CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84059733437
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 840 5973 3437
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Comcast 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 August 08, 2022
August 08, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on August 8, 2022 at 7:00 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Bill Glasgo, Police Capt.; Chris Clements, Police Capt.; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Nelson Schlater, Wastewater Eng. Manager.; Maria Aguilar, WWTP Manager; Mike Perez, PB&R Director; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Alyssa Barranti, Management Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
City Clerk Coffey explained the conditions for having City Council meetings 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 physical meeting location open to the public. She also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgment.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 08, 2022
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember O'Neill
Councilmember O'Neill led the pledge of allegiance.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Chief of Police Daniel Steidle Retirement Mayor Bier read the proclamation honoring retired Police Chief Daniel Steidle.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if someone can check the sound for PCTV as she heard there was no sound.
Mayor Bier stated that they would wait. She stated she also received messages saying there is no sound. She suggested that they take a 5-minute break.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the meeting can go on, even if there is no sound as they are broadcasting on Zoom, but because PCTV is not able to access sound it is up to the discretion of the presiding officer if she wants to take a recess.
Mayor Bier stated that she wanted to take the recess. She asked the City Manager to let them know if they resolved the problem.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he was checking with PCTV.
Mayor Bier is curious about procedure if the sound doesn’t come back.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, because the meeting is on Zoom digitally and there is sound, the meeting can proceed as it is not reliant on both means, adding that the City Attorney can elaborate on that. He stated that is what is stated on the agenda and it is up to the discretion of Council.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that he is correct and it is at the discretion of Council if they would like to take a longer recess or continue on with the meeting.
Mayor Bier thought it would be good to take a recess.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is 7:15 and maybe they set a time of 7:30 or 7:45 and they move on and cancel the meeting as he agrees that most people watch it on TV and he thought it would be unfair.
Mayor Bier agreed that it would be unfair.
Councilmember O’Neill didn’t know what time to pick, as they have a lot of stuff to talk about.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they have an appeal item on the agenda that needs to be heard at this meeting and they probably should take a recess to some time and determine whether or not they can cancel the meeting, given that one item that really needs to be heard at this meeting. She stated that they can pick a recess time and they can discuss at that point the need to move on or cancel.
Mayor Bier stated that they will come back at 7:30, then reconvened and asked the City City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 08, 2022
Manager for an update.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that PCTV said they should have the sound up in 5 minutes.
He asked if they could turn closed captioning on so he could repeat that so viewers could see it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it sounds like they are up and he stated that they will double confirm from PCTV.
Mayor Bier agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse stated PCTV confirmed that they have the sound back up.
Mayor Bier resumed the meeting and stated that they were talking about Chief Steidle. She thanked him for being here, and she thought he knows how much he means to the community and each of them will want to talk to him about that, and they went to public comment first and then they will talk with him. She stated that they have some dignitaries present to speak.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they have some representatives from the US Congress and state offices. She stated that Katrina Rill is present to represent Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s office.
Katrina Rill stated that she will miss Chief Steidle so much, as well as Congresswoman Speier.
She stated that he has seen her at endless Council meetings presenting congressional records and he is now entered into the congressional records and he can look at his own history on behalf of Congresswoman Speier. She thanked him for everything he has done for the community and their office, stating it has been a pleasure to work with him. She said she would read a piece of the congressional record and will go in the mail with the resolution from the city to him so he will have it in his hand soon. She then read it.
Chief Steidle appreciated that and thanked her.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they have a representative, Nicholas Hargis, from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s office dialing in.
Nicholas Hargis stated that he is a field representative for Congresswoman Eshoo, and on her behalf, he thanked Chief Steidle for his 29 years of service to Pacifica and 33 years in law enforcement. He thanked him for keeping the city safe, and stated his roles and community outreach are a shining example in public safety and they wish him the best in retirement.
Chief Steidle appreciated that and thanked him.
City Clerk Coffey stated that Congresswoman Eshoo’s office provided a flag that was flown over the capital and she did a screen share.
Mayor Bier stated that it was wonderful.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they have a representative, Joan Dentler, from State Senator Josh Becker’s office.
Joan Dentler stated she will defer to her counterpart in Assemblymember Kevin Mullin’s office, Daniel Vainish, who is also present and they will jointly present to him the California State City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 08, 2022
legislative resolution that she believes he also has in his possession. She stated he will do the speaking, but on behalf of Senator Becker who can’t be present, and has not had an opportunity to work very closely with him as he has only been in the Senate a short time, but they wish him all the best in Texas and she turned it over to Mr. Vainish.
Chief Steidle thanked her.
Daniel Vainish stated he is a field representative in Assemblymember Kevin Mullin’s district office. On his behalf, as well as Senator Josh Becker, he commended him for his 33 years of law enforcement service, including 29 years with the Pacifica Police Department, and in honor of his service, they produced a resolution that he should have received. He stated that he has worked nearly every assignment available and received over 100 letters of appreciation and department commendations. They wished him continued success in his new role as a captain of the Richardson Police Department in Texas.
Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated it.
Mayor Bier thanked them for being present at this meeting and they appreciated each and every one of them. She asked if they will have the officers speak before they invite Chief Steidle to respond and then public comment.
Mayor Bier stated that they have Capt. Clements, Capt. Glasgo, Interim Police Chief Stratton.
Capt. Chris Clements stated that, before he shared his comments, he was asked to deliver comments sent to him by former Police Chief Jim Tasa, and he read his comments. Then Capt.
Clements added that Chief Steidle always faithfully served Pacifica and led their department with integrity, humility and commitment to community service during the most challenging times in our profession, as well as his commitment to the next generation of leaders in the police department and unwavering commitment to his profession and he will leave a mark forever on those honored to serve with him.
Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated his comments.
Capt. Bill Glasgo echoed Capt. Clements, and Chief Tasa’s nice words. He stated that not only has he been a mentor, leader in the department and the community but also importantly a good friend and that is what he will miss most. He stated that he took a lot of them under his wing, and he attributes his successes to him and he thanked him for that leadership and mentorship. He wished him the best in Texas, and a lot of the police members feel the same way.
Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated his comments.
Interim Police Chief Kirk Stratton stated that he and Chief Steidle have had many exchanges since he retired and he told and will say again that he should be very proud of him for what he did at the police department. He observed in the last three weeks is dedicated professionals serving Pacifica and not by chance but by his leadership during his whole career. He congratulated him.
Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated his comments. He stated that, in the three weeks in his new department, he hasn’t had to abate a single whale and he doesn’t know what he is going to do with these skills that he has become so good at.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 08, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they will miss him. He was present when he was appointed chief when Tasa left and now he is gone. He agreed that he has a unique set of skills, stolen sailboats that sink on the beach, at least 3 or 4 or 6 dead whales and then he got world famous restaurants like the Gorilla Barbecue and Taco Bell. He asked if Richardson, Texas, has a good barbecue place there.
Chief Steidle stated that they have about 300 of them.
Councilmember O’Neill thanked Chief Steidle for all he has done in Pacifica. When they called with any issue they took care of it and he appreciated what he did for everyone in Pacifica in his 29 years. He thanked him and hoped he enjoyed his semi-retirement in Texas.
Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated his comments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has said many times how much our department and city benefitted from his leadership in terms of the focus of creating a family environment and something that people feel safe and can rely on their coworkers. She was grateful for him setting that tone and, with the present staff, they will continue that. She thanked him and wished him luck in Richardson, adding that he will adapt.
Chief Steidle thanked her and appreciated her comments.
Councilmember Vaterlaus wanted to know if they have fireworks in Richardson as that is another thing to add to his many issues that we have. She appreciated everything about him.
She started writing down words and kept going and it was too many, but he was special for 23 years, extremely funny, industrious, dedicated leader, education oriented. She stated that was cheesy but they have had many cheesy conversations. She thanked him so much for everything he has done, his candidness, and the laughter. She stated that, if she talked to him on the phone, they were laughing. She appreciated that as she could be serious and he would make her laugh. She thanked him and hopes everything is smooth there. She stated that, if he ever needs to cool off, he has Pacifica summer to come back to.
Chief Steidle thanked her.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they have had a whale wash up on the beach since he left, as he didn’t know if he was keeping track. Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it immediately occurs to him how annoying it is that he isn’t going to be with us and suggested he take that as a compliment. He will keep saying how much it meant to him when he clued into who he was, the integrity of his nature, having something that was casual enough but a discussion of the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. He stated that, when he brought it up, he thought Pacifica was in very good hands that we have a leader in policing who understands that distinction and leads according to it. He has had the pleasure of watching and working with him for years. He stated that it was extraordinary to meet a leader who challenges himself to grow, his own preconceived notions and biases and reevaluates himself regularly to constantly become the best possible leader in any given circumstance, and that is why he is annoyed he is leaving as he trusts him to be that kind of man and he is certain that they find someone who will rise to the occasion, but they are losing somebody who already rose to the occasion. He stated that he finds a personal bias when he thinks of Texas, but a man of his caliber is going to serve the people in Texas and bringing with him the spirit of the protection of people and the spirit of the law over what the letter of the law might dictate, and he thought they are in exceptionally City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 08, 2022
good hands and he is looking forward to an opportunity of healing that he brings as he takes the love and admiration that he has earned in Pacifica.
Chief Steidle thanked him and appreciated his comments.
Mayor Bier stated that she met him in 2005 and that is when he was promoted to Sergeant. At that time, 35% of our Pacifica 11th graders were binging and he and she did a lot of work around that topic, helping with compliance checks, responsible alcohol merchant awards program, Fog Fest, and he supported all of our prevention work. She wanted him to know that today, it is only 8% of our Pacifica 11th graders are reporting binge drinking. For the first time in her career, she had a young person tell her that alcohol is hard to get. She stated that they know how much he mattered as his work was incredibly important to our process and she honored her family and her nephew and she is forever grateful for that. She will miss him, love him and wishes him the best. She stated that she is inviting him to say something before they open to public comments.
Chief Steidle stated that, in this type of situation, he just speaks from his heart, which is when he speaks his best. He stated that it is hard to follow the comments. He stated that when he came to Pacifica and they told him he would be there 29 years and would be the chief, he would have told them they were crazy as he didn’t have any intent to rise to the top of the ranks. He stated that, through his career in Pacifica, he was mentored by good people and good leaders who insisted they worked hard and would accept nothing less than our best. He stated that they often mentioned that Pacifica didn’t have a lot of money and they need more staff and equipment, but he saw an upside to that. If you are a person who wants to come in and work and are willing to be mentored, there are so many hats you can wear at the police department and so many things you can do. He stated that, under the right mentorship, which he had, you can rise through the ranks as there have been good people since he started in 1993. He stated that, in the last seven years as Chief of Police, people talked about some of his accomplishments and while he appreciated that recognition, he thought none of those accomplishments are possible without the men and women who worked at the police department. He always said he helped with some of the ideas and pushed in the right direction, but it is the men and women wearing the uniform and go out and work hard every day that has made everything they do at the department as successful as it has been, and made him successful for which is forever grateful to all of them, past and present. He was grateful to his fellow executive team members for the experience over the last seven years working with all of them and having a broader knowledge of what each department does and how they operate at that executive level and how they think. He stated that for the first 24 years he thought mostly like a police officer and listening to city managers, such as Tinfow, Woodhouse, and his team members, he learned to broaden his horizons and he was thankful for all their support. He attribute all the things they mentioned at this time about his success and ability to move on to a larger department in a state where he wants to live and retire, but it is because of those experiences and that support and the work and time people have been willing to put in over the last 29 years in Pacifica that has allowed him to have the opportunity to continue his law enforcement career in an age when most people in California at his age are retiring. He thanked them all and he loves them all a great deal and he misses them. He is fortunate to be working with a great group of people in Richardson who welcomed him with open arms and are treating him like family. He stated that Pacifica will always be his home.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 August 08, 2022
Marvin Artobern, Pacifica, stated he was representing Victims of Violence Organization.
Mayor Bier stated that these are comments for their Chief of Police, and if he would like to comment on something not on the agenda he can do that during oral communications. She reminded those in the queue that this is time to comment for Chief Steidle and anything not on the agenda can be discussed during oral communications.
Bill Tobin, Pacifica, stated that he raised his hands.
Mayor Bier thought he wanted to comment during oral communications, unless he wants to make a comment to the chief.
Mr. Tobin apologized and stated that his comment has to do with the city’s implementation of the oversized vehicle ordinance.
Mayor Bier stated that he will do that during oral communications and she will let them know when that is.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the next speakers.
Duane Wachtelborn, Pacifica, stated that it has been a great 26 years that he has worked for him and with him. He stated that they hit it off from day one and they were able to find that dynamic balance of friends and supervisor and employee and it was very easy to follow him both as the police chief and his friend because he knew the caliber of person he was and he knew he always had the best interest of the department as well as the city and officers who worked for him. He will miss him and whomever they get to fill his shoes will fill his shoes but not his role in that department. He wished him luck in Texas, sorry he left but that was his choice.
Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, stated that she was honored to work with him over her 12 years as the director of the PRC. She will miss his presence as their liaison on the PRC Board of Directors and she wished him well, and was grateful to have known him and work with him.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, congratulated Chief Steidle for his outstanding work and showing us how it is done. He thinks everyone in Pacifica knows who Chief Steidle and he thought Richardson will probably figure that out pretty soon. He stated that they want to see some photos and he can get back to them on that.
Bettina Blake, Pacifica, stated she is the Records Supervisor for the Pacifica Police Department. She stated that everything has been said, but she wanted him to know that he is truly missed as he was an outstanding leader and have been told that so many times at this time and other times as well. She wishes him the best and much success in Texas. She knows, if he does half the job there that he did here, he will succeed and make them very proud, and keep them just as safe as they are here. She thanked him for everything, believing in her, fighting for her and she hoped to see him soon. She missed him.
Mayor Bier closed public comments. She thanked Chief Steidle and stated that we will always be in touch with him.
Chief Steidle thanked her and appreciated her comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 August 08, 2022
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any councilmember wanted to pull an item from consent. Seeing none, she opened up public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, asked that Item #9 be pulled from the agenda so they can get a staff report on the proposed settlement of the RV ban lawsuit and shared her thoughts on this issue.
She also asked that, in item #11, Manor Drive be considered as part of the roadway safety plan study and shared her thoughts on this issue.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that she supported the staff recommendation to adopt this resolution regarding the safe parking program, and shared her thoughts on the issue.
Jennifer Barba, Pacifica, stated she is the owner of Perfect Pour Café in Pacifica, assumed the small business over 3.5 years ago and shared her thoughts on the progress they have made in the community.
Mayor Bier asked her if this was an item on the consent calendar.
Ms. Barba stated that she can’t download the agenda and she was told that they were speaking about the safe parking and on Francisco she talked to Ms. O’Connor and was told that they were going to talk at this meeting on the dedicated spots for the permitted parking on Francisco.
Mayor Bier stated that her opportunity to talk about that will be later in the agenda unless she wants to talk about the attorneys’ fees which is the item on the consent calendar but she can come back and talk at oral communications.
Ms. Barba asked how far down in the agenda is that.
Mayor Bier stated that oral communications is after the consent calendar and then there is an appeal right after that, so she has two chances.
City Attorney Kenyon suggested that they have the clerk ask the speakers, before they start speaking, what item they are speaking on.
Mayor Bier thought that would be helpful.
Marvin Artobern, Pacifica, stated that he is asking the Council to introduce and support new ordinance for Pacifica for safety from harmful energy.
Mayor Bier apologized for stopping him again, but he wants to talk during oral communications as this is for the consent calendar. She stated that they will have him back for oral communications.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he didn’t think they have to pull the item but he would favor a staff report on item #11, especially since in the past couple of weeks he has gotten a lot of questions on traffic safety concerns on Fassler and Manor. Personally, he stated that they can add to that list Linda Mar, between Alicante and Sheila. He would like a staff report and information on the scheduling, including when people will have the opportunity to give public City Council Regular Meeting 9 August 08, 2022
comment about the traffic safety study.
City Manager Woodhouse asked Mayor Bier if she would prefer information on that item now.
Mayor Bier stated that she would.
Agenda Item 11:
City Manager Woodhouse referred to the contract, and stated that PW Dep. Director Bautista and Sr. Engineer Schlater were present to talk about what that plan and scope of work is about.
PW Dep. Director Bautista presented the staff report. He then stated that Erin Ferguson of Fehr & Peers was available to answer any questions.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to packet page 210, and he thought they marked certain spots along the schedule that stay stakeholder meeting, and he asked if he was misinterpreting that to be community outreach.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that the stakeholder stated on the scope of work was actually for city stakeholders, such as engineering, police, fire, who are familiar with the system and can talk about the different conditions and deficiencies on the roadways, thus a very focused stakeholder group.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked when the public will have an opportunity to give the city feedback, as over the last few weeks, he has received substantial feedback about Fassler and Manor and he would love to give the public the opportunity to be able to tell that story to the city and hope that they can find solutions. If this isn’t the appropriate format for that, when will they have that opportunity.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that Consultant Ferguson can discuss the scope of work.
Consultant Ferguson stated that, to the extent there has been community input or concerns expressed about specific locations as they start the project, they would definitely want to learn from the Council on what they have already heard expressed by the community and be able to work from that basis of knowledge and they can see the data and compare that to what the community has already expressed in terms of concerns about certain roadways, intersections or behaviors that they see. She stated that the stakeholder group has an opportunity to learn more from local police and fire and others who see road user behavior on a day to day basis and take those different pieces of information, bring them together, identify potential treatments that can help address those behaviors and help create a priority set of projects for the city to be thinking about going forward and creating a priority set of projects and organizing them into a work plan so the city staff can think about funding because there are a lot of grant programs that can help fund road safety improvements and as they put the plan together they can look for what projects might be competitive for those different funding programs. She stated, to the extent that there has already been expressions of concern from the community, they would want what they were at the beginning to be sure and keep those in mind and integrate them into the data analysis that they are putting together.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he will make sure to funnel information as it comes in. He stated that Manor and Fassler have substantial problems with speeding and, while contemplating these two streets, he had a good friend who lived on Linda Mar between Alicante City Council Regular Meeting 10 August 08, 2022
and Sheila and their car got rammed into several times just being on the side of the road and he thought that was a hot spot. He stated that he sees that Esmeralda Crane has her hand raised and he thought she may have wanted to speak on this topic. He asked if he needs to pull #11 so that she has the opportunity to voice her concerns, he would be inclined to do that but, if he doesn’t need to pull the item to facilitate that, if the mayor was willing to reopen public comments, so she can speak on this item.
Mayor Bier stated she can reopen public comments if she would like to speak on this item. He thanked Ms. Ferguson for answering his question.
Steven Crane, Pacifica, was wondering how they can funnel the information to the consulting firm as they have many videos of accidents from the past year and other incidents that have occurred on Fassler and how would they get that information to them to concentrate on the various issues on Fassler and other places. He thanked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck for being their advocate.
Mayor Bier closed public comment and brought it back to Council.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck offered a suggestion that they can post something on Connect with Pacifica or something similar to get more feedback.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he will defer to PW Dep. Director Bautista and Consultant Ferguson, but similar to other projects like their Storm Drain Master Plan, he encouraged that comments about traffic and streets should come in to PW Dep. Director Bautista and Fehr & Peers is the city’s consultant and all the information should go through the Public Works department and maybe that type of portal will be set up as they have already established a scope of work but that was a question that they can answer.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that they can set up a portal to receive those comments and he will be able to forward those comments to Ms. Ferguson as they become available and they will give enough time to the public to reach out to them and give them comments while Fehr & Peers gathers data for this project.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, as it is a major safety concern, he appreciates opening that portal to get some feedback.
PW Director Petersen pointed out that the city’s engineering department has received a number of comments over a period of time related to traffic. She stated that they will be sharing all of those with the consultant so they have the plethora of information that the public has been sharing with them over the years and that should help quite a bit. She stated that they are things that have already been discussed, and they have information on that which they can share.
Mayor Bier asked if there was anything else from Council, and then quickly commented on Item #9 as there has been a lot of questions coming in from the community and she wants the community to know that they will be gathering information and answering questions. She didn’t feel that she needs to do that now, but she will be answering those questions and get that out to the public.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to accept the consent agenda as proposed; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 August 08, 2022
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Consent Calendar)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 6/01/22 through 6/15/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 6/01/22 through 6/15/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on June 25, 2022 and the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on June 27, 2022.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
5. Continuation of Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).
6. Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19.
7. Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.
8. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 August 08, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending March 31, 2022.
9. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Execution of Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders Pertaining to Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Relating to Litigation in Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the resolution approving execution of Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Plaintiffs, Sean Geary, Linda Miles, Jared Carr, Harry Bode, and Stephen Sanders through their undersigned counsel of record pertaining to attorneys’ fees and costs relating to litigation in Geary, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780.
10. Notice of Completion for the Equalization Basin Water Cannon and Check Valves Installation Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Equalization Basin Water Cannon and Check Valves Installation Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
11. Approval of Agreement with Fehr & Peers for Local Roadway Safety Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Master Consultant Services Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with Fehr & Peers in an amount not to exceed $79,865 for the preparation of a Local Road Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).
12. Award of Construction Services Agreement for the Beach Boulevard Public Plaza Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the Beach Boulevard Public Plaza Project:
A. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Services Agreement with Cazadoro Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $86,400.00 which includes contingencies in an amount not to exceed $14,400.00 or twenty percent (20%) of the Construction Contract amount; and a Materials Testing Services Task Order in an amount not to exceed $12,694.65 which includes a contingency in an amount not to exceed $1,604.20 or fifteen percent (15%) of the proposed fee; B. Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the listed contingency amounts.
13. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Authorize Submission Of An Application To The California Infrastructure And Economic Development Bank ("iBank") For Financing The Lower Linda Mar Sewer System Rehabilitation And Repair Project And The Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project (“Projects”) As Part Of The Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt a Resolution of the City Council Authorizing Submission of an Application to the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank ("iBank") for Financing the Lower Linda Mar Sewer System Rehabilitation and Repair Project and the Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project ("Projects") as Part of the Wastewater Capital Improvement Program
City Council Regular Meeting 13 August 08, 2022
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Lindsay Raike, Pacifica, stated she is the CEO of Warm Water Wellness, a 501c(3) non-profit born out of the need to advocate for the reopening of the Nicholson Therapy Pool at Mills Health Center in San Mateo and she shared her thoughts on this issue.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that Council candidates have been given a contract as a code of fair campaign practices, and shared her thoughts on this issue.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, expressed her appreciation on Ms. Moore’s comments. She then stated that she was speaking on the last Council meeting on July 11 where her and Mark Hubbell’s appeal on the General Plan safety element was denied, and she shared her thoughts on that issue.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, referred to a repave on Hickey Blvd., and he expressed his concerns regarding this project as well as the issue people living in cars on the street.
Jennifer Barba, Pacifica, stated that she is the owner of Perfect Pour Café in Pacifica, and she expressed her concerns regarding the temporary safe parking on Francisco which is in the works.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that item is on the agenda.
Mayor Bier asked that they stop the clock.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that she was talking about 2400 Francisco appeal from the water district which is on the agenda so she needs to comment during that time and not during oral communications.
Ms. Barba stated that she was talking about the temporary safe parking spot on Francisco Blvd.
Mayor Bier understands that she didn’t think the appeal was that specific. She asked if Council wants to bring her back to talk during the appeal.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he would prefer to give her whatever time is appropriate, including if what she is speaking on is not specific to the CDP but he would like to hear what the City Attorney might have to say on it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it was up to the discretion of the Council as she thought that comment was general in nature but it does touch on the appeal, and she thought the speaker could speak during oral communications on the general topic or wait and speak to the whole topic on the appeal, and that is up to the discretion of the Council.
Councilmember O’Neill wasn’t going to block her from talking but, if she was going to talk about that specific thing, it should be addressed.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 August 08, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon recommended that she direct the speaker to keep her comments not on the specific safe parking program site which will be discussed on Item #14, but if she has general comments, she can continue to speak at this time.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if she has specific things she wanted to say, she stated that those could be directed at the time of the hearing on that specific topic, and general information that she started to share earlier and she wasn’t sure where the speaker was going, but it was of a general nature and it could be what she could share at this point in time. She stated that she wanted to say that she wasn’t sure she was hearing right but she thinks she is hearing voices at her home or wherever she is calling and in the interest of time, she asked that the reset the clock and give her a chance to give them her general comments and, if she has more specifics for the hearing item and she is able to come back to the phone at that time, that would be her thoughts.
Mayor Bier agreed. She then asked Ms. Barba to make general comments and if she has specific ones about the specific parking place, she can speak during the appeal.
Ms. Barba stated that generally she will speak about the nature of their business and how grateful they are to be serving the community on 188 Clarendon Blvd., where a local coffee shop that the assumed from an existing business, made it through Covid and have really made a go of that little spot and kept the lights on and smiles on their faces and have done a great service for the community and for visitors coming from other areas visiting Pacifica. She stated that they are located in a visitor serving area and they see a huge influx of visitors and serve a lot of people and have wonderful conversations with people near and far. They are grateful to be part of the community and she will come back for Item #14 and talk about how that specific line item would be challenging for their business.
Anita Rees, Pacifica, shared the PRC’s schedule and process for seeing citizens, mentioning several of their current programs for those in need.
Mayor Bier encouraged Mr. Tobin to raise his hand as this is when he would want to talk.
Brenda Maxwell, Pacifica, stated that she wanted to speak on the appeal by the water district in support of it, and she asked if she should wait for later.
Mayor Bier stated that she should wait.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember O’Neill stated that a lot of his committees shut down during the summer and he didn’t have a lot. He did mention that the Historical Society is having the Ohlone lunch on August 14 and they would be eating food cooked by Ohlone Indians in the Ohlone Café in Berkeley and they will be giving information about the Ohlone tribes. He stated that it was fun and interesting.
Councilmember Vaterlaus went to a lot of things. Earlier today, she met with Kevin Mullin’s aide and they talked about senate bills, energy audits, taxes in Southern California which interests everyone. She went to the Fairmont Homeowners Association meeting and they have concerns about the permitting for 7-Eleven and the garbage from 7-Eleven and they have never completed their landscaping projects. She did the CCAG meetings almost a month ago, and she didn’t have the information presently. She attended Relay for Life with other City Council Regular Meeting 15 August 08, 2022
councilmembers and walked a little bit and talked a lot. She attended the Fog Fest committee, Council of Cities in South San Francisco which was a thought provoking meeting where they talked about how the there is so much biotech there and they have massive amounts of money to spend on their public facilities which makes Pacifica look sad. She attended a banquet which was the unions and it was a good program. She attended the Emergency Preparedness Day at the San Mateo Fairgrounds and saw Bill Glasgo and several others from our CERT program. She attended the San Mateo County Convention and Visitor’s Bureau which was mainly hospitality and it was interesting to hear what the hospitality industry is doing all over the county. She won best lifter at her weightlifting and got first place for benching 215 pounds and had a great event on the weekend.
Councilmember Beckmeyer attended the Relay for Life which is near and dear to her heart as she and her husband are both survivors and she tries to attend and participate in that event every year if possible and, unfortunately, it was overlapping with the Democrats meeting for her and she wasn’t able to participate fully in the Democrats meeting but just listening in and she thought maybe someone else has an update, but she understands the topic was the work force housing which sounded like a very good program which is already completed by Jefferson High School District and the in process of Pacifica School District. She attended the Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee meeting and for the most fascinating presentation she is going to see if she can get a document that consolidates it so they can actually see the data that were presented, and there was a study that has been done and ten households throughout the county, 78 people applied for the opportunity to have an energy audit at their home which was conducted by consultants who went through and figured out, for a specific home in their specific situation, what does it take to electrify their entire home and get rid of gas and replacing all appliances, not necessarily doing everything at once, and what you do over time. She stated that it was a timely topic and one that she thinks a lot of people are particularly interested in becoming more aware of with regard to electric cars. She stated that one of the big issues she learned, and knew about it because Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck told her and they talked about PCE and presentations, and he has given her tidbits. She stated that often people need to upgrade their electrical panels so they can accommodate a car charging station. She stated that it wasn’t required but you can go faster and charge more. She stated that the big concern was making sure that, if you’re going to do that, you will leave enough room on the panel to accommodate all other electric appliances that they will eventually be needing and the goal is to try to help people understand all those pieces so that, when they are presented with the need to replace a heater, water heater, stoves or upgrading, they can have a reasonable look at what electric appliances might be. She stated that, every time she attends a presentation and met with some people individually on this topic, they are very interested in upgrading our REACH codes. She stated that every time this topic comes up, she makes sure to point out, in particular the water heater, and she describes that, if your water heater goes out, it’s an emergency and not the time to debate on what she should do and what her options are.
She stated that it is better if you are beginning to learn and the more that they can get that information out, she believes they are going to have a presentation coming on with PCE soon because REACH codes are going to be on Council’s agenda in the next few months. She wanted to help to enlighten people about those issues and it was an informative and important meeting. She stated that the message that they always have from BAWSCA, from Tom Francis, is that we are in a drought even though our region, relative to other regions has done very well primarily due to the locations where we get our water. She stated that Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir filled at nearly 92% this year and is almost unheard of across the rest of the state.
She stated that it doesn’t mean we don’t need to conserve, but the good news was that conservation was up in the month of July but we still need to do more.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 August 08, 2022
Mayor Bier asked Councilmember O’Neill if he had something else to say before she goes to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted to respond to Councilmember Beckmeyer in regard to the teacher housing. He stated that the taxpayers did pass a bond to build the Jefferson High School District and they got a report that, out of 122 units, they only have 13 still available for all the pending applications. He stated that they successfully hired at least 15 teachers from other districts that came to the Jefferson District because of teacher and staff housing. He stated that it is interesting that the breakdown is roughly 60% certificated, meaning teachers and 40% classified which are custodians, school secretaries, etc. He thought that proves that recruitment and retention is important for this project as they move forward with the PSD Oddstad project.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that Mr. Redfield, prior to his being elected, accused him many times of being overly philosophical, and he wanted to confirm his suspicions as he begins his comments. He stated that he was listening to a Paul Simon Concert and a song came on that struck him as relevant, the lyrics “I’m going to tell my kids a bedtime story, a play without a plot.
Will it have a happy ending, maybe yes, maybe not. I’ll tell them, life is what you make of it.” He stated it was beautiful. He thanked them for humoring him as he begins as he is viewing his friends in Ukraine as they have this master constantly being a bully toward them as they try to get on with their lives and being unnecessarily cruel. His heart goes to Ukraine and he hopes they find a resolution shortly to this overbearing person. He stated he was great to see Councilmember O’Neill and Mayor Bier on the Zip Trips and see Pacifica get spotlight attention.
He stated that our firefighters have been ridiculously busy over the last month. He stated that they were in Mariposa fighting the fire in Yosemite, a dog rescue recently in Rockaway and our hillside behind Cabrillo lit on fire. He thought our firefighters have been doing a wonderful job.
He attended Relay for Life with fellow councilmembers, and he thought it was good to walk many miles with them and other Pacificans. He listened to the Planning Commission meeting regarding the Sharp Park Specific Plan and he was grateful for the time they are taking to assess out all the issues and get them right for Pacificans. He stated there was a CalCity speaker series in which Michael Tubbs spoke, who is the special advisor on Economic Mobility and Opportunity to Gavin Newsom. He stated he is the youngest mayor in a major American city, Stockton. He stated there was an Emergency Preparedness meeting on the 20th and he knows they will introduce Interim Chief soon but it was announced that Kirk Stratton is our interim chief. He stated that the 988 mental health hotline is now up and running, which is recent, and he encouraged everyone to be aware of it. He stated that September is Disaster Preparedness Month and North County Fire Authority has a YouTube channel up and running.
He mentioned Zone Haven before, and felt we have been blessed that it has been as wet this summer as it has been but he thought we should be aware of what our zone is so that, if there any evacuation, people are aware to look for the information. He stated that the Covid testing was still going on at the Francisco and Salada site, adding that they can go to covidtest.gov for free Covid tests. He attended the Pacifican Care Awards which was wonderful. He referred to Councilmember Vaterlaus mentioning Council of Cities where it was impressive to see what a city can do when they’re getting that much tax revenue.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they are not on TV.
Mayor Bier stated that they will take another 5-minute recess.
Councilmember O’Neill thought they were broadcasting now.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he heard it in the background.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 August 08, 2022
Mayor Bier reconvened and asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck to continue.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he should wait as they have a sign saying that coverage of the meeting will return momentarily.
Mayor Bier asked the City Manager if he has an update.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they just sent an updated message that they are back up.
Mayor Bier asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck to continue.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated it was great to see what South San Francisco was doing with all that revenue. He attended the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting on the 28th. He stated that a battery storage project they have been working on has fallen through and they need those storage projects to make sure they meet their 24/7 goals they set and the goals the state set for us and we are looking for more opportunities for storage. He stated the good news is that they have been doing a lot of work with diversity equity accessibility and inclusion which they establish as being foundational to PCE. He stated that they are developing policies based on surveys and workshops. He stated that they had a fascinating discussion on messaging when it came to electricity versus gas, at which point he was reminded that, while it is currently convenient to use gas, we are perpetually surrounding ourselves with a volatile substance that is viable to combust as they remember San Bruno a few years ago, and it is also a poison. He stated that he has had an occasion when he comes home and someone forgets to turn the valve off on the stove, the smell hits his nose when he enters the room and panic sets in. He remembers those reasons to have gas is important as we try to do the right thing for the planet and us. He stated that he attended the Cope banquet with councilmembers and it was wonderful to be with the San Mateo Labor Council as well as many elected in the area at an inspiring event with a great opportunity to reconnect with San Mateo County. They had a meeting on the Boys and Girls Club Tuesday and went through the fundamentals of starting a new board and everyone in attendance was looking forward to the board creating a budget that assures the patents that the club will be financially stable going forward. He stated that it was great to see all the activities planned for the year and all the work the club staff was doing to bring the clubhouse physically up to ship-shape to serve the children in perpetuity. He stated that he and Councilmember Beckmeyer will be meeting the PCE staff regarding REACH codes on Wednesday, and looking forward to that as they gear up to bring that to Council in the next several months. He stated that he has seen the literature on the warm water wellness therapy pool a few times and, since it was brought up, he asked if other councilmembers are interested in bringing that resolution forward, he plans on following, and he saw a consensus and stated he would be happy to discuss it later with the City Manager but he wanted to voice his support now.
Mayor Bier thanked him for mentioning the 988 as it was important for our emergency mental health issues. She stated that the mayor’s mental health initiative has been working hard all year bring in training and connected with some funders and will be having a press conference soon because they are able to get some resources for our local non-profits and she encouraged the public to look for the press conference. She will tell them the good news after that. She attended the Economic Development Committee meeting, the Relay for Life which was beautiful and thanked the organizers. She went to the Open Space meeting, Pacificans Care event, Council of Cities. She stated that the Zip Trip was fun, and she thanked Councilmember O’Neill for being there with her. She thought it was wonderful to see Pacifica highlighted. She went to City Council Regular Meeting 18 August 08, 2022
Grocery Outlet doing a 5 for 5 for Pacificans Care which was successful. She stated that it was fun to be out there with the community. She thanked Pacificans Care for supporting our core agencies. She when to the CCAG Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting. She stated that there was a lot going on at that level. She stated that the MTC distributes federal transportation funding from the Federal Highway Administration to projects and programs that improve safety, access to transit and bike and pedestrian projects, like safe rides to school.
She stated that there is a 4-year funding cycle, and there was $32.6 million available for a project funding in San Mateo County and CCAG and BPAC review all the applications and BPAC sent two members, and she was one of those members. She spent many hours reviewing and scoring 29 applications which took her at least an hour per application to review it, score it and put in all the information. Pacifica had two applications and she thanked staff for those applications. She was honored to be able to score them. She stated that it was interesting to see all the different projects out there, and it was important for the community to understand that, when we have these plans in place, such as the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan, as that is when you have funding available and the project applications need to be filled out and submitted and then they are reviewed. Everything takes time, but she thought it was very interesting to see all the different projects, including projects from BART. She was honored to be able to score those. She stated that she is a new member of the Coast Pride board of directors and proud to be on that board. They had a retreat where they hung out with horses at a ranch in Half Moon Bay. She stated that we now have representation from Pacifica and Coast Pride will be serving fully from Pescadero to Pacifica.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse has one announcement. He introduced our Interim Police Chief Kirk Stratton. He will come and make some comments after he provides information on his background. He came to Pacifica after retiring in 2020 from Colma after 27 years there with the last 6 years as the Colma Police Chief. He is an active member of the California Police Chiefs Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. In his years of retirement, he has remained very active. He is an administration of justice adjunct professor in the San Mateo County Community College District and an instructor for the South Bay regional training consortium, the Police Academy. His experience in San Mateo County, Colma, in close proximity to Pacifica made him an excellent choice for the interim chief for the time period until they complete the recruitment and hire a permanent chief. He is confident that he will continue to lead, along with Captains Clements and Glasgo, this department which has exceptional policing operations, ethics and culture as they carry out the new recruitment. He is publicly introducing him as this is the first City Council meeting since he was hired.
Interim Police Chief Stratton hoped they can meet in person soon. This status is how it was when he retired, with everything in Zoom and he is used to this platform. He thanked the City Manager for his kind words and for selecting him. He didn’t realize how much he missed the profession until he dove back in. He stated that what is very comforting is that the city staff has been nothing but helpful and professional. He received a very warm welcome, not only from the Police Department but city staff also. He stated that it has been a smooth transition, in his third week, and he looks forward to the next few months and assisting them with transitioning a new police chief. He also looked forward to meeting everyone. He will keep it brief, as these meetings appear to go longer than the ones they had in Colma but he will get used to it. He thanked everyone for the warm welcome.
Mayor Bier welcomed him.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 August 08, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck welcomed him, adding that his credentials are impressive. He had the pleasure of a bit of email correspondence with him and he would love to grab a cup of tea or coffee to meet him and welcome him to Pacifica.
Interim Police Chief Stratton looked forward to it.
Councilmember O’Neill welcomed him and thanked him for taking the job.
Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that it was his pleasure and it was good to meet him.
Mayor Bier agreed, and looked forward to meeting him in person. She thanked him for doing this for Pacifica.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14. Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 to establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program parking space (30’ by 10’) on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection (File No. 2022-012).
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution.
Mayor Bier asked if any councilmembers had ex parte conversations or communications with the appellant.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he had a conversation with Joshua Cosgrove with the water district a couple of days ago.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she also had a conversation with Joshua Cosgrove.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he had a conversation with Joshua Cosgrove this afternoon.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated she asked Joshua Cosgrove if he talked to other councilmembers and he said yes, so she didn’t have a conversation with him.
Mayor Bier stated that she had a conversation with Tom Piccolotti. She mentioned that Emily Longfellow was serving as special counsel to the city.
Acting Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Acting Planning Director Murdock to briefly go over the CEQA exemption. She knows the sections but she would appreciate if he can elucidate it a bit more.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that she want to direct her attention to packet page 239 which discusses the categorical exemptions applicable to the Coastal Development Permit City Council Regular Meeting 20 August 08, 2022
approval action taken by the Planning Commission. He stated that class 1 refers to Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines, administrative regulations adopted by the state to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the exemptions include text that describes the nature, range of activities or uses or projects that would be encompassed within those exemptions. He didn’t want to read them, but items such as operation repair, etc., would be covered under the class 1 existing facilities exemption. He stated that class 4 has a description of types of uses, including minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water and/or vegetation that don’t involve removal of significant vegetation and various examples provided, such as one regarding minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment. Staff’s analysis of the minor nature of the single parking space, given it is on an existing street, consists of existing uses of the street including parking of vehicles, as well as oversized vehicle parking and habitation constitute no change in the existing use and they are utilizing existing facilities that are already there and are overall extremely minor in nature and have no potential for significant impact on the environment. He stated that the third category in the general rule for common sense exception wraps it up by saying, if it is clear that the activity in question would not have any potential significant impacts, it is also exempt under that common sense exemption and, in this case, the extremely minor nature of one oversized vehicle parked in this location on an existing street where those types of vehicles are already being routinely parked, there is essentially no change in the condition from an environmental analysis standpoint.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked, if they were to make a change in the location, if this would require the whole item to go back to court.
Acting Planning Director Murdock thought it may be a question for special counsel.
Special Counsel Emily Longfellow thought that is kind of expanding and not within the consideration of Council that there are some issues that are not before them at this time, such as the settlement agreement and the temporary safe parking program. She stated that the issue tonight is Council’s consideration of this one particular CDP permit that the Planning Commission approved and was appealed by the Water District. She didn’t think there was a firm answer to that question, other than there are some implications that may possibly occur in the future but this issue is whether or not that the findings can be made under the Local Coastal Plan with respect to this particular appeal on this particular single parking spot.
Mayor Bier invited the appellant, General Manager Adrianne Carr, and senior counsel Robin Baral.
Adrianne Carr, NCCWD General Manager, stated that Robin Baral will be starting their presentation. She asked Mr. Baral how much time they want to reserve at the end.
Special Counsel Robin Baral, Hanson Bridgett, suggested they reserve 2-3 minutes.
Ms. Carr agreed, and asked that staff let them know the time.
Counsel Baral briefly mentioned their role with the NCCWD. He gave an overview of their role as government agencies in collaborating for the best approach to implement the safe parking program in a manner that works the best for both agencies. He stated that they felt it was unfortunate that city staff has rebuffed the district’s effort to find an informal, mutually satisfactory resolution of the issues the district has raised, thus, they are moving forward with this appeal with litigation as the last resort if the appeal is denied. He asked that the city accept City Council Regular Meeting 21 August 08, 2022
the appeal and direct staff to relocate the site to an alternate site outside of the coastal zone.
He thought it was important to note that the district’s position is that issuing a CDP for Francisco is in violation of the coastal act, and the Coastal Commission staff has concurred as noted in their letter and that is relevant to this appeal regardless of the fact that the Coastal Commission does not have jurisdiction of this appeal. He stated that the information in the staff report are relevant from the Water District’s perspective as to the findings that the city should make in connection with the CDP and they incorporated the staff’s report into their appeal. He referred to the CEQA claims, and stated that the district’s claim is that the CEQA is exemption are invalid as a matter of law and that it is appealed. He stated that, if the CEQA exceptions are challenged, there is a two-step process that the court would go through as the findings, as a matter of law, falls within the scope of an exemption and there is substantial evidence to support those findings. He stated that the district has determined that eight of those criteria would be satisfied but only one would need to be found to be the case for those exemptions to be challenged. They believe that the use of the exemptions were not appropriate, given that they are a substantial expansion of a 72-hour parking program. He stated that General Manager Carr has some visuals to show how the location of the oversized vehicle at the corner could interfere with traffic circulation and other concerns. He stated that the information contained in the staff report shows that there is potential inconsistencies with the city’s LCP as it pertains to implementation of the program and that is indicative of a CEQA issue. He stated that these are the legal claims, and they have limited time to speak, but there are also going to be operational issues which General Manager Carr will speak to, i.e., as important or more important to the district. They are perplexed that there has been proactive efforts to find alternative sites that have largely been rebuffed. He stated that their position that the sites should be located outside the coastal zone. He knows the commission has a similar point and they are trying to help the city get to a point that would achieve that result.
NCCWD General Manager Carr stated that the oversized vehicle parked long term at this location would impede the district’s emergency operation and would also impact the district’s planned headquarters’ upgrade projection as the planned construction would last more than a year and would be a nuisance to program participants, and they wouldn’t want to subject someone in an RV spot to that construction. She stated that the renovation includes moving the front entrance of their building onto Francisco Boulevard and it is currently on Brighton. It is properly on Francisco which is going to be designed with the Sharp Park Specific Plan as the major throughway. She stated that putting the RV in front of their site is equivalent to putting the spot in front of City Hall or Council Chambers in addition to walking signage. She referred to a slide showing the existing condition along Francisco at Clarendon and their drawing shows how the intersection would look with the RV, including blocking the visibility of several signs. She then shows another slide which is zoomed out to show more of their planned headquarters upgrade and they have designed the project to include diagonal parking which would add several parking spaces to the neighborhood and an RV in this location would block the design feature that is the desire of their board of directors and staff. She stated that the city has the authority to relocate the site under the settlement agreement and operating agreement. She stated that they have reached out multiple times to the city to propose alternative sites, such as their Skyline tank site which could be used for one of the vehicles and is located outside of the coastal zone, near public transit, supermarkets and other important facilities. She stated that they are speaking for the NCCWD and they would like to consider their proposal to accept the appeal and deny the CDP, and possibly direct staff to relocate the site for Francisco Boulevard to an alternative site outside the coastal zone. She stated that staff and the board will be available to answer any questions.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to a statement that the site has the potential to impede City Council Regular Meeting 22 August 08, 2022
emergency operations, and asked if they could elaborate on how the parking spot might impede emergency operations.
General Manager Carr stated that they are an emergency responder when there is a potential earthquake or large fire, and their building turns into an emergency operation center and they would be the place where people would need to come in order to get information and provide information about an emergency and they feel putting an RV that is designated for 29 days at a time would interfere with that ability to have the emergency response they need to have at their facility.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if there is an inconveniently located vehicle in a place where vehicles are currently able to park at any time, what is the current plan in case of emergency vis-a-vis that spot, at any given time, might already be taken up.
General Manager Carr agreed that the spot might be taken up, but in the middle of the night there are no spots taken up.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if she would say there is not a contingency plan in place.
General Manager Carr stated that the district has an emergency response plan in place.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they said Council should direct the city attorney to enter into a tolling agreement. He never heard that wording and he asked what is a tolling agreement.
Special Counsel Baral stated that a tolling agreement is where claims the district has would be paused while they try to work out an informal resolution to the issue. It involves statutes of limitations with regard to raising claims. He stated that, in the absence of a tolling agreement, they need to file their claims to preserve them so they don’t run the statute of limitations and the tolling agreement allows flexibility for parties to work in good faith to resolve their issues informally.
Councilmember O’Neill assumes that it gets back to 60 days to appeal or have to hear the appeal within 60 days of the filing. He stated that they mentioned that, if there is something placed there, it would interfere with some diagonal parking spaces in the new building and he assumed that they are planning on having the cars head forward towards their parking lot and they will be moving the sidewalk and putting car parking into their yard. He asked how many parking spaces would this vehicle possibly take, according to their design.
General Manager Carr stated that they would add four parking spaces if they are able to do the diagonal parking but, if they are not able to add the diagonal parking spaces, they would have the existing condition which she thinks it is minus 2 or 3 spaces which the RV would take up.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he has been reading it for almost a week and had conversation with our outside counsel to follow up on points of interest, and it occurred to him that 10 minutes is not a lot of time for them to paint the full picture and he appreciated that the audience might want to see a fuller picture. He stated, if they want to elaborate on why this violates the LCP or why the CEQA exemptions don’t hold water or how it was improperly noticed or how it might constitute an unlawful zoning amendment, he was welcome the opportunity to hear that perspective in real time to paint that picture and be conversive in it rather than passive.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 August 08, 2022
Special Counsel Baral stated that, if it is an invitation to speak, he can go into some detail. He referred to the CEQA exemption, and stated that the legal standard requires two steps, i.e., does the activity fall within the scope of an exemption as a matter of law and the answer is yes, and the next step is did the agency support the use of that extension with substantial evidence and their position that the use of these exemptions does not fit within the legal scope of the exemptions. He stated that the staff report noted an ambiguity as to whether a 3-year program is temporary or not, and that was the legal issue and a court would review that issue de novo, and it would be up to the court to decide whether it is legally appropriate. He stated that, under that situation, substantial evidence doesn’t come into the picture but a legal question. He stated that, if a court determines that it is an appropriate use of the exemption, it then becomes a question of whether the findings support that exemption supported by substantial evidence and that obligation is on the city as a lead agency and not the water district’s obligation, and the court would look at whether the city was able to support its findings. He stated that the water district’s position is that those findings would be problematic and for the common sense exemption, they brought up findings that were made relative to the oversized vehicle ordinance.
He stated the Coastal Commission has also taken a position that the oversized vehicle ordinance and the TSPP programs are interrelated and whether they are the exact same approval, they believe those findings are relevant to whether there would be impacts related to how the oversized vehicles are parked. He stated that they are relative findings but might not be directly at issue but related from the district’s perspective.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he hears him saying that they are looking at what the Coastal Commission is saying and apparently they are saying the oversized vehicle ordinance and temporary safe parking program are interrelated, and as he hears that and was aware of this process for years, he is thinking that they are two programs, and then he thinks that he is waiting for the Coastal Commission to describe their understand about whether or not these are related as they haven’t been living it the way he was living it, let alone other councilmembers, and he hears some of what he is saying but it feels like something that is relatively simple as, to his mind ,these are distinct things. He asked, with the understanding that they are distinct, if they are recommending that he wait for Coastal Commission to tell him the understanding for him to decide that these are distinct. He apologizes but he is trying to make sense out of something that is getting jumbled in his mind as he is trying to understand.
Special Counsel Baral stated that there were discussions between the city attorney’s office as to whether this appeal would be continued a second time and the district’s opinion was that, to continue the appeal, they would need to enter into a tolling agreement and they would be happy to do that while they continue to try to work these issues out. He stated that the response was that the city would not enter into a tolling agreement so they decided to go forward with the appeal and it occurring prior to the Coastal Commission having weighed in.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked him, and added an open ended question as to any of the other nuances of the case, and he was open if he would like to speak to it and flesh out what he is telling them.
General Manager Carr stated that the previous discussions she had with the city were after the July 2020 City Council meeting where a similar but different program was considered by Council and she followed that, checked in with the city manager the following month to get an update to see where everyone at the city was at on this program, and she was told that the city was no longer considering the site in front of their building.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how long ago that was.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 August 08, 2022
General Manager Carr stated it was August 2020 when she last communicated with the city manager about the parking spot at 2400 Francisco as it was proposed as part of the earlier program. She saw a notice of agenda and she saw the TSPP was on for that agenda but she heard from the city manager that their site was no longer being considered and she had meetings with planning staff about their new building and they knew their plan and timeframe and they talked with PW Dep. Director Bautista about the diagonal parking in October or November 2021 and that was before the settlement agreement was entered into. She stated they talked about the diagonal parking and he was very open to it and positive about the diagonal parking with her and their architect team and they were excited about adding spaces, happy to improve the signage or safety or put stop signs to make this a safe diagonal parking, but they want to make it a nice feature and they are excited about their new building, as it will be something in the Sharp Park neighborhood and they like to be good neighbors. She thought, to not get notice at all about this program and they found out when their planning application was being reviewed on March 20 and planning comments came back and was incomplete. She stated that it was incomplete but she thought it was common and they needed things to check.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it was March of this year.
General Manager Carr stated that it was March 20, 2022. She stated that they got the application back on April 19 that said their application was incomplete and they mentioned several things they were doing, but the one surprising comment from Engineering was that they asked they remove diagonal parking as it creates an unsafe condition. They met with Planning the next week and they said they would have to meet with Engineering to see why they said that, and they said that the actual location they proposed as no parking is where the RV spot has been approved. She was surprised and stated that no one called her from the city to say that it was coming up. She stated that it was disappointing as she would have liked to have notice.
Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Jennifer Barba, Pacifica, stated she was with Angelique Ricarte, owner and acting manager of Perfect Pour Café, located at 188 Clarendon Road, diagonal to the proposed temporary safe parking spot proposed for 2400 Francisco Blvd. She shared the challenges they have had in this visitor serving zone, and her concerns regarding this proposed RV parking spot.
Christine Boles, Pariciva, referred to packet page 250, and she stated that five RV parking spaces are in jeopardy, and she expressed her thoughts on this issue, was in favor of the appeal and suggested that Council find alternative locations outside the coastal zone so they have a backup plan.
Brenda Maxwell, Pacifica, stated that she is in support of the appeal of the water district, and shared her thoughts on the process and concerns on the issues.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, shared his concerns on this issue as well as thoughts on other options to solve this problem.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on this issue, and expressed the need to work out a solution for all.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 August 08, 2022
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that he fully supports Council’s denial of the appeal and expressed his thoughts on the issue and appreciated all the efforts made on this crucial program.
Samuel Casillas, Pacifica, stated that the homeless situation deserves a better effort, and he shared his thoughts on the process for a coordinated safe RV parking program.
Ed Markey, Pacifica, stated he is in support of the water district’s appeal and shared his concerns on the process regarding this issue.
William Bradford, Pacifica, stated that he was objecting to the process on this program and agreed with the water district, expressing his thoughts on the issue and suggestions for starting over.
General Manager Carr asked if she could comment before Council begins deliberation.
Mayor Bier stated that there will be rebuttals before that.
General Manager Carr sated that she will wait for the rebuttal.
Mayor Bier thanked her, and then asked City Clerk Coffey if there was time left for that.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they had 2 minutes and 34 seconds remaining for the rebuttal. She stated that she would bring up the district’s Counsel Baral also. She stated that, if they don’t need the slides, she can display the timer while they do their rebuttal.
Mayor Bier asked Counsel Baral what they would prefer.
Counsel Baral stated that without the slides is fine. He will speak a few points in the rebuttal.
He referred to a few comments, and the district agrees there are clearly impacts associated with this program that need to be analyzed. They agree about the implementation of with piecemeals as noted in their letter, and they agree that the ordinance authorizes housing, not just parking, as well as the CDP. He referred to the alternate side issue, and he thought there was nothing that prevents the city from directing staff to find alternative sites, but the program guides state that the city needs to provide notice to the PRC and there is no other criteria as long as the alternate spot meets the criteria for safe parking. He had a meeting with the city attorney’s office to discuss the district proposal and the city attorney confirmed that all that would likely be needed is a resolution to swap out the listing of where the sites are and potentially a CDP, but the district’s position is that there shouldn’t be any sites located in the coastal zone. He stated that, based on the feedback he received from the city attorney’s office, all that is needed is a resolution to change the location of this site. He stated that the district proposed three sites and submitted that information to the city. He stated that Skyline site with the unutilized tank property could accommodate one or potentially more spots pending further review and there are issues that need to be resolved before that would work in collaborating with the city. He stated that, from the district’s perspective, it was a potentially viable spot and is outside of the coastal zone and would provide a much safer secure location for program participants because the district does have intention to renovate and this spot would be far away from any major construction the district is proposing. He stated that their request is that Council approve their appeal, deny the CDP and direct staff to find alternate sites outside of the coastal zone.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 August 08, 2022
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that most of the public comments center around a temporary safe parking program and the oversized vehicle ordinance and she wanted to make clear that the scope of the Council’s review at this meeting. She stated that the city, as the applicant, has applied for a Coastal Development Permit for one on street temporary safe parking spot located on Francisco Blvd., that the Planning Commission granted. She stated that, due to the location of the parking spot, Council is the body with the jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, not the Coastal Commission in this case, and the issue before Council is whether or not to approve, deny or modify this particular CDP as described in the application as presented to the Planning Commission. She stated that the Council’s decision of whether or not to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision approving the permit should be based on whether or not this particular permit for this particular spot is consistent with applicable local coastal program policies and whether the CEQA exemptions can be made. She stated that the scope of Council’s jurisdiction at this time on the permit appeal is limited to the jurisdiction that the Planning Commission had to below, that is whether or not to approve, deny or modify this particular proposed CDP permit for this particular parking spot. She stated that what isn’t at issue is the temporary safe parking program which was approved in February 2022 or the oversized vehicle ordinance itself. She stated that what is at issue here is this spot which was described in the city’s application which is what the Planning Commission considered. As such, it wouldn’t be appropriate in the context of this appeal to discuss alternative sites. It is beyond Council’s purview at this time to consider these when you are talking about this particular appeal. She stated that matters that have been previously approved by Council, which includes the issue of the temporary safe parking program and the oversized vehicle ordinance, are not before Council at this time in the context of this particular appeal. She also wanted to clarify some assertions made with respect to the Coastal Commission staff’s position. The Coastal Commission has appealed jurisdictions for those parking spaces that are within their appeal zone and the Coastal Commission staff has positions with respect to its own appeal process which is a two-step process, i.e., whether or not there is some substantial issue and whether or not it can be put up to a full hearing. She stated that the decision hasn’t been made yet and any position or opinion by the Coastal Commission staff as set forth in the staff report isn’t binding on Council at this meeting. The Council has its own independent appeal jurisdiction and that is what Council is doing at this meeting pursuant to its own simple code and the Coastal Commission has not made any decision with respect to its own appeals and Council has adopted that safe temporary parking program previously. She referred to CEQA, and stated that there is evidence to support Council’s decision should it find to support the CEQA exemptions here, and it was important to note that they have heard a lot about the impact or the potential impacts that parking could have in general and how those impacts should be considered, but at this time, the Council is just looking at this o ne 10x30 temporary parking spot which is in a location in an existing right-of-way where the parking already is allowed for oversized vehicles and the issues with respect to the district’s counsel discussed previously mostly has to do with implications of the program itself. She stated that they are talking about this one spot, and she believes, as set forth in the staff report, there is substantial evidence that this one spot falls under Category 1 and 4 and there is substantial evidence to uphold the support of those exemptions. She stated, with respect to notice, this has to do with the separation of the temporary safe parking program that was approved previously, there was appropriate notice given for that program which was considered by Council and was independent on discretion previously and notice was given at this meeting for this particular appeal and notice was given with the Planning Commission’s first CDP and notice has been complied with.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 August 08, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, before they close the public hearing, he saw that Bill Tobin has raised his hand and he appreciated that he had difficulty connecting earlier and he wasn’t sure if she might have interest in hearing him before they close the public hearing.
Mayor Bier stated that they can open it back up to hear from Mr. Tobin.
Bill Tobin, Pacifica, wanted to comment on the TSPP program as it relates to activities on the Lundy Street parking spaces. He noticed inconsistencies in implementation of the program and expressed his thoughts on this issue.
Mayor Bier apologized and stated his time was up.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he would like to clarify some additional points, based on public comments and the appellant’s presentation. He thought they need to have Council consider this appeal in the right context. He stated that the appellant has attempted to structure this as a no parking versus oversized vehicle parking question and they are talking about one parking space as part of the TSPP which, in addition to being exempted from the 72- hour parking limitations of the Municipal Code, there is also a required enrollment in a robust set of program components due to Pacifica Resource Center to help transition the program participants out of vehicular housing and into permanent housing. He stated that there is already oversized vehicle parking allowed on this segment of Francisco Blvd., and it is a false question presented to Council to suggest that denying this CDP would somehow eliminate oversized vehicle parking in this location, but that is factually untrue. He stated that the question is whether this is an appropriate space, can the findings be made for a coastal development permit for those vehicles to park there that already parking in this area and to allow program participants to be enrolled in the TSPP program through the Pacifica Resource Center. He thought it was important to focus on what the question is for Council as part of the appeal. He added that it was important to clarify that representations made by the appellant about their potential future water district headquarters project, he is sure those are factual as to their intentions, but with respect to the city, the project application is incomplete and no action has been taken by the city to approve or deny the project and there is no permit approval granted to the water district at this point to construct the building, much less the on street diagonal parking configuration that they have described and it is really a distracting point with respect to this particular CDP application as no such approval has been granted for that project and the city has ultimate domain through the city engineer over the public right-of-way, such as Francisco Blvd., including the design and configuration of travel ways and on street parking areas. He stated that the question is fully within the city’s domain to approve or not approve that diagonal parking. He referred to a statement made by a public commenter with respect to the 3-year nature of the TSPP and an option to renew, and that is not how the program has been approved by Council in the adopting resolution for the TSPP. It indicates a 3-year term for that and the CDP as conditioned by the Planning Commission and presented to Council with tonight’s appeal would only allow the CDP to be in effect for as long as the temporary safe parking program is in effect. He stated that, in full disclosure, he agreed that the Council, at some future time, could amend that resolution or adopt a different resolution to extend the program but that has not been contemplated and not currently part of the temporary safe parking program. He asked PW Director Petersen or PW Dep. Director Bautista to speak about some of the engineering considerations that went into identifying the Francisco Blvd. space for appropriateness, in terms of a temporary safe parking program location.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 August 08, 2022
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, regarding that space, Engineering looked at multiple areas to park and only 13 spaces were found in the city. He stated that Engineering assessment was done on city streets that were wide enough, looking for at least 10 feet parking width and at least 10 feet travel lane next to that space, and started looking at non-residential areas for locations to minimize impacts in residential neighborhoods and this space fits the criteria. He referred to a question regarding parking utilization, and based on studies that were done, a parking supply study that was conducted for the Sharp Park Specific Plan shows that this block is only 25% to 50% parked during the weekend and 50% to 75% during the weekday.
Mayor Bier stated that she was going to comment first. She wanted General Manager Carr and everyone at the water district to understand that she shares the disappointment that we were not able to come together and collaborate as these relationships are really important to individuals and the community and it is going to be really important moving forward that we are able to sit down together and work together for the betterment of our community and she was sorry that it didn’t happen soon enough and they are at this point instead.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he didn’t get a thorough understanding from staff as to why they are here. He asked if Special Counsel Longfellow would give them an introduction of who she is, why is she here and not the city attorney.
Special Counsel Longfellow appreciated the opportunity to respond. She stated that the city is the applicant for this particular CDP and, as the applicant, the city attorney’s office, City Attorney Kenyon and Assistant City Attorney Bazzano, have been working with city staff with respect to the application and essentially project component. She is present as Counsel to advise the City Council to ensure that there is a fair hearing and due process is followed, and keep the separation between the city attorney’s office that is assisting with this application and assisting staff with the application and her role is to ensure the fair hearing process and advise Council, and as a note, the city attorney’s office has not been advising Council with respect to this appeal and they have only been working with staff with respect to the application.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they have reached out to her with questions and she has been very helpful. He thanked her for being here. He stated that, when she spoke a few moments ago, she said a lot in a short time period and he may or may not have to reference what she said but he wanted to acknowledge that.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that she is happy to jump in if he has any questions.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to a statement that PW Dep. Director Bautista was asked about the potential of putting more parking spaces where we are going to be putting this RV, and he wanted to ask him a question that will pertain to a comment he is going to make. He asked if it is viable, from an engineering perspective, that the water district could put those four diagonal spots in or are there other engineering considerations that preclude it.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that, during his preliminary review of the plan, he thought that the diagonal parking would have been acceptable, however, as this area is a priority development area, diagonal parking would probably not be advisable because they want to make the area into a multi-module friendly area and diagonal parking takes up space needed for bikes and pedestrians in favor of cars as well as a safety factor. He stated that knowing they have those PDA, they want to promote bicycle and pedestrian safety in the area and that is why he thought diagonal parking would not be in the best interest of bicycle and pedestrian safety.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 August 08, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the tricky thing is that there have been so many things brought up and they are confined to what Planning Commission discussed in this one spot within that context, and he could go off on so many tangents for so many community concerns but he has to bring it back. He pointed that it is now 10:45 and he asked if he should make a motion to extend the meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to midnight; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (to extend the meeting to midnight)
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he is left with two lingering common questions. He appreciated the nature of the lawsuit has made it so that, as they are formulating the safe parking program and discussing it, it hasn’t been in the public because they are in the middle of a lawsuit and that is how that works, but it also denies them the opportunity to have that discussion with the community that probably should have led them to this place under more ideal circumstances. He wasn’t sure if his question falls within the scope and stated Special Counsel Longfellow can feel free to cut him off. He asked Acting Planning Director Murdock, generally, why is it that they aren’t asking for an EIR.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the answer rests in the analysis contained in the staff report that he attempted to articulate in this meeting, i.e., the nature of this program space that is the subject of the appeal is very minor in nature and falls within more than one categorical exemption pursuant to adopted state law governing environmental review. He thought that any project could undergo environmental review, but doing environmental review in very minor projects is a resource and time consuming undertaking. While CEQA is intended to be protective of the environment, it also recognizes some things categorically are not going to have significant environmental impacts, hence the name categorical exemption. He stated that the categories of uses that are defined by the Secretary of Natural Resources is categorically determined by that appointed state official not to have a significant effect on the environment.
He stated that, when you have the facts to support finding that a particular activity fits within one of those categorical exemptions, the presumption is that it will not have a significant environmental impact. Through staff’s analysis of applicable categorical exemptions, including Class 1 and Class 4, staff believes in their expert opinion that, in doing this as experts in land use projects, there is evidence to support applications of a categorical exemption and an EIR is not required or appropriate in this instance.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, at the heart of what they are trying to accomplish, there is so much hypothetical discussion going on and so much about what could go wrong or go right, and what they are trying to accomplish is that a parking spot is being used as a parking spot to which they hear the response from the community is what if things go wrong from that point. He appreciates that but, on the other hand, what they are trying to accomplish and doing everything they can to insure is that, at the end of the day, a parking spot is being used as a parking spot.
He stated that, in theory, that parking spot could be used continuously on a 72-hour rotation, and he appreciated that it is kind of a reach of hypothetical. He is saying that, hypotheticals aside, is what they are trying to enact and they want to see if they can accomplish that. He mentioned that Planning Commissioner Greg Wright is on the call, and he would like to ask him if he has any insights or perspectives he would like to lend. He knows it wasn’t an easy City Council Regular Meeting 30 August 08, 2022
Planning Commission meeting, as he watched it and reviewed it.
Mayor Bier thanked him for saying that as that was the next thing she brought up as she understands it was an interesting Planning Commission meeting and things happened during that meeting, and it would be good for Council to understand exactly how the decision came to be made. She asked Commissioner Wright if he had any comments which would be helpful for her to understand how their decision was made.
Commissioner Wright stated he would try to keep his comments brief. He stated that staff and the Commission worked very hard to wrap their heads around this issue. They did feel a little bit of time pressure due to the lawsuit and they felt like they needed to make a decision to bring back to Council for further consideration. He stated that they asked a number of questions to better understand exactly what the program entailed so they would understand exactly what they were considering for this particular spot. He stated that they understood that it was a spot that was in a use currently allowed and the change in the program was to extend the period of time. There were a number of conditions by participants that would be placed on them by the Resource Center. He stated that it was a complicated, long process and they did their best to make the best decision they could under the time constraints and they decided, in the end, to side with staff and support and approve the position. He asked if there were any further questions he can clarify.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck understood there was a condition of approval put in toward the end regarding reporting out essentially on how the program is going, especially in regard to the concern about emergency response. He asked if he can elaborate on what that condition was and how they came to it and how that made certain members of the Commission feel better about voting to approve.
Commissioner Wright stated that there were a number of questions that came up around that, i.e., a passionate discussion about that and he would ask Acting Planning Director Murdock to clarify for him what the exact wording is, as he doesn’t have in his memory, before he comments further.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that condition of approval No. 5 included in the Planning Commission’s approval required that, after not less than two months and not more than four months of operation, the applicant (the city) shall prepare a written operational review report summarizing operation of the program space in relation to the adjacent North Coast County Water District facility for review and consideration by the City Manager. The applicant shall confer with the water district to seek its input into the report. He stated that what that came out of was essentially a sympathetic audience among the Planning Commission for representations made by the water district during the public hearing process that they were concerned about impacts to their operations. He stated that Council heard some of those claims at this meeting under the guides of this appeal. He state that staff believes there is sufficient evidence to dismiss and discount those claims by the water district but Planning Commission included this reporting mechanism so at least there was a formalized feedback opportunity and the city would be required to engage with the water district after the spaces have become operational for some period of time so that, in the event that there is some unanticipated consequence, there is an opportunity to report that back for the City Manager to hear it and, if appropriate, report that to Council to consider some amendment to the space or the TSPP appropriate at that point in time.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there was a comment made earlier that this would be the City Council Regular Meeting 31 August 08, 2022
equivalent of living at City Hall and while the road adjacent to City Hall is too narrow to put an RV and they put as many spaces as they could in their corporation yard to be as sensitive as they could. He is grateful that the water district has reached out to suggest spaces that we might use, but unfortunately, the scope of what they are discussing at this meeting is too narrow to have that discussion. He added that, outside of the discussion they are having at this meeting, he thought they would be open to that discussion if the context were right, especially if there is going to be construction there. He stated that the point is well taken by staff that, right now, the details of that haven’t been hammered out, especially at the point in time when there might be construction there, he would be interested for the sake of facilitating a smoother construction by the water district as well as helping a member of our safe parking program to not have to listen to construction at all hours. He stated that, if they would lend us that space, they would be much more open to that as there would be an appropriate moment where it would make perfect sense. He added that it might not be a bad conversation and he would be willing to speak outside of the context of this appeal where they can’t incorporate that into what they are hearing at this meeting.
Councilmember O’Neill asked Special Counsel Longfellow if we have the Coastal Commission making a decision on August 12.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that they are making a substantial issue determination in the first stage.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if they hear the appeal and agree with the appeal, those four spots that are subject to the appeal to the Coastal Commission, if they will be out of the program.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that the first stage is whether or not there is a substantial determination hearing and then it would have to go to the full Commission and, depending on what they say, that is down the road and there are two courses for the Coastal Commission’s consideration and, at that time, it is likely that that would take those sites out unless there could be some other resolution made. She stated that the determination hasn’t been made and there are things that need to happen before that determination.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if Council was to deny the appeal tonight and the Coastal Commission, at some point was to approve their appeal and uphold the appeal of eliminating those four sites, what the repercussions would be for this site, being it is in the coastal zone.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that, as she mentioned earlier, the appeal process for the location for these particular parking sites, all within the coastal zone, there would be no impact for this particular CDP with respect to how the Coastal Commission decided on the appeals that are under their jurisdiction. She said, due to the location of this particular spot on Francisco Blvd., Council is the final decision making body for this appeal and the decision would stand irrespective of what decision the Coastal Commission made on the parking spaces within its appeal jurisdiction. She stated that they are two separate issues and that is one of the reason they stated before that, in staff’s opinion or the Coastal Commission’s opinion eventually on their appeals doesn’t have any bearing for the city’s jurisdiction to determine this appeal at this meeting.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if the Council denies the appeal, whether the water district go to the Coastal Commission to appeal it.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 August 08, 2022
Special Counsel Longfellow stated her understanding is that this is the final appellant body for this particular permit. She stated that there are potentially other actions that the water district could take, but as far as this appeal, it is within Council’s jurisdiction, not the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction, due to the location of the parking site. She reiterated that this is the final appellant’s administrative body, City Council and not the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is unclear as his understanding was that any decision the city makes in the coastal zone was appealable to the Coastal Commission.
Special Counsel Longfellow asked Acting Planning Director Murdock to correct her if she has this understanding incorrectly, but she understands that there is a locational line, a road line where properties that are to the east of that line, where the coastal development permits are appealed to the City Council if they are within a certain location and coastal development permits that are beyond that road and CDPs that are within a different area, those could be appealed to the city or the Coastal Commission, but this particular appeal is constrained in its location. Due to that location, she stated that Council is the determining body.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted to be sure he is understanding it correctly that the end of the coastal zone is the western curb of Francisco Blvd.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated she will defer to Acting Planning Director Murdock on that one.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the extent of the coastal zone overall extends beyond Francisco Blvd. Into Highway 1, but what is relevant for his line of questioning is where the delineation of the coastal zone appeals jurisdiction, which is a subset of the coastal zone where, per statute, there are defined locations that local actions on coastal development permits are appealable to the Coastal Commission. In those locations, Council can be an immediate appeal body but not required to act on an appeal and whatever the final local action, whether final Planning Commission or Final City Council action, that local action is appealable to the Coastal Commission. He stated that the subject site of the Francisco Blvd. Safe parking program location is not within the appeals jurisdiction and not appealable to the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember O’Neill thought it was Mr. Baral who said he had a conference with the city’s legal counsel, which he assumed was City Attorney Kenyon, not Ms. Longfellow, and he thought the city could switch parking spaces out as long as they maintain the 13 spaces.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that she can’t speak directly to that issue, but her understanding is that there is some process to change sites, however the issue for this consideration is that that discussion is a separate discussion. She stated that it is legally possible but, for this meeting, that would have to be something they would consider or brought back or direction given to staff. At this time, it is just centering on this de novo hearing that Council is having and what she means by de novo is that City Council is hearing all information with respect to this appeal on this particular permit that was approved by the Planning Commission and is restricted to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission when it considers the permit and that is not the whole program, and it is not the alternative sites or not the oversized vehicle ordinance itself.
Mayor Bier asked her if that was where the tolling agreement comes in. She stated that they can’t talk about those specific sites at this meeting and they understand that. She wants to, so City Council Regular Meeting 33 August 08, 2022
she asked if that is where the tolling agreement comes in.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated she was not involved in the discussions of the tolling agreement as that was what the city attorney was involved in, and she thought the tolling agreement was simply to allow this particular hearing to be extended and any claims that the water district may have with respect to other issues would be essentially paused, but not being involved, she can’t speak to the specifics of that particular issue.
Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated everyone’s thoughtful and careful questions for our Counsel and staff and for the appellant. She reviewed the Planning Commission meeting and she read the transcript over and over, and she stated that it was one of the most contentious difficult Planning Commission decision that she was personally aware of, and she didn’t serve on the Planning Commission unlike three of her fellow councilmembers but she sees their expertise and appreciate and respect it. She understands that a lot of what they talk about are things that she doesn’t have a background in. She felt that the experts they rely on for this decision making had a no in the first vote which was very telling to her. She reviewed the reasons why it was a no, notwithstanding the traffic engineer staff delineating this area as allowable for parking, but at one point Chair Berman said it feels too tight there. She stated that one consideration she knows is not very often a factor but is in this particular location is that the freeway is right there. She stated that they have the freeway above them, that constrains the feeling of that spot. As she is thinking about all the issues and what she is hearing about the proposed plans for the water district redoing, she was inclined to take whatever measure or step it is that they need to take, relying on Council to help them figure that out, to have more consideration of this item. She stated that, in four days, the Coastal Commission is going to weigh in on its own on the larger project that the city is engaged in, temporary safe parking program, they are going to weigh in on spots within their jurisdiction and, while it doesn’t have any bearing on this item in fact, she thought it does in a practical matter. She is struggling with that and, returning to the deliberation that the Planning commissioners had, the position that Council is in working with our partner, NCCWD, on behalf of all of our taxpayers, ratepayers, etc., she wasn’t sure what the appropriate action is, how to phrase it or what to do. She can tell them what she wants to happen, i.e., further discussion with NCCWD before any temporary parking place goes in at that location. She stated that, if that has implications for a tolling agreement or whatever it needs to look like, she didn’t know what the first step for Council looks like. She stated that she will defer to Counsel and maybe Councilmember O’Neill. She thinks they know where she is going and she will stop talking and let the Mayor decide if Councilmember O’Neill should speak.
Mayor Bier agreed that he can speak.
Councilmember O’Neill thought another consideration that they haven’t mentioned is he thought there is a bus stop at that corner and he sees people standing there waiting for a bus. He would be open to following Councilmember Beckmeyer’s idea of continuing this to another date and allowing discussions regarding other options moving forward.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she read in detail every discussion that the Planning Commission had and she has served on the Commission, and she thought the decisions are very difficult. She stated that this decision was not easy for Council when they made it, as they didn’t arbitrarily throw a dart and picked the spot. As PW Dep. Director Bautista said, we purposely made locations that were not in front of residential homes, not directly in front of businesses, and all of it was difficult. She stated that there are very few locations where those items fit, and we don’t have an industrial area or a place out of the way from every place else, City Council Regular Meeting 34 August 08, 2022
and all of it is difficult. She then stated she wasn’t sure they can put this off longer because of the appeal process and she would have to ask that question of legal counsel.
Special Counsel Longfellow thought the basic issue is the decision that needs to be made by City Council at this meeting, which is set forth in the staff report, is whether or not to deny, uphold or modify the Planning Commission’s decision at this time. She stated that the decision should be made on this particular spot. To the extent that Council wants to direct staff is a separate issue to return or consider alternate locations. She stated that they can do that, and another thing to consider is that it would be possible for Council to deny this appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision on this particular spot and, separately, direct staff to work or analyze potentially different parking locations that may be appropriate apart from their decision on this particular space in this CDP.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought the last thing that Ms. Longfellow said hit the nail on the head.
He was hearing some sort of consensus that all of them are in favor, on some level and some way, of exploring alternatives. He stated that it sounds like their duty is to either uphold or deny the appeal and he was inclined to deny the appeal based on the evidence that is before him, but it sounds like they’re all interested in exploring on some level what it would look like to look at the other potential sites. He stated that it occurs to him, because they would vote one way or the other at this time, rather than continue, that doesn’t mean they can’t give strong direction that they would like to continue that conversation with the water district past this appeal.
Mayor Bier wanted to say, ongoing back to what Councilmember Beckmeyer was talking about and she fully agrees, the Coastal Commission hasn’t even had their meeting or talked about this yet, and she thought, whether in regard to this particular space or not, it is going to have a really big effect on how decisions are made about this moving forward. She thought that she would prefer to have it go back to Planning so they can talk about it after the Coastal Commission has their meeting on Friday.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to have Ms. Longfellow or Acting Planning Director Murdock clarify what the scope is of the Coastal Commission’s consideration in terms of the substantial determination is on Friday and he added that it is only the first step in the process. He didn’t know if there was anything substantially informative that will come out of Friday’s hearing. He also says that, while the water district has suggested some potential sites, the evaluation of a feasible site is very complicated with many factors and they don’t know the feasibility at all and that could be a very long process as there is another agency involved with jurisdiction regarding one of the sites, the zoning is applicable and may require public hearings which is a very elongated process and Council is very familiar with all of those complexities regarding other sites. He stated that if either Ms. Longfellow or Acting Planning Director Murdock could speak a little bit more specifically to that first step for the Coastal Commission and reiterate what Ms.
Longfellow said that there is the appeal regarding this specific site for a decision and then separate action that he has already reached out to the Executive Director from the water district about any interest in other sites and exploring those as a separate action.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he will respond with respect to the substantial issue hearing on Friday. He stated that, as mentioned, the Coastal Commission appeal process is a two-step process. Friday’s meeting on August 12 is the substantial issue hearing, which means that it is simply an inquiry into whether the appeal that was filed by the appellant is likely to implicate any important coastal act consistency question, but not a determination on the final action on the appeal and whether there is full merit to the appeal and whether the city’s action can be upheld or if it needs to be overturned. He stated all that will come out of the Friday City Council Regular Meeting 35 August 08, 2022
hearing of the Coastal Commission is whether the Coastal Commission assert jurisdiction and set the date for a future appeal hearing or not. If the answer is no, which is a possibility, then the city’s CDPs would take effect and there would be no appeal here, and that could be a quick resolution to the appeal process in favor of the city’s action, or as the Coastal Commission staff has recommended, they may find a substantial issue and determine that a future hearing date on no particular legal timeline would occur at some future date. He stated that only after conduct of that future appeal hearing date would the city know definitively whether or not the CDPs would be approved or denied.
Special Counsel Longfellow thanked him for that clarification, and she agrees. She stated that one other issue of clarification is that the meeting on Friday before the Coastal Commission with respect to whether or not there is a substantial issue really doesn’t have any bearing for Council’s determination at this meeting. The Council’s determination on this particular CDP is within the Council’s appeal jurisdiction and not bound persuasively or firmly otherwise by the Coastal Commission’s determination and there is likely a difference of opinion between what the city is considering is an appropriate jurisdiction for the Coastal Commission to have in this case, and she stated that they are going to take issue with the substantial issue determination argument that staff has put forth by the Coastal Commission and she would like to make it clear that for those separate issues, the Coastal Commission has its own process and evaluation that it does that is not binding on City Council and Council has its own independent discretion and jurisdiction with respect to this particular CDP.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that the Coastal Commission is irrelevant in regard to this decision at this meeting. He stated that Ms. Longfellow said Council’s purview is either approve, uphold the appeal or deny the appeal. He stated that many times on Council, they have modified a Planning Commission decision, such as added a condition, deleted a condition, etc. He asked why a continuance would not just be a modification and direction to staff to go and look at whatever needs to be done to modify this decision.
Special Counsel Longfellow thought the difference in the typical Planning Commission appeals that come before Council have to do with a particular site such as a home remodel project or development project. When the Municipal code talks about imposing conditions are modifying the decision of the Planning Commission, it has to do with the application that was set forth before the Planning Commission. She stated that, in contrast here, the Council is analyzing a CDP for the project is an application for a permit for this particular location. The application set forth is this particular parking spot location. She stated that there can be modifications and conditions such as she noted there were some markings and signage and those would be appropriate but to change the location of that parking spot would essentially be changing the nature of the application itself and the nature of what the Planning Commission considered.
She stated that, should City Council wish to consider alternate locations, that would be a separate process and it would be possible to deny the appeal at this meeting, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and, separate and apart from that, direct staff to continue its analysis in working with the walking district to potentially consider different sites and return to the City Council as a separate step.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if he was to make a motion of upholding the appeal with a condition that staff meet with the water district in the future, what would be the words he would need.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that upholding the appeal or denying the appeal. She thought the appropriate motion would be separate. The first motion would be a motion to den City Council Regular Meeting 36 August 08, 2022
the appeal as set forth in the staff report, i.e., deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision of the CDP at issue and then a motion would be taken on that issue.
The separate motion would be direction to staff to continue working for the analysis of potential alternative sites and return to the Council and Planning Commission at a future date after the analysis has been done.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he will throw that out for discussion with his fellow councilmembers. He stated it would have to be two motions, one denying the appeal with a second motion directing staff to continue meeting with the water district to look at other discussions. He asked if then they could move forward with a vehicle being there.
Special Counsel Longfellow agreed, and the impact of that particular scenario would be denying the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s decision would be approval of the permit and that would allow that space to be used and allowed part of the program and the second direction to staff would allow a further analysis and further discussion and continuation of that portion of the process while simultaneously allowing the permit to go into effect.
Councilmember O’Neill asked why they could not uphold the appeal with direction to staff that may be a modification of the approval for directing staff to meet with the water district. He thought they will also have to look at some sort of consideration or interaction with SamTrans for the bus stop.
Special Counsel Longfellow asked if it was with respect to this particular permit or with respect to future locations.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that there is a bus stop at that corner.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it was around the corner on Clarendon.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he stands corrected.
Special Counsel Longfellow thinks that is kind of the factual scenario that staff would take into consideration if directed to consider alternative locations and that would definitely be considered. Staff would recommend that it is possible to allow this particular permit to go into effect while simultaneously continuing that discussion for potential alternative locations.
Mayor Bier thought they were clear on what she was recommending, but what does Council think. She stated that, if they can do everything they possibly can to create this collaborative relationship with the water district so they can move forward together instead of separately, she thinks they need to do everything they can to do that. Right now, she didn’t think it feels like their partners in anything and that is not how they should be working. She thinks they need to do whatever they can to make sure that the come together. She stated that they are coming to us with ideas and the only way we will be able to talk about these ideas is if they have time and are sitting around a table and talking it through. She stated that, if they deny the appeal and they are able to use that spot which they don’t even know as there is so much grey area with the Coastal Commission and everything that the water district is bringing to them, she doesn’t think that they should deny the appeal.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that, to be clear, it is within Council’s jurisdiction to uphold the appeal and they would take Council’s findings pursuant to the discussions at this meeting, and return with a resolution at a future date to set forth why the findings can’t be made for this particular permit, and they would be happy to do that as well.
City Council Regular Meeting 37 August 08, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would like to make a couple of clarifying comments that he thinks would help. He stated that, if Council decides to uphold the appeal, there will essentially not be a program parking spot on Francisco there and the city will be forced to find a 13th spot somewhere else in the city without knowing whether the sites that the water district is offering are feasible. He stated that another alternative that he will throw out is that the Council could deny the appeal but also direct separately delaying implementation of the spot until the feasibility of the site that the water district is suggesting is evaluated. He reiterated that they can deny the appeal but the PRC is not going to site a client there next week, and will wait until we know whether the other site is feasible or not and it has been vetting through whatever hearings need to happen and a zoning change, before an OSV is cited on that, i.e., just another alternative and he stands corrected if either Ms. Longfellow or Acting Planning Director Murdock sees any problem with that one.
Special Counsel Longfellow agrees with that alternative as something that is within Council’s discretion.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to revisit the issue and ask for a clear explanation again of the tolling agreement and what the purpose of that is. She is thinking about the implication of whatever decision they make at this time, and what action is the NCCWD board going to take and is that foreseeable. She stated that, when they talk about more time, what does that look like legally. She stated that they have constraints around appeals and legal action, etc.
Special Counsel Longfellow thinks that, as she was not a party to the tolling agreement, they will hear from the City Attorney.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified that, since they are not talking about the appeal but a separate issue related to a tolling agreement, the tolling agreement as it relates to any future potential litigation that the NCCWD is anticipating, they can discuss that with the district at any time. The reason that the tolling agreement wasn’t discussed for purposes of the appeal was because they had a time constraint for the appeal of 60 days and she understood that there was no agreement to toll unless they did not go forward with the appeal. She stated that the process they will be going through, should Council direct staff to consider alternative sites and Council were to deny the appeal, NCCWD and the city could then enter into a tolling agreement regarding any future litigation related to that future discussion on alternative sites prior to their statute of limitations running when they could lodge a court action challenging Council’s final decision. She stated that, by taking the action tonight would not forego Council’s or city’s opportunity to discuss a tolling agreement with NCCWD.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she understood her correctly that is if they deny the appeal.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what if they uphold the appeal.
City Attorney Beckmeyer stated that there would be no need for a tolling agreement because there will be no parking spot at the Francisco site and there will be no action as they will have upheld the appeal as NCCWD is requesting and they will have no basis for a lawsuit.
Councilmember O’Neill asked what would be the thing that forces them to look at the alternative sites.
City Council Regular Meeting 38 August 08, 2022
Special Counsel Longfellow asked him to clarify that question.
Councilmember O’Neill stated the main attraction in terms of discussing this location is the fact that they have offered alternative sites. He stated that he knows they can’t talk about them, but how do they do what they need to do but still have this site available if it is the last measure.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that, if this site were to be the last measure, the action that Council would take would be to deny the appeal which would be upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the CDP for this location and, as pointed out by the City Manager, they would direct staff to participate in negotiations about the appropriateness of these alternate sites and continue discussion and they would direct staff to delay the implementation of this particular permit. That would be the direction Council takes to make sure that this particular site, if it turns out to be the most appropriate location after consideration, it remains as it is approved.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to Mayor Bier’s point of trying Kumbaya, what if they upheld the appeal and directed staff to delay the implementation of the parking until consideration, and would achieve the same thing that the city manager mentioned.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated it was her understanding that, if they uphold the appeal, it would get rid of that parking spot. The city would have to go through an application process to put it before the Planning Commission and then the Cit Council again. She stated that upholding the appeal would be the final determination for this particular parking spot.
Councilmember O’Neill now sees the difference.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked the city manager for bringing forth the idea that they could simultaneously deny the appeal and hold off on implementing the site before they fully talked it through with the water district and he liked that idea a lot. He stated that Anita Rees has been with them the entire time and a question occurred to him that she is qualified to answer, and his question to her is that his understanding is that, at the last count, all eight of the sites that are not in the coastal zone have been taken up by people who are seeking to be permanently housed outside of their vehicle and his understanding was that a wait list had begun to be developed for the other five sites when they become available after these processes in which they are engaged. He stated his question is how long is the waiting list Anita Rees stated that they currently have one person ready to go and another that is pending an assessment.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck concluded that they have up to two people who might benefit from this site, if and when it becomes available.
Anita Rees responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wanted to factor into a little bit of the human element of people who are waiting for a safe place to try and get housed. What he doesn’t know is how ACLU is going to look at the way they’re deliberating, how long it’s taking them and at what point they might be annoyed. He didn’t know whether the sites that the water district is suggesting are feasible.
They might be, and He will be delighted if they are but he doesn’t know that part. He stated that he was looking at evidence that suggests that there is enough evidence before him that he City Council Regular Meeting 39 August 08, 2022
is comfortable denying the appeal and also comfortable saying that they direct staff to look at those other sites in a reasonable time frame because there are people waiting for a safe place to be while they are trying to better their circumstance. He stated that if it is a short enough time, he would love to assess whether or not there is a preferred site while simultaneously making sure that they have the site available for our promise to the ACLU.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked, if you take all the emotion out of it and just go by the facts, whether it fits in with the staff report with the facts to deny the appeal. She says it does and she feels like she agrees with what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck just said, that they deny the appeal, hold off on placing a vehicle in that location, collaborate with the water district to see if they can find an alternative and search for other alternatives at the same time. Meanwhile, they have the space and this is the negotiation.
Councilmember O’Neill asked they want to make a motion as it is 11:41 p.m.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she will make that motion.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer is saying no.
Mayor Bier asked if they meant to extend the meeting.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they will need to do that.
Councilmember O’Neill made a motion to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she moved that they deny the appeal and leave the space empty and collaborate with the water department and look at additional spaces.
Councilmember O’Neill would second that.
Special Counsel Longfellow clarified that the motion was to deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and delay implementation usage of the parking space at issue for what period of time.
Councilmember Vaterlaus suggested 60 days.
Mayor Bier didn’t think it was long enough to do a feasibility study for all the spots they recommended.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked the city manager how long it would take.
City Manager Woodhouse suggested that they ask that question of Acting Planning Director Murdock and PW Director Petersen as there is a lot to discuss and evaluate as it involves a third public agency and he agrees that 60 days is probably not long enough as they don’t know zoning wise or otherwise whether there is public hearing and there probably would be a Planning Commission meeting.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he was aware of three potential spaces and one seems to be the stronger of the three that would warrant some further evaluation. He stated, as City Manager Woodhouse mentioned, the NCCWD is not the only public agency at that site that has an interest in their operations and the use of that site, and that public agency has withdrawn City Council Regular Meeting 40 August 08, 2022
its public opposition but that is not necessarily the same as support. He added that, if they were to support it, it was not clear what legal mechanisms might be needed in terms of modified easements or other operating agreements as those details need to be flushed out with the city’s attorneys and their attorneys. He stated that, considering what the zoning requirements would be are also relevant, and with respect to the zoning and permitting analysis, he thought 60 days would be sufficient for that, but perhaps the more challenging component is some of the physical evaluations, vehicle maneuverability, etc., and is more in PW Director Petersen’s wheelhouse and he will allow her to speak to that.
PW Director Petersen thought that they have already looked at some of the spots and she already has a good understanding about them. She believes that they can do it within the 60- day period for sure.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they would be more comfortable with 90.
PW Director Petersen thought they could do it sooner than 60 days from the engineering analysis and she didn’t think they need 90.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated, to be clear, he wanted to make sure they understand that they are talking about the feasibility evaluation, not necessarily any implementation steps, such as legal agreements, authorization from other governing boards, zoning processes that might be involved and those almost certainly would extend beyond a 60-day feasibility evaluation.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that the feasibility evaluation is 60 days.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed to the amendment to the motion. He was the second.
Mayor Bier stated that they can still discuss before they go to a vote.
Special Counsel Longfellow agreed, adding that she wanted to make sure that she is trying to write down all the conditions for this motion, and she clarified that the motion on the table would be to deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and delay implementation of the parking space at issue and she would suggest, for a reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days which is what she heard, to allow an analysis of feasibility of alternative sites. She asked if they are talking specifically a feasibility study and not the feasibility of the different legal constraints should there be any with alternative sites. She asked if that was correct.
Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has concerns as she feels that staff had an opportunity to do this kind of collaboration and looking at this and did have an incentive, and she feels that, if they deny the appeal, they still don’t and she thinks that is harsh. She knows it sounds terrible, but it is how she feels and she thinks they all had so much pressure on them over the entire situation that it just didn’t work out, but they already have the approval for the site. She feels that, if they can’t have a serious and fruitful collaboration between these two public agencies, for lots of reasons stated at this meeting, it might need to be the case that the city looks for another site altogether. She feels that provides more of an incentive for the collaboration than a bird in the hand. That is where she is. She hates to be this heavy but City Council Regular Meeting 41 August 08, 2022
that’s her job. She stated that every now and then she has to really pull it and be unpleasant.
In this particular case, she is not a fan of denying the appeal. She realizes there is a motion on the floor and they can discuss and asked questions and that is her discussion.
Mayor Bier added that, before Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck goes, she feels the same way and she said it a lot more articulately than she has been able to do. She stated that they have an opportunity to look at more than one space. When she thinks about the ACLU, it isn’t that they don’t want any space as they have the opportunity to look at more. She didn’t think they should deny the appeal.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the point is not lost on him. He thought it would be nice if they had been collaborative out of the gate, and it would have been nice if they could have consulted our constituents as they took a great deal of painful discussion trying to think about what the absolute best site would be to consider and came to the conclusion that this was one of the 13 to the best of their ability to discern what, within their authority, would be a good place to put it. He stated, all of that aggravation notwithstanding, his question is that they have an agreement with the ACLU and the reason they are here to begin with is because of the pain of litigation and the money spent, and now that they are on the other side of that with an agreement with them, he would love to be collaborative with the water district and find spots that are preferred. He asked what the effect is on the agreement they made and how long can they reasonably take before the people they made that agreement with for the sake of putting the real hard part behind us and say it is time to revisit this again, and they just approved $550,000 along with other attorney fees, and before he feels comfortable trying to rework what sites they are going to use and he needs to know what is a reasonable timeframe at this point before they shoot themselves in the foot again.
Special Counsel Longfellow added that first of all, if the Council were to uphold the appeal and deny this spot, it would be difficult to locate another parking spot on Francisco Blvd., and also the consideration that the water district may not have the incentive to negotiate once their appeal is upheld and, with respect to the settlement agreement with the ACLU, if this parking space isn’t implemented, that does raise the risk of the ACLU objecting to the city’s implementation of the settlement agreement and there could be a risk that the city is facing there, and those are all points of risk that she would like to state for the record and point out as information.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they need to make a motion to extend the meeting as it is 11:51 p.m.
Mayor Bier thanked him.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.)
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that, in her motion, she was not limiting the feasibility of another site to just the water district sites. She stated that it wasn’t specific that it would be a water district site. She thought, if they could find another site in that time period, that would be great as well, but she thinks they need to keep the site while they are looking. She stated that City Council Regular Meeting 42 August 08, 2022
it does follow all the qualifications.
Mayor Bier stated that she has been pretty clear about how she feels about this, and she thinks that, in order for them to work well with the water district, they need to uphold the appeal.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he would rather not have a denial, however, on the advice of Counsel, he thinks they need to do it this way to maintain the site. He stated that they are going to deny the appeal but require that a feasibility study for an alternative site and delaying implementation of the sites for an “X” amount of time. He stated that, based on what Counsel said, that is the best they can do.
Mayor Bier asked if there was a direction for a tolling agreement or is that something totally separate.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if Counsel thinks they need to have a tolling agreement, then they have a tolling agreement.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that the issue, if they uphold the appeal and then NCCWD has no incentive to negotiate with them versus if they deny the appeal and the city doesn’t have an incentive to work with NCCWD. She is trying to find a third alternative and she was not sure that, what has been proposed really hits the mark for her. She asked if there was a way to delay this while those negotiations are taking place and return to this very topic at a date certain so that everyone has an incentive to get this decision worked through quickly, amicably and collaboratively. She thought it would probably require a tolling agreement, but she wasn’t sure.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that the issue before Council at this time is limited to the denial, upholding or modification of the appeal and the Planning Commission approval to the extent that they could continue the item to a date certain without a decision. If they would like to continue this item for a future date to think about it further, that could possibly happen, but before the Council at this time is the decision to uphold, deny or modify the appeal.
Councilmember O’Neill thought the main issue they have to decide at this time is because they extended it as in 60 days they have to make a decision on a Planning Commission hearing. He stated that they have offered to do a tolling agreement to extend that time out so they can maintain their rights under law. He asked, if they were to do something such as upholding the appeal with a modification that they sign a tolling agreement to maintain their rights and extending it further.
Acting Planning Director Murdock asked Ms. Longfellow if she can help Council understand what they are talking about with the tolling agreement. He thought it was not a tolling agreement to allow this appeal hearing to occur beyond some Pacifica Municipal code timeline.
He stated the tolling agreement to allow the NCCWD to sue Pacifica over the temporary safe parking program enactment.
Special Counsel Longfellow agreed. She stated that there is a difference between extending their right to appeal for this particular administrative repeal. The tolling agreement is with respect to some arguable CEQA challenges and other challenges. She wasn’t involved in that tolling agreement discussion, but the larger issues under the tolling agreement were other legal challenges besides this particular appeal hearing.
Acting Planning Director Murdock asked her to correct him if he is mistaken, but he stated that City Council Regular Meeting 43 August 08, 2022
City Council, by hearing the appeal at this meeting, and taking whatever action they take, i.e., continue or take some final action, they will satisfy the specific and Municipal code requirement to hear the appeal and any discussion of a tolling agreement is to keep the options open for the water district to sue Pacifica over CEQA and other claims unrelated to this permit. He wanted Council to clearly understand that they are keeping the door open for them to sue the city by entertaining a tolling agreement if that was where the Council goes.
Councilmember O’Neill thanked him for that clarification.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he was hearing that, if they decide to continue this item, that would effectively allow them that neutrality to try to build their relationship that they seem to be seeking and continuing is the most likely avenue to allow for a positive relationship to develop.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that is one possible course of action. She reminded Council that it was her understanding that there is a motion on the table and before moving on too far from that motion, she asked that they get some closure on that motion before considering a motion to continue. She reiterated that the motion she has that is still on the floor was to deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, delay the implementation of the parking space for 60 days during which time staff is directed to analyze alternative sites and determine if those are feasible sites.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he withdraws his second but suggested she keep that verbiage as they might use some of that.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to add a couple of things to help them coalesce a little bit.
He thinks it is clear that, if the decision is to uphold the appeal, then there will not be a parking space in the program on Francisco and the city will need via their settlement agreement with the ACLU find a 13th space somewhere else in the city and they don’t know how the ACLU will react to that or on what timeline. He stated that the other general comment he wanted to make, and considering Councilmember Beckmeyer’s statement about incentives on one side or the other, as a City Manager, it is not a question of incentives. Whatever the Council directs he will do and attempt to do it as best as possible in the timeline directed by Council. He stated that he can’t speak for the NCCWD and their incentive, but whatever Council directs is what he will work to implement.
Mayor Bier asked if they can continue the item and direct staff to work with the water district in the meantime.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that they can continue to a future date, whether a certain date at this point and separately direct that work.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he understands that they have a motion on the floor.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he withdrew his second so there is no motion on the floor.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they are waiting for a second motion or is the motion gone.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it died for loss of a second.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that no one asked for a second. She stated that her motion stays on the floor to see if there is a second.
City Council Regular Meeting 44 August 08, 2022
Mayor Bier asked if there was a second.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he will second the motion for the sake of conversation. He stated that he is asking about the continuance to decide how he is going to vote on it. He stated that he is willing to vote against the motion he seconded for the sake of a continuance if there is a consensus that it is a good idea to continue it. He stated that he is comfortable with the motion so far is basically because of what the City Manager just said which is that it is their job is to do what the Council tells them to do. He stated that ultimately staff takes their direction and up to this time, staff has done their best with the direction Council has given them so far, and he thinks there is substantial evidence to deny the appeal in which case staff will then take the new direction which is to do everything they can to work with the water district. He added that, if there is consensus on the table that continuing would be the most neutral, peaceful, helpful effort to develop a relationship, then he will vote no and they can make a motion to continue. His stated that his primary concern is to honor the agreement they have made with the people suing the city and work toward the best approach will be in that context. He stated that, if a continuance isn’t going to incur the wrath of further litigation, he would be happy to vote for that after he votes against this motion.
Mayor Bier stated that she isn’t clear about the double voting thing.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that she is trying to get it straight, and she thought, if Council feels like it would like to vote for a continuance on the matter, she suggested that they take the initial motion off the table by withdrawing the second. She stated that what they would be doing is making a decision on the appeal, and if they want to continue the hearing, she recommends not making a decision on this appeal as that would negate the ability to continue it in the future.
She reiterated that, if they wish to continue the hearing, the motion would be to continue the hearing to a future date and she would withdraw the second and the motion regarding the substantive determination on the appeal. She also reiterated that what is on the floor is the determination and motion to deny the appeal, and if they want to wait on that and continue it, she stated that he withdraw the second which would withdraw the motion and make a new motion to continue to a future date.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he will withdraw his second and asked, after it dies and they continue it, will that hurt them in terms of the lawsuit.
Special Counsel Longfellow asked if he is asking in respect to the ACLU lawsuit.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck responded affirmatively.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that she can’t tell him what the ACLU’s view is going to be in implementing the temporary safe parking program and parking spaces which is what they are looking at. She thought it was a risk and continuing to the next month or no more than next 60 days would be conservative and would be the most defensible to show good faith that the Council is considering the site, but she thought the risk is lower if they continue this to more than 60 days.
Mayor Bier acknowledged that he withdrew his second and asked if there was a second for the motion on the floor.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he seconded Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s motion.
City Council Regular Meeting 45 August 08, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that he didn’t make it yet.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated, for clarity, she thought the second was withdrawn for the first motion on the table and it is no longer on the table. She stated that, if they want a motion to continue, she suggests that someone make that motion fresh so they are clear and the records are clear and then there is another second for the motion to continue to a future date not to exceed 60 days.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to continue this item to a date certain, not more than 60 days for a feasibility study by city staff and the water district’s staff; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
City Clerk Coffey stated, for clarification, that the vote was to continue the item to a date certain.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it should be to a date certain, September 26.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, stating that it is the second Council meeting in September and the last one before the 60-day deadline.
City Clerk Coffey asked if she heard a second by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated she did not.
City Clerk Coffey acknowledged that the second was by Councilmember Beckmeyer. She took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 4-1 (No: Vaterlaus) (to continue this item to a date certain, September 26, and direct a feasibility study by city staff and the water district’s staff for alternative sites) City Manager Woodhouse referred to the remaining items and the looming hour, and of the three remaining items, the housing element engagement discussion is time critical and the CalCities’ appointee voting delegate is time critical but Item #15 is not as time critical as those, so if they want to reorder the items and, if Council wants to extend the meeting further to get all three done, that would be great, but it is up to Council, and he was just giving them the priority on those items.
Mayor Bier asked if they want to continue one of them.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding item 15, PW Director Petersen can confirm that it can be pushed.
Mayor Bier asked Council if they thought they could “knock” them out.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is interest rate sensitive.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought they can do that quickly.
Councilmember O’Neill didn’t think they will be lengthy.
Mayor Bier suggested they go and see what happens and make a motion to extend the meeting one more time and try to do all three.
City Council Regular Meeting 46 August 08, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to 1:05 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (to extend meeting to 1:05 a.m.)
RESULT: TABLED [4 TO 1] Next: 9/26/2022 5:00 PM
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Beckmeyer
NAYS: Vaterlaus
CONSIDERATION
15. Master Agreement and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and Carollo Engineers, Inc. for Engineering Design Services related to the Ultraviolet Disinfection Replacement Project (P034).
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and Carollo Engineers, Inc. for Engineering Design Services in the amount of $800,000 in connection to the Ultraviolet Disinfection (UV) Replacement Project (P034); approve budget authority in the amount of $920,000 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $120,000; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
PW Director Petersen stated that WW Sr. Engr. Manager Schlater will give them a quick overview and then will pass it to Carollo consultant Paul Friedlander.
WW Sr. Engr. Mgr. Schlater presented the staff report.
Carollo consultant Friedlander completed the staff report.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speaker.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, thought it was an important issue, and shared his thoughts on the timing for addressing important items.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wanted to mention the one question he asked PW Director Petersen prior to the meeting, i.e., the WW treatment plant has a 30-year life and he asked how long this extends the effective life of our WW treatment plant by authorizing this at this time.
PW Director Petersen stated that they will anticipate another 30 to 80 years of life from the system and they would be continuing to replace equipment to allow the wastewater plant to last as long as feasible and this is an important component.
City Council Regular Meeting 47 August 08, 2022
Mayor Bier asked for a motion if no other comments,
Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the item as stated; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5 - 0
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
16. Housing Element Update Community Engagement Plan
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive staff presentation about the Housing Element Community Engagement Plan and provide direction.
Acting Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they anticipate a dedicated website.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated, regarding whether it is the Plan Pacifica URL or a different one, he didn’t think they have made that decision, but they will have a dedicated approach to send everyone to the website with centralized housing element update information but that is not a part of the standards for the Pacifica.org website.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he will have a deliberative comment after public comment. He then referred to a public comment regarding the NIMBYs and bananas are well entrenched in city politics, and stated that he knows what NIMBY is but he asked if he could tell what a banana is.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that it has been a while, and it is not a technical term, but it is about build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated he was glad they are addressing this issues, and expressed his concerns and thoughts on this issue.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that she was wanted to suggest an immediate citywide mailer to educate the public on the importance of this issue and offered other suggestions for the process.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, shared information on legal requirements for community engagement and mentioned her thoughts on the process.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 48 August 08, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wanted to take a moment on this as this is an important issue to him. He stated that the irony is not lost on him that they are discussing public engagement at 12:45 at night. He agreed with statements of a couple of the commenters that they should send at least a physical postcard to every house in Pacifica to alert them to what they are doing and how they can get involved. He would prefer to have three meetings, not just two, and he referred to the Plan Pacifica process where they had different meetings in different parts of the city to accommodate everyone, and thought of having surveys on the website. He referred to the idea of utilizing consultants, and he thought they were already going to be doing that, and asked if Acting Planning Director Murdock could comment on that.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the item was not prepared by staff to describe the overall undertaking of updating the housing element with all the parts and resources, etc., and based on the question, he stated that they have engaged a consultant, Good City Company, which supported the city in a number of planning efforts over the last year and have expertise assisting a number of communities in San Mateo County who are further ahead in their housing element update process. He stated that a fortunate outcome of their late start in the process is that they will get to learn from the experiences of the other cities that have gone through the process, and also having the advantage of their HCD comment letters coming back before we finalize our draft for HCD review and there are a number of efficiencies to be gained to manage the difficult timeline they are confronting including bringing in expert help to assist them in the process.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it sounded like some of the things that Ms. Moore mentioned were exactly the path the city is on for the sake of going as quickly as we can. He referred to the idea of hybrid meetings, and thought that, while he appreciated the notion, he didn’t think we are set up for hybrid meetings.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that the notion of hybrid meetings is intriguing, and as mentioned by the City Manager in the past, the technology involved in undertaking hybrid meetings can be expensive and difficult to implement. He can take note of it, but depending on the in person meeting venue that they may end up with as part of their plan, it could be possible.
He stated that, if there is an opportunity, he won’t want to miss it, but he can’t commit that we would have the resources to implement such a system on our own for the housing element update.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it was interesting reading through the comments as, at any given moment, they are either doing the best job possible or the worst job. He stated that there were six comments that stood out and he read through them, i.e., postcards, mailed surveys, updates in the Tribune, multiple avenues for participation, etc. and he liked the comments.
Mayor Bier agreed with most of the things he mentioned as she thought it was important for them to get information out in as many ways as they possibly can and she agreed with adding a third meeting.
Councilmember O’Neill also agreed, if they can, to send out a postcard in the beginning with the full schedule, and an absentee ballot, a paper survey, locations for holding the meetings, such as IBL, etc. and three meetings.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they could also have the physical surveys located at the library.
City Council Regular Meeting 49 August 08, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that the issue with that, some person could grab the entire stack with 100 there.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that you could have them behind the desk and request it.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they aren’t going to police it in the library but they can have a mail in ballot to control it.
Mayor Bier asked that they take a time check.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had a quick question for clarification. She asked if the Mayor was asking if they need to extend the meeting.
Mayor Bier stated that it was 12:53 and they still have one more item.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to extend to 1:10 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (to extend meeting to 1:10 a.m.)
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was looking at packet page 327, second paragraph down where a comment is made about adoption of the housing element update for more than 120 days but less than one year beyond January 31, 2023 would require the city to complete any rezoning required to accommodate the RHNA 6 allocation by January 31, 2024 rather than January 31, 2026, and she read it 100 times and she doesn’t get it. She asked for an explanation.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that she was describing one of the consequences of not adopting the housing element within 120 day grace period. He stated that, if they adopt on time or within the grace period, cities are afforded three years to accomplish the rezoning. If they don’t adopt it by the 120 day grace period, they will have to complete any required rezoning within one year of the required deadline and it forced them to take the action sooner if they want to achieve certification by HCD, and that is the stick coming into play.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated he wanted to touch on two points. He appreciated all the feedback from Council and two of the Council requests have financial impacts and he wanted to be transparent about that. He stated that they have not budgeted in specifically a citywide mailer, stating that the last mailer he thought they did cost at least $5000 and, while they can find a way to make one mailer work, he didn’t know that multiple mailings of that scale would be easy to accommodate within the available financial resources for that undertaking. He added that the meetings also have additional financial costs. He stated that they can find a way to make a third meeting work but he didn’t fully understand what the intent is, such as Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck talked about a second meeting to expand accessibility but for the same purpose.
He conceptualized the potential third meeting occurring after receipt of HCD comments to take the Housing Element back to the community to vet those HCD comments so there is a validation with the community and not just pulling the rug out from everything they said and now they do something different because HCD told them. He stated that they may have to do that but at least there is an opportunity to discuss those changes with the community, and having the flexibility to potentially do that or get feedback from Council would be helpful.
City Council Regular Meeting 50 August 08, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that those are related to the points he wanted to make. He stated that the concept of a third meeting that is a later meeting in the sequence carries with it timeline considerations that could push them beyond the 120-day grace period and force any rezonings within that year period and that would be the consequence of that. He stated that they want to get clarification about what the purpose and when a third meeting should be if that is Council’s direction. He stated that concept of a third meeting later in the process will also be more expensive because it’s a meeting of a different scope and design than just doing two of the same meetings within the same week, for scheduling flexibility for community input would be less of a cost. He also clarified that Council approved $20,000 extra in this year’s budget for additional community engagement related to the housing element and they have that budgeted to cover this process and will need to hire and solicit proposals from firms to facilitate these community engagement meetings in this process and they don’t know what will fit within that $20,000 scope and, if they exceed it with a mailer, etc., they will come back to Council to figure out how to do that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his initial read is, as laid out, there is going to be one virtual meeting in September and one in person meeting in October, and he is saying for that meeting in October add another meeting that is approximately the same for the sake of communal flexibility have one location in the southside and one location in the northside so those who are mobility constrained might be able to make it and for those who can’t make one date, may be able to make the other day so as they do the analysis on the feedback from two meetings and they can take place simultaneously because they are just gathering the data from part 1 and part 2 of the same meeting. He stated that, in terms of mailers, he would think a postcard to give them a physical place to sign up as well as a virtual place and from there, not all 38,000 are going to sign up for a mailed survey and he would hope the price will facilitate that. He was willing to talk about what the price is going to be and authorize it, especially if less than $10,000.
Mayor Bier also thought, if they make really good use of the mailer and put a lot of information on it, explanation, schedule, etc. that would be better spent.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they could mail out one mailer, but she didn’t see mailing surveys to people as you will never get them back and it is a waste, but one mailer explaining everything to people. She stated that some people don’t always participate because they don’t want to. She stated that you can’t get everybody involved as there are a lot of people who don’t want to participate and she thought one mailer is good and they have given everyone the opportunity. If you can’t use a computer and you got a mailer, you have an alternative and you can ask a friend for help.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was saying that they can allow people to sign up to receive surveys and for those who take the time to write a letter back to the city asking for a physical survey, those are the people who will probably complete a physical survey.
Mayor Bier asked Acting Planning Director Murdock if he had enough direction.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that he did.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he was confirming that what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s suggestion was about a second meeting is what the Council is supporting.
City Council Regular Meeting 51 August 08, 2022
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
17. Designation of Voting Delegate for League of California Cities Annual Conference PROPOSED ACTION: Designate a voting delegate and alternate(s) who will attend the 2022 League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Annual Business Meeting on Friday, September 9, 2022.
City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report.
There were no public comments.
Councilmember Vaterlaus nominated Mary Bier as the delegate and Tygarjas Bigstyck as the alternate; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they want to do it.
Mayor Bier stated she did.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed and the only thing he wants to add is, with Covid being what it is, do they want to designate a third, and no one did.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5 - 0
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 1:05 a.m.
Councilmember Vaterlaus wished the mayor a belated happy birthday and suggested they adjourn the meeting in honor of her birthday.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 9/12/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor