CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86083392833
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 860 8339 2833
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: 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 22, 2022
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
August 22, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on August 22, 2022 at 5:30 PM 5:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION – Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(5): (One Case- See Attachment A)
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8. Property: 1220 C Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica (APN 023-281- 130). Agency negotiator: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager. Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography. Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment of lease.
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present, announced the business to be discussed and then opened to public comments.
City Clerk Coffey introduced the speaker.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, referred to the appeals around the safe parking program have increased the complexity surrounding an already challenging issue for the public. She shared her thoughts and concerns for the appeal as well as the safe parking program.
City Clerk Coffey stated that there were no other speakers.
Mayor Bier closed public comments and recessed to Closed Session.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 22, 2022
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the regular meeting to order at 7:06 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; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Acting Planning Director; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Sam Bautista, PW Dep. Director; Maria Aguilar, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Nelson Schlater, Wastewater Engineering Manager; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Ken Fong, IT Analyst; Alyssa Barranti, Mgmt. Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk.
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 meeting location open to the public. He also gave information on how to present public comments participating by Zoom or phone.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgement.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated there was no reportable action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any Councilmember wanted to pull an item from the consent calendar.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she wanted to ask a question about Item #13, but did not need to pull it.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 22, 2022
Mayor Bier stated she can ask her question now.
Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to vacating property, and asked if the city has ever done any improvements or paving on that property.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he will see if Director Petersen or a city engineer can answer that specifically. He thought PW Dep. Director Bautista is with us.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that the city has not done any improvements to that piece of property and it is as it was for a very long time.
Mayor Bier opened public comments for items only on the consent calendar, Items #1-13.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Lindsay Raike, Pacifica, thanked her for pronouncing her name correctly as the first person to do that at a Council meeting. She is the CEO of Warmwater Wellness. She thanked Council for putting Item 6 for the Mickelson Therapy Pool, hoped it passes and wanted to add to her request, expressing the specific requests.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated she wanted to speak on two items on the consent calendar, first Item #2, minutes where she referenced a couple of things mentioned in her testimony that are missing and she felt were important; and, regarding Council’s recent approval of the project at the end of Talbot where in her testimony there were also things mentioned that were missing which she also felt were important. Second, Item #13, where she is confused by the language and expressed her request for clarification.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested they pull the minutes and allow staff the opportunity to review the items that Ms. Boles brought forward and approve the rest of the consent agenda as she didn’t know a practical way to do that without staff having an opportunity to look at it in this moment as she couldn’t imagine a way that they can amend those minutes and approve them, so she proposed putting them aside, look at it and decide what needs to be amended if necessary and bring it back.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this topic has come up about the detailed nature of meeting minutes, and he reminded Council that the recording of meetings have all the verbatim language used, and the meeting minutes are detailed summary level minutes and are not intended to capture all the verbatim comments provided. He stated that they wouldn’t want to engage in updating the minutes now during this meeting and push it off to a future meeting, but it didn’t sound like the claim was that there were factual inaccuracies but what has come up before is that, when every detail that is commented is not captured in the minutes, even though they are captured in the recording of the meetings. He thought it was a policy question for the Council as to whether they really want to go through the task of adding back in a lot of details that aren’t captured in the current written minutes because it is staff time and city resources when the record and recording already contain all that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that his comment had more to do with whether or not Councilmember Beckmeyer still is pulling the item. He asked her if she is pulling the item.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 22, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, in light of the fact that the issue at hand was an appeal, she is pulling the item.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he has very brief comments on Items #5, 6 and 13. He stated that, if they are pulling Item #2, they will have public comment on it and he asked Ms. Boles to have specific page numbers and approximately where the comments she is referencing are so they know where to look, that would be helpful.. He referred to the question asked on Item #13, and the impression he got from reading that the city has not claimed ownership and that they will be holding a hearing to determine whether or not somebody thinks they should claim ownership and go from there. He asked if the City Manager can untangle that knot.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is accurate that this is setting a hearing that will be held, but he will turn to PW Dep. Director Bautista regarding details.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that the county did not accept the dedication and this process is to publicly vacate any interest that the city has on Hotel Way and they are going through the formal process of publicly vacating a right-of-way.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to Ms. Raike’s comment on item #6 regarding sending a cover letter and doing a press release. He asked if that is something that can go through staff or do they want Council to deliberate on that for a moment, in which case he asks if he should pull it if staff wants them to deliberate on it.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if that was a question for him.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it is a question for him or any other pertinent staff member.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that transmitting the city’s action via letter would be a normal course of action, but what would be different is issuing a press release. He stated that they can do that, but the one difference is that the pool is not in Pacifica so we are tangentially related. It serves citizens from Pacifica but if other cities have issued press releases, they can do that, adding that they really focus press releases more on very city specific items. He stated that he can get Council direction or work with the mayor about whether they do that piece of it. He was okay with the letter and they would welcome any language that are suggested to transmit the letter.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to Item #5, stating he learned two things he did not know before reading No. 5, i.e., that the city still uses fax machines and the other being that they will be missing our PB&R Director Perez and it was a touch of sadness that he read that particular item. He stated that they will have until December to properly lavish him with more praise. He then was happy to put forth the consent agenda minus Item #2.
Councilmember Beckmeyer seconded the motion.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote on the Consent Calendar excluding Item #2 by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5 - 0.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 22, 2022
CONSENT CALENDAR EXCLUDING ITEM #2:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for 6/16/22 through 6/30/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 6/16/22 through 6/30/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022 and the City Council Regular Meeting and Adjourned Special Meeting held on July 11, 2022.
3. Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ending June 20, 2022.
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.
4. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.
PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending June 30, 2022.
5. Update Job Classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Position.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution approving revisions to the job classification for the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation.
6. Resolution of Support for the Reopening of Mack E. Mickelson Therapy Pool PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution supporting the reopening of the Mack E. Mickelson Arthritis and Rehabilitation Center Therapy Pool located at the Mills Health Center in San Mateo, California.
7. Notice of Completion for the Collection System Projects FY 2020-2021 Sacramento Easement
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 Collection System Projects FY 2020-2021 Sacramento Easement; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
8. Notice of Completion for the Crespi Drive Sewer Mainline Improvements 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 Crespi Drive Sewer Mainline Improvements Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
9. Purchase Agreement with JM Squared Associates, Inc. to furnish two (2) new pumps at the Linda Mar Pump Station
City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 22, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and JM Squared Associates, Inc., via sole source, in the amount of $430,819.44 for the purchase of two Pentair Fairbanks Nijhuis pumps for the Linda Mar Pump Station; approve budget authority in the amount of $473,901.38 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $43,081.94; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
10. Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and MISCOwater for the purchase of two JWC Muffin Monster Grinders and Control Panel for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Grit Removal System
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and MISCOwater, via sole source, in the amount of $66,044 for the purchase of two JWC Muffin Monster grinders and Control Panel for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant grit removal system; approve budget authority in the amount of $76,000 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $9,954; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
11. Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and De Nora Water Technologies, LLC for the purchase of ControlLogix System and Blower Unloading Valve in connection to the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Sand Filter Upgrade Project.
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Purchase Agreement between the City of Pacifica and De Nora Water Technologies, LLC, via sole source, in the amount of $131,000.00 for the purchase of ControlLogix System and Blower Unloading Valve in connection to the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) Sand Filter Upgrade Project; approve budget authority in the amount of $151,000.00 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $20,000.00; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project
12. Task Order No. 1 with TJC And Associates, Inc. - Consulting Services for the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) Arc Flash Study (P031) and Electrical Condition Assessment (P037)
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and TJC And Associates, Inc. for Engineering Consulting Services in the amount of $134,932.00 in connection to Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) Arc Flash Study (P031) and Electrical Condition Assessment (P037); approve budget authority in the amount of $148,425.20 which includes 10% contingency in the amount of $13,493.20; authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
13. Resolution of Intention By the City Council of the City Of Pacifica to Vacate Portions of Hotel Way and Setting the Public Hearing for September 12, 2022.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution of Intention By the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Vacate Portions of Hotel Way and Setting the Public Hearing for September 12, 2022.
Agenda Item #2 Discussion:
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 August 22, 2022
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speaker.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that this is regarding her testimony on packet page 26, and she reminded Council that they have had this discussion before, and she understands that staff has summarized public comments on issues, but that appeal testimony is different and it should be accurately reflected in the minutes. She stated that she typed her notes from her presentation for the appeal and she would be happy to share with the City Clerk to make her job easier.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember O’Neill asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano about common practice, i.e., are the notes we keep very typical for what a city needs to be legally and are the minutes of appeals to City Council different than the general minutes.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that most jurisdictions do a summary rather than verbatim and some city’s only record the action in the minutes. She stated that the majority do summary minutes and some just record the actions taken. She stated that, in terms of whether appeals are more important than other items, she stated that you just pick a process and be consistent with that process, as one item is not more important than another but they typically find a process that works for the city and be consistent in that process.
City Manager Woodhouse added for clarity, to have the nomenclature the same. He stated that the type of minutes Pacifica does are very detailed summary minutes, almost verbatim, and when Asst. City Attorney Bazzano refers to summary minutes, that is a much more general summarization and action minutes are just the action. He wanted to be sure they were on the same page on how much more detailed we do minutes compared to other jurisdictions, typically.
Councilmember O’Neill prefers they keep the minutes the way they are. If there is a citizen who wishes to put some amendments, they could attach them to those minutes and they become part of the record. He asked if that is an option.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she or anybody can send in their comments or edits to the minutes as a public comment prior to the meeting, and that would become a record of the meeting, but the minutes are the ones that are adopted by Council, and unless the Council makes an amendment to the meeting minutes before them, there would not be any changes.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he would keep it the way it is.
Mayor Bier personally thinks, in this case, it is okay for them to change the minutes because it is an appeal, and that was one of the reasons why Councilmember Beckmeyer asked that it be pulled in the first place, and she thought they should accept her changes to the minutes.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they would need to see what those amendments are before Council makes any decisions about agreeing to the amendment.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was what she was asking for, i.e., whatever the proposed changes or what is perceived to have been left out or in whatever way it isn’t accurate or reflecting the recollection of Ms. Boles, as she has made her comments and has offered that staff take a look at it and bring back any recommended changes and they can put it on their City Council Regular Meeting 8 August 22, 2022
next consent agenda to approve those minutes whether as amended or as they stand at that time.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they are continuing this item to allow for review of the minutes.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to continue this item to allow for review of the minutes; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote on Item #2 by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5 - 0 (Continue Item #2 to allow for review of minutes.) AGENDA ITEM #2:
RESULT: CONTINUED TO FUTURE MEETING
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O’Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speaker.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she was still concerned about the timeline presented by staff on August 8 for our housing element and she shared her concerns on the issue as well as suggestions for the process including a more inclusive outreach.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has nothing to report as his groups are still on summer breaks.
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended the Fairmont Homeowners Association board meeting and requested a fireman to come and speak about keeping wildfires away from their homes which was a great thing. He suggested things they can do and they also talked about the fact that, at one point, the blue dots in the street were provided by the Association for past pavings and they wanted to make sure the blue dots will still be in the street after this next paving. She stated she was in a statewide group about electrification and she attended that meeting which had a lot of interesting information. She stated that the Recovery Coordination Council for Covid met and they said there is still definitely Covid out there and we all know and everyone must continue to take precautions, etc. She stated that there are about 50 people in the hospital each day and the numbers are small compared to how it used to be, and they are no longer counting positive cases since there are so many at home tests. They talked about grants and they have a lot of money for grants, especially for child care. She suggested they look at San Mateo County Strong if interested in grants. She went to Grocery Outlet where they handed a check to Pacificans Care and they earned $13,000 that went towards four community groups through Pacificans Care. She attended both the Republicans and Democrats meetings with some Council candidates at one and all of them at the other. She attended the Fog Fest committee and she asked everyone to make sure it is in their calendar as they will have a big parade and all of the Councilmembers are going to be in the parade, which she thinks will be a first in a long time. She had another meeting with Kevin Mullin and he talked about sea level rise. She City Council Regular Meeting 9 August 22, 2022
stated that they often hear about sea level rise and they talk about the bayside, and she said something about the coastside and he said he was in favor of protecting the coastside from sea level rise. She stated that he had other items but that was the one most tied to Pacifica.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she would give them a flavor of the Coastal Commission meeting she attended a couple of weeks ago in Calabasas. She traveled there to participate in the local government workshop and they have met five or six times. She stated that it is intended to be an in person meeting with representatives, all the Coastal Commissioners, representatives from the Coastal Cities Group which is part of Cal Cities, otherwise known as the League of Cities, and the county’s group, and there were representatives from Ventura, Del Norte, Monterey and Santa Barbara counties, and she attended. The chair of the Coastal Cities group from Santa Barbara city, Councilmember Friedman, Ed Sprigs from Imperial Beach and Ed Waage from Pismo Beach. She stated that there was one other person from Ft. Bragg who attended by Zoom as they have a fully integrated hybrid meeting format with the Coastal Commission. She will give specific updates on what was discussed at a future Council meeting, but the meeting was productive, positive and exciting for her to hear Mr. Sprigs speak because he has attended every single one since the inception. She stated his work was on another group called the Sea Level Rise working group, and he was positive about the tone and conversation. They had two presentations for which she will be giving them specifics, one from a city and one from a county, in terms of a case study of working through their LCP with the challenges, successes, rough spots and where they stand. She thought it would be useful if she writes it up for them in advance so they have something to look at before the meeting and they can have more of a question/answer and she can fill in some gaps for them. She attended the Democrats meeting and she attended the Coastal Conservative meeting and the Pacifica School Volunteers board meeting but she didn’t make it to the Economic Development Committee meeting that was rescheduled for last week. She stated that, if the Mayor was there, she can give an update on it.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that as usual, he reflects on Ukraine as long as they will be fighting for their freedom. He attended a meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer and PCE staff and the City Manager in regard to REACH codes. He thought they will be beginning their REACH code update around September with the intention of being done with our new construction codes by the end of November. He thought they spent time discussing new construction being done as a part 1 and existing construction REACH codes will be more complicated and they will do it as part 2. They will discuss REACH codes and existing construction which is a spectrum from very simple and easy for everyone in our community to do versus they probably don’t want to touch that in our community with a ten-foot pole. It will be a separate process to keep things simple until it needs to be more complex. He was excited that the process was getting underway. He attended the Historical Society fundraiser where the Ohlone café served them lunch, and he stated that he saw Councilmember O’Neill there. He was working that day and got there as quickly as he could and didn’t hear the full story but what he heard was uplifting to hear from the native people. He stated, if he could eat that way every day, it was delicious so he felt more nutrients going into his body than in a long time. He met with Charles Stone who is running for County Supervisor in another district who is a Councilmember in Belmont and it is strengthening the relationship in things like the housing element that come up and he is able to get perspective from a different city and how they have been dealing with it, and what they can expect as going through the process and it was a fruitful discussion. He stated that he attended an Emergency Preparedness meeting and they discussed the San Mateo County emergency safety event which was successful. He was reminded to recommend Zone Haven to everyone and if you don’t know your zone, look it up, as it is part and parcel with San Mateo County alert system, and you get the text directly to your City Council Regular Meeting 10 August 22, 2022
phone. He loves that it tells him if there is major traffic problems somewhere which it frequently does and he can think better planning which way he’s driving on any given day. He stated that the members of Emergency Preparedness are getting excited to do their booth at Fog Fest on September 24 and 25. He stated that the free Covid testing site on Francisco and Salada is still open on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8 am to 8 pm. He had a brief catch up meeting with Tina Wehrmeister. He attended the Democrats candidate forum on Saturday following which there was a cigarette butt art can contest judging event he was able to go and see, and enjoyed watching the cans being judged. He stated that Katrina Rill with Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s office was there and he had a nice conversation with her and a friend from Menlo Park Ray Mueller was at the candidate forum and the contest judging and it was nice to check in with him as well. He stated that, apparently every third Saturday, there is a community dance at the Pie Ranch in Pescadero and he was there and it was very wholesome and fun and he recommended it to anyone as it got him out of his comfort zone. He had a quick meeting with Paul Totah in preparation for our next item.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he did do a couple of things. He went to the Pacifica Democrats meeting and the Pacifica Conservatives meeting and also went to the Ohlone lunch.
He hopes to make it on upcoming Saturday, as the San Mateo Historical Society is having a history walk at a very unknown state park on the peninsula, Burleigh Murray Ranch State Park on Higgins Canyon Road in Half Moon Bay and what is unusual about this is that it has a type of barn which is rare in California that is dug into the side of the hill so the cows can walk to the second story up the hill and the others can walk in the first story. He stated it is a 2-mile hiking trail to get to the barn and they will talk about the inhabitants. He stated that, on Saturday, there is going to be a presentation on the history of Pescadero and apparently they have a website where you can go and view some of the buildings that are torn down but are talking about that on 80 Stage Road, Pescadero, and you are supposed to rsvp ahead of time for them. He stated that he is on LAFCO and one of the presentations coming up is the process the county is going to be using to update their RHNA numbers and what they’re going to be doing. He stated that, when he gets the link for that Zoom meeting, he will forward it to the City Manager to forward to everyone. He stated that a lot of the county’s housing is an incorporated area which is basically they have to drive through us to get to that area. He has gotten several emails and is aware the planes are flying however; he isn’t getting a lot of cooperation from people as to why and he will get back to those people who have written emails to him about the noise from the airport.
Mayor Bier stated she has been busy. She had a meeting with Seth Miller who is with our House City Peninsula division and been recruited to serve as the at large member of Cal Cities Peninsula Division Executive Committee, and the ballots went out to all the mayors this past week, and it will be announced in Long Beach at their conference. She stated that it was another exciting opportunity to serve. She attended the project review panel for One Bay Area Grants, and one of our Pacifica applications made the cut and was a really big deal because a lot of the other applications were BART and really big projects and she was happy to see that they made the cut for our panel and the next step is to be approved by MTC. She stated that it is good to be part of that and when we put ourselves out there and able to score applications and represent our city, things can happen and she was excited to do that. She went to the Save San Pedro Mountain event, and Ray Mueller has been spending a lot of time with Pacificans and he was there. He went to the Ohlone lunch, and she attended the Economic Development Committee special which was a very efficient one-hour meeting where they approved their budget and work plan. She stated that she wants to give Asst. City Manager Carter warm fuzzies for the good job for that. She attended the Open Space meeting which was interesting as they had a presentation by a member on 30-30 which was an executive order by President City Council Regular Meeting 11 August 22, 2022
Biden to conserve at least 30% of the US land fresh water and 30% of the US ocean areas by 2030 and there is going to be work done around the region in San Mateo County so it is exciting to have that information shared with us to see where it can take us. She attended the Pacifica School Volunteers meeting. She attended both the Democrats and Republicans meetings and she got to judge the buckets for Beach Coalition. They were big giant buckets painted for cigarette butts and the art work was amazing, so it was hard to judge and she was glad she wasn’t the only one. She met with someone from Tree City Pacifica.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she also met with Gail from Tree City Pacifica.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse has two announcements, one sad news and one good news. He acknowledged that last week the city lost one of our active current employees, Pius Garcia, who suddenly passed away the previous Thursday and the Mayor will be saying more at the end of the meeting and adjourning the meeting in his honor. He stated that he was with the city for 25 years, working in the facility maintenance division and is well known by all the city employees.
He stated that they are going to do more of a robust memory and acknowledgment of Pius Garcia’s services at the next City Council meeting and they are all saddened by that loss and their thoughts go out to his family. He stated that the good news is that many saw they had the official launch of our Shop Pacifica E-Gift Card program and there are great financial incentives for the community to participate at this point in time, and that information is widely available on the city’s website and they will continue to put it in the Connect with Pacifica newsletter. He stated that it was also featured last week on the news, KPIX, and that was an exciting minute about this program on the news, and it is exciting as it is focused on people taking action to support our local small business community that Pacifica thrives on.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14. Public Hearing on Proposed Ordinances repealing and replacing Pacifica Municipal Code Chapter 12 - Tree Preservation and Chapter 14 - Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Waive the First Reading of and Introduce by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Chapter 12 (Preservation of Heritage Trees) and Chapter 14 (Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees) within Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
PW Director Petersen stated that they had consultants Allison Steere and Tina McKeand of Davey Resource Group available for input and then presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to Packet pages 427 and 450, and he didn’t know if anyone had the anomaly in their document but on his packet page 427, Section 2, Environmental Analysis, should be there, but it is kind of in the last paragraph of section 1 and he didn’t necessarily see anything listed under section 2 so he is asking if that is the same for everyone.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked him to confirm that it was packet page 427.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck responded affirmatively, adding that he is using a PDF reader on his pad so he didn’t know if it was his software, and the heading is over what he believes is the last City Council Regular Meeting 12 August 22, 2022
paragraph in Section 1 and he doesn’t see anything listed under the Section 2 heading.
Mayor Bier thought it was on a different page as that is not on her packet page 427. She asked what the heading is.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated it was the first page of attachment D, page 1, at the bottom of the page.
Councilmember Vaterlaus assumed it is the heading for the paragraph it is on top of as she sees it exactly like he does.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it is Environmental Analysis so it makes sense but he read it in sequence and it didn’t occur to him to look at it that way. He asked if she had a similar thing on Packet page 450, page 24 of attachment D.
PW Dep. Director Bautista stated that on Packet page 424 , it looks like the page is out of format but it does have the environmental analysis on that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had a similar overlap phenomena occur on Page 24 of attachment D.
Councilmember Beckmeyer saw it at the very bottom.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck didn’t know if it meant anything as he couldn’t read that paragraph and it didn’t bother him too much, but he wanted to follow up.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano pointed out that the Environmental Review Analysis is also contained in the staff report, so the staff report is the applicable environmental review.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has questions but would prefer to hear public comments first.
Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Irene, Pacifica, stated she wanted to know if invasive eucalyptus are being protected, and shared her thoughts and alternative suggestions because of that not being a good idea.
Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated that she is speaking as a member of Tree City Pacifica, and was impressed with this version of the tree ordinance but shared her thoughts and detailed requests on changes to the ordinance.
Paul Totah, Pacifica, stated he is also a member of Tree City Pacifica, and he praised them, mentioning specifics and also shared a request for a change to the ordinance.
Kai Martin, Pacifica, stated he is also a member of Tree City Pacifica and happy about the work Council and staff have done, and shared his thoughts and request on helping care for trees.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked Council, staff, consultants and the public for the time spent on City Council Regular Meeting 13 August 22, 2022
this process, and shared her thoughts and requests on changes to the ordinance.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked staff if they received the email that Tree City sent in, and he saw Director Petersen’s and Dep. Director Bautista’s names on the email but he didn’t think the City Manager’s name was on it, and if he saw it, he asked that he let them know as well as his response to it.
PW Director Petersen stated that they saw it and had good comments. She went through and outlined where they were covered in the ordinance already. She referred to the comment regarding the grove of trees, and the grove is defined as any species, which includes invasive species as well. She stated that they talked about this the last time they went through the ordinance, and there were some areas where they were comfortable with things being repeated, and that is fine. She stated that there were a couple of areas, such as section 4-14.03 where there was a typo and it does need to be changed to say “4-14.06" as mentioned by Tree City Pacifica but it doesn’t need to say 4-14.07 and there was a section at the very end in violations that Tree City Pacifica had asked to be added, which said “measured with CalPERS and at least 15 gallon tree and she agreed that it was dropped and it should be added. She stated that the other elements are in the ordinance, but if Council is more comfortable with these things said again in certain areas to highlight it, they can do that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if there was anything they found objectionable that they shouldn’t do because if it all looks kosher, that might be the easy way from Council’s side.
PW Director Petersen stated that there was only one where she had a little concern, and she thought they may be able to cover it with a different type of verbiage, i.e., under 4-14-06, removal of trees, where they wanted to get rid of the word “undesirable” where it says, “The director may remove or cause the removal of any city trees or other plant materials planted in the plantable strip or planning easement. If such city trees or plant materials are deemed by the director to be unhealthy, hazardous, undesirable or causing excess damage to public improvements or city trees.” She stated that the only thing she was concerned about with this is that, typically, a hazardous tree is a tree that is going to fall or hit something and not necessarily the tree itself by its own identity would be considered hazardous. She stated that they have trees out there that drop balls on the street, people trip and twist their ankles, then recalled it was liquid amber. She stated that those type of trees tend to be undesirable and cities take them down all the time, as well as other things like that. She stated that they want to cover themselves from a pedestrian walking path standard where they won’t have a tree that is dropping something like the liquid ambers that cause people to fall and twist their ankles. She thought they can possibly come up with a different word.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, if people are twisting their ankles, is that considered hazardous at that point or merely undesirable.
PW Director Petersen stated that is what she is worried about, as a tree itself is owned by those species and not considered hazardous but it becomes hazardous and she is afraid that, if they get into a semantics discussion related to it and the city had a liability issue, they may not be able to take something out. She stated that she could bring Ms. McKeand or Ms. Steere in and they may have an idea of how they can cover themselves under that.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is kind of the same vein, but he asked, what if the tree City Council Regular Meeting 14 August 22, 2022
roots are raising the sidewalk and it is a trip hazard.
PW Director Petersen agreed, adding that there is coverage in that which is damage to existing public infrastructure and they are covered on that, and if Council feels they are covered under the word hazardous, they can leave it. She was concerned because the tree by its own nature is not considered hazardous, but perhaps that is good enough.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agrees with her assessment and she thinks semantics and words matter and, as a non-arborist who will defer to their experts, from her read and experience in this endeavor, when she hears the word hazardous in relationship to a tree, it makes her think that it needs to meet certain ISA criteria to be deemed hazardous and maybe that’s not accurate, however, their goal is that it isn’t a good idea to wait 40 years but let this document last for a long time and be interpreted by future people who are not necessarily these councilmembers. She agrees with her interpretation that a tree of its own nature is not hazardous. She thought creating a hazardous condition or something to that effect that could elucidate what is meant by undesirable. She thinks Tree City Pacifica’s concern about “undesirable” is that it is a subjective term as any tree could be undesirable to some people and there is nothing to attach to that definition for the average reader. She asked the experts if they had a suggestion about how they address it.
PW Director Petersen stated that she can throw something out there, that is that they could just add something to the end of it that says “or causing excessive damage to existing public infrastructure or causes a safety concern to the pedestrian path of travel” which is what they are worried about, people walking, or they can say “causes a safety hazard to the pedestrian path of travel.” She asked the consultants if they have a thought.
Consultant McKeand stated that undesirable could mean a couple of things, such as an undesirable species of trees or it could mean a good tree species in an undesirable location, such as next to a stop sign. She thought that answers the question.
PW Director Petersen thought they have some verbiage that covers them for taking care of sight distance, covering signs, etc. and if they just want to add something to the effect of what she said. She asked Ms. Steere what she thought and does that work.
Consultant McKeand stated an additional definition to clarify what is meant there would help.
PW Director Petersen agreed that they could do that, add a definition for what is meant by undesirable.
Councilmember Beckmeyer assumed that definitions would go at the front of a section, and asked if each section had its own definition, referring to 4-12.02.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
PW Director Petersen stated that there they could put undesirable tree and put a definition of what that is.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they don’t need to say tree, just define the term undesirable. She asked Ms. Steere if she could give them the definition she stated earlier again, i.e., it could be either by undesirable meaning a location that is not appropriate for the species of the tree or the species is undesirable for the location or something like that.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 August 22, 2022
Consultant Steere stated that a tree could be undesirable because of the species of the tree and it could be undesirable because, while a good tree species, it is in an undesirable location.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that an alternative to that would be to use the defined term for undesirable, which means not wanted or not desired because it’s harmful, objectionable or unpleasant. She thought a general definition would give the director a little more discretion in determining whether a tree is or is not undesirable.
Mayor Bier thought that was the concern of Tree City Pacifica, that it would be more clear if there was a standard such as through the ISA form or just remove that word.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that defining the term gives it a little bit more of a narrow parameter.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought the definition she gave a minute ago includes unwanted and that is a subjective thing and the goal is to get away from subjective and try to have it be an objective reason, such as creating a trip hazard. She didn’t know how you compact that into one word in that paragraph, but maybe they can ask them to do that before they bring it back.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, if that is the concern, maybe they strike that term and as Director Petersen suggested, just state what the concerns would be that would cause it to be undesirable, such as a trip hazard or the tree species is located in an area that is inappropriate for the tree species.
Mayor Bier thought that was good.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she is seeing heads nodding.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it works for her.
Mayor Bier reiterated that it works for her.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought it sounded good.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to packet page 426, and she thought it might be attachment page 3, in item E, it says diameter or DBH and she asked if they could have a parenthetical phrase after DBH that says diameter at breast height that defines what DBH is.
She stated that they use that term a lot but she doesn’t know if it is defined somewhere else and, if it is, that’s fine, but she would prefer that it be clarified what that stands for. She then refers to I on that same page where it says “any species with a minimum diameter of six inches in diameter” and asked if they can strike the second in diameter.
PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked, on No. 1, if they can add at DBH to the end of the sentence, “12 inches or greater at DBH”.
PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to talk about the issue on item 4, inserting language “groves of trees”, as Tree City Pacifica proposed inserting a phrase after the word except “groves of City Council Regular Meeting 16 August 22, 2022
trees as the director may deem otherwise”. She stated that the purpose of that has been stated well by Tree City people who commented, but she wanted to reiterate that the intent here is around not clearing an area just because they’re invasive species, but mostly from the point of view of runoff and top soil disappearing, etc., especially in the light of development. She stated her question is there an unintended consequence of putting that phrase into No. 4, that they can think of.
PW Director Petersen stated that grove of trees now is defined as any species, such as invasive species and when you say grove, it means it can be an invasive species. She stated that they can put it again at this location to make it clear.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that was a good idea.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked her what section that was in.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it is on packet page 426, Item N, No. 4.
PW Director Petersen stated this was the email that she sent her that had the different recommended changes which is also in the email.
Mayor Bier stated they were going down the line. She thought there was some discussion about whether the city has to be at the same standard as a citizen when removing a tree and she knows they put a whole section under B.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it was two sentences.
Mayor Bier thought they should talk about that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed and stated that she got from PW Director Petersen’s presentation that it is covered, but she thought it wasn’t clear enough or there is a sense that there is a double standard and she wants to figure out if it’s their double standard and if so, how do they correct that so it’s clear. She again asked what are the unintended consequences. She needs staff to help them see through that.
PW Director Petersen thought it was in there already and even in the sentence they provide, it says a qualified arborist’s report with reasons for removal in (f) and mitigation for tree removal including two to one replacements in (g). She stated that, if you look at section 4-4.06, sometimes it’s helpful to look at the redline version so they can see what they added. So, in packet page 420, you can see that there was something that was added related to this, item (c), which talks about the arborist report and into the IAS basic tree risk assessment. They also have (g) on the next packet page 421 which talks about planting a minimum of two replacement trees for an otherwise healthy tree and under (g), there is No. 2 which talks about replacment trees shall be a minimum of 1.5 inches measured with CalPERS at least a 15-gallon tree. She stated that, in saying that, she didn’t think there was any problem with adding this sentence into (b) if the Council wants, as all it’s doing is reiterating that these elements are in those sections further down.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they should include it.
Mayor Bier agreed.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 August 22, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, in a similar vein, on 14-4.07, Item (a), she thinks it’s along the same line of the suggestion to remove the words “receipt of” and replace with “creating or receiving”, or language she would prefer to use. She stated that “upon receipt of” implies there is only one way that it happened which was from citizens to the city. She thought what they were trying to do in looking for the recommendation is broadening that language a little bit in some way so it would also pertain to city actions with city trees. She asked if that makes sense.
PW Director Petersen agreed and stated that they can put their language in there instead of saying receipt of, they can say “upon initiating or receiving”.
Councilmember Beckmeyer liked initiating better.
Mayor Bier thought it was a lovely suggestion from Kai Martin about the adopted tree program but she wasn’t sure where they can put that or talk about that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought the Beautification Committee could take something up like that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer liked that suggestion and it occurred to her that Council decides what committees and commissions do.
Mayor Bier added that they are going to be reviewing charters.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that may be the perfect opportunity to add that in. She thought the City Manager might have something to say about that. She stated that Council needs to consider if that’s an appropriate thing to ask a committee to look at and that is where she was coming from.
City Manager Woodhouse added to what she was astutely observing which is the difference between a committee considering a new program versus writing it into an ordinance. He stated that any new program falls to city staff so even the efforts the BAC undertakes requires a significant amount of PW staff time to support and they don’t know what kind of staff resources would be involved in implementing and adopting a tree program. He thought it was a fabulous idea and they would love to do that and support it, but they don’t know what the resource demands of that would be.
Mayor Bier assumed that would be part of a study session.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, i.e., a future budget decision, etc.
Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to the support of Arbor Day but didn’t know if support was the right word as support means paying for everything. She suggested they encourage the Arbor Day celebration or someone may come up with a better word that she just gave.
City Manager Woodhouse added that the Arbor Day celebration and effort is supported by the city, but it isn’t a city program. Tree City Pacifica runs that, and to write that into an ordinance or requirement is different. If that system were to change, it would fall on the city to do that and that has resource effects. He stated that they can continue to support that, but it’s not a city program that they run.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they know it is one of the criteria for Pacifica being a City Council Regular Meeting 18 August 22, 2022
true Tree City. To have an Arbor Day, put a certain amount of money into trees every year or a resolution. She stated that they have done those things but each year they come back and reconfirm it and she feels that is how the certification process for Tree City USA and she asked what the City Manager would say they do to reflect that in city documents even though it’s not a city program.
City Manager Woodhouse didn’t think it needs to be in the ordinance but in a future year, if the Arbor Day celebration didn’t happen and they couldn’t get that designation for that year but it happens in the future, that is different than it being a requirement of the city to always hold that regardless of budget impacts, etc. He asked Director Petersen to give her thoughts on it, but policy-wise, it is a difference between mandating something in an ordinance versus the programs that we intend to do and carry out in collaboration with non-profits in the community.
Mayor Bier thought that is usually the point of a non-profit once it gets institutionalized.
PW Director Petersen stated that they have a great relationship with Tree City and there was a meeting today regarding Arbor Day and she thought it could be helpful for all of them to memorialize it in an informal policy so we are all on the same page. She stated that, as you have a new director or people come in, it can change, and if they can memorialize it in some informal policy about the support that the city provides, but she wasn’t sure about putting it in an ordinance as she has never seen that before.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it is just a resolution that they intend to try to keep going forward with Arbor Day, if at all possible, instead of in the policy.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if a resolution is something they pass repeatedly or is it a onetime deal.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they can pass a resolution and make amendments to the resolution, rescind the resolution, make new resolutions.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they have already done a resolution that memorializes Arbor Day.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she did not know and would defer to City Clerk Coffey.
Councilmember Beckmeyer was just asking her off of her head but they can research.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed they could research it, and she agreed with Director Petersen and City Manager Woodhouse that it is not something they would typically memorialize in an ordinance.
Consultant McKeand stated that it is often a proclamation that is done on an annual basis from the mayor.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they have been doing that, and if Tree City brings that forward to them, she would want it more memorialized than that in case Tree City forgets. She is going back to the mayor’s point of it being institutionalized. She wondered what the happy medium is between not putting it in the ordinance and not having it be a proclamation that may or may not happen. She thought a resolution sounds good to her.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 August 22, 2022
Mayor Bier asked if there was anything else they would like to suggest and how do they move forward.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she just wants to say thank you.
Mayor Bier stated that they need a motion.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has some questions and comments on the actual ordinance, not the resolutions, etc. He stated that there is phrase that keeps coming up that says the applicant may be required to provide a plot plan or survey drawn to scale depicting the trees and any improvements on the property and/or arborist report. He asked, if they have a guy who wants to cut a tree down for whatever reason and has to have a plot plan and survey drawn to scale, if he might have to go to an architect or who do they go to get that taken care of.
PW Director Petersen stated that it is geared toward development and specifically for those who will be getting a tree protection plan in place or someone who might be taking down multiple trees but not someone taking down a single tree.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if she was talking about someone building a subdivision.
PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively, and added that, if someone is coming in with a building permit for a property they are trying to build or trying to take down multiple trees or need to protect multiple trees because of putting a building on that site, and this is to make sure they are looking at it globally and considering all the trees on the site, but not just a homeowner that wants to take out a tree in his yard but for bigger projects.
Councilmember O’Neill mentioned having someone wanting to use SB 9 or 10 and want to tear down a Linda Mar rancher and put up four units, and they may or may not be able to replace all the trees there, and, if it is a healthy tree, he assumed that they have to pay for the replacement of the tree, and asked if he is correct.
PW Director Petersen stated that the way it would work is that, if someone takes down a tree illegally, they would need to pay for the replacement value of the tree, and the way the ordinance reads for development, it provides the option for the city to ask for that, but it doesn’t require it. What the developer is being required to do is the 2-1 replacement ratio for those trees or required to pay in lieu fee if they couldn’t put all the trees on that property.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he is concerned because they have housing goals to reach and, if you get a tree cut down, it is roughly $2000 or $2500 and the permit is about $400-$500 and then they are talking about an arborist report and they were told it was around $500.
PW Director Petersen stated that it was $400-$600 and then they would probably have another $200 for the ISA risk assessment form.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if you have someone who wants to put an ADU legally in their backyard and they have to cut down a tree, they are adding to the cost of that ADU.
PW Director Petersen stated he was correct, and if someone wants to take down a tree because of putting in an ADU, they would have to pay for the permit, have an arborist report, the ISA tree risk assessment form and, if it wasn’t appealed, they would need to take down the tree which would cost them some money.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 August 22, 2022
Mayor Bier thought they were talking about heritage trees.
PW Director Petersen stated just protected trees. She is talking specifically about protected trees, anything that is 12 inches in diameter or greater that is non-invasive.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that heritage trees are about the size of the general plate, 12 inches, and he stated that they are adding to the cost of an ADU and he asked if there were some restrictions in terms of someone adding an ADU of what fees they could charge.
PW Director Petersen thought some of that was going to be discussed during the housing element.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the tree ordinance is going to be discussed as part of the housing element.
PW Director Petersen didn’t think necessarily the tree ordinance, but that fees related to low income housing ADUs were supposed to be discussed and, if it is something that would be appropriate to discuss at that time, she thought Acting Planning Director Murdock might be able to help her.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if they pass it at this meeting, they might be revising it because of the fees associated with it, asking specifically if it is the fees they charge or fees because they dictate an arborist report, etc. He then stated that replacement trees shall be the same species and he asked if they really want to replace Monterey pine with Monterey pine. He stated that, in driving around Pacifica, you can see a lot of the Monterey pines are dead and he asked if we want to remove one and then plant two more that, in ten years, they will be dealing with the Monterey pine cancer again.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked where is he reading that it is the same.
Councilmember O’Neill stated, on page 6 of the ordinance, it says “replacement tree shall be the same species as the tree removed or species of similar mature stature unless otherwise specified by the director”. He asked if they want to replace a tree that is very susceptible to disease with the same tree, adding that he didn’t know if they want to give the director guidance on that or not.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought another example is when the tree height gets problematic for our power lines, etc., and the city is going to link to permanent species that should be planted.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that was also on his list, such as what if a neighbor’s tree covers up their solar panels and one neighbor wants to cut the tree down or major pruning but the arborist will say it is a health tree and they can’t do it. He stated that they are then saying the other person can’t use solar panels that are supposed to limit greenhouse gases. He asked if that can be addressed in some way. He stated that he had another question, probably for Planning, regarding that all decisions and deadlines regarding the building permit will be suspended until the final decision regarding the tree permit has been made, and he asked why things have to run consecutively and not concurrently. He asked Director Petersen if she was saying the building permit issuance but they will still do plan check, architectural drawing, etc., and she is talking about the actual building permit.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 August 22, 2022
PW Director Petersen thought the intent of the provision is that there was concern from the community and at the study session on the 27th there was a lot of robust discussion related to how they address the issue of people who come in, apply for a building permit then get a grading permit, impact trees or cut down trees, get their building permit and then never do the building. She thought there was a question on how we protect trees and not have someone come in, cut them down from the property and they walk away from the project without getting their building permit.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he supports that, and he hates all the half-built projects, such as on Fassler. He just wanted to be sure that, if someone applies for a building permit, they can also apply for the tree permit, go to Planning and submit an application to start the planning process and review the application at the same time so it is not consecutive but concurrent.
PW Director Petersen agreed.
Councilmember O’Neill stated another thing to look at is whether the requested action is necessary for the economically viable use of the property and he asked if they should put something on there according to the zoning of the property, as there are cases in town where people want places vacant because they can have a Christmas tree lot there and it’s economically viable. He stated that he didn’t see it in the ordinance, but he wanted to clarify that, in her slide show, she stated staff will be coming back with an ordinance for fire hazard zone, and he asked if they will be coming back with an ordinance for that.
PW Director Petersen stated that they talked about coming back with a tree permit exception based on fire risk and it is something they have seen in other cities, so they will be developing a tree permit exemption process based on fire risk.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that some of the trees are fire risks, and there could be a grove of eucalyptus that is a fire hazard that will need that exemption, and they would then be a protected tree. He asked if that will cover protected trees as well.
PW Director Petersen stated that, once they have a tree permit exemption, that tree is exempted from the permit, no matter what type of tree it is. She stated that they can ultimately develop the permit exemption based on what Council would like but, in looking at a couple of other cities, it seems like they are basically exempting any permit requirement for any type of tree within certain types of circumstances that are areas of very high fire risk. She stated that they would have to have that discussion moving forward and she believes there will be a lot of moving elements, i.e., what it looks like, and it is a general statement of what they will be trying to do, but no detail behind it yet.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he is concerned of the number of houses that probably will need some sort of break for trees to create the safe zone. He thought it needs to be an expedited process because, if they get a notice of their house insurance being cancelled, they might be able to mitigate if they were to cut a tree down. He referred to the Tree Fund, and asked how it will be handled, what will it be used for, or is that to be developed and come back to Council.
PW Director Petersen stated that it is specifically in the ordinance, and she thought Dep.
Director Bautista might be able to find the exact language in the ordinance or one of the consultants, but it was to the effect of use or increasing tree canopy, tree maintenance work.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 August 22, 2022
Consultant McKeand quoted that it can be used for purchasing, planting and maintaining trees within the city, maintaining and preserving trees within the city to remain in naturalistic state in perpetuity, performing and maintaining a citywide tree inventory, educating residents and developers on the preservation, care, maintenance, benefits and values of trees within the City of Pacifica and supporting programs for the purpose of increasing the tree sanity within the City of Pacifica, as approved by Council.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if that includes staff costs, whether full or half time equivalent.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was what she thinks the maintenance piece was about.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed, but thought it was a staff person to do that, and he asked if that person was coming from the General Fund or the Tree Fund.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought it could come from the Tree Fund. She asked Director Petersen if she was correct.
PW Director Petersen stated she would include the City Manager in this discussion but ongoing positions usually need to be taken care of with ongoing funds but could be used for consultant services, etc.
City Manager Woodhouse added that the Tree Fund is likely to have a small amount of money and year to year one time money and funding a permanent position from that would probably not be feasible, but as the ordinance is written, those funds could be used to augment and use hourly staff in the maintenance activities. Thus, he thought it could be used for personnel but not on an ongoing permanent basis.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he would like to see them address solar panels as people get more solar panels with some guidance on trees that get so tall they block solar panels. He stated that, on a one-story Linda Mar rancher, there are many trees on Linda Mar that block the sun for the neighbors and he asked how they deal with that. He suggested a list or guidance from the city of trees that don’t reach more than 20 or 25 feet tall, and he thought that would be something to give citizens.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to his earlier point about replacing with the same species and asked if that was what he was saying.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that on the city website, if a person is applying for a permit, we give them a paper copy of the recommended trees that might not be more than 20 or 25 feet tall, which he knows this was done several years ago for the micro-climates in Pacifica because the climate where he lives is different than the climate in Fairmont or Manor, so they are not blocking the neighbors solar panel, etc.
PW Director Petersen stated that they are going to be putting up a few things on the website, such as posting for significant pruning or tree removals, some recommendations on pruning as they discussed at the last meeting, and they can also put recommendations for trees that only grow a certain height to help with covering solar panels at a future date.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it will address general aesthetics. He sees in his neighborhood trees that are 90-95 feet tall and that is potentially storm damage down the road.
He is concerned about the city removing trees and having the same standards that a private City Council Regular Meeting 23 August 22, 2022
person would have because the government is passing out grants to cut down eucalyptus, such as that type of grant in El Granada, and he thought Pacifica got that grant last year. He asked if we want the money used to cut down fire hazards or go for arborist reports, etc. He asked, if we have a grove of eucalyptus and get a grant that we can cut it, how much of the grant is going to be spent getting arborist reports.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks he identifies a very astute policy issue, i.e., the tradeoff of public resources compared to private resources and how they’re utilized for public benefit such as this case of fire safety. He thought, when they are considering the conditions under which the same requirements are applied to private tree removal applications, such as an individual wanting to develop their property with financial gain, there are certain conditions that apply compared to public benefit applications where trees are removed for fire safety and there are ten trees that you can’t remove as they have to go to the other arborist report or conditions, and the policy observation is very appropriate.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought the public benefit argument goes both ways and, on behalf of many in the community they hear from, they would say the public benefit is enhanced by keeping the trees, and she thinks what Councilmember O’Neill brought forward that they need to wrestle with is, when they are talking about hazardous or potentially hazardous trees or trees in a high fire zone, they don’t want to walk away from a grant or be compelled to give it back because we couldn’t get an arborist report to determine of that grove should be cut or not. She stated that is what she meant when she referred to untended consequences when you carry things out to their logical extreme, and they have heard from many citizens about concerns about eucalyptus and there are grant funds around to remove them. She asked what the implications are of the policy conversations they are having around groves of trees if the grove of trees is eucalyptus and they want to cut them down in a safe and responsible way so they don’t have erosion. She then said she will pass off to other member’s comments.
Mayor Bier stated that Director Petersen has something to say and then Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck can speak.
PW Director Petersen stated that this is definitely something that was going to be considered with this Phase 2 related to the tree permit exemptions. She stated that once there is a tree permit exemption, it would not require an arborist report, the ISA risk assessment and that is something they can come back with in the next phase and provide a recommendation on how to manage that issue.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he didn’t know what the estimated date of when they come back with chapter 2, but in the interim, this is the ordinance that would stand if there was a grant that came up in the state budget and filtered down through the county. He asked if this was an obstacle for them to get a grant like that.
PW Director Petersen stated that, when they did get the grant through the county for Cattle Hill, that was a big area with a lot of trees and there was an environmental review that was required as part of that grant for that many trees. She stated that, if it is a large grant to take down a lot of trees, they are probably going to be required to do some sort of environmental assessment on all of the trees before they can take them down. She asked Ms. McKeand if she had anything to add in regarding taking down a large amount of trees and would that require and environmental impact assessment.
Consultant McKeand stated that it could if it was a large project, as it would be something they City Council Regular Meeting 24 August 22, 2022
would have to analyze.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would ask, for example, on the Cattle Hill project, even though it underwent CEQA review for that project. He stated that doesn’t make the determination about what permits or arborist review are required if our ordinance says that. He thinks the question being considered is if it is going to take 1 1/2 to 2 years to develop the next phase of the ordinance. They don’t know the timeline yet, but in the meantime, they are eligible to get grants for eucalyptus tree removal, he asked what is the exemption or exception that can apply so that they don’t have to undergo additional undue costs to implement that program.
Councilmember Vaterlaus mentioned hazardous.
Mayor Bier asked her to repeat her response.
Councilmember Vaterlaus mentioned hazardous conditions such as fire hazard conditions to get those grants for tree removal.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if fire was one of the criteria on that ISN report or INS report she mentioned.
PW Director Petersen stated it was not.
Consultant McKeand stated that it wasn’t typically, but you could file an emergency exemption to allow for those type of removals under those conditions.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there were other examples that were brought forward from back of the valley during public comment, such as the pinched time anchor where they have trees losing their limbs. She thought they recalled that comment.
Councilmember O’Neill stated it was behind Park Pacifica round Yosemite and Big Bend.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that one goes under the hazardous element that Director Petersen was talking about, and dead trees and hazardous trees don’t have the same constraints, but not specifically for fire.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if an arborist report looks at a grove and says the majority of the trees are dead or do they do an analysis on each tree. If someone has 2-3 trees, can they just give them a narrative about all the trees or each individual tree.
PW Director Petersen stated that she will pass that over to Ms. McKeand to respond.
Consultant McKeand stated that an arborist report could include a grove of trees and consider it as a grove of trees but it would still describe the overall condition of that grove or describe and apply to individual trees, so the answer is all of the above based on the situation.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that, if they have a healthy grove of eucalyptus, under the present ordinance, they could not cut them down.
Consultant McKeand agreed unless one of the exceptions applies.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, most of what he was going to say was already addressed, City Council Regular Meeting 25 August 22, 2022
but what is sticking to him is, under circumstances in which these groves of eucalyptus aren’t protected the way they apparently are in this ordinance, what steps are normally taken to ensure that erosion doesn’t occur if they were to chop down a large number of them. He referred to driving through the Tom Lantos Tunnel and seeing all the eucalyptus on the hillside, and stated the point is well taken, because as he envisions all of those trees cut down, he asks what happens to the hillside. He asked, this ordinance notwithstanding, if they were to clear cut for the sake of eliminating the fire danger which he always thinks about driving through the tunnel, what would happen to the hillside in such a circumstance or, without the ordinance, would they need to replace trees with other trees in order to stabilize the hillside, and how would it work.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, with the significant sized project he is referring to for fire safety, like it was done on Cattle Hill, you would have an environmental review and it isn’t a decision about not cutting down all the trees because erosion will occur. They would refer to the project and suggest how to safely do the project, and there is where the mitigation measures are related to the project so erosions and landslides don’t occur in cutting down the trees. He stated that there is a difference between saying categorically that they can’t do that versus the need to undergo project and environmental reviews with appropriate project implementation so it is safe to do.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano wanted to clarify that it is important to note what they are talking about and she thought Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s question went to was just the exemptions that Director Petersen had previously addressed that will be coming later, and she wanted to be sure they responded to the questions that she thought he asked.
Acting Planning Director Murdock stated that, in the various criteria provided in this ordinance as drafted for considering removal, is topography of the land and effect of requested action on it, and he felt he had a lot of meaning to Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s point, steep site with significant tree removal proposed requires a permit from the city under the ordinance as drafted before another exemption might be crafted, and that was a criteria to be considered. In the event an analysis and consideration of that criteria concludes that there may be a potential slope stability impact, even though the project was intended for fire hazard reduction, that is a criteria and the ordinance would also provide the director where the opportunity for adverse consequences might stem from the removal to impose mitigation measures including replanting. He thought the ordinance already addresses those considerations with its own provisions as drafted and everything the City Manager said about some companion CEQA process that may or may not be required for a particular project holds true as well, but the ordinance as drafted already, with its own provisions internally provides those criteria to be considered and the safeguards and authority to impose steps to protect against those unintended consequences.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought the original question was that, if they are given a grant to eliminate some of the fire hazards that eucalyptus presents, with everything they discussed, is there something in the ordinance that gets in that way and, if so, where should they specifically be looking at this point to tweak that so, if a grant arises, they are able to take advantage of that.
He thought a lot could happen over two years and he thought his point was well taken that Phase 2 is essentially to answer the question before them but he thought it would be nice to have a stop gap as appropriate so they can get to Phase 2 without having to worry about a grant for wildfire mitigation and have their one and two at the end of the day.
PW Director Petersen thought, through their Asst. City Attorney having worked on the ordinance, she would ask if there is an appropriate location in there where they could put some City Council Regular Meeting 26 August 22, 2022
language in that could help or she could also throw this to Ms. McKeand of Davey Resource Group.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought Acting Planning Director Murdock cited some very good areas where there are some language already existing about erosion control.
Councilmember O’Neill didn’t think erosion control was the question. He stated that, under this present ordinance, a heritage tree has to get an arborist report and hazard report, and consultant McKeand stated fire is not one of the considerations in that INS report. He stated that last year several million dollars were passed out and Pacifica was able to get some of the money and they were able to cut down hazardous trees. He reiterated that it wasn’t so much the erosion report which will be covered by the environmental review that the city manager mentioned, but he asked if there was something in the ordinance that prevents them for applying for a grant so they can mitigate or cut down trees that may be hazardous, whether or not they are a protected tree. He asked if they have to go through an arborist report for the entire grove, the individual trees, etc.
Mayor Bier thought it might be good for them to direct staff to come back with information about that with the changes they are already requesting as they may not have an answer for that now.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is the ordinance hearing.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can have a statement in there that simply says at a 4/5 vote of Council this provision can be waived for fire mitigation funding opportunities.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that was the direction he was going, i.e., to include wherever it be, a temporary exception that relates to projects focused on fire safety removal and the temporary nature of it is, until the permanent future exemptions are identified so, in the intervening years, they don’t lose the opportunity to get some significant grants for eucalyptus removal and have a focused exception someplace and that would be the concept. He thought they could come up with that language now that would be acceptable to Council. He asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if the next phase of the project is going to make additional amendments to the ordinance. He stated that Director Petersen will need to make additional ordinance amendments.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if he was talking about the tree permit exemption process that Director Petersen was talking about.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively and added that he thought the concern of Council was that they don’t want to lose the opportunity for significant project funding and grants that can help with fire protection in our community and they want to maximize the money that they could get for project implementation rather than arborist costs or not being able to do the project. He asked her how they include a focused temporary exception so they don’t run into that problem.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano is not sure what he means by temporary. She thought they could include an exemption that specifies language that says city fire mitigation projects shall be exempt from the requirement of whatever specifications of the process they want to exempt city fire mitigation projects from. She didn’t know how they are proposing to add a temporary provision.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 August 22, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse stated that what he meant by temporary is that this is placeholder language until we finish the next phase of the project which develops and defines what the exemptions are in the future related to fire safety.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they would have the exemption but at a future date they would amend that exemption.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understood that.
Consultant McKeand stated that she wasn’t sure if this addresses everything, but it says that tree removal permit shall be granted based on public nuisance or risk, under which she would think fire might be covered, deferring to the City Attorney on that decision. She added that it doesn’t address whether an arborist permit or report would be needed in those instances which she may need to clarify.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought it depends on whether Council wants a blanket exemption for those projects or just exempt the arborist report or some other aspect of the process. She would prefer a more specific exemption for fire mitigation programs; however they want to word it.
Mayor Bier likes those fire mitigations.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to section 4-12.09, “Emergency Tree Removals,” and stated potentially we could add another paragraph in there or retitle it emergency tree removals/fire mitigations or fire risk exception. She thought that was what they were ultimately talking about. She agreed with the City Attorney that they want to make it specific because the whole point of having groves of trees was to put limitations around specifically in the instance of development. She stated that what they are talking about here is a different issue, it is fire hazard reduction, fuel load reduction, etc., and she thought Councilmember O’Neill was right that the money is there and we don’t want our policy to be in the way of being able to meet that important goal.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he also had a question that, if they apply for one of those grants and we have an amendment in the ordinance that leaves discretion to the Council, will that provide a road block or does it need that it is an exemption and Council can’t change it. He asked if he was clearly understood.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought he was, stating that she thought he was suggesting putting language in that says something like it would be decided on a case by case basis at the discretion of the Council.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he wasn’t, but rather if they do it case by case discretion, is that an impediment or do they need to say that Council has, as a matter of policy for fire mitigation that this is exempt.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, if it is the will of Council to include an exemption, they include the exemption specifically. She stated that future Councils can always amend that section of the ordinance, repeal it, make changes, etc. as they are not bound by the ordinance just because they adopted the ordinance.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 August 22, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill understood and concluded that a grant funder would look at it and say that they are okay and it isn’t an impediment.
Mayor Bier stated that there was a lot of discussion and she wanted to be sure it was very clear moving forward so, when they have a motion everything is clear.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if it was a motion to continue this.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understood that they had coalesced around an exemption, and if they can find the location where they would like to place that exemption and agree to the language in the exemption, she thinks they can move forward as Director Petersen is keeping a list of changes and they would just add this to the list of changes and, if Council is inclined, they can make that motion to introduce the ordinance with the changes that have been discussed at this meeting.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he was going to make a suggestion that they go to the next item, let them work on it and then come back to it at this meeting. He asked if that makes sense.
Mayor Bier didn’t think it is necessary.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was ready to make a motion, and before making the motion, he wanted to say that it has been a good collaborative process with the community that has brought them here and it has been a heavy topic to get through but he feels like they got through it collaboratively and worked well together which is very uplifting to him after the last fiscal year we have had, and he was hoping this begins a new fiscal year of getting back on track of working with our partners in the community. He thanked them for all the work they have been doing.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to waive the first reading of and introduce by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Chapter 12 (Preservation of Heritage Trees) and Chapter 14 (Maintenance and Preservation of City Trees) within Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code and finding the Ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) with amendments as discussed; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano acknowledged that they have a motion and a second and she would propose to add a totally new section, somewhere after 4-12.09, maybe 4-12.10 and all the other subsections following that would be renumbered, that excludes fire mitigation programs conducted or undertaken by the city that would be exempt from the requirements of the chapter.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck so moved.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, for all the other changes that have been listed at this meeting, maybe they can get Director Petersen to read that list.
PW Director Petersen stated that, on section 4-12.02 “Definitions,” after 1 at the end, they would be adding at DBH; in that same section 4, they would be adding “groves of trees” and, right before, “as the director may deem otherwise”; for section 4-14.03(c), this should read, “The director shall have the authority to remove a city tree pursuant to 4-14.06.” She stated that City Council Regular Meeting 29 August 22, 2022
under section 4-14.06(b), they are going to add at the end of the section a sentence that says “in order to remove a tree, the city will meet all requirements.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she didn’t think that was what they talked about. The talked about striking the term “undesirable” and talked about adding language saying, “The director has discretion to remove or cause removal of any city tree that causes a trip hazard or is a species in a location that creates a hazard.”
PW Director Petersen thought they had come up with a definition for undesirable.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they decided to strike that.
PW Director Petersen stated that, in that case, she thought the Asst. City Attorney had come up with what they were going to add.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she just read that into the record.
PW Director Petersen stated that they were also adding at the end the other sentence, “in order to remove the tree, the city will meet all the requirements of the permit listed below, including the criteria listed in (e) (a qualified arborist report with reasons for removal in (f) and mitigation for tree removal including 2-1 tree replacement in (g). The next section, 4-14.07(a), they are going to be removing the word “receipt of” and instead adding “initiating or receiving”. In section 4-14.08, Violation Penalties, in (2), after replacement tree shall be a minimum of 1.5 inches, they are going to be adding “measured with calipers and at least a 15-gallon tree otherwise approved by the director”. She stated that was the last one.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked her if she included the addition to the ordinance of Section 8 in her list.
PW Director Petersen stated she did not include that. Also, they need to add a section, Section 8, is to be added to the ordinance that is stating “Ordinance Nos. 636 and 673 (logging ordinances) shall be repealed in their entirety)”. She thinks that is all she has.
Mayor Bier thanked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano for her guidance.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is the motion.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5 - 0 (Item #14 AS AMENDED)
Mayor Bier agreed that this was a nice way to collaborate with our community.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 August 22, 2022
AGENDA ITEM #14:
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
CONSIDERATION
15. Direction to Pacifica Voting Delegate Regarding Cal Cities 2022 Annual Conference Resolution - Proposed Bylaws Amendments
PROPOSED ACTION: Provide direction to Pacifica's voting delegate to support one resolution regarding proposed bylaws amendments to be considered by Cal Cities at the 2022 Cal Cities Annual Conference to be held in Long Beach, September 7 - 9, 2022.
City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.
There were no public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that originally it almost occurred to him about critiquing one of these amendments and then thought better of it, so he didn’t have anything to add except that, commented on the CalCities conference, last year it was more interesting because there were a couple of lobbying topics being discussed and, in this case, it’s just amendments to bylaws. He thought it was amazing to be in a room where there are representatives from almost every city in California and there is someone orchestrating the meeting where everyone is voting on something as simple as these bylaws, they can see what they go through to take votes at any given moment with five and imagine what it’s like to take that vote with hundreds of people on something as simple as bylaws, it is a remarkable thing to behold. He didn’t think there was much discussion past that observation.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to direct the voting delegate to vote yes on all these items; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she wanted to make sure they took public comment.
Mayor Bier stated that they did.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (Item #15)
City Council Regular Meeting 31 August 22, 2022
AGENDA ITEM #15:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m., in memory of city employee, Pius Garcia, briefly mentioning that he worked for the city for 25 years, lived in Daly City, married with one son, and his job took him throughout the city and he interacted with many staff members in numerous departments. He was respected and loved by those who knew him and will be greatly missed by his Public Works family and they will remember him more formally at the September 12 City Council meeting.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 9/26/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor