ordinance section by section. She stated Tree City Pacifica sent several items and they are lucky to have them as they are spending their time thinking about trees only. She asked if Councilmembers wanted to through the ordinance section by section or start with something else.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he had the email Gail Benton Shoemaker sent them last night, but it is just loading now. He wanted to go through it in those terms and after that the mayor’s process sounds fine.
Mayor Bier stated she went through the ordinance with Tree City Pacifica and she wrote down a lot of the changes section by section and will be happy to do that. She asked Councilmember Beckmeyer for her thoughts on this.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought going through section by section would be great. She appreciated that the mayor met with Tree City Pacifica as she didn’t have a chance to meet with them and she would like her to guide them through the particular points that were impactful and they need to be clear on.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 June 27, 2022
Mayor Bier stated she was happy to do so. She stated that it was nice that they were happy with a lot of it and it shows all the good work our city’s staff has done. She stated that one thing that stood out from the beginning is the number of trees in a grove. She will be happy to discuss ten trees with Council and see how they feel about that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was thinking about recent development that came to them on appeal or were big projects like the one that was parallel to Rockaway Beach Avenue which Cindy Abbott referred to which now has eight trees on the property. She is trying to get a visual of ten trees versus 20 trees and she wondered about the thoughts of the Councilmembers who were on the Planning Commission in terms of a condition for a project to come forward, and their experience with the number of trees in a grove or how often it came up, what kind of workload impact it will be.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, as he had the least amount of planning experience on the Commission, this is when he would turn to the Acting Planning Director Murdock and ask him if he would be kind enough to give them some insight in that vein.
Acting Planning Director Murdock thought the question of how to define and regulate rows of trees is an interesting one, and he can understand the benefits of doing that in favor of tree protection. He thought it was important to look at how grove is defined in this proposed ordinance. He stated that where they would typically encounter a similar type of circumstance under current regulations at the Planning Commission level is when a property owner is proposing to remove 20 or more trees on their home property. He stated that the definition of grove and what number they would set for it, they would have a different set of parameters for how that terms is defined. He stated that it would potentially include trees on another property and not clear whether the protected tree status would kick in if even a single tree in that grove were proposed to be removed and were not. He thinks there needs to be a clearer understanding of the relationship of a particular project and the removal of one or more trees to the overall grove and what the intent of that mechanism is. He thought it would make sense if the entire grove was proposed for removal but, short of that, there was work that needs to be done to clarify the relationship and intent of this ordinance to removal of some smaller portion of the grove.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that made it more confusing for her. She can see that it depends on what is happening. She thought it was not one size fits all, such as 10 trees in one place and 20 trees in another place and if some need to be removed, they need to be removed.
She thought it could be on an individual basis instead of a strict definition.
Mayor Bier thought, when they were talking about this, they were concerned about logging and we wanted to make sure that is addressed and she was happy to put the ten trees in this definition.
PW Director Petersen stated, for clarification of what Mayor Bier said, that this is old language that has been in the logging ordinance for many years and this is just transferring it and putting it into Chapter 12, because the ordinances were very difficult to locate and there is no change, just putting it all in one spot and how it has been utilized in the past 20 years or so that it has been in place, it would be anticipated to be utilized the same way.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked her, stating it makes sense.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it makes it much easier for him to go along with ten trees.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 June 27, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in the spirit of a more flexible study session guidelines, he wanted to pose a question that the consultants could chime in, regarding the work he did with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, forest management practices as sometimes removal of trees is necessary for the overall health and benefit of the rest of the trees in a grove. He stated he has limited experience in that, but he asked a question of PW Director Petersen and the consultants about how they are handling that in the ordinance. He stated that, if they have a grove of trees, it was necessary to remove some in that grove for their health. He questioned how this definition relates to that practice.
Consultant Tina McKeand believes that individual trees can be removed and it does not affect the logging ordinance language which is to prevent the entire grove from being removed and the individual trees would follow the rest of the ordinance.
Mayor Bier referred to the next section which the Tree City Pacifica was talking about was Section 412.04, application for a tree removal permit. She thought it goes back to include the ISA basic tree assessment forms and about 3/4 of the way down the paragraph in A says an arborist report and they would like to add “including ISA basic tree assessment form”. She thought they have mentioned over and over that this is important. She remembers being on the Commission and at her first meeting, they stated that they had a tree appeal. She thought it would make it easier for a lot of people to have that.
PW Director Petersen wanted to provide clarification related to this. She stated that the city currently does request the ISA basic tree risk assessment form in circumstances where they feel that it is needed, but they don’t ask for it in all cases because they don’t always feel it is needed and it is an additional cost. She stated that they have been told from the arborist that the cost for a person to get an arborist report for a tree is going to be anywhere from $400-$600 and, when you ask for the ISA report, you will be adding approximately another $200 to the cost. She stated that it is important to know that and she agrees that they are very important in particular cases but not necessarily required in all cases and, in phase 2, they would be doing the risk assessment policy which will be playing into this same element of the ISA basic tree risk assessment forum.
Consultant McKeand wanted to add more information. She stated that the risk assessment is specific to risk and trees can have another reason why they are failing that may not create a risk and it would be underlined in the arborist’s report. She stated that not every tree would benefit from a risk assessment. She stated that, in her experience, it doesn’t keep arborists from disagreeing as two arborists doing the same risk assessment form may come up with different outcomes.
Mayor Bier stated that she will advocate for it because Tree City Pacifica has been talking about it the entire time in a lot of the sections.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had a clarifying question. He appreciated updating the heritage tree ordinance, but the way he is reading it, it is not connecting in his mind that they are talking about all trees or just heritage trees requiring the ISA report.
PW Director Petersen stated that they are talking about any trees that are under the definition of protected trees which, under that definition, is also heritage tree and that would be any tree 12 inches in diameter or greater, any tree in Pacifica.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 June 27, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, in that context, it is easy for him to go along with the report for those trees specifically. He referred to an appeal, not sure if it was Salada or a neighborhood in Manor where it was “he said” versus “he said” and no definitive report and was a messy appeal hearing because there was nothing definitive. He thought that was one instance in which this definitely would have helped. He stated that these special trees, etc., would require the report and that seems reasonable to him.
Mayor Bier asked PW Director Petersen asked if it offered a point system.
Consultant McKeand stated that it does, adding that part of the challenge is, because the tree is failing, it doesn’t mean it is actually high risk as there are a lot of things that go into risk including targeting the sizes and the part that is likely to fail.
Mayor Bier asked if they have nods to add that in.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they should be clear on exactly what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was saying, as she thought she heard him saying he wanted to include the ANSI for protected trees but not necessarily all trees that are requesting a removal permit. She asked if she has that correct.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that was the context within which they are discussing this.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was a suggestion of the language that was submitted, specifically where the phrase in the arborist’s report appears in the first sentence and restates it in the amendment. She stated at the end, where it says “the applicant must be required to provide plot, plan or survey drawn to scale depicting the trees and any improvement on the property and/or an arborist report”, they would then add the new language to say “including an ISA basic tree risk assessment form will be required for removal of a protected tree.” She reiterated that it was the arborist report including the ISA basic tree risk assessment form will be required for removal of a protected tree.
City Attorney Kenyon added that they aren’t changing it in the general definition section where it would apply to potentially more than just the protected trees.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated under Section 4-12.04, “Applications for Tree Removal Permits”.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, stating she wanted to make that clarification that they are not amending the definition of arborist report.
Mayor Bier stated that, in the next session discussed, the numbers and letters are mixed up, but going down the same sections A, B, C, onto the next page, it says A which she thought was supposed to be D, and the next one says B and she thought it was supposed to be E. She thought staff could change that later. She asked PW Director Petersen if that was correct.
PW Director Petersen agreed. She stated that it was still a draft and they are working on it and some of the numbers are off.
Mayor Bier asked if the one that says B but is E covers groves also to mitigate the adverse effects of tree removal.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 June 27, 2022
PW Director Petersen stated that this one is talking about mitigating adverse effects of tree removal where a tree removal permit is required. She stated that they have typically been saying that, if they are removing a tree and it is under the definition of a protected tree, you need to do the replacement. If you look at the definition of protected trees, under there is any groves of trees.
Mayor Bier referred to after 1,2, 3, it says replacement trees be a minimum of 1.5 inches measured with calipers and unless otherwise approved by the director, and they would like to say, “and/or 15 gallon,” as that is how it is stated in other cities. She asked input from the professionals.
Consultant Allison Steere stated that she can speak to that. She explained that 1.5 inch caliper is a standard measurement in the nursery industry and it makes it so a person could purchase a tree that is a containerized tree, a bare root or a balled and burlap tree and they would all be measured the same way, a standard practice.
Mayor Bier asked if it was okay to add to that and/or 15 gallon.
Consultant Steere thought it was redundant.
PW Director Petersen added that it was important to know that not all 15-gallon trees might be
1.5 inch and you might end up with a smaller tree and that was one of the reasons it was put in there, but ultimately, it was up to Council’s discretion as how they would like that to be.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she wanted to ask about that, i.e., could you have a 15- gallon or 24 inch box with a tiny tree in the middle of it. She thought they were talking about was a tree of robust enough size to be growing quickly and getting an established tree and not a baby one.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought they should leave that one alone as she thinks they are opening a can of worms if you say 15-gallon as it could be anything.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought she heard what Ms. Shoemaker was speaking to was it was more common to the citizens if they are making the ordinance themselves that might be the reason.
Mayor Bier stated that Ms. Shoemaker raised her hand and she asked Council if they were okay hearing from her and the City Attorney if it was okay to do so.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it was as it was a study session and there is much more flexibility in terms of procedure.
Mayor Bier asked and got agreement from Council.
Ms. Shoemaker stated that they have a landscape architect who is part of Tree City Pacifica and they discussed this with him. He said that most of the nurseries that they work with, including the nurseries the city works with, don’t really use that measurement. They use 15- gallon or 24 inch box and maybe there is a way of saying that it must be at least 1.5 inches and a 15-gallon tree so it is easy to work with nurseries. She stated that, while it is only one landscape architect, he has done a lot of work locally.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 June 27, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, when he hears the Planning Commission talk about their various projects, they usually use the nomenclature of a 24-inch box and he sees that as an option.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that 15-gallon, 24 inch box , as stated in the draft, with a minimum tree size of 1.5 inches measured with calipers and the two are integrated to avoid the big box tiny tree situation.
City Attorney Kenyon thought that was a drafting question and they can draft it so that the intent is describe it as a 15-gallon, 24 inch that, at a minimum, must have 1.5 inches measured with calipers. She stated that they will draft that if that is Council’s consensus later as it is not necessary now in a study session.
Mayor Bier asked and thought Councilmember Vaterlaus was okay with that. She then stated that they were passionate about, under No. 5, is that no tree will be removed until a building permit is finalized. She thought they could get some information from PW Director Petersen or Acting Planning Director Murdock about what that means. She asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck if he has any thoughts about that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his initial thought is that he is okay with that language but he would like to hear Acting Planning Director Murdock’s insight.
Acting Planning Director Murdock thought the concept is sensible and there is no point in removing a tree until such time as the project approval is reasonably foreseeable and construction is reasonably perceived to occur. He thought he was asked the question previously, and he explained that there are instances where a grading permit may also need to be issues and sometimes it is requested in advance of a building permit. He stated that trees can get in the way of site grading that is approved and he thought, if there was some accommodation for allowing a building permit grading to occur, that could be a better accommodation, otherwise applicants would be forced to delay their preparatory grading until such time as they also have a building permit and that can have overall project timeline impacts for development.
PW Director Petersen thought they can get Acting Planning Director Murdock’s opinion on, but there is something in the ordinance that states, “while the tree removal application process is underway, the building permit issuance that associated administrative approvals will be delayed until the tree permit decision and any appeals are finished.” She didn’t know if he thought that would allow enough wiggle room that someone could get a grading permit. They sometimes do delay things like finalization of the electrical permits and she asked his thoughts on that.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he would like some time to think about that language in the context of the question as he isn’t sure exactly what a tree encroachment permit means such as it is the same thing as a heritage tree permit application to ensure it would apply to the right sets of circumstances.
PW Director Petersen pointed out that grading itself could be hazardous to any tree that they might want to protect, and it was important to understand that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer certainly didn’t want to put words in Tree City’s mouth but she is now concerned that there is a difference between a building permit and a grading permit, i.e., the mayor mentioned that they are very concerned about making sure this is in there, and they City Council Regular Meeting 8 June 27, 2022
weren’t considering the grading permit as being another step in the process that could have implications for trees. She stated that the building permit is a separate issue. She asked how they rectify it to make sure that the edit is doing what is being requested and why is it being requested, specifically is it accomplishing the purpose for which it was requested.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it would be something along the lines that a tree permit won’t be issued until a grading permit has been issued unless there is no grading permit issued, in which case the tree permit won’t be issued until a building permit is issued.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that something she is asking the Council to think about is that a lot of times when they get these development applications, they are very fact specific and usually these types of conditions would be conditions of approval in the project and they should be.
She stated that they are tailored to the specific needs of that project. She stated that this issue, which she believes they should address, is one that can be addressed through conditions of approval, and she asked Acting Planning Director Murdock what method he thinks would be the best method to address this issue for these projects, i.e., to try to craft one rule in the ordinance.
She appreciated Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s proposed draft, but she asked how that covers all the potentialities that could arise when they are normally dealing with projects that are very careful in how they draft the conditions of approval to address issues just like this that they may not know about until they actually have the application materials in front of them to know what they’re grading, what the building permit’s issue is and what the timing is. She asked him if he has any thoughts on that. She stated that her job is to spot the issue and she did that and she thinks they should hear from him on the potential way to solve the issue.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that there are two types of projects in Pacifica, administrative projects requiring a building permit only and discretionary projects that require certain permits usually approved by the Planning Commission before the city can issue a building permit. He stated that they want to be sure that the approach they take accounts for both types of processes, and it is currently the process that the city will not issue a building permit where a heritage tree permit is required until that permit is received. He also stated that, for a discretionary permit, the city will not issue a building permit until all discretionary permits are granted, including the heritage tree removal authorization. He thought they are looking for a different mechanism, i.e., even if a heritage tree removal permit has been granted, the trees cannot be removed until a building permit is issued. He wasn’t sure that is the exact way he is reading the language and they may want to take a look one more time to make sure it is addressing the actual issue. Once they focus on that, figuring out where to insert grading permits, the Council could tilt the balance in favor of tree protection and not allow any of the trees to be removed until all required development related permits are issues, including a building permit and grading permit. He stated that is not what the potential consequence is, including other valuable public policy interests, such as ensuring grading is done during the time of year where it is least likely to rain and include runoff. He stated that developers are very sensitive to this timeline and are trying to be respectful of the city’s concerns about grading in the rainy season and want to commence their grading, complete it and begin some of the initial stages of construction during that time of year, generally May through September, when they don’t have to take extraordinary measures or get special permission to do so. He stated that there are some interrelated issues in the development process that they need to carefully think through so as to not frustrate other desires of Council related to resource protection.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that part of his read in terms of the request had something to do with the idea that they don’t know that they are going to go through with the project and might City Council Regular Meeting 9 June 27, 2022
start removing trees before they know it is going to actually come to fruition. He stated that is what they are trying to stop from happening.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, to that end, it was possible that a simple provision such as no tree being authorized for removal under a heritage tree removal permit may be removed until all permits required for the development have been issued. He stated that tilts it towards the full protection side and they could possibly spend time thinking about whether that is the right balance and what are the secondary consequences.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, if that were the case, they would want to draft an exception for the circumstances that he mentioned. She stated that this is not something they will be able to draft at this time, and she thinks it is a good idea for Council to deliberate on this concept thoroughly so staff can get an idea of what the consensus is so they can draft something. If possible, they may be able to draft something based on their conversation, but she is not hopeful. She thought it would be very helpful if they can hear Council’s consensus on how they would like to see this dealt with. She stated that the issues clearly presented by Acting Planning Director Murdock are that they could adopt a general rule, as you don’t want to put in so many exceptions that they eviscerate the rule. So, if they want a general rule, they need to keep in mind that they want a general rule without a lot of exceptions. The other issue that she and Acting Planning Director Murdock agree on is that there may be unusual circumstances related to a discretionary development permit application that they may want the grading of the tree to be done before the building permit is issued for various reasons. She stated that they can’t think of them all now, but there may be good, valuable reasons that they will want to allow some exceptions to allow for that, and the question is how broad would that exception have to be in order to cover situations that they can’t even think of at this time. She was wondering if there was a way to address this generally but give Planning staff and Planning Commission and perhaps ultimately Council, if it is ever appealed, to really decide on a case-by-case basis based on the project in front of them, i.e., what is the timing for removal of the tree.
Consultant McKeand stated that, while not discounting any of those comments, she wanted to add a little more information. She stated that part of getting the arborist report on a construction site is to identify the tree protection zone and grading itself can’t harm the roots of a protected tree. She stated that the other consideration is that the way the wording is written now is that it is illegal to harm a protected or heritage tree and you might unknowingly do that if you haven’t gotten an arborist report yet, and regarding grading during the dry season, she understands that as she comes from a construction standpoint as well as an arborist’s standpoint, but causing damage to the root system during the dry part of the year without applying supplemental watering would also be something an arborist would call out as a tree protection specification and could actually kill the tree as well. She stated that the combination of damaging during the roots during the dry season, not providing supplemental watering and not knowing where the tree protection zone is, you may lose trees if they are not protected prior to that.
Mayor Bier thought that was the whole point, to protect them prior to that, which is how she sees it. She wasn’t sure how to deliberate that fully.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it would be appropriate to insert some sort of language about bonding the trees. He didn’t know if the consultant or City Attorney has insight.
Consultant McKeand stated that you can bond a tree. They talked about it in the beginning but they thought it was excessive and likely didn’t fit the needs of your community.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 June 27, 2022
Consultant Steere referred to Section 12.010, tree protection and preservation plan, and stated that No. 7, performance security, whether by security bond, cash deposit or security acceptable to the city shall be required prior to issuing a tree encroachment permit. She thought that might be addressing what he is suggesting.
Mayor Bier didn’t know if they gave direction or not.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she doesn’t have direction.
Mayor Bier stated that they just want to make sure the tree is protected as people can’t take down a tree before their project is full.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the point made by Consultant McKeand, i.e., if you damage the roots during a dry season grading because you didn’t do the watering, you are defeating the whole purpose. She stated that Acting Planning Director Murdock asked what the intent of this and the intent is to protect the trees, and she asked if that means building and grading. She felt it does.
Mayor Bier agreed with her.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if they want to allow the discretion, the exception that the City Attorney was referring to, she thought they would have Planning Commission approval if they brought it forward.
Acting Planning Director Murdock thought it depends on the mechanism that Council builds into the orders. He thought it was possible that a project that would not otherwise go to the Planning Commission might be caught in this situation, i.e., a single-family residence on a hillside lot in the R1 district might not need to go to the Planning Commission but for some exception if that is what Council wanted. He thought the City Attorney mentioned that trying to get some guidance on the range of situations that Council would want to provide some relief to that strict limitation which would make sense. He stated that, unless the timing of the grading would advance other public interests, such as grading within the dry season and there are one or two exceptions they can anticipate that would allow the grading to proceed before issuance of a building permit, but not taking the lid off and having too many exceptions such that it undercuts the intent. He referred to his comments earlier about being aware of the secondary consequences, and to put a finer point on that, he stated that they will often see in medium and large sized projects was that the review involved for the building permit was much more extensive and time intensive than to review for a grading permit in most instances. He stated that the grading needs to be completed before they can begin building in most circumstances.
He stated that, what they will is that the developer will come in quickly to begin review of the grading permit so they can begin grading some months prior to ultimately receiving a building permit. He stated that, if Council would go the “full protection route” and require that both the grading permit and building permit be issued, the practical effect is that projects might be delayed from 3-6 months from when they would otherwise be able to begin that site preparation and grading work. He stated that is the consequence of that type of timing component.
Councilmember Vaterlaus gets the point of this, but the practicality of it doesn’t seem like it is going to happen. She stated that, if you take them on an individual basis anyway, if they start putting these requirements in and a discretionary project will have to go to Planning, it could take them 3-4 years more to go to Planning based on grading and a tree. She stated one size City Council Regular Meeting 11 June 27, 2022
doesn’t fit all and it seems like these are individual processes that could be taken up by the Planning Department, not necessarily in the ordinance.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there is already an arborist report happening in this instance of all the scenarios that they have been talking about.
PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if that could be part of the arborist review, and would they be looking at that, and if they were talking about a tree protection plan, wouldn’t they be taking into account that it is the dry season and it needs to be watered.
PW Director Petersen agreed, adding that they could make sure that, when they are doing that, they are putting something in related to that. It could be part of the review of the arborist report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that was the appropriate place because she can’t think of every possible scenario. She stated that she was comfortable with the arborist report being the extra layer of checking because it will be a specific project being brought forward at a specific time and she thought that is going to be part of their check list.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he would offer some insight into how the development review process actually works. He stated that it is often a lengthy process and they might prepare an arborist report for a proposed removal of heritage trees or grading within a drip line that might necessitate their removal months, if not years, before even knowing when the project would go to hearing and when an approval decision might be granted by the city. He thought it was asking a bit much to expect an arborist at some very preliminary stage in a project before it has even been submitted to the city as the applicant is preparing all of its required informational items to submit to the city to anticipate the timing of when grading might commence relative to the project construction. He thought it makes sense in concept, but he wasn’t sure that, in practice, it would be the right time, unless there was an implementation component post approval secondary validation of the findings and specific construction timing recommendations, but that adds another layer of bureaucracy on to the applicant and the project process.
City Attorney Kenyon suggests what she believes she is hearing to get some confirmation. She stated that she will ask Council a question to see if this is the consensus she is hearing. She stated that Council would like to provide protection for the trees prior to a grading permit issuance and building permit issuance. However, Council is also interested in allowing the Planning Director, at some point, the discretion to determine if an exception to this rule might be warranted based on the particular circumstances of any application before the Planning Director. She stated she was focusing on the discretionary permits, adding that Acting Planning Director Murdock also mentioned non-discretionary permits, and stated that, with regard to the discretionary permits, she would work with the Acting Planning Director to figure out what would be the general health and safety issues that could arise that would warrant allowing a grading permit issuance prior to a tree removal permit, as the grading is not going to occur near the protected tree. She stated that, if that is the consensus, her recommendation is to confirm that with Council and staff will try and craft that language for them, reiterating that they don’t need to craft the language at this time, but needs to get consensus on the direction for this particular provision that they want staff to craft.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought what she just described captures what she is thinking.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 June 27, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought the point of it was that somebody doesn’t take the land prior to getting permits and go and chop down all the trees. She thought that was the whole point of this segment, and then they don’t go through with their project and the trees are cut down.
Mayor Bier thanked her for covering that. She stated that it was 6:47pm and there are a lot of things, but there were two big things they mentioned. One was in the noticing for the appeals, i.e., ten business days instead of ten calendars days.
Councilmember Vaterlaus disagreed. She stated that everything else they have is ten days and it is not like they have to deliver things in person but do it by computer so she thinks they should leave it the same as their other appeal process they have within ten days.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that consistency about appeals processes is important to the city to try to minimize confusion from applicants and appellants.
Mayor Bier thought that was what was going to come back.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was going to go in the opposite direction in that their regular appeals should be ten business days also.
Mayor Bier was thinking of changing it across the board.
Councilmember Beckmeyer likes the idea of not having one thing be different than all the others as they have a confusing enough process as it is and have to constantly remember that for trees it is another fitting.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought, for consistency, they keep it calendar days for the moment but perhaps there is an appropriate time to come back to the question of everything across the board at a later date.
Mayor Bier agreed.
Ms. Shoemaker stated that, in terms of consistency, the current number of days for a heritage tree is seven, and she didn’t think it was consistent with the statement about all appeals being ten calendar days, and they are hoping that they can all be 20 calendar days, but something that has at least two weeks of the offices being open so people who are confused, as now the postings say to go to Santa Maria Avenue. She thought it would be great to be across the board.
City Manager Woodhouse thought Ms. Shoemaker identified one reason they are going through this process to update the heritage tree ordinance and improve things such as the appeals period to be consistent with our other practices, taking it from 7 to 10 days.
Mayor Bier thought they have a consensus about that. She stated the next thing is under violations 412.13, and really stating that it is not only any person violating any of the provisions but and/or business as well.
PW Director Petersen asked to jump in with a clarification. She stated that, the definition says “person shall mean individuals, firm, association, tree removal service, corporation” and it is actually covered under that term.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 June 27, 2022
Ms. Shoemaker appreciated being allowed to speak. She thought it would be very confusing to tree businesses to find under definitions under person that they are included, and where it is not in violations. She stated Tree City Pacifica would not only like to see that tree companies understand they could have fines and fees but there is a possibility they could lose their license, and, in other cities when someone called a tree company and they come, they say they can’t do that without a permit or they lose their license. She stated that propels the homeowner to get a permit. She stated that having this language protects homeowners who know nothing about ordinances because tree companies are diligent about getting permits from homeowners before they start to work.
Mayor Bier asked if there were any thoughts or comments about that. She appreciated that, under the definition, maybe it can be clearer.
PW Director Petersen stated that they can take a look at that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, instead of relying on the definition, they can state it in that section.
Mayor Bier thought that would be helpful.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they will restate it again.
Mayor Bier asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck if he saw anything else in the emails. She thought there was one more she wasn’t seeing fully.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the first one she mentions is 4-12.01 in tweaking some of the language there.
Mayor Bier asked him if she mentions 4-14.07. She stated she has notes but they’re not clear.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that comes later, which is maintenance and preservation of City trees in 14, and they haven’t gotten to Chapter 14.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated 14.07 was the risk form.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she is wrong.
Ms. Shoemaker agreed this is the last big thing that Tree City Pacifica identified under the removal of city trees, the same posting language in Chapter 12 be added to Chapter 14 so the neighbors are notified, posted on the website and the mitigation for removal of city trees be the same 2-1 replacement ratio and it will actually help when City trees come up in front of appeals because this ordinance will define what mitigation should be.
Mayor Bier thought they should talk about that. She agrees about the noticing which should be the same across the board. She asked if PW Director Petersen had a comment on that.
PW Director Petersen stated that talking with the City Attorney’s staff, part of the goal was not to repeat things over and over and that language related to city trees is actually in Section 12 and talks about when city trees are removed you have to have a 2-1 replacement and they have always done the notification and will continue to do it. She stated that, while the City Attorney can also add her comments, their goal is to try to streamline it so everything is not repeated but it mentions city trees under Section 12 related to those elements.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 June 27, 2022
Mayor Bier asked if it was okay to add the notification data in that section again.
PW Director Petersen agreed that they can do that in the replacements if they want.
Mayor Bier thought that would be great, and asked if the Councilmembers agreed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they might not see it if they aren’t reading 12.
Mayor Bier agreed. She stated she had nothing else, and asked Councilmembers if they had anything.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wasn’t sure if Ms. Shoemaker was going to say one more thing before they deliberate on that last point.
Mayor Bier asked Ms. Shoemaker if she had one more thing.
Ms. Shoemaker stated that there are small things in the letter they sent to Council. She thought they have discussed all the big ones. She asked, if they should send it to the consultant, Acting Planning Director Murdock or someone else via the city attorney, that they can let them know or PW Director Petersen and PW Dep. Director Bautista can share it with people. They are grateful for the study session and ability to participate and advocate for these changes.
Mayor Bier thanked them for all the work they have done.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought PW Director Petersen would share with the City Attorney.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she already has and they have been all over it. She stated that it has been shared with everyone and they don’t have to resend anything as they have it all.
Mayor Bier called a break.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the regular meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Late 8:35 PM
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Council Regular Meeting 15 June 27, 2022
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call, noting that Councilmember O’Neill is absent.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Dan Steidle, Police Chief; Ron Myers, Fire Chief; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Ryan Marquez, Assoc. Civil Engineer; Mike Perez, PB&R Director; Alyssa Barranti, Management Analyst; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.
City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having City Council meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361), to conduct necessary business as an essential governmental function as a teleconference meeting with no meeting location open to the public. She also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier then read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck
Closed Session Report
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there was no reportable action from the June 21, 2022 closed session.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Pacifica Resource Center Annual Report
Mayor Bier stated that they will get the Annual Report from the Pacifica Resource Center by Anita Rees.
Anita Rees stated that PRC has been around for nearly 50 years and, during that time, they have continued to support the economic security of families and individuals in Pacifica. She stated that their ultimate vision is that everyone in Pacifica has all the things they need to thrive in this community. Her presentation showed how they served Pacifican families, with groceries, sheltering and support for children and others during the holidays and school supplies for children. She then gave specific details of their programs for providing food, preparing taxes, preparing for the future with access to government supportive programs, providing housing, safe parking permits, etc. She gave details on their plans for future expanded programs and goals for the future. She gave the PRC phone number and contact names for those reaching out to get some of these services.
Mayor Bier thanked her and asked Councilmembers if they had any questions or comments.
City Manager Woodhouse thanked Ms. Rees for the update, and he wanted to clarify the safe parking permit program, i.e., will be limited to eight spaces that have not been appealed in various forms for the initial launch until the appeal hearings are done for the additional five spaces.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked Ms. Rees for being at the meeting. He thought the duplicative numbers can get confusing when you are not a part of the industry and he wanted to focus on City Council Regular Meeting 16 June 27, 2022
the 1 in 7 families that they help as he knows it is not duplicated. He thought it looked more like 1 in 10, not 1 in 7. He thanked her for the extra work she has taken on and the newly developed robust programs and it was amazing to see how PRC is growing to help what is a Bay Area wide crisis that will affect Pacifica. He is grateful that PRC is in our community.
Ms. Rees stated that the 1 in 7 families is unduplicated. She stated that what they have seen between last year and this year is that the number of units of service they provide has more than tripled, although they don’t have the specific numbers yet. She stated that the whole previous year was around 42,000 units of service and this year it is already at 105,000 units.
She stated that, thinking about their small staff, they have found ways to creatively support people as quickly and thoroughly as possible and why they have been able to provide more services.
Mayor Bier asked her if she can define a unit.
Ms. Rees stated that a unit would be that she gave a family of 5 groceries, and that would count as 5 units as it is for each person who has been touched, thus, over 100,000 units of service is definitely duplicated and it points to the breadth of the work they do. When someone comes in for groceries, they don’t leave with just groceries but try to provide as much support as possible.
She stated that groceries is part of their entry point or housing is their entry point, and they make sure they are also connected to groceries and other services.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked her for all she does for people, and as mentioned by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck said, words cannot express how much we appreciate everything they do and the people they help appreciate them as well.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked her and her staff for everything they do in the community.
She always points out the opportunity they provide for people who want to give and give back through the fundraising they do, the activities they have, the fundraising events they have through the opportunity to participate in holiday joy, support the Thanksgiving programs, and back to school programs and she feels there is always an opportunity for everyone at whatever level they wish to participate to support the work of PRC. She knows they are going into a strategic planning phase and she heard her say there is going to be extension services to Pescadero, and she was curious about that. She also asked, if, currently or through their strategic planning process, whether they will be able to report to the community the demographic of people in terms of families, with number of children, children under the age of 5, single parents with students in schools to try, without getting into personal information, getting a picture for the community of the description of those that they are supporting.
Ms. Rees referred to her question about Pescadero, stating it is only for unhoused on the coast outreach work that they are extending through Pescadero. They have been doing that work through Half Moon Bay and when the county requested proposals for homeless outreach work in particular, the requirement was to do all of the coast, not just Pacifica. She stated that when they initially entered, they only applied for Pacifica, and they asked them to do it through Half Moon Bay, and they did that as they are our neighbors, and now they have asked us to go down to Pescadero. She thought the plan is to have one unhoused on the coast staff person to cover south of Pacifica through Pescadero. The need is less than in Pacifica thus one person could cover that geographic area. They are looking for someone who speaks Spanish, given the demographics in that area. She stated that it is a different population and they will connect anyone who is unhoused in those areas to the core agencies there, and they won’t necessarily providing services for them in Pacifica, although some case management will happen here, City Council Regular Meeting 17 June 27, 2022
although it will most likely be in the fields, but the services at PRC will still be 95% for Pacificans and they will be connecting people for the other core agencies for the other types of services they provide in Pacifica. She referred to her point around the demographics, stating that she was happy to provide that as a lot of the information she can already share with the services they provide and she is happy to provide that information in the future. She stated that some things may take more, such as figuring out how many single parents with a school age child is a little bit more than they have the capacity to do, but they can with the right pulling up data.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought it helps people sees that they are neighbors and peers.
They may not be in a position where they are presently needing services, but to be able to have an identification such as their child’s friends to get a different point of view.
Ms. Rees agreed.
Mayor Bier stated that what she sees about PRC is that they give people hope when some people feel hopeless. Having those connections and the services that provide dignity and hope just lead to the next thing for that person. Without that, it is hard to get anywhere and she really appreciates that about PRC and all the services that they have provided for her, her family, her friends, and it is forever important and in her heart. She stated that her relationship with Ms.
Rees was important and she appreciates her professional efforts as well as personally.
City Manager Woodhouse noted there is one hand raised from an attendee if she wanted to do comments.
Mayor Bier stated that she was sorry she forgot about that. She then opened up public comment.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated that there was one hand raised and she introduced the speaker.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that the mayor is forgiven. She wanted to express, along with Council, a big thank you to Ms. Rees. She compared the Resource Center’s increased workload to the canary in the mine, reminding us that we all as a community need as a whole to be watching out for each other. She stated, especially with the housing element coming, they want to strengthen that voice for our community and provide a safe path to help those be permanently housed and strengthen ways to prevent displacement, prioritize ways to increase low income housing. She stated that the work the Resource Center is doing is incredible. She is grateful but we have to remind ourselves that this is an economic recovery from Covid and there are some in our community that are struggling more than others and we need to be aware of that and do what we can.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmember wanted to pull an item. Seeing no one, she stated that they could go to public comment or take a motion first.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they need public comment first.
Mayor Bier opened public comment.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 June 27, 2022
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Tony Williams, Pacifica, stated that he is hoping to get an opportunity to speak on an issue at Seaweed Cannabis Dispensary in Rockaway that they are dealing with planning.
Mayor Bier explained that they were on the agenda where they are commenting on a consent Items 1 through 10. She stated that oral communication will be coming up. She stated that he can raise his hands during oral communications as they want to hear what he has to say.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, had a question on Item 3, the handrails on the pier. She was surprised to read that GHD’s estimate for the work was $750,000 and we only got one bid for $3.2 million, a big difference and she looked on the website but there was no information so she expressed her thoughts on trying to understand the process and get clarification to a possible discrepancy.
Mayor Bier closed public comment.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it would be helpful to ask the question they received and get a response from staff in the discrepancy.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the item on consent is rejection of bids, as there was only one bid and much more than the engineers’ estimate and leads to the recommendation to reject the bids. He stated that staff is in the process of evaluating the potential reasons for why the one bid received was so high and looking at the process for rebidding the project. He thought Assoc. Civil Engineer Marquez may not have any more to add.
Mayor Bier asked if Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was happy with the answer.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was.
Mayor Bier asked if there are any questions or comments about the consent items and, if not, she asked for a motion.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Councilmember O’Neill)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ABSENT: O'Neill
1. Approval of Disbursements for 5/01/22 through 5/15/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 5/01/22 through 5/15/22.
2. Cancellation of July 25, 2022 City Council Meeting
City Council Regular Meeting 19 June 27, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve cancellation of the July 25, 2022 regular City Council meeting.
3. Rejection of Bid for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair Project PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Reject the Bid for the Pacifica Pier Handrail Repair Project.
4. FY 2021-22 Street Asphalt Base Repair Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Change Order #2 for the FY 2021-22 Street Asphalt Base Repair Project
5. Adoption of a resolution to certify the approval of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to enter into this transaction with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services for the purpose of providing Child Care and development services and to authorize the designated personnel to sign contract documents for fiscal year 2022-23, the Continued Funding Application, and all related contract documents.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving Agreement to This Transaction with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Social Services for the Purpose of Providing Child Care and Development Services and to authorize the Designated Personnel to Sign Contract Documents for Fiscal Years 2022-23.”
6. Agreement to terms with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $157,248 for the 2022-2023 school year.
PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to sign the 2022-2023 contract with the Pacifica School District for rental space for Child Care services in the amount of $157,248, an amount which is included in the 2022-2023 budget
7. Second Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company, by increasing the contract amount by $100,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $220,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.
8. Approving the professional services agreement between the City of Pacifica and Teri Black & Company, LLC., the executive recruiting firm and direct the City Manager to execute a contract for services.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the Resolution approving Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant Services Agreement dated May 5, 2022, to Teri Black & Company, LLC to continue the executive recruiter services; approve budget authority not to exceed $63,400; and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to this project, based on the attached proposal (Attachment 2).
9. Adoption of “An Ordinance Amending Article 1 Within Chapter 1, “City Council” Of Title 2 Of the Pacifica Municipal Code Relating To Rules And Procedures For City Council Meetings“ (Status: CEQA Exempt)
City Council Regular Meeting 20 June 27, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt by Title Only and Waive further reading of “An Ordinance Amending Article 1 Within Chapter 1, “City Council” Of Title 2 Of the Pacifica Municipal Code Relating To Rules And Procedures For City Council Meetings” and finding the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.
10. Adoption of Ordinances adding Sections 7-2.214 (Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee) of Title 7 and Chapter 21 (Construction Vehicle Impact Fee) of Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code
PROPOSED ACTION:
1. Move to Adopt by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Establishing a Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
2. Move to Adopt by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Establishing a Construction Vehicle Impact Fee and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Bier opened Oral Communications.
Tony Williams, Pacifica, stated he wanted to speak to an issue they are dealing with at Seaweed Holistics in Rockaway. He explained the problem and their efforts to fix the problem regarding the city’s front window requirements and offered their request for help from Council.
Mayor Bier thanked him for bringing that issue to them, then closed Oral Communications.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she attended a lot of events but wanted to address one item. She attended an all-day meeting on Saturday and wanted to let Pacificans know they care about Pacifica and not spend their whole day in a meeting and get berated by the public. She was disappointed in the behavior of some individuals during that meeting as they do this for all of them. She appreciated that they don’t try to beat Council up as it is not fair.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he would follow up with something he heard at Cal Cities last year which stuck with him, a phrase recommended that “I cannot hear you when you are yelling at me.” He stated that at any point in time, some of them are able to hear loudness better than others but, generally, even if he can hear it, he hears it better when he doesn’t have to hear through it. He again shared his feeling with Ukraine as he watches the war which is heartbreaking. He attended the Emergency Preparedness meeting where they got an update on Mori Point and the Commission is getting excited about putting a tent at Fog Fest and giving the community information about preparedness. He stated the next meeting is July 20. They also pointed out that Connect with Pacifica has a lot of good information about things in terms of emergency preparedness and he recommends it. He was the delegate at the ABAG general assembly conference and business meeting which was strongly about housing, discussing the Bay Area Housing Financial Authority potentially putting a $1 billion measure on a future ballot to try and help housing for preservation, production, etc. and discussed if it’s a good idea and how to best go about it. They were talking about looking at the Regional Housing Needs Allocation numbers (RHNA) were allocated and how they need to reassess how they distribute those numbers for the next cycle. Given how large Pacifica’s numbers were, he listened as they City Council Regular Meeting 21 June 27, 2022
made the recommendation. He sent a letter to city staff as Mayor Bier brought up the notion that they could bump their inclusionary ordinance up to 20% and after doing his study, he went through his notes and John Dugan of San Carlos speaking at the ABAG meeting in terms of deed restricted housing, instead of being capped at 45 or 55 years, but going on in perpetuity.
He then wrote a letter to staff about the best time to have that discussion, which might be during the housing element and definitely during goal setting. He stated that it was a robust housing discussion for several hours. He attended the city Democrats meeting where Tom Piccolotti, Director of North Coast County Water District spoke and they can expect an 11% water reduction as we are not getting much rain. He learned a lot about desalinization and it seemed to be an area where he was interested about its potential as a solution. He learned something about the purple pipe recycle water program and how you can go to NCCWD building and get some water to take home for flowers, etc. He tuned in to both of the Planning Commission meetings this week on the Sharp Park Specific Plan. He stated that the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting was going on during the Thursday meeting and he will be playing catch up for about two hours of that meeting. He stated, at the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting, there was an RFP that went out for the 15 public photovoltaic projects which includes our solar project on the Civic Center building and they just put out that RFP and that will hopefully be approved soon and we will get solar power for a city building. They approved the budget and made sure that our energy rates would shift on July 1 and will remain 5% under that which PG&E offers. They received a REACH code update and they will have a REACH code discussion in the future as they should be releasing those updates too. He attended the meeting on Saturday. He had the honor of attending the Constitution Sunday which they put on every year on the Sunday before the 4th of July at Holy Cross Lutheran. He was compelled to attend, as Quentin L. Kopp spoke.
In absence of Captain Glasgo, he was asked to read the Gettysburg Address which gave him the opportunity to meditate on a lot of the very interesting energy they are seeing in our country lately and he boiled it down to that freedom has something to do with protecting each other’s rights and when we are in the practice of protecting each other’s rights we do not need to work as hard to protect what we think our rights are, that is, common respect which seems lacking lately in national discourse. He enjoyed a free concert in Stern Grove on Pride Day. Earlier on this day, he went to the One Shoreline meeting and they passed their budget. He mentioned meeting a couple of times with Jeremy, the VP of the Fire Union and they asked him to give a shout out to those on Valdez who banded together as a neighborhood when there was a fire going on at Pacifica’s Pride Day on June 4, and the neighbors were outside and were able to assist in the logistics of the fire department as they put out a fire and it was a beautiful community moment and the Fire Department asked him to shout out to Valdez for being present in that moment.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she won’t restate anything on events she and Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck attended together, but regarding the independent yesterday, Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck did not read the Gettysburg Address but delivered it. It was amazing, especially how she learned he came to be asked to step in and do that five minutes before he did it and it was nicely done. She stated that the Mayor read the Declaration of Independence and it was very well done. She stated that she could be proud of that as she was. She enjoyed the day. She stated that Rev. Nibbe likes jazz and he always has jazz musicians but being that jazz is such a unique American art form, and it is fitting. Regarding the NCCWD presentation at the Democrats’ meeting, she stated Chair Picolotti was there and gave a great overview of different capital projects that they are doing and Mayor made great points about opportunities for communicating and collaborating and she thought it might be nice in the future, if possible, to invite them to come and have a presentation at Council or have a joint meeting of some kind to hear about the projects going on in Pacifica and become more informed and share information.
She attended a subcommittee with Cosmat which is the company working on our Economic City Council Regular Meeting 22 June 27, 2022
Opportunity studies, along with Councilmember O’Neill, staff and consultants, to get ready for that project to launch. She had a study meeting with a citizen who has been helping her with things involved in the Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee and gave her information on a meeting she missed regarding REACH codes, so she is prepared when they have an oncoming meeting with Peninsula Clean Energy. She referred to their previous meeting and commended Mayor Bier on doing a great job with running that meeting which was a significant investment of time.
Mayor Bier enjoyed her time at Holy Cross the previous day with Pastor Nibbe, adding that she was blown away at the meeting with Quentin Kopp. She watched the Planning Commission meetings in preparation for their General Plan meeting on Saturday, and she has spent most of her time in the past couple of weeks preparing for that. She attended the Pacifica School volunteers meeting. She also attended the Eagle Scout ceremony Sunday and there were three sets of siblings which made her emotional being there and listening to their process and how much they care about how they present themselves in the world and help our community. That was followed by a meeting of the United Against Hate meeting with Congresswoman Speier.
She stated that [Millbrae] Councilmember Fung was there and spoke about what happened to him and there were other attendees who talked about resources in the county.
Assemblymember Kevin Mullin also spoke. She stated that it was amazing to be there, but it was sad and frustrating as well. She had heard about the Pride flag burning at Sunset Ridge, and after their wonderful Pride celebration, hearing about the flag burning and then attend the meeting held by Congresswoman Speier blended together and emotional, adding the ruling against Roe v Wade which has made everything so heavy. She stated that, in response to the flag burning, they are having a unity event and collaborating on that with Coast Pride and Pacifica School District at Sunset Ridge School the following day from 5-6 pm, with many people coming to share a few minutes each and the Pacifica Library will be there with a popup library with different kinds of books and literature. There will be face painting and some goodies to show people that no matter what, we are standing together in solidarity which is about love.
She appreciated having the opportunity to respond in a way like that which we couldn’t do without Coast Pride. She has learned so much from them in the past few months and she appreciates what they are doing for us.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse referred to the Unity event theme mentioned by Mayor Bier and stated that years ago Pacifica joined the Stand United Against hate campaign and they created posters which he will take to that Unity event to hand them out to anyone who is interested in putting them in their business or residence. He stated that he wrote in Connect with Pacifica announcing that Fox 2 KTVU, will be featuring Pacifica on July 29 in their Zip Trips programs which they relaunched post-Covid. He stated that it was an exciting opportunity for Pacifica as they will come and do an hour long live broadcast. He wanted to mention that they are currently conducting a survey so community members can give input on the hidden gems and special places in Pacifica and they want to hear from everyone. He didn’t have the website link but if they google zip trip Pacifica survey 2022, it comes up and they can key in on that survey to let them know your favorite cafes, restaurant, hike, etc. He stated that they have been so busy and he hasn’t had much opportunity to do one thing he loves to do is leadership, and on Wednesday, he will be on a panel with city managers presenting and talking with the San Mateo County Leadership Consortium for their public sector leadership program and all San Mateo County cities have employees who participate in the consortium. He stated that it was exciting and energizing to talk to our future leaders.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 June 27, 2022
Mayor Bier asked if this was the last meeting when they will have Police Chief Steidle.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is Chief Steidle’s last Council meeting with Pacifica.
Mayor Bier thought maybe they should tell him how much they appreciate him.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, typically for retiring employees of long tenure like Chief Steidle, the Council does do proclamations, but they didn’t have that scheduled for this meeting, but they do plan to schedule that for a future Council meeting. He was sure he would probably be pleased to come and receive any positive comments.
Mayor Bier stated that he has done so much for all of us for so long and she is so grateful for all he has done for the city and how supportive of their prevention work and she learned so much from him on that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she is going to miss him as well, adding that his sense of humor is amazing. She thanked him for being here and for everything he has done for Pacifica.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked him and stated that she has commented before about her appreciation for the family atmosphere he created in PPD and the standards he set. She stated that is something that persists, and having culture that is imbedded is what carries forward and is his legacy.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he is confident with the idea of finding someone who is going to be able to get the respect, thought and care to our community that he has risen to, but he don’t know how it is going to happen. He stated that Chief Steidle has presided over a time in which it is very difficult, from the remnants of a tragedy in Pacifica and making sure we are able to address mental health as well as dealing with a national conversation that brings people out who vary between having legitimate concerns about their own community and coming from a great deal of fear stemming from a national issue that they want to make sure our community navigates through to be sure our community is addressed and unite. He stated that the first time he clued in to who he was happened when he brought up the spirit of the law and he has revisited that with him as he is a man who goes to the spirit of the law over a sense of rigidity of the law at the detriment of our community, adding that he always keeps in mind the spirit with which our officers are supposed to serve and has been invaluable and sincerely loved by this Council and irreplaceable and he is grateful.
Mayor Bier stated that it would be wonderful if they could hear him, but it is okay that he heard them. They will see him before he goes. She then reminded everyone to be safe on the 4th of July, adding that they will have a lot of fun at Frontierland Park.
Councilmember Vaterlaus added, no illegal fireworks.
Mayor Bier asked if they needed a break before going to the first public hearing, and she concluded that they were okay with moving on.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal City Council Regular Meeting 24 June 27, 2022
Authorization, and Recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, filed by Brendan and Eamon Murphy, for construction of a three-building mixed-use project with 3,165-square feet (sf) of commercial floor area and 19 residential units, and associated condominium subdivision, at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420). The proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment would have city-wide applicability and allow residential uses to be established either in the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor or in residential-only buildings on a site that also contains a commercial use (horizontal mixed-use) with approval of a use permit.
Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2016-004).
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to DENY the appeal, UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, and recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, and APPROVE the revised project by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, and the conditions of approval and MMRP in Exhibits A and B to the Resolution, respectively; and to INTRODUCE, WAIVE the first reading, and READ by title only, an Ordinance included as Attachment B and entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica approving Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21 to rezone property to the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district, to add certain residential uses as conditionally permitted uses in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district; and to approve a development agreement with certain public and private benefits including off-site improvements, to allow construction of a mixed-use commercial and residential project consisting of 3,165 square feet of commercial area and 19 residential condominiums at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162- 420).”
Acting Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse added that, regarding staff’s changed recommendation at this time, Acting Planning Director Murdock did reach out and speak directly with both the appellant and the applicant.
Mayor Bier asked for a consensus and asked the City Attorney if she had something to say.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she thought they needed her, but they clearly don’t.
Mayor Bier stated that they needed a general consensus from Council before going on.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, given the strong staff recommendation to continue the hearing and if Council agrees with that recommendation, she would recommend that, if they have a consensus to continue it, the mayor open public comments and provide the public with their City Council Regular Meeting 25 June 27, 2022
opportunity to speak but, since the topic of discussion is to continue, they ask the commenters to keep their comments to the issue of the continuance rather than getting into the substance since it will be clear that, after the consensus, the Council will not be considering the appeal at this meeting.
Mayor Bier thought they have a consensus to do so, but she wanted to be very clear on how this is going to move forward because the last time it was difficult for them. She asked Acting Planning Director Murdock if the appellant was clear about everything and, if not, that they take time to make sure she is.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, as mentioned by the City Manager, he spoke with the appellant earlier in the afternoon and his impression is that she understands and acknowledges the reason for the continuance but had intended to make a brief remark during the time afforded to the appellant.
Mayor Bier agreed. She then opened up public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Leo Leone, Pacifica, stated that he fully supports the continuance, adding that there is good reason that staff made such a recommendation and they will have time to pursue the details and will be getting into them going forward.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that she hoped she wasn’t overstepping what she is not supposed to say. She felt it was an exciting potential for these parcels to create low income housing, sharing her thoughts on the issue. She was glad Council will continue the appeal hearing to do the best to create low income housing.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he supports the continuance, adding that they have been forced into rushing a lot of things so he felt it was appropriate to take the time necessary to get it right.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated that Stan Zeavin would be speaking for the appellant, Margaret Goodale.
Ms. Goodale stated he was not speaking on this issue.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they should ask the City Clerk to move the appellant up as a panelist as she does get 15 minutes as well as the applicant, should they want to speak.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that her duration is 10 minutes.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed.
Mayor Bier asked if there were any other speakers.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated that Stuart Welte’s hand was raised.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that Mr. Welte is the applicant.
Mayor Bier thanked the speakers and she then invited the appellant to speak.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 June 27, 2022
Margaret Goodale, Appellant, stated that she supports the continuance, especially following the recent court decision. She stated that getting in compliance with CEQA is very important and the court decision says the foremost principle under CEQA is that the legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such a manner for the fullest possible protection to the environment within a reasonable scope of the statutory language and with narrow exceptions, CEQA requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve or carry out a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. She stated that they should not wait for another court case and get an EIR and use the time profitably and stop pussyfooting around.
Mayor Bier concluded that they are not asking questions at this time.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they need to ask the applicant if they would like to speak.
Mayor Bier stated that her list of the agenda said questions came next, but she wasn’t sure.
She stated that they would like to hear from the applicant.
Stuart Welte, Applicant, stated he was one of the architects for Environmental Innovations in Design as well as another architect , Mark Wommack, present as well, but he didn’t need to speak. They were happy to use the time between now and the next available scheduled date to speak further with the appellant, Ms. Goodale, and her biologist. He stated that they have evolved with two biologists hired by the applicant as well as the CEQA team who reviewed reports and studies and subcontracting biologist by CEQA consultants, thus, many biologists involved in the project. He stated that they have made a huge effort to allow a large portion of the site, almost 50%, to be allowed to remain as is and worked to provide a project that does has affordable housing and a contribution to that affordable housing program. He stated that this could be an example how everyone can live together, wetlands, affordable housing, etc., integrated into the existing fabric of the area. He thanks them for continuing and they look forward to seeing all of the at the appropriate time and reach out with Ms. Goodale to find time with her and/or her group to speak about the project in the meantime.
Mayor Bier confirmed with City Attorney that she can close public hearing.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to continue the item to a date to be determined; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Councilmember O’Neill)
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ABSENT: O'Neill
12. Conduct Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Annual Report from the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District as modified by City Council, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting 27 June 27, 2022
Program Expenditures, and Assessing the Levy for the Fiscal Year 2022-23 at the same rates as in the Fiscal Year 2021-22.
PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Conduct the Public Hearing
2) Rule on Oral and Written protests, if any; and
3) Adopt a resolution approving the annual report of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Board, as amended, and continuing the assessments levied in 2021-22 without change in Fiscal Year 2022-23.
Asst. City Manager Carter presented the staff report.
There were no public comments.
Mayor Bier stated they were open to questions from Council.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated she would make a motion.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they must first check with the Asst. City Manager or City Clerk to formally confirm there were no protests.
City Clerk Coffey was not aware of any protests that have been received, and they can confirm that with Asst. City Manager Carter.
Asst. City Manager Carter was not aware of any protests received.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to approve the BID as presented; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Councilmember O’Neill)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ABSENT: O'Neill
CONSIDERATION
13. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City a Ballot Measure Regarding a ½ Cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax for General City Revenue Purposes and Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City’s General Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City a Ballot Measure Regarding a ½ Cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax for General City Revenue Purposes and Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City’s General City Council Regular Meeting 28 June 27, 2022
Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services.
A Transactions and Use Tax is a General Tax that requires a 2/3 majority vote of the City Council (4 out of 5 Councilmembers) to be placed on the ballot and a simple majority vote (50% + 1) of the voters to pass. Tonight's action by the City Council, if adopted, would place the proposed revenue measure before the voters of the City of Pacifica for their consideration.
Mayor Bier called for a 5-minute break, then reconvened the meeting. She then welcomed Councilmember O’Neill to the meeting at 8:35 pm for the Consideration Item #13.
City Manager Woodhouse introduced Asst. City Manager Carter and Brian Moura, Sr. Advisor from RGS as well as City Attorney Kenyon for any questions that relate to the city attorney’s purview. He then began the staff report.
Mr. Moura continued the staff report.
City Manager completed the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if that chart stated that Brisbane was bringing in $2 million per year with their half cents sales tax.
Mr. Moura stated that, what Brisbane is going to put on the ballot in November are two different measures, first, a half-cent sales tax that they don’t have now but will be the ninth city with Pacifica potentially being the tenth if such measures were put on the ballot and passed. He stated that Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck is correct that they are estimating that a half-cent transaction and use tax in Brisbane would bring in $2 million. He stated that the other item they are putting on the November ballot is a new business license tax for hotels. He stated that Brisbane currently collects 14% on their transient occupancy tax but their view of the transient occupancy tax is that is something the people who rent the hotel rooms pay, not the hoteliers.
They are saying that they believe that the hoteliers should pay a business license tax and they are proposing a new business license tax of $2.50 per room per day for hotels, motels and Airbnb or anyone leasing out rooms. Those are the two measures they put on Brisbane’s ballot at their most recent Council meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if that was $2 million for both measures combined or just for the half cent.
Mr. Moura stated it was just for the half cent. The business license tax would be an estimated additional $250,000.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was amazed when he saw that number because Brisbane’s population compared to Pacifica is tiny.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Brisbane has a significantly different commercial and industry base than Pacifica and some of that tax might be coming from that sector.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought that made more sense. He then stated that Council has the benefit of reading staff reports and attending several meetings on the same topic and he knows City Council Regular Meeting 29 June 27, 2022
not everyone in the audience has the same benefit. He stated that they briefly touched on the $2.6 million that they currently get from 1% versus the $2.6 million they would be getting from the half cent. He asked if they could take a moment so that the community is thoroughly informed of how it is possible that a half cent and one cent would both equal $2.6 million. He also asked for more information about leakage and how, at the end of the day, they equate.
Mr. Moura stated that, as indicated on the earlier slide, the difference between a sales tax and a transaction and use tax is that the sales tax is based on the point of sale which means it is based on transactions that occur in the city of Pacifica. In a transaction and use tax, it is based on where the goods are delivered. As a result of that, the basis of the transaction and use tax is different. They found, in reviewing the potential measure with HDL which is Pacifica’s sales tax consultant, Pacifica has a considerable amount of what is called sales tax leakage which, in layman’s terms, means a lot of retail transactions among Pacifica residents don’t occur among Pacifica merchants but at merchants in places like Colma, Daly City, South San Francisco and San Bruno. To the extent that the half cent transactions tax is able to capture some of those transactions, particularly as it relates to things like online sales, purchases of vehicles, etc., that is the reason the city will get approximately $2.6 million from the half cent transaction tax which roughly equals the amount of money they are getting from the 1% point of sales tax.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he started hearing in the background the music that plays when PCT is in hiatus. He asked if everything is okay with PCT now.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would check with the IT staff monitoring that.
City Attorney Kenyon thought they should go on until they know that it isn’t working.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated that they have gone over all of this thoroughly, but he wanted to make it crystal clear how they are coming to this conclusion for the community, so he asked them to go over the half cent in relation to the county and how, if we don’t take up that half cent slack, that is the only half-cent available that the county might take it instead and rendering Pacifica unable to have this opportunity again in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Moura stated that he is correct, adding that it also relates to a question that may come up from residents who will recall that, a number of years ago, Pacifica placed a one cent sales tax on the ballot and that is no longer a choice that they have because, in California, the total amount of transaction and use taxes in any given county is limited to 2%. What has happened over the last several years that there have been a number of county and countywide transaction and use tax measures, both from the county and from the County Transportation Authority, to the point where there is only a half cent of capacity left. He is correct that it is possible that, down the road, Transportation Authority, County or someone else could take that half cent they are talking about now. He stated that it also explains why the eight cities they showed on the earlier table can only raise either a quarter cent or half cent sales tax in this county whereas, if they look at the transaction and use tax proposals in other counties going on the November ballot, they will see three-quarters or one cent by cities in other counties. That is because, in their counties, the county and the TA has not yet used up the additional capacity.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that PCT is up and running.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck heard the music stop in the background. He appreciated the information. He then asked the City Manager to remind them about what kinds of personnel cuts or service cuts they are looking at if they don’t pass this half cent measure.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 June 27, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that information previously provided to City Council, and is in this staff report as well, and they did is, hypothetically, if you took the $2.7 million structural deficit and divided it evenly across departments, which is not necessarily how policy decisions would be made about budget cuts, but if you did divide those across all of the departments, you would be looking at a 6% cut and, based on the average salary and benefits for different categories of employees, hypothetically you would be looking at a cut of two position from general government, five positions from Police, three positions from Fire, two positions from Planning and Building, two positions from Public Works and two positions from Parks, Beaches and Recreation. He stated that Pacifica, based on a 2019 study update, averages over all departments, about 23% lower staffing than comparable jurisdictions in our area, and we are already at a skeleton level of employees and those cuts would be devastating to services to the public.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that, what they are talking about for a half cent sales tax is raising $2.6 million for up to a $2.7 million deficit that we are projecting, and even if we successfully pass this half cent measure, we are still $100,000 shy of where we would like to be to break even.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, based on today’s projections, regarding to prudent expenditure containment and economic development efforts, all are very important to this threelegged stool of balancing operational budget and they would, as currently, work very hard on economic development to bridge that $100,000 gap.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his next question for either City Attorney or City Manager is regarding packet page 1254. He thought placing a general revenue measure on ballot, which he thought they have to do during an election year unless, in case of an emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the City Council, and he took it to mean that, on staring at a $2.7 million deficit, if it should happen not to go through this year, and they are looking at a position in which they need to let go of five police officers, three firefighters, many staff members and then next year they look at that and think that they either do that or try and put it on the ballot in an off year, and if all Councilmembers agree on that, they could do that again next year if they determine that it is a big emergency and they tell everyone that it is an emergency again this year and would it be an option in a worst case scenario.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that it would require a resolution setting forth what the basis of the financial emergency is.
Mayor Bier asked if there were any other questions, and seeing none, she opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated that there were no hands raised.
Mayor Bier closed public comment and brought it back to Council.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he just saw a hand pop up.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, thanked the City Manager for seeing her hand. She was positive on the need for this revenue and understands the issues around the structural deficit and asked for City Council Regular Meeting 31 June 27, 2022
clarification on why it needs a majority rather than a two-thirds majority vote, and mentioned her thoughts and questions on the issue, in addition to needing a Plan B or C as not many people are planning to vote for it.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that Pacifica is one of the last cities to put a tax measure on the ballot and we are at the end of the road on this, and shared his thoughts on the serious consequences of this issue if not passed.
Mayor Bier closed public comments. She thought it would be good to answer some of the questions, such as why is it 50% plus one.
City Attorney Kenyon referred to why it is a simple majority, it is a general purpose tax, not a special tax which requires a two-thirds vote and is specifically designated for a specific purpose such as police, fire, street paving, and the only purpose, but this is general tax and going into the general fund for all municipal services. If none of the fund revenues are being designated for any specific purposes but a general purpose, it is just a majority vote. She asked if the Mayor wanted her to touch on the campaign issue which is a legal issue and not just a Council decision, as there is a legal prohibition on Council that, once they place the measure on the ballot, the city is prohibited from organizing any campaign. What they can do, and she is certain that staff will do, is provide informational material only and respond to questions regarding the tax and what it will be used for, etc.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have had a lot of meeting about this, and his questions have been covered and articulated by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he had something that resembles a question and he is throwing it out for Council consideration and is doing it to accentuate the fact that, on the County level, that half cent can be taken away from us. He then referred to page 1262, the third whereas, where it says the city wishes to maintain vital local services and local control with funding that cannot be taken by the state to address community needs and priorities. He interpreted that as the county could take that half cent away from them if the measure were passed on the county level so he proposed that it be tweaked to say “state and county”. He wants to accentuate the fact that, if they don’t use it, the County can use it on theirs.
Councilmembers were in agreement with that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to packet page 1272, there is a feature that, if passed, there is a citizen’s oversight committee written into it which says, “although not otherwise required by state law, the city council shall, by resolution adopted before the operative date of this chapter, establish a citizens’ oversight committee to review the revenue and expenditure of funds from the tax imposed under this chapter. The members’ terms and qualification, and duties and scope of the committee, shall be as established by the resolution.” He stated that it reminded him of our engage community city goal which includes creating opportunities to expand public participation, increase communication and build community. He thought that was an opportunity where they know tax isn’t a popular thing but we need it or things will not be good and they are giving the community the opportunity say exactly how the money is spent to ensure that, not only is it needed, but being spent in all the right places and doing it voluntarily.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that no one likes a tax, but it was important to keep in mind what they are supporting, i.e., their city. She stated that, when she thinks about first responders, she thinks about our police, fire and EMTs and also about our Department of Public City Council Regular Meeting 32 June 27, 2022
Works. She stated that they are the ones who come out when a tree falls in the middle of the night and the thought of eroding those services in any way is terrifying to her as the work they do is essential and they help to make our community what it is and the idea of losing positions for her is devastating. And, considering our weather impacts on our community, such as last year, she knows the funds will go where the ballot says they will go as that is where we spend our money. She stressed that is our people and staff and that’s what keeps our city great. She doesn’t love the idea of a tax and is very sensitive to the timing, but the city needs support as it is going into a significant structural deficit. She can’t comment on the reverse and nature of the tax, but she thought Mr. Moura may have something to add, such as an example of a purchase of $100 or $200, as she filled her car with gas the other day and it was $100. She gets that it is real, and she wondered if he can put it in context of what a half cent means in TUT.
Mr. Moura stated that it would be an additional half cent on items that are received in Pacifica and where they would pick up the additional revenue on online sales, vehicle sales where they don’t get the 1% sales tax because Pacifica doesn’t have auto dealers such as in other cities.
In terms of whether it is a progressive or regressive tax, he thought they could argue both sides of that point.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thinks that people forget that the gas went up and we pay that too as well as all the city’s employees. They need to keep their employees and pave our streets, and they need everyone they have now and they will have to keep going forward. They can’t go backwards or pay less for the things they need to purchase and they are doing their best for Pacifica.
Mayor Bier feels the same way, and doesn’t see another way now so this is what they need to do. They have talked about it, as mentioned by Councilmember O’Neill, and they don’t have a lot to add except that it is exactly what they need.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was thinking about Councilmember Beckmeyer’s question early, stating that out of $100 it is 50 cents, which puts it into perspective for him.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City a Ballot Measure Regarding a half cent Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax for General City Revenue Purposes and Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City’s General Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to provide Election Services with a slight amendment to the third whereas in the resolution and county as discussed; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Councilmember O’Neill then left the meeting at 9:23 pm.
City Council Regular Meeting 33 June 27, 2022
14. Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Operating and Capital Budget.
PROPOSED ACTION: Hold a public hearing, review and move to adopt the following resolutions:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the FY 2022-23 Operating and Capital Budget;
2. Adopt the FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program appropriation of $1.205 million from the Roy Davies Trust Fund by 4/5 vote
3. Adopt the resolution establishing GANN Appropriation Limit for FY 2022-23;
4. Adopt the resolution approving the City's annual review of the Investment Policy included as Exhibit A to the resolution, with no changes for FY 2022-23; and
5. Adopt the resolution approving the City's FY 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule as included as Exhibit A to the resolution.
City Manager Woodhouse thanked Asst. City Manager Carter for the effort she has put into this budget, as well as the entire finance team, and a huge list of acknowledgements that they will see in the budget book his transmittal memo with a paragraph that is called acknowledgments with a significant number of staff and effort that went into this. He stated that the other aspect of the budget book they will see this year, thanking Asst. City Manager Carter and Mgmt. Analyst Barranti, as well as others in Finance, is that they evolving the quality of the city’s budget book towards GFOA awards of excellent standards, and there is a significant amount of data and other documents in there in addition to the most important thing which is the quality of work of the budget and the balancing and the budget book as a product has improved significantly which has taken a lot of time, particularly Asst. City Manager Carter’s time, and he now will let her guide them through the presentation.
Asst. City Manager Carter thanked him for his kind words, then presented the staff report.
There were no public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the City Manager did an exceptionally good job hiring Asst.
City Manager Carter for their team. He then stated that her work was a sight to behold, and he thanked her for all her work in collaboration with the entire city staff.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the City Manager mentioning the budget book, and she wanted to show the public what the budget book looked like. She stated that the format to which he referred to was that there were lots of graphs and charts that aren’t just numbers they have seen in the past, and she referred to packet page 1350 regarding department work programs, which has a narrative on what each department does and what their projects and priorities are. She stated that, while many people think budgets are too much, if you look at the numbers, such as the City Manager referring to the layout changes, it is a description of all the restricted enterprise funds and specifically states what each one is and what it is for, and the capital improvements budget is very interesting as it tells you what all the project are that are coming up but also shows the future fiscal years and which year they project being able to pay for the project they want to do, and in some cases it is underfunded but an important project and it demonstrates where our fiscal standing is. She stated that the last piece is the fee structure.
She requested the City Manager and Asst. City Manager put copies of this budget in the library as they have done with the General Plan updates and Sharp Park Specific Plan so that they are accessible. She thought they have one available at City Hall (Community Center) so, if people City Council Regular Meeting 34 June 27, 2022
want to peruse it, they have the opportunity to do it while not online as they may not have the technology to do that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they would be happy to do that as it was a great idea. He stated that one of the administrative tasks is, after adoption of the proposed budget by Council, they will do the final proof read and refinement to make sure every chart is labeled properly, and he suggests that, with the final version, it will be that and they will get it out there but also online as well.
Mayor Bier was glad she went through that, as it was wonderful to look through it all and it made her want to read it more as the visual stimulation makes it so much nicer to take in the information as not everyone understands a chart. She stated that they need a motion.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they have to be separate or all together.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it can be together.
City Manager Woodhouse pointed out that, in the recommendation the Roy Davies resolution requires a 4/5 vote.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to adopt the budget and accept the $1.2 million Roy Davies amount spent and accepted as presented; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 4-0 (Absent: Councilmember O’Neill)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ABSENT: O'Neill
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 8/8/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor