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 September 26, 2022
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
September 26, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on September 26, 2022 at 5:00 PM 5:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present and announced that the business to be discussed in Closed Session as stated on the Agenda.
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION-Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: Patricia Lee v. City of Pacifica et al, Superior Court of State of California – County of San Mateo, Case. No. 21-CIV03524 There were no public comments.
Council recessed to Closed Session.
5:30 PM - OPEN STUDY SESSION
Study Session #2 regarding the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan PROPOSED ACTION: Receive an informational presentation regarding the status of the 2022 Storm Drainage Master Plan following the Study Session held on July 11, 2022 and provide comments and direction to City Staff.
Mayor Bier reconvened to the study session at 5:30 p.m.
PW Assoc. Civil Engineer Enriquez mentioned the items they will be covering in their presentation, concluding with a Q&A session. He stated those present will be the Carollo consultants, Paul Friedlander and Assoc. VP Ryan Orgill. He then passed it on to Mr. Orgill for the presentation.
Mr. Orgill said he was having a problem with the process and might have to have his consultant, Paul Freelander, make the presentation.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 September 26, 2022
Mayor Bier suggested he log off and log back in as he can’t hear them.
City Attorney Kenyon suggested that someone text him that they can hear him but he won’t be able to hear questions.
Mr. Friedlander said he would do that.
Mr. Orgill then stated that he had it fixed.
Mr. Orgill then presented the staff report.
Mr. Friedlander added clarification that anyone having questions can ask during the presentation.
Mr. Orgill agreed and continued with the presentation.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they wanted them to questions during the presentation or save them until after the presentation.
Mr. Orgill stated he could ask the question now.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they have 6 inches for 100-year volume, and he asked if that is an industry standard or federal government. He asked where those numbers come from.
Mr. Orgill stated that information is published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and they have a tool on their website, recently updated, that allows you to go anywhere in the United States, click on a particular location and it will tell you what these design storm volumes are and it is a standard approach to estimating those volumes and published data that is available from the government. He then asked if there was any other question on the design storm as he knows there was a question related sizing the system to 100-year event and they provided an answer to that question. He didn’t know if they want to talk about that further now or wait to the end.
Mayor Bier stated that there are no outstanding questions now.
Mr. Orgill continued the presentation.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the chart displaying the 100-year volume, and that is for existing, not with climate change.
Mr. Orgill responded affirmatively. He stated that it was published data and this includes those same line items but with the increase expected associated with climate change.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck understood, adding that he was not seeing the 100-year with climate change and he asked if we have that data.
Mr. Orgill stated that they do. He clarified that the point of this slide is why they analyze the system again but they will be included in the report, and it will be roughly 20% higher than that six number that they documented in the previous slide.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how much higher.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 September 26, 2022
Mr. Orgill reiterated that it was roughly about 20%.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was asking because he thought it was important to see that data, including the community, and he appreciated that, at the end of the day, it will be cost prohibitive to plan to a 100-year, and he preferred the 1% nomenclature. He thought they should have the data in front of them to have the conversation to the degree they prefer and he would appreciate seeing it.
Mr. Orgill stated that they can do that. He then continued the presentation.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that a resident had spoken to wastewater employees and was told the reason lower Linda Mar floods is because the pipe going from the Linda Mar pipe station to Calera Creek is not big enough, and he asked if that is true.
Mr. Orgill stated that, with the pipe associated with the pump station, what they found is that the actual storm drains in the ground are undersized and that is what is leading to the flooding.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that it is not true that it is the pipe from Linda Mar pump station to Calera Creek which is the correct size and it is actually the mains under the streets that are messed up. He asked why that wasn’t corrected when they did the Equalization Basin and the streets were torn up.
Mayor Bier stated that PW Director Petersen popped up.
PW Director Petersen thanked Councilmember O’Neill for that question and she wanted to note that when the resident brought up that question, there was some confusion that was going on related to storm drain system and related to the sewer system. She stated that it is the sewer system that goes from Linda Mar over the hill to the Calera Creek. The storm drain system does not do that and it is going out either at Linda Mar or at Anza and ultimately increasing the size of the sewer pipe going over the hill to Calera Creek is not going to impact our storm drain system. She stated that there might have been some confusion about that.
Mayor Bier stated that Civil Engineer Raymond Donguines also has his hand up.
Sr. Civil Engineer Donguines stated that PW Director Petersen answered the question.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that the resident was inaccurate in his statements.
Mr. Orgill continued the presentation.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked him to go back to the slide on the Rockaway area. He was confused on the staff report, as the spring wasn’t called out specifically and he wasn’t sure if that was accounted for along with the rest. He asked if they could address the spring specifically in future reports as, in his mind, that is a major point of concern, but presumably not the only one. He stated it is helpful when reading the thing.
Mr. Orgill agreed that they can do that.
Mayor Bier stated that it helps for their community to know that they are addressing it. She appreciated that.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 September 26, 2022
Mr. Orgill stated that was the main driver for that project and they will definitely note that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that her question goes back to the area on Anza and lower Linda Mar but on the other side of Linda Mar Boulevard and she wanted to know if they could address that or they can go to it when he finishes the presentation.
Mr. Orgill stated that they can go back to that slide. He stated that the flooding on Anza is not a pipe issue, but the issue is that the inlet themselves are undersized and this project would include replacing those with larger inlets that would mitigate that flooding issue.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t see it reflected on that slide, but the area of concern is on the other side of Linda Mar Boulevard, on the other side of the red line where they are proposing the new pipeline.
Mr. Orgill asked if it was the flooding that is happening near the shopping center.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it was on Montezuma and Desolo. She wondered if that meets the modeling and do they consider that to be a problem.
Mr. Orgill stated that is where the flooding showed up in the model and their solution to the problem is to scalp off upstream of that area and redirect it around. He stated that, if they look on the east side of the map, there is a black dot where there is an interconnection between a 36-inch green pipe which is in the existing storm drain and essentially all that flow is now making its way down to Desolo and Montezuma where it is flooding. He stated that this main is meant to bypass that around the restriction.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked him for that clarification.
Mr. Orgill then continued the presentation.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he understands what grants are, and he was assuming he was speaking about forming a special sewer or storm water district.
Mr. Orgill stated that it was similar to that.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if it would be a revenue source that they would get a loan and fix a bunch of this stuff or is it collecting it and then fixing it several years down the road.
Mr. Orgill stated that, if you try to get loans now, you can get them and pay them back later.
How that would be funded would be to figure out a way to pay for them with the money they already have or set up a storm water utility to help pay them back. He stated that, with a storm water utility, they would start building up a rate base and, if you aren’t successful in getting a grant or loan, you will be building the money to actually permit the projects.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, at $25 million for all the projects, there are 40,000 people in Pacifica and that is quite a chunk of money and they can’t charge people $1,000 a month for storm water and he would assume that, if they form a special district, this may not be his forte, but he asked if they could do a 218 election or a citywide election bond to form that or he asked the legalese logistics of forming utility district like that.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 September 26, 2022
Mr. Orgill stated that he didn’t know the answer to that but he can get an answer for him. He stated that they have a special group of rate study people at Carollo where they are doing the analysis. He didn’t have the specifics on that, but he stated that he can get back to him on that.
City Manager Woodhouse added that storm water infrastructure funding is an immense challenge to all cities and jurisdictions now as it is not a direct enterprise service structure like wastewater which can be in some cities and, with various infrastructure bills and conversations with legislators related to grant sources, it is a hot topic. He stated that floating a $25 million general obligation bond is a big deal for voter approval. He stated that borrowing that money is a big deal with the ongoing debt service obligation that would be required and interest rates are higher now than when they were when they borrowed for the Civic Center project. He stated that it is a big challenge and they were identifying some of the ideas that need to be looked at further and they don’t have answers now.
Mr. Orgill completed the presentation.
Consultant Friedlander added that, as City Manager Woodhouse articulated, the real challenge is how you fund this kind of project. He stated that there are different mechanisms but none of them are easy to do and are a challenge for cities throughout the Bay Area and the country.
Councilmember O’Neill assumed that it was probably best to do some sort of district because it is one big project if it is done versus like trying to save for a house and, if they want to pay cash for a house and the house keeps going up, and that is what is going to happen with this but he referred to prioritization and asked if we have any figures as to how many people are affected by each of the flooding issues, such as Anza, etc. He would like to look at the expiration, and referred to a storm district and everyone is paying and that would drive the cost lower for everyone or is it more feasible to have a storm district in the area that is being done, such as what would be the cost of a homeowner in lower Linda Mar, etc., if you formed a district just in that area to do that. He assumed they would need 66% to form a district and a resident on Cape Breton or Oddstad is not being affected by the flooding and trying to get a citywide storm district could be a bigger challenge than others. He stated that, as they were looking at options, he would like to see that option on the table.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he wanted to clarify that, when he is saying geographical districts, what he is referring to is an assessment district model as opposed to a special district operation and he wanted to be sure that is correct and he stated that Consultant Friedlander can respond to the difference between assessment district approaches and setting up an actual utility based on rates.
Councilmember O’Neill thought he was doing a hybrid between assessment and storm district and he would like to see a discussion or analysis over which is most efficient to get the job done at the lowest cost, as well as methodology in how you form that. He asked if that is something Council votes on or is it the people in the assessment district or citywide and you need 67% to do it, as he thought that was part of the analysis they need to have to make a decision on this.
He added that it is hard to give guidance if you aren’t familiar with the different options and the pros and cons of the issues on which they are giving guidance.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the question he would ask, stating that PW staff could chime in, was about the scope for this master plan. He didn’t know if it includes a detailed assessment of the pros and cons of different financing models and they get very complicated for our typical outside financing team to evaluate the pros and cons of the various models are. He City Council Regular Meeting 6 September 26, 2022
could be wrong, but that is part of the scope.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if wastewater is an enterprise fund, could some of the money in the enterprise fund do the design so when they apply for a grant, they are a step ahead because they have design already taken care of. He asked if that is something wastewater can pay for.
City Manager Woodhouse thought the short answer is no, as wastewater and storm water are separate utilities, and he stated that the city attorney may be able to weigh in, as there may be some overlap between the two because of I&I issues that would justify that overlap or share of funding.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that was the linkage he was thinking of, i.e., being able to use wastewater funding for design purposes because of the I&I.
City Manager Woodhouse thought that is something legally that they would need to evaluate further.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she didn’t have any information to analyze or give any response on that at this meeting. Her suggestion is that, given the questions, they go back with Carollo and look at these options. She stated that there are options but, for Council to get into specifics about the actual funding, she wasn’t sure, from a legal perspective, they were prepared to have that discussion at this meeting.
Mr. Friedlander thought he might answer questions regarding from they were tasked with a high level looking at alternatives. He stated that they would need to give more detailed studies on some of these issues.
Mayor Bier asked if there were any more questions from Council or they can go to public comment and come back and discuss more. She asked Mgmt. Analyst Brooks for some instructions on how to do public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Brooks asked if City Clerk Coffey had the instructions at her disposal.
City Clerk Coffey gave the directions for the public to speak.
Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, thanked the consultants for their work in trying to help them understand these issues. She then presented questions she had on several of the issues such as the 100-year storm, including the legal implications, etc. When she ran out of time, she stated she would send in her other questions.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated this was a very comprehensive study, and he expressed his thoughts on the issue that will be ongoing, such as not being in favor of breaking it up into assessment groups.
Bob Boles, Pacifica, stated that the issue of having a special assessment district is interesting, and expressed his thoughts on that in general.
Mayor Bier closed public comment. She stated that there were a few questions and she asked City Council Regular Meeting 7 September 26, 2022
if there are any responses to those.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought the most intriguing question was regarding any legal issues that might stem from flooding and he thought the City Attorney can help with that one.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, in City Attorney Kenyon’s absence, he didn’t have an answer but it would be one that they would look into as he thought City Attorney Kenyon would say those kinds of legal risks are going to be very case specific as to what happens and depend on multiple factors as the current case is and it would be very difficult to make generalizations about that.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought they may be able to get more specifics later. He referred to the 100-year storm events, and he wasn’t sure how to articulate a question, but that atmospheric river bomb cyclone event they had last October was eye opening. He was listening to the news recently and they talked about a volcanic eruption in Tonga in January that sent so much water vapor into the air that is exacerbating global warming for the foreseeable future, but regardless of the years, maybe the odds just went up. He thought it seemed that storms are getting more frequent and he thought the 100-year planning is cost prohibitive and would involve rerouting the entire system in certain ways and he appreciates that isn’t where they want to go but he thought it bears discussing and he would love the experts to weigh in and make him feel better about not going the 100-year route. He asked what a 100-year route would look like and how prohibitive is it and how lacking in resources are we or how much does he not have to worry.
Mr. Friedlander stated that one approach to take would be that, when they design a specific project that they identify as a 50-year storm and size up for 100-year storm, and they can evaluate the cost in doing that on a project by project basis. He stated that they wouldn’t give a big system that would handle a 100-year storm because you do it in individual pieces. He stated that was more of a bite size approach to be dealing with the areas identified by the current analysis. He apologized about the confusion about the numbers and they will try to clarify that moving forward. He stated that they had a number of 5.32 inches for the 24-hour 50- year storm and they modeled 6.44 inches and that is a 21% increase based on climate change.
He stated that all the numbers are based on existing information. He stated that there was a climate that future numbers are based on different kinds of projections and everyone needs to understand that there is a lot of uncertainty in how they project that. He stated that the number of 6 inches for the 24-hour 100-year storm is in between the existing 5.32 inch 50-year storm and the future 6.44. He stated that they didn’t show any numbers with climate change for this 100-year storm, but they can do that. He hoped that clarifies what those numbers.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck appreciated that they will make every effort in the future to give them as much information as possible as they thrive on more, not less, when it comes to information.
He stated that, because of the uncertainty he referenced, that is why he is trying to err on what is the most protection we can figure out how to orchestrate for our city. He thought it was a citywide issues, not merely a specific neighborhood issue and we need to work on this together as over time as things get worse, we are all going to be in this together. He would prefer taking an approach where we are physically capable and are on the side of caution while appreciating that things aren’t getting better.
Mr. Friedlander referred to asking about how we can be more comfortable with this whole thing and he added that based on the analysis and what they have heard from the community, he thought they have identified the major points where there is flooding and whatever design storm City Council Regular Meeting 8 September 26, 2022
they have, those seem to be the most critical points and prioritizing those projects you are prioritizing the community’s needs.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he hears him saying that, with those specific projects, it will be making some of our hardest hit areas more ready for that 1% event and that does make him feel a little bit better about it, even though he would create a retention basin over the entire city if he could.
Mayor Bier referred to one commenter bringing up the data from the past 40 years and she realizes it is a hard stretch to get all that data for them, but it would be interesting to go back just a little ways to see the data on the how many storms and floods have been in the past ten years.
Mr. Orgill stated that the one that happened in October was definitely a 100-year storm or probably more.
Assoc Civil Engineer Henriquez stated that they can look into that and go back ten years as she is asking and get that information for her.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they have the information they wanted from Council. He stated that he thought it was a city problem and everyone should contribute but he was more concerned about, if it has to go to a vote, getting a 67% vote for a bond issues.
Assoc. Civil Engineer Henriquez stated that, when they started the master plan, they didn’t get too involved with the formations of assessment districts or storm water utilities but they knew they were going to pursue grants and loans for the most part and the assessment districts and storm water utility was going to be a rather exhaustive effort in and of itself. He stated that PW Director Petersen may have more information.
PW Director Petersen reiterated, as discussed by Mr. Friedlander, the scope related to funding for this master plan which is typical for all the master plans she has been involved with, it tends to be relatively high level and she could see that, once Council identified their priorities and if the agree with the priorities being put forward, what happens, if staff digs in and starts looking at some of those funding options being provided by the consultants in the master plan and digging in to see which ones may be the most viable for those particular projects that are of interest to Council.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed that this issue, as well as the seawall, are both citywide issues, not just district.
Mayor Bier appreciated them bringing up Lauren Avenue as during rains, it might not flood at the bottom but it is dangerous, even going out to your car and she appreciated that being on the list. She asked if they need any more information from Council.
Assoc. Civil Engineer Henriquez didn’t think so, but he asked PW Director Petersen if she had anything else.
PW Director Petersen stated that they basically wanted to get Council’s input related to the prioritization, the way the design was being designed with the 50-year storm with climate change included in that and jumping it by 21% to include the climate change perspective and any other comments. She has written down their comments, but they were just looking for any City Council Regular Meeting 9 September 26, 2022
input so they can massage the draft and master plan to get everything into it.
Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested reenforcing and echoing the comments from councilmembers about the citywide nature of so many of these issues. While there may not be an impact of a specific flooding event in her neighborhood that is happening in another neighborhood, there can be something coming up in her neighborhood that they don’t know about yet and developing and reinforcing that notion of one city that has to deal with all their problems. She stated that there is a magnitude issue. She appreciated Councilmember O’Neill asking them to look in the future regarding financing possibilities and opportunities for funding projects. She felt an important data for her was what the magnitude of how many homeowners, properties, etc., are, and we need numbers. She stated that there may be an opportunity for both strategies and they are talking about the whole city, whether a special district or other financing. She stated that, when they bring this back in the future, she would like more detail on how those districts are formed, what it looks like and whether, if they are in an area in a third categorized project priority and a relatively smaller amount of money, that is something that a neighborhood could undertake in seeking to bring it forward sooner than priority 3 and is there a strategy for that. She asked if they can have that whole city approach of the overarching plan but, within that, can there be an assessment district model or formation of a special assessment, etc.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it may be absurd, but when Monterey is flooding and the cars that are parked curb their wheels which causes the water to go over the sidewalks, she asked if they could give them some notification because that is part of the problem as it causes giant overflow that makes it go over the sidewalk into people’s houses but if the water could continue down the street, it would solve a lot of those issues. She didn’t know if they can notify people and she wondered how they can go about that before they get that fixed if something happens.
Assoc. Civil Engineer Henriquez asked PW Director Petersen if she has any comments.
PW Director Petersen thought it could be a matter of notification and sticking with them about not doing it. She wondered if they are anticipating a lot of flooding and they may be hesitant not to curb their wheels as they be afraid that their car will go down the street, but they can do some outreach with community education related to that and hopefully once they get some of the projects in place the amount of flooding going down the street won’t happen anymore.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he wanted to see if City Attorney Kenyon might be able to give him more information about his earlier question if she is present.
City Attorney Kenyon asked him if he can repeat the question.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that one of the callers had a legal issue around flooding and he thought he would echo that and see what her thoughts might be, generally, what legal issues could arise from flooding if we don’t deal with this or is it incumbent on the homeowners to suck it up.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that this is a very lawyer answer and this is what she does, but all the questions related are very fact specific. She can say that, generally, if flooding arises out of a 100-year, 200-year event that is not anticipated and was not directly related to an infrastructure piece that they constructed and designed, then there is usually not liability, but if our infrastructure in any away contributes to the flooding, that is a very fact-based analysis and City Council Regular Meeting 10 September 26, 2022
it depends on the facts. She stated that, generally, if it is 100-year flood or 200-year flood, and they did the best they could in planning our capital projects, and the flooding occurred in any event, then there may not be any liability. If it is something where we design a capital project that, in some way, they created the flooding, that is something we have to look into in terms of what they could have done differently and there could be liability. She stated that it is all very fact specific.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it pretty well tracks with what City Manager Woodhouse said earlier. He stated that it is an inverse circumstance where they know there is an area in town that regularly has flooding and they don’t address that, there is liability that results from knowing that there is regularly flooding in a specific area and they are not addressing it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it depends on what is causing the flooding. She stated that, if it is something related to our infrastructure that we haven’t fixed, perhaps, but if related to just 100-year storm that we could not have predicted, and there happens to be a lot of them, they don’t have the obligation to anticipate that there are going to be continuous 100-year storms unless there are facts in evidence to assure that we need to construct our infrastructure to address those storms. She stated that it does happen periodically. When she first started, they were designing for a 50-year and now you have to plan as it is more evident that we are having more flooding, more rain, more climatic instances of catastrophic events and it is now getting into some understanding that this could be the new norm and it is all going to depend on what the storm look like, what does that flooding look like, what did our infrastructure look like and what was the damage done to that property, caused by the flooding or caused by some other factor.
Mayor Bier thanked them for all their work and they appreciated them. They look forward to more information as we move forward. She then stated that they will take a break until the 7:00 start of their regular meeting.
7:00 PM - OPEN REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Raymund City Council Regular Meeting 11 September 26, 2022
Donguines, Sr. Civil Engineer; Lawrence Henriquez, Assoc. Civil Engineer; Ryan Marquez, Project Manager; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Tommy Yu, IT Manager; Bonny O’Connor, Senior Planner; Elizabeth Brooks, Management 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. She 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 Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck
Closed Session Report
City Manager Woodhouse stated there was no closed session report.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Pius Garcia
Mayor Bier stated that they were coming together in honor of Pius Garcia, and then read the proclamation honoring his passing.
PW Director Petersen extended the PW Department’s deepest sympathies to his family, and stated it was also difficult for so many of his coworkers. He was well loved and respected and they miss him.
Building Maintenance and Park Superintendent Gino Assereto stated that Mr. Garcia began his career on July 8, 1996 working with street repair crew for two years, then joined the building maintenance crew and worked on several projects throughout the years and he was respected for his abilities and knowledge and will be deeply missed by everyone.
Mayor Bier thanked Mr. Garcia’s wife for being present, and stated that she could share if she wanted but if not, that was fine. She then asked if there was any public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speaker.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that she was speaking as the executive director of the Sanchez Art Center. She stated that their center opened the same year that Mr. Garcia joined the city and he was always so appreciated. When they needed help, they were happy when he responded as he was a pleasure to work with, etc.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that another city employee’s hand was raised.
Building Maintenance Specialist Rolando Siliezar was Mr. Garcia’s partner and they worked together for over ten years. He stated he had the ability to address every job site in a professional manner and quick to show his expertise and shared that with him. He was very City Council Regular Meeting 12 September 26, 2022
talented, smart and a good mentor. He will definitely miss him very much.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he did not know Mr. Garcia very well, but he gave his condolences. While not having known him, he has talked to people in town about him and they have repeated over and over his kindness.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he saw him sometimes and he was always pleasant, always smiling and willing to please. He extended his sympathy to his family for their loss which is hard when sudden and unexpected. He thanked his family for sharing him with his time working in Pacifica.
Councilmember Vaterlaus gave her condolences, and she thought a person working for the city for 25 years is incredible. She stated that she has heard great things about him and she thanked his family for allowing him to work with the city.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought the biggest confirmation of his willingness to share his time and talent is how much he is missed and how much his coworkers speak of him and how difficult this has been for them to accept and pull together and move on as it is difficult when you lose someone you love. She stated that it is clear that all the people he worked with adored him. She extended her condolences to the family.
Mayor Bier thanked his wife for being with them as she knows it isn’t easy. She was going to comment on his 25 years of service and what happens when you have an employee for that long is that they become family. She has seen that his coworkers in his department and she wanted her to know how much he was appreciated.
City Manager Woodhouse thought the nature of the city organization as a tight family unit comes out and he sends his sympathies to his wife and family for their loss. He didn’t want to overlook the incredible contribution and public service to the community and democracy that an employee like Mr. Garcia commits his entire life. He stated that he committed his entire life and the personal side has come out and the social contribution is important. They will miss him and he was an incredible person.
Mayor Bier thanked his family and sent them all their love.
B. Proclamation - Jane Northrop
Mayor Bier stated that they would now celebrate someone who worked in our community for a very long time, Jane Northrop. Mayor Bier thanked her for being here and then read her proclamation honoring her retirement.
Ms. Northrop thanked Council and stated it was a pleasure to work with them. She thanked Chris Hunter for hiring her and staff of the original Pacifica Tribune and she thanked Peter Loeb and the investor of the Coastside News Group for keeping the community news group alive as a locally owned community newspaper. She thanked Clay Lambert who is the editor, and working with him was a great experience and she appreciated that opportunity as well as everyone else on the staff and she thanked the Pacifica Tribune and thanked Council for the proclamation.
Mayor Bier appreciated her, and she stated that Daniel Vainish was present representing Assemblyman Mullin’s and Senator Becker’s offices.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 September 26, 2022
Daniel Vainish stated that he was present representing Assemblyman Mullin’s and Senator Becker’s offices with a joint certificate for Jane Northrop for all her accomplishments, and then read the certificate.
Ms. Northrop thanked him for that and thanked Assemblymember and Senator as well.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, congratulated her and thanked her for all her hard work. She wished her a fun retirement.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, also congratulated her on her retirement. She stated that it was wonderful to see her around time and now she can have a good time and not be working. She looked forward to seeing her in the future and thanked her for her years of reporting on our community.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember O’Neill thanked her for her efforts and longevity with the Pacifica Tribune and Pacifica. He stated that their sons were in Boy Scouts together, and she was there when he was on the school board and he thanked her for her efforts and all her reporting to keep everyone tuned in on what was going on in Pacifica.
Ms. Northrop thanked him for his kind comments.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she has been there for 26 years, and going to meetings, which is a chore and she thanked her for everything she has done all these years and was sorry she missed her celebration. She asked her to enjoy her retirement but still be Pacifica.
Ms. Northrop thanked her and stated she will be in Pacifica.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was sorry he missed her celebration and he stated that everywhere he went he saw her at every event. He thought he still will but it was amazing that she has been there covering everything and it has been extraordinary all the love she has put into covering this community.
Ms. Northrop thanked him for his kind words.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked her for all she has done for our community. She stated that the proclamation reminded her that it goes beyond the Tribune and the other local media such as the Pacifica Community TV and hearing about her original school district. She thanked her for the work on the video on School House Rot to get attention to the need for the first bond that helped get the school building up to speed so they had moved on to additional funds approved by the community. She thanked her as a district employee and a citizen.
Ms. Northrop thanked her, and remembered that was a wonderful project and was happy to produce that show.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he forgot but thought that helped pass the bond.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 September 26, 2022
Mayor Bier thanked her, adding that she was able to attend her party and thought it was wonderful. She thanked her for covering the triumphs and tragedies of her family and she appreciated and trusted her. She thanked her for all her years of service and looked forward to having coffee with her.
Ms. Northrop stated that would be great and she appreciated all the love she always showed her. She stated that it was wonderful getting to know her family and how that tragedy changed Pacifica.
Mayor Bier thanked her for being with them tonight.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if there were any councilmembers wishing to pull an item from consent.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he would like to make a comment on Item #5, but no questions.
Mayor Bier stated that was okay and they will go to public comments first then come back to him for his comment.
Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she wanted to comment in Items #4 and 9. Item #4, fireworks, and she pointed out that, while there were less on this year’s Monday, there are more on weekends when people are off the next day, and added further comment. On Item #9, roadwork and repaving in Manor area, she expressed her concerns and proposed options on the issue.
Adam Kerin, Pacifica, stated he had similar comments on Item #9 as Ms. Boles expressed, and added personal concerns on safety issues on the issue.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
City Manager Woodhouse referred to one speaker asking a question on financials related to the July 4 item, and stated that there was a summary table on packet page 102 that shows the expenditures of all the departments on July 4 and amount of revenue that the 8% charge did raise exceeding those expenditures. He wasn’t sure that is what was being referred to or not, but that information is in the report.
Mayor Bier thought they were also asking how much the non-profits made. She asked if Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was going to comment on.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier asked the city manager if he would explain the funding they received for the pedestrian and bike work on Esplanade.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, for that question, he would turn it over to Director Petersen.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 September 26, 2022
PW Director Petersen stated that the city received a grant fund for doing the bike lane on Esplanade and, to answer the question that has been coming up, the reason that NCE did not get this work was because it had been given to a different consultant that has more experience in bike/ped projects so it is not that the project work is not getting done, but they chose a different consultant that they thought would be a better fit and the project is going to be moving into design in the near future and they hope to get it out soon.
Mayor Bier stated it was a pleasure sitting on that bike and pedestrian committee and being able to split a project that is a good thing. She referred to Councilmember O’Neill for his comment.
Councilmember O’Neill wanted to thank City Manager Woodhouse for moving forward and looking at the consulting firm for all those different grants for which the city applied. He talked to them at the League of Cities and he knows we have PW, but he hoped to see some PB&R or possibly police or other departments have some grants for them become available. He stated he was told that, in October, there was an available grant for Park & Rec or possibly a bike park.
He thought that would be exciting if they can move forward on that. He stated that a big part of this project is that they do the monitoring afterwards which is hard and difficult to report back to the grantors and report on the progress of the various stages. He thought that was an important part of the project and contract.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 8/01/22 through 8/15/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 8/01/22 through 8/15/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on August 22, 2022 and the City Council Special Meeting held on August 31, 2022.
3. Adopt Resolution Amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code to Revise the List of Designated Employees
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution amending the City of Pacifica Conflict of Interest Code to revise the list of Designated Employees and repealing Resolution No. 50-2020.
4. Report on July 4, 2022 Activities
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the staff report on July 4th 2022 activities.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 September 26, 2022
5. Resolution approving First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for consult services in connection with grant funding between the City of Pacifica and the firm California Consulting.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and California Consulting to extend the Agreement for one year at an additional cost of $60,000; and authorize the City Manager to exercise another optional two-year extension.
6. First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for Professional Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, by increasing the contract amount by $132,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $792,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.
7. Third Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the Third Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company, by increasing the contract amount by $100,000 with a total not to exceed amount of $320,000 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.
8. Anza Pump Station Repair –Gas Service Line Construction and Additional Engineering Services During Construction
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the Anza Pump Station Repair - Gas Service Line Construction and Additional Engineering Services During Construction:
A. Authorize the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Services Agreement with Casey Construction, Inc. (Attachment “A”) in an amount not to exceed $185,100 and authorize a budget authority in an amount not to exceed $222,120 which includes a contingency in an amount not to exceed $37,020 or twenty percent (20%) of the Construction Services Agreement amount;
B. Authorize the City Manager to approve and execute Task Order No. 3 (Attachment “B”) with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. for Additional Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC) in the amount not to exceed $30,000 and authorize a budget authority in an amount not to exceed $34,500 which includes a contingency in an amount not to exceed $4,500 or fifteen percent (15%) of the proposed fee; and
C. Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the listed contingency amounts.
9. Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services related to the FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 September 26, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve Task Order No. 1 between the City of Pacifica and NCE for Design and Engineering Services in the amount of $147,000.00 in connection to the FY 2023-24 Pavement Resurfacing Project (Attachment 1); approve budget authority in the amount of $161,700.00 from the Street Construction Fund (Fund 9); and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related with the project.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.
Bruce Wright, Pacifica, stated he is the board chair of the Boys and Girls Club in Pacifica, and he gave them a quick update on their progress over the past four months, reporting on the attendance at close to capacity at the various sites, Yosemite, IBL Middle School, and program updates .
Jeremy Stafford, Pacifica, stated he is the District VP for the Pacifica Firefighters Association, and he thanked the Council for letting them take them for a ride during the Fog Fest and he stated that they are doing their part to be a part of the community.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated a neighbor reported dangerous overgrowth on the Hickey sidewalk uphill of Monterey and stated that they complained about it for over a year but the problem persists. She provided photos to PW and thanked the response from Raymund Donguines in PW and forwarded his response to the neighbors and added her suggested fix for the problem.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended the Fairmont Homeowners Association meeting and appreciated being able to hear their issues and she updated them on what is going on in their district, and while they work for everyone in the city, it was nice to be able to talk to homeowners specifically. She referred to talking with a constituent regarding transportation and he had a lot of good ideas and she will put them on paper and submit them. She attempted to get on the Fog Fest Board but it didn’t happen. She attended the SMC Emergency Preparedness meeting and they are switching platforms for the SMC Alert so people might be getting notifications that the platform is changing. She suggested, if you aren’t already signed up for SMC Alert, that you do that. She asked if there was any possibility that it could be switched from an opt in to an opt out platform so that everyone would be notified. She stated that it was difficult to do that, but she thought they are considering trying to get that to happen. She attended the special CCAG Legislative meeting and they got an update. She attended the Age Friendly Cities awards and she thought Mayor Bier did an excellent job talking about our age friendly resources and what she has done to make us an Age Friendly City. She stated that the Democrats discussed the ballot initiatives. She attended Rancho Days which she fondly remembers taking her kids there while they went in circles and circles, making the candles, dipping the wick into each bucket of wax and she still has those candles. She attended a Cal Cities event at Filoli which is nice to get together with all councilmembers on the peninsula. She thanked the Fire Department for letting them ride in their 1949 Mack fire truck, which was fun and nice to be high and be able to see everyone. She thought the Fog Fest was more attended than she has seen in the past. She stated that it was a great turnout on a perfect day. She stated that Council of Cities in Foster City went into total detail on their seawall project which was approved by the members in Foster City, which is a seven mile project encompassing the length of our whole city City Council Regular Meeting 18 September 26, 2022
in their seawall project. She stated it was enlightening to see what they are doing there and the possibilities that something could be done similarly here. She stated that the person giving the presentation was Louis Sun who was in our PW Department and is now the head of PW in Foster City. She stated it was nice to see him and great to talk to other councilmembers.
Councilmember O’Neill attended the LAFCO meeting and they had a presentation on how San Mateo County is going to be reaching their RHNA numbers, which was interesting on how they did it with the challenges they are facing and how they are going to try and do it. He went to Commute.org Board of Directors meeting and attended the San Mateo County Visitor’s Bureau mixture in Burlingame which was fun. He passed out some of Pacifica jack cheese there as it was a raffle drawing prize. He stated that they talked to all five of them, Police Chief interviews for the new police chief that they wanted in the new police chief. He thanked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck for attending the Library JPA meeting in his place as he had a lot of things scheduled that happened at the same time the meeting was taking place. He attended the Filoli League of Cities event and he attended Fog Fest and rode on the fire truck. He thanked the Fire Department for that. He stated that it was nice riding in the back which is a different perspective than when he normally rides in the front in December. He stated that Fog Fest seemed very busy and he thought it was one of the hottest Fog Fests on Saturday and it was fun with the new normal.
Councilmember Beckmeyer attended the Economic Development Committee meeting on the 14th but was unable to stay for the whole thing, but was there for Katie Berkshire who is one of the co-owners of Table Wine who gave a very excellent presentation on the development of her business over time from their original location in Linda Mar Shopping Center and then moving to Sharp Park, successes, learning experiences with great perspectives on the increasing vibrancy of the small businesses in Sharp Park and how excited she was to be part of that after previously not being interested in relocating there. She left that meeting to go to a very exciting training where she learned so much to prepare to participate in something she ended up not being able to participate in, but she shared that it was through the Resource Conservation District and it was the first flush training which she became aware of through the Rotary Climate Action team. She stated that it was getting ready for the very first big rain of the year when there is sustained runoff to have folks trained to go out and collect samples, which has been going on since 2000 that they have reported the data to capture water samples at specific locations that were creek outfalls that flow to the ocean in terms of what the contamination rates are that get into the ground water and this year they added another test they’re doing for pesticides. She stated that the northern most collection spot is at the San Pedro Creek outfall near the north end of San Pedro shopping center where it goes under Highway 1 and there are spots all the way down Montara, in Half Moon Bay and south of Half Moon Bay. She was trained, ready, on call, ready to go and they got rain on Sunday and they thought that would be the first flush, but it wasn’t quite enough rain and it turned out the first flush was on Monday or Tuesday and she had to go to work. She thanked John Keener and Roger Mascio for carrying forward with their team and doing the collection as they have been doing for many years. She was looking for the opportunity to possibly participate next year. She stated that the Pacifica Democrats meeting was enlightening. They talked about the statewide ballot measures and it was the first time she presented a couple of them and she learned what she left out and she will be more thorough the next time. She had a very good presentation with thorough questions from the audience. She had the great pleasure to sit in for Councilmember Vaterlaus at the CCAG meeting because she had a conflicting meeting that night. She stated that, if you drive Highway 1 at all, you see the signs about the high occupancy vehicle lane and the toll lanes that are already operating in the southbound direction but coming north from Whipple Avenue north they will be in effect as of early 2023 and they think the tolling will probably begin in February City Council Regular Meeting 19 September 26, 2022
and it brought to her mind the signs they see on the freeway forever, but suddenly it will be done and you need to have a special transponder when you drive through FastTrak and it has a switch on it and, if you drive in those lanes, you can have free or reduced tolling if you have the right number of people in the car, but the only way the transponder knows that is if it can flip the switch on the transponder and you have to get a different FastTrak transponder that you have in your car. She will be going to the website 101expresslanes.org for information how to get that transponder. She stated that there was a great presentation about greenhouse gas reductions and how transportation and staples for carbon neutrality by 2045. The biggest takeaway for her was the vehicle miles traveled and the need to reduce driving our vehicles. She stated that, when you talk about the lofty greenhouse gas reduction goals, they bring it down to her biggest takeaway was that they need to be looking at reducing your average vehicle miles traveled from 25 miles a day to 19 miles a day or 17 miles a day. She stated that we grapple with this all the time by living on the coast as we don’t have good public transportation and not every employer has the power ban or some other means to getting them to have multiple people in a vehicle instead of one. She stated that the third thing about the meeting that was so fun was, having heard the Mayor talk about being part of the Bike and Ped Committee for the CCAG and scoring different applications, she got to cast a vote instead of Councilmember Vaterlaus for the One Bay Area Grant program, OBAG, which included the Pacifica project and will move our project to the next phase of approval for Sharp Park and we won’t hear until early in the year if it has been approved by MTC and she was hopeful that it will be, and it will bring over $2.1 million of bike and pedestrian lane work to Sharp Park.
Mayor Bier thanked her for talking about that project which was exciting. She attended the CCAG Bike and Pedestrian Committee meeting and they discussed that and hopefully that will go through the MTC and they will see what happens. They also discussed the micro-mobility pilot project that will be coming up and she will give them more information about that as they move forward. She thanked her for talking about Katie at table one and she gave an engaging presentation to EDC and another thing they talked about that night was moving forward with Blues and Brews and there is going to be a really cool event coming in October with Blues and Brews and they talked about the Shop Pacifica program and there was a lot of good things going on with our Economic Development Committee and it has been good to be there. She stated that there were a couple of hands up. She asked if he wanted to say something now.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated after she gives her communications.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that Katie was passing out cards at Fog Fest to remind all the small businesses that they’re going to do a Palmetto event the day after Thanksgiving so save the date. The small businesses are going to have an event that day and that is really a great thing and they’re planning way ahead. She also said she is planning for Pride for next year which is going to be good and a much bigger event than it was. She stated that, regarding the transponders, she has had that transponder for several years now and, instead of being a big giant thing, it’s tiny and so much better than the old one and she suggested that they get those newer transponders.
Mayor Bier stated that she wanted to talk about the Age Friendly celebration. She stated that all of the work that has been done to keep Pacifica an age friendly city has been done by Roy Ernst and he has led the charge through the entire process through the last three years and in partnership with the PRC, they are doing housing presentations to our seniors, talking about how to apply for senior housing and how to go through the process. There has been a couple of presentations on that which is one of the arms of the Age Friendly City program and the other arm is the transportation arm through senior services and it’s the attach a ride program where City Council Regular Meeting 20 September 26, 2022
seniors can get taxi rides for $5 one way and can include a friend. She stated that is an awesome program through Senior Services and they have Cindy Abbott who is working on the Age Friendly business program and they will be moving forward with that coming up and definitely all the work has been done by other people and she wanted to make that clear that Roy is in charge of that and she thanked him. She stated that it was a pleasure to be at the Coastal Cleanup day and they got to hear everyone honor Jim and Anna who were the original founders of the Beach Coalition and that was really great. She thanked Lynn Adams who was on the Pacific Beach Coalition for always having such a wonderful event for our community.
She went to Steal the Event, and she is a new board member on Coast Pride. She got her orientation and had the first meeting. She stated that they will be partnering with the City of Pacifica and others to talk about debriefing last year’s Pride event and then moving forward with planning as they have a meeting scheduled for October 4, and she thought it was great that they get to move forward with that. She moved on to discussing Fog Fest and thanked the Fog Fest Organizing Group. It was amazing to be back and it was delightful. The parade was awesome. The vendors were awesome. The music was awesome. She had a work booth there as well and they were talking to all the young people about substance use and talking to tiny little kids about mental health and asking them what is something they can do to help themselves feel better when they are mad or sad, and they said take deep breaths. She stated that it was wonderful to see how education has changed and how our young people are learning to have different coping mechanisms. She stated that, with all these things that happened at the Fog Fest, she can’t express her gratitude as it was so much fun.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he will begin by remembering Ukraine and his thoughts and prayers. He attended the Democrats meeting, Rancho Day, and, as Councilmember O’Neill alluded to, he attended the Library JPA meeting in his place and some of the highlights were the big lift presentation and how there is a 1.5 month gain in reading growth for the kids who are part of the big lift program which is huge rather than losing some of the learning over the course of the school year. They maintained and might even grow a bit off of the programs that come out of our local libraries. He stated that they approved the adopted budget for 2022-23 and they had a very cool pitch program with the first in person meeting in the years since Covid and they have the pitch program component that they do where, during staff development day, the staff will pitch programs that they think will be cool and the most popular ones will be implemented.
Some of the winners this year was one where they are going to put period supplies in the women’s restrooms and he thought that was cool. They will start loaning out karaoke machines, art supplies and swim passes. They already had programs for park passes and museum passes and they are going to try and get together with local pools so folks who may have trouble getting a swim pass over the course of the summer will have accessibility. They also made sure they knew that state tutoring has become available and the bittersweet news was that we didn’t get the grant funding through the state for our libraries that we had applied for, but we are still in the running for phase 2 of the grant program so we are still in it even though we didn’t get it this round. The next JPA meeting will be in person in Atherton on November 14.
He followed Councilmember O’Neill to a local agency formation commission meeting which he talked about and it was interesting hearing how the county is doing their housing element and in general, watching the meeting was interesting. He attended Filoli. They had a Peninsula Clean Energy retreat with a 4.5 hour meeting, a little longer than their normal meetings. They began by giving them an update on the diversity equity accessibility and inclusion policy that we have been working on rigorously for a while and they weren’t quite ready for prime time yet but they made sure to stress that PCE commits to making diversity equity accessibility inclusion a priority during decision making up to and including the meeting they had on Thursday. He stated that it was a big overarching meeting on how they are doing with our strategic plan. The two specific things that are the big picture they were rigorously working on is the 24/7 clean energy by 2025 City Council Regular Meeting 21 September 26, 2022
with the idea being that, even if we accrue enough clean energy into our system, it is not necessarily being used during off-peak hours and technically they are 100% clean energy and there are times when we have to borrow off the grid and it was not necessarily clean energy.
He stated that they are trying to build up where we get our energy to the point where we don’t have to go off the grid for unclean energy during those off peak times. He stated that the interesting part of that conversation had to do with over building our system and, in order to get to that point where we’re at 100% 24/7 clean energy, we have to weigh overbuild and what was interesting was that 99% of 24/7 was way less of an overbuild than 100% 24/7. He stated that there are financial discussions that come into play depending on how we move in that direction but it seems like a strong place to start that might wind up being 99% and we figure out how to kill that last 1% to get ourselves to the 24/7 goal. He stated that the other major goal is decarbonization by 2035 which largely boils down to statewide policies and incentives that will be kicking in around the 2030 or 2031 area to help folks to electrify where otherwise gas would be the go to. He stated that, as we are discussing on the local level whether or not we want to do burnout code for current development, the state is already starting to make sure that we can get there regardless of how quickly we, on the local level wind up getting there. That is good news and interesting statistic over $100 million has been saved for our customers over six years and the next PCE meeting will be on October 27 at 6:30. He stated that first, in Council of Cities and Foster City, one fact that Councilmember Vaterlaus left out was that, when they passed the bond measure for their seawall, it was 81% approval which he thought was a beautiful thing and it was great to see Louis Sun. He stated that regarding Fog Fest, so much has been said already. It was great to ride in the old fire truck but seeing so many people. He stated that he was going back and forth between his preferred booths and between various music and food and every other staff was another person. On that first day, he felt like he hadn’t accessed all the names of the people he knew in so long because he hasn’t seen them in so long and every time he saw someone he hadn’t seen for two years, he remembered their names 30 seconds late and over and over again that was the experience and finally having our community come together was a beautiful thing to behold. He was excited for the housing element meeting coming up on Wednesday at 6 p.m. He was excited for the Special City Council Reach Code meeting that will be happening tomorrow at 6 p.m. He was sure the City Manager will be reminding them of both.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse thanked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck for the reminder about the upcoming City Council meetings as it is a busy week as mentioned that, in addition to this meeting, the following night is a study session regarding the triennial building codes update, including REACH codes and Peninsula Clean Energy representatives will be on hand to help us during that conversation. Again, it is a study session and an initial high-level talk and input about what options exist and what the actual state required building code updates will be and high level about options related to REACH codes. On Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. is the first Housing Element community engagement workshop and we are hoping for a good crowd. This one continues to be 100% virtual. He stated that the rough agenda will be posted up on the Housing Element webpage but an overview of what the agenda will be for the night is, of course, welcoming and meeting logistics, a high level view of why we’re holding this, why they are doing the housing element update, why it matters and introducing the housing element.
They will discuss needs and trends. There will be a discussion about sites and policy overview but this workshop is not intended to get into specific site discussions as that is part of the late October workshop after initial analysis of sites is completed. In the virtual environment, they hope to break up into small group discussions for community members to talk with community members. Everybody is probably used to this breakout format for those discussions and talk City Council Regular Meeting 22 September 26, 2022
about next steps. He stated that was a high level overview of the agenda for Wednesday night.
He stated that they have those two meetings this week. He was disappointed to miss the return of Fog Fest due to family obligations which took him out of state. He saw pictures and heard lots of information and reports back about it and it was a huge success. He stated that city staff were able to answer a lot of questions and provide a lot of information to the community. They ran out of Shop Pacifica flyers and had to print more and make them available and he thought that was a great thing. He stated that they got a great aerial using the city’s bucket truck for aerial photograph of Palmetto during Fog Fest by Steven Johnson and that is a picture that will definitely be used as it was an impressive one. He announced that their grant-funded chipper program is coming back in November and, beginning this week, information will be provided in Connect with Pacifica. The dates and locations are November 7 with a route through Linda Mar, Park Pacifica and November 9 Linda Mar southern area routes, Rosita, Perez and more, that will be the focus of continuing the grant funded chipper program as they were using up the previous grant money they were awarded and he hoped they get great participation in that program as they have in the past.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck wouldn’t mind a brief bio break, but he wanted to say that he has been seeing Elizabeth doing the reach out for the housing element at the Farmers Market and it has been really good to see her out two weeks in a row and seeing the outreach that the city is doing. He was looking forward to Wednesday.
Mayor Bier stated that they can have a break and return at 8:32 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 to establish one on-street Temporary Safe Parking Program parking space (30’ by 10’) on the west side of the Francisco Boulevard public right-of-way (ROW), east of 2400 Francisco Boulevard (APN 016-322-230) and approximately 32 feet north of the Clarendon Road and Francisco Boulevard intersection (File No. 2022-012). (Continued from 8/8/22).
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution.
Mayor Bier explained the item was an appeal and stated that they would need a motion to reopen the public hearing, as well as hear a staff report and response from the appellant.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck so moved; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (to re-open the public hearing)
Mayor Bier stated that they will now hear a staff presentation from Planning Director Murdock and Sr. Planner O’Connor as well as hearing from the appellant, North Coast County Water District represented by General Manager Adrianne Carr.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 September 26, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse thought, although this is a continuation meeting, it might be good to have Special Counsel Emily Longfellow briefly explain why she is participating at this meeting for context.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that, as she mentioned at the initial hearing, she is participating because, in this unique case, the city is the applicant for this coastal development permit and, in order to advise the Council and keep the roles of City staff as advocate for the project and she is the special counsel to advise the City Council.
Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report.
Mayor Bier stated that it was time for the appellant.
Special Counsel Longfellow wanted to confirm that, prior to allowing the appellant to speak, they should get the typical allotted time for such items and she understood it was ten minutes with three reserved for rebuttal if they so choose.
Mayor Bier confirmed that, and then stated that they have the North Coast County Water District Representative and general manager Adrianne Carr.
City Clerk Coffey asked if Council would like her to promote the appellant representatives.
Mayor Bier agreed.
Representative Carr stated that they had a couple of people joining them, Directors Joshua Cosgrove and Anne DeJarnatt would also like to make some comments.
City Clerk Coffey asked if Ms. Carr would like to reserve some time for rebuttal.
Ms. Carr stated that was fine.
City Clerk Coffey asked clarification that she would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal and take seven minutes for her presentation.
Ms. Carr stated that it sounds like an okay plan and they will see when they get to the seven minutes. She stated that first they will have Joshua Cosgrove and she asked if Anne DeJarnatt had joined them.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they do have Anne DeJarnatt as a panelist.
Ms. Carr stated that was great.
Board member Cosgrove wanted to work with Council to resolve this spot as the board worked hard to develop alternate spots and they greatly appreciate Council’s action in August to continue this hearing. He thought there was pressure on Council from the City Attorney or City Manager that the ACLU will sue them again if they uphold their appeal or continue the hearing.
He called Bill Freeman, the lead attorney with the ACLU on Friday and discussed this alternate spot. He talked to him on Friday and they had a very positive conversation. He reviewed with him the location on Sharp Park Road and told him that the board was willing to partner with the city and fund a spot at the RV park on Palmetto to give them time, 6-8 months, to work through City Council Regular Meeting 24 September 26, 2022
the challenges on Sharp Park Road site. He also talked to PRC Director Rees who thought it was a great time to talk to the RV park about a spot that is six months or longer. He stated that Bill Freeman specifically said he could tell Council that, as long as the spot is not in Siberia, which he interpreted this to mean that he and his clients would consider the alternative spots as the ACLU and his clients do not want to sue but just want 13 spots. He also said he would talk to his clients about his conversation and this alternative spot. If they are working together to fill another spot or potentially two spots on Sharp Park Road and providing a spot on the RV Park for six months or so to work through the challenges, he believes they can solve this. He stated that General Manager Carr and Director DeJarnatt will also speak but now he will close, asking respectfully that Council either uphold the North Coast Appeal or continue the item again to work together as this was their chance to lead and work with them.
Representative Carr stated that they appreciated Council for taking action to continue the hearing and direct staff to work with the district on alternative sites and allows time for them to work on the issue and they had two productive meetings with city staff and believe that the district’s proposed alternative site is a promising alternative site for the TSPP. She stated that the district respectfully requests that City Council approve the appeal or continue the hearing to allow more time to resolve this issue and they also supports city staff’s alternative action to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. She stated that the city’s program is not a parking program but a temporary housing program and the district’s facility at 2400 Francisco Blvd., serves as the district’s headquarters and corporation yard and include the board meeting room where they hold all board and committee meetings, all staff offices, etc., i.e., that site is the hub for all district operations and where all customers come for anything related to the district. The district wants to work with the city and relocate this one temporary housing parking spot and they recognize there may be some items that need to be worked through with the alternative locations and the district is committed to work through those items in order to relocate this parking spot. She stated that the district is willing to consider other alternatives that may include financial assistance with the relocation of the spot to help pay for necessary improvements at a proposed location or help pay for a spot at the San Francisco RV Park. They would have preferred to collaborate with the city on temporary housing parking spots when the city was evaluating where these spots would be located earlier but that didn’t happen so do it now as it is already underway.
Director DeJarnatt thanked them for the opportunity to address colleagues on the City Council.
She stated that the district disagrees with the city’s legal position and they understand that City Council may agree with the district’s legal position. The district’s legal team is present and ready to respond to any questions Council has about the district’s legal position. They understand the pressure the city is under to implement the temporary safe parking program and they are present as they want to resolve this quickly and amiably and continue the good working relationship and collaboration that the water district and City Council have had for many years.
They are asking Council to consider how they would feel if a temporary housing spot was placed right in front of City Hall or in front of Council Chambers because that is proposed for their district headquarters which included their Board of Directors’ chambers and they ask Council to look at the greater good and what is best for the residents of Pacifica who both the city and the district serve. As they are in the middle of the issue and not close to resolution yet, she thought they need is more time to come to an agreement and the district respectfully requests that Council either approve the appeal or continue the appeal hearing to allow more time to resolve the issue as it appears that the time is the thing they are short of. The district also supports City staff’s alternative action to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 September 26, 2022
Mayor Bier appreciated their being here. She then opened up the public hearing..
Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.
William Bradford, Pacifica, concurred with all the arguments the district has and expanded those arguments mentioning his concerns on this issue and his suggestions for resolution.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, acknowledged the concerns of North County Water District and Perfect Pour Café and the water districts suggestions for an alternative space and expressed her thoughts and concerns on this issue.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she supports the Safe Parking Program and the spaces needed to be provided as part of the settlement with the ACLU and she trusts PRC in reviewing the applications and running the program as they have a proven track record in doing that. She expressed her specific concerns on this issue as well as possible options.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated he supports staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal and expressed his concerns and proposed possible options on this issue.
Mayor Bier stated she would close public hearing.
Councilmember O’Neill thought the appellant has three minutes for rebuttal.
Mayor Bier asked City Clerk how much time they have left.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they have three minutes and 14 seconds left.
Representative Carr stated that she doesn’t have any more comments and turned to the two directors to see if they have any desire to make any more comments.
Director Cosgrove appreciated their consideration and he was good.
Director DeJarnatt agreed with Director Cosgrove that she said what she wanted to say but was very concerned that they serve the same population and they are so close yet so far away.
She thinks, with a little more time, they can settle this very well and everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. She urged them to continue the hearing if possible.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated, prior to Council deliberation, similar to the August 8 meeting, the issue before Council is whether or not to approve, deny or modify the permit as described in the city’s application as was presented and considered by the Planning Commission and it isn’t within Council’s discretion at this meeting in considering the appeal to make decisions with respect to the desirability of the alternative sites and any determination with respect to this could still occur through an alternative process, however, not for this appeal hearing.
City Manager Woodhouse added that he was going to say a similar thing, and at the last hearing, Council did direct, as a separate matter for staff to work with the water district staff in evaluating alternative sites and they have begun that process and those sites are very complex but that is a separate matter from the narrowness of this appeal consideration. He also added City Council Regular Meeting 26 September 26, 2022
that he wanted to be sure to point out that five of the programmed parking spots are virtually in front of City Hall, PW municipal corporation yard which services an immense amount of permit activity and visitors and he pointed that out as clarification.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked the City Manager for clarification. He was going to say something similar and, if the roads in front of City Hall were not so narrow, he probably would advocate for putting the parking program there. He stated that the pressures he feels are not from City Manager or from City Attorney but from the ACLU and those who are sincerely seeking stable housing. He asked Special Counsel Longfellow if she heard anything that was new at this meeting that she hadn’t heard before and is there a legal angle they haven’t heard before, may have missed and should consider a more robustly than they had to look at in the past and is there anything legally speaking that they are missing.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that her interpretation of what was heard at this time and the additional comments that were submitted by the water district are similar to what were raised before and she thought the substance in the record still shows that there is substantial evidence on the record that Council could deny this appeal in its discretion and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he can start in terms of deliberation. He was inclined to vote to deny the appeal at the last meeting and did a lot of wrestling with the thought that it was a fairly clear legal record for denying the appeal and he suspended that predilection for the sake of trying to work with North Coast County Water District and he was hoping that, after they are through at this time, they will still have the opportunity of working with them. He appreciated the NCCWD’s approach that they prefer to work with us collaboratively to address their concerns by finding a mutually beneficial alternative path. He stated that, to those ends, Council has formed an ad hoc subcommittee to work with NCCWD to address their concerns, but that process is separate from this appeal determination and does not impact his decision on the appeal. He thought, based on the merits of the appeal, he has enough evidence in front of him to deny the appeal but because he will be voting to deny the appeal, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to work with NCCWD after this appeal hearing but that this is separate from the collaboration he would wish to do and after denying this appeal, he would hope that the city will still have the opportunity of seeking what will work for their mutual best interest and will make extra effort to open communication and go from here, rather than this being an ending.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he would like to see if Planning Commissioner Greg Wright has any comments to make.
Planning Commissioner Wright stated that he was happy to review what it is they went over at Planning Commission, but he believes this is in Council’s purview as far as making a decision.
He stated that the Commission did struggle with this issue, and their first vote failed to pass and proximity to the water department was one of their considerations and they added condition No. 5 to partially alleviate some of this concern by asking for PW to file a report with the City Manager and requiring water department input to establish an effort to open up communication.
They were able to pass it as conditioned. He stated that it is also his hope that they can all work together to get this resolved, but it is for Council to decide.
Mayor Bier thanked him for being present at this meeting.
Mayor Bier stated that she heard some new things at this time, such as about the ACLU and the name of Bill Freeman was thrown out and she asked if they know who he is.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 September 26, 2022
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she can respond to that even though she isn’t responding on the appeal. She can talk about the ACLU related to that litigation. She stated that Bill Freeman is the lead counsel on the ACLU litigation and he is the one they have been negotiating with.
She stated that they are not aware of any of these conversations that he has had with North Coast County Water District and it does not comport to what he has been saying to us. She cannot confirm or deny what is being said as they have not heard that, as that is different from what they have heard from Mr. Freeman in terms of his concerns with us moving this spot, in part because he is going to want to know why we can’t move other spots which is the issue in the event that other spots aren’t approved by the Coastal Commission and she is sure he is going to expect that they find other spots for those as well. She stated that there is a lot to deal with in terms of the ACLU litigation and they have a settlement agreement in place and we have threat from Mr. Freeman and the ACLU that, if we were to uphold this appeal, there could be potential litigation from them.
Mayor Bier really appreciated the effort coming from the water district, i.e., talking to the ACLU, talking with Anita Rees, suggesting SFRV Park. She knows they tried that route in the past before and they weren’t very cooperative with us and she knows Ms. Rees and PRC did have a space there at one point. She was interested in that piece of the conversation and that can maybe happen later. She asked if there was a legal reason why they cannot continue the item.
Special Counsel Longfellow stated that, legally, it is within Council’s discretion to continue the item, however, she would like to reiterate that there is a legal threat from the ACLU that was presented with additional legal risk to the city if the item was continued as they could consider it potentially a violation of the settlement agreement by withholding that particular parking spot from being used as part of the program. She stated that decision would entail some legal risk to the city.
City Manager Woodhouse added that he did check in with Anita Rees today at PRC and there are currently two potential participants on the waiting list for the program and that factors into the ACLU position about delaying this program further.
Councilmember O’Neill made a motion that they deny the appeal; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Mayor Bier thought they needed to discuss it for a little bit more before they vote on it.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that was fine. He stated that no one was talking.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she appreciated the fact that the water district wants to work with us and she doesn’t see where this parking spot interferes with any of their entrances, exits, but just eliminates a possible street parking spot and is in the public right of way, wide enough. She appreciated that they are trying to find a solution, and she thought this could set a precedence and she is worried about that, worried about the ACLU, and she felt they didn’t need these lawsuits. She stated that we tried our best, and took a really long time going over every possible site in the city to find these spaces and they did not hide this from the public and was publicized, people knew about it, and maybe they should have given direct notice to the water district but it is on our public street and she feels that she has mentioned all of these facts the last time when they voted and she worries about the repercussions if they were to extend or uphold the appeal.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 September 26, 2022
Councilmember Beckmeyer was fine with the entire thing to be frustrating and difficult. She hears a lot of people saying that they want them to work together and at the end of the day each organization and each individual will take action in its own best interest. While she hoped that they were going to come to an amicable resolution, they still have a legal action on the part of the North Coast County Water District. They needed to do what they needed to do for themselves and that is what it is going to come to in the end. She didn’t know how else to approach the situation as we are literally between a rock and a hard place. The question is can they come together as people of good will and move forward together. Or are they going to splinter into looking into our own interest in what we perceive the threat to be to our own business activity or our own location. She feels like the program, overall, is working and she thinks we are seeing a reduced amount of impact and the fear of what the impact of this program is going to be was greater than what the facts are bearing out. She stated that the reality of this matter is that we had a lawsuit, we have a settlement and we have to follow through with that. She stated that jeopardizing that action is a bigger threat than she is willing to take on and, if the most straightforward course of action to alleviate that larger threat is to deny the appeal, then that is the direction is where she is afraid that she needs to go.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it was very well stated. He has a slight glimmer of hope beyond it that, despite those actions taken by NCCWD, he still has ever desire to work with them as much as possible. He is keeping his decision at this time to the merits of this specific appeal case. He appreciated that apparently they felt like they are defending their interests and appreciating that, he wished to do everything he can to work with them which is why they set up an ad hoc to reach out to them, why he had every intention of following through with that and seeing what happens. He wanted to say that, while he thought that was a thorough and adept analysis, he sees a glimmer of hope that hopefully can pull them past those realities.
Councilmember Vaterlaus added that this did go through the Planning Commission and they deliberated and came to this decision. She always like to hear from the commissions and committees as they do a lot of the prework before it comes to Council and she appreciates them and she hopes they can work together with the water district in the future.
Mayor Bier stated that this whole thing has been frustrating from start to finish, just coming up with the program and now trying to keep our program participants safe on the streets here we put them and there has been so many different thing that they have had to deal with over the past few years around this and it has always been her intent to collaborate with everyone, especially with the water district because she didn’t think they did a good job of that in the beginning. She appreciated that they continued the item already and it is a hard one. She is bound and determined to work alongside the water district. She was hoping the ad hoc committee was going to do some work before this meeting but they weren’t able to do that.
She wanted to get to work on that as that is probably the most important thing right now to her is that cooperation between our ad hoc committee and theirs as we should not be adversaries and it doesn’t make any sense to her why they are and that is frustrating to her. She knows the full water district board and all of the admins care about our community as much as we do, and it has been really hard. She hears her council members and hearing them loud and clear as they know where she stands already and she wants to give them as much time as they possibly could to work alongside the water district and that is still how she feels at this time and that is where she is.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they want to call the question.
Mayor Bier stated that they have a motion and a second.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 September 26, 2022
Planning Director Murdock asked if they can have the maker of the motion make the entire recommended action that is on the agenda packet on page 320.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP-437-22 and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A, including conditions of approval in Exhibit A to the resolution; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 4 - 1 (No: Mayor Bier)
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
NAYS: Bier
11. Introduction of an Ordinance to enact a new Article 52 “Outdoor Commercial Permits” and to amend Section 9-4.2308 “Commercial and Industrial Uses Outside Structures” of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to conduct commercial activity outside of an enclosed structure (Text Amendment TA-122-22, File No. 2022-017) and finding the Text Amendment Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Text Amendment by a Vote of 6-0 (with one absence) on September 6, 2022.
PROPOSED ACTION:
• Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to Enact a New Article 52 ‘Outdoor Commercial Permits’ and to Amend Section 9-4.2308 ‘Commercial and Industrial Uses Outside Structures’ of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to Create a Process for Commercial Businesses to Conduct Commercial Activity Outside of an Enclosed Structure and Finding the Text Amendment Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Text Amendment TA-122-22, File No. 2022-017),” including the modification to insert “bars” as an eligible commercial use as listed in sec. 9-4.5204(b) and refer the modified ordinance to Planning Commission for report and recommendation in accordance with Section 9-4.3507.
• Provide feedback to staff on the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines as recommended by the Planning Commission.
• Provide feedback to staff on the proposal to establish a deposit cap for processing an Outdoor Commercial Permit.
Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report.
Planning Director Murdock wanted to clarify one point Sr. Planner O’Connor made in her presentation. He stated that the slide and staff report reflects that the Planning Commission’s recommendation was to allow amplified and un-amplified sound on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday and federal holidays, not simply Friday and Saturday as he thought that was misstated in the presentation.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 September 26, 2022
Mayor Bier thanked them and asked if Council had any questions before opening for public comments.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she thought she read earlier that they need to get something to the effect of a structural engineer to come out and verify that the parklet was viable and she asked if that was part of the ordinance.
Sr. Planner O’Connor believes she is referring to the outdoor commercial permit guidelines.
She stated that there are standards that parklets have a design to withstand a force of 500 pounds and, for the parklet design, it will need to be engineered to withstand potential sizeable impacts for safety reasons, and that is applicable to parklets within the public right-of-way or parklets within private property that are created.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if, in existing parklets, they would need to go out and get the engineer to make sure that it is proper even though they have already had them there for some time.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that the two current parklets that exist now are one at Breakers and one at Grape in the Fog. She stated that Grape in the Fog currently uses a metal fence that is very movable and probably not going to meet the standard. The one in front of Breakers has a larger barricade that will need to be reviewed to see if they meet those standards.
Councilmember Beckmeyer didn’t know if this is where Councilmember Vaterlaus with her questions, but she is concerned about fees and asked Sr. Planner O’Connor if she could go over the either or scenario in the presentation on the city fees that would be charged to applicants. She was thinking about the city’s fees, the structural engineer fee, architect fee, basically how much will it cost a business to have a parklet.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that they haven’t calculated the cost of what it may cost to create a parklet that meets fee standards, but what she presented was just the processing fee and the idea of collecting a deposit of a maximum amount, using our current fee schedules. She stated that they recognize that parklets within the public right-of-way will require a little bit more review and more staff time to make sure it is safely located and appropriately constructed. She stated that this is all outside of potential encroachment fees which they estimate to be about $500, and the construction fees and fees for CDPs if in the coastal zone. If in the coastal zone, they are suggesting they come back at a later date and create an umbrella CDP to save those costs from the individual applicants in an effort to capture as many applicants within the coastal zone as they can to relieve them of that cost.
Mayor Bier thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer for the question. She thought it would be good to be able to see all the numbers and get a good idea of what the costs are.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the bars, and he asked if they include bars as part of the list of eligible commercial uses before they adopt this as an ordinance, will they need to send it back to the Planning Commission to weigh in on that.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that is close, as their plan is, if you choose to incorporate bars at this meeting as part of their introduction, staff will be able to present this modification to the Planning Commission at their next meeting on October 3 to get their recommendation of this modification in time for Council to look at the adoption of the ordinance on the same path which would be on the second Monday of October.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 September 26, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they are approving the ordinance at this time but would be modifying it on October 10.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that they would be introducing the ordinance at this meeting and they will be getting Planning Commission’s recommendation for the modification on October 3 and they would hope that Council will adopt the ordinance at the next City Council meeting.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, for clarification, she is correct but Council would be modifying the ordinance at this meeting to include bars into the ordinance that they are introducing. They are allowed to do, as the Planning Commission does have to consider it before they adopt it, so they are not adopting it at this meeting, but just introducing it. If Council agrees with that amendment, between now and the next meeting, staff would be sending it to the Planning Commission to get their consideration of this amendment so they will have their determination of this amendment for their consideration prior to the Council’s first meeting in October.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked her if this would be on consent for the next meeting after they introduce it at this meeting.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed that is the case as it is generally their practice. She stated that they don’t have to do it that way if Council would like to bring it back as a consideration item.
The normal practice would be that they introduce at this meeting with this change, staff would send it to the Planning Commission. They don’t have to approve it, but they would need to consider it. Once they consider it and give their thoughts on it, then Council can move forward and, if they want to keep that amendment as introduced, they would adopt it or if they want to take it out, they can reintroduce it and have an extra two weeks before they could adopt it.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, if the Planning Commission were to give it their blessing, it would wind up on consent on October 10.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, unlike the normal consent calendar report on ordinance adoption, they would just have some additional information on their and staff will input what the Planning Commission’s recommendation and analysis of that particular topic and they will have it to consider before they make their vote on whether to adopt or amend the ordinance as introduced.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked him for that clarification. He then had another point of clarification from Sr. Planner O’Connor. He stated that, if he read it correctly, the ten businesses that are still working off of the old permissions to be outdoor, they will have six months to apply for this after Council adopts it and they get first right of refusal.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that the only permit scenarios that are kind of in competition would be the ones that are within the parking lane scenarios of the public right-of-way and those applicants would be considered in the first come first serve scenario. All other applications are not in a competitive kind of situation where they can come at their leisure.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to Planning Director Murdock mentioning the music for Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and he asked what the hours that music is permitted.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 September 26, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated that the hours differ depending on the day. He stated that the allowance for amplified sound for Friday, Saturday, Sunday and federal holidays was 12 pm to 8 pm, and it is limited on Thursdays from 4 pm to 8 pm.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, if they do the bar thing, will they be able to serve outdoors until 2 am.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they could not, as there are two factors that would limit the hours of operation for a bar or any outdoor commercial permitted activity. The first would be the customary hours of operation for the permitted businesses and if they extend beyond the general hours of operation, there are overall beginning and ending maximum hours of operation for these types of facilities.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that those are 7 am to 10 pm.
Planning Director Murdock stated, before moving on, he understands that Council is looking for a combined picture of costs, and it will take them some time to pull that together, but with respect to building permit fees, he looked at what he thinks is the most comfortable type of permit they have issued for patio cover and it would be a small light frame type of construction and the permit fees for those appear to range from $500 to $1,000 for the building permit plan review and permit fees, and they will have that amount plus the encroachment permit amount, and he thought Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that was approximately $500 plus the fee, if any, imposed by City Council for the processing of the outdoor commercial permit. He stated staff didn’t have any insight into the expense it would cost for the contractor or the architect or engineer to prepare the plans for the construction to occur for those types of improvements.
City Manager Woodhouse added that, as part of their ARPA funding related to economic development efforts, he thought they discussed the idea of borrowing or generating boiler plate plans for parklets as a way to safe costs for businesses should they choose to use those. The model is similar efforts have been done for ADUs in the region. He stated that Sr. Planner O’Connor could remind them of how and when that process would play out.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that it was previously discussed and there was money in the department’s budget set aside for that particular use in addition to the creation of this ordinance.
While they used a portion of that funding to create this ordinance, they have some remaining that they can push forward to getting those specs. She thought their desire was to get an idea from Council of what the general provisions that Council would be interested in supporting and seeking out a design within those.
Councilmember O’Neill stated, when they do the boiler plate plans, he would like to see the ability of the business owner to customize as he stated that he was in San Francisco and there was a fish restaurant and their outdoor think looked like a boat. He thought it would be nice if they allowed customizing for the type of business it might be.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was something they can keep in mind, adding that there is a fine line between following a standard plan that doesn’t require any further review and having to pay that architect or engineer to confirm that the modification to the plan is acceptable.
He stated that there are limitations in state law about deviating from plans that are approved by licensed design professionals and they will have to weigh the pros and cons and advise applicants on what their options are to individually engage the engineer or architect to make those customizations.
City Council Regular Meeting 33 September 26, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill thought it would be nice if they had that option.
Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.
Planning Director Murdock wanted to emphasize that Sr. Planner O’Connor, prior to the Planning Commission hearing as well as prior to this meeting, did email the contact list of businesses that were engaged previously with respect to the temporary activity permit programs so they could keep those business owners engaged and informed on this activity.
There were no public comments.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was happy with the way they proactively engaged the Coastal Commission. He thought it was nice to see them making the effort to be more collaborative and more proactive.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had a question along the lines of what Councilmember O’Neill was saying, and she didn’t want to get into too much deliberation, but she thought it was a design versus structural question. She has seen a lot of parklets that had fairly generic walls and floors but they did a lot of interesting lighting inside the parklet area, and she asked if that was what they are envisioning what is possible in Pacifica as she didn’t know how to compare what she sees in other communities and what might fall within the scope of what we are planning on doing in Pacifica. She thought it was more of a design thing, but she knows that electrical is a permitting thing and she asked if that was possible to include.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that it is possible, adding that it is beyond the level of detail they got into their design guidelines as they just identified that lighting shall be provided to ensure they are safe during evening hours but it will be up to the parklet developer as to how they might want to make that come alive.
Planning Director Murdock added that those details are in packet page 413 under guideline No.
C11 and he thought ensuring safety while ensuring that it doesn’t cause glare up for surrounding businesses or residents. He added that there are some technical limitations on the source of power as combustion engine generators are not allowed but other types of battery sources would be allowed.
Mayor Bier was glad this is coming to fruition.
Mayor pro Gem Bigstyck asked if Planning Commissioner Wright had anything to add to the conversation.
Planning Commissioner Wright stated he would be happy to give them a summary of what they deliberated about at their Commission meeting. He stated that they had a number of concerns staff has incorporated into their suggestions. One of their concerns was allowing only one per block and they were negating the possibility of people doing it on the other side of the street.
The also wanted to ensure equal access to all businesses and open communication between them so everyone on the block would know what is going on. Other issues of concern that they addressed were the limits on the hours, ADA concerns, safety, maintaining the four-foot clearance on the sidewalk, not obstructing emergency vehicle access lanes, securing and City Council Regular Meeting 34 September 26, 2022
storing in off hours, not creating tripping hazards, the hours of operation, proper illuminations.
Once they considered and addressed those issues, they moved ahead with their approval. He stated he would be interested to reconsider a recommended change by Council for bars as that oversight could be welcomed.
Councilmember Vaterlaus referred to the bars and asked if they can add that now or does it automatically have to go back.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that they can add it now, which is what they are recommending that Council do, but it will still have to go back to Planning Commission. She stated that while that used to be included in the eligible list, it wasn’t and it wasn’t clear in the records that it was a fair consideration and they wanted to make sure it is addressed for the record and they believe they can do that without affecting the overall plan line.
Mayor Bier stated that they will need a motion.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, while Council is considering making a motion, he wanted to note that the recommended action in staff report has a typo and it may be easier to read the first bullet at the top of the agenda on packet pages 5 and 6. He stated that there is a redundant part of a sentence that might be confusing if read in the body of the report.
Councilmember Vaterlaus began to make the resolution and then stated she had a problem with her pages so she asked Councilmember O’Neill to go ahead.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that for some reason he is having a hard time finding it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the motion would be introduction of an ordinance as amended to include bars to enact a new Article 52, outdoor commercial permits, and the rest as stated in the staff report.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated so moved; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0
Planning Director Murdock stated that there are three components to the proposed action on this item. The Council has addressed the first bullet and he wasn’t sure if he heard consensus on the second or third bullets with respect to the guidelines themselves. He thought there may not be further discussion on that point but it did seem that there were some questions about the deposit cap and if Council needs to discuss that further or if the consensus is that they are set with the recommendation moving forward and they can move on.
Mayor Bier thanked him and then asked Council if they need further discussion on either of those items.
Councilmember Vaterlaus wouldn’t mind having the cap on as it seemed that they will be spending quite a bit of money and she would like to make the cap the smaller.
Planning Director Murdock stated that would be setting the fee for all types of outdoor commercial permits at six hours of staff time, based on the annual adopted fee schedule for City Council Regular Meeting 35 September 26, 2022
planning and engineering staff time.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the other option was ten hours of staff time and they would give it back money if it didn’t hit the mark.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, in all instances, they would provide a refund of any unused deposit. Staff’s recommendation was to reflect a higher number of hours, ten hours, for those types of outdoor commercial permits in the parking lane of the public right-of-way and those are more complicated in staff’s assessment which require interdepartmental coordination with Public Works as well as confirming the outreach that was conducted with the multiple businesses on the block and, correspondingly, they identified additional hours of processing time, but that is at Council’s discretion. He stated that they set this up with the aim of capturing all the anticipated staff time which is consistent with Council’s direction for full cost recovery for processing of all types of permits processed by the Planning Department.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he personally would rather err on the side of caution to make sure they recoup all fees, knowing that they are going to be refunding whatever is not needed. He stated that the staff report seems to indicate that it is going to be a major pain if they need to amend this later. He thought he could be wrong, but $2,400 doesn’t seem like a huge stretch if it’s going to pay for actual costs and the difference will be refunded.
Planning Director Murdock asked Sr Planner O’Connor if she can share her thoughts on the cost considerations for the periodic renewals of the permits, such as, as long as nothing is changing, they would essentially reuse all the prior information and it would be a very minimal cost. He asked her to elaborate on that.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that, as a new process, it is hard to say. She would envision, as previous Planning Director Wehrmeister expressed before, they have these types of permits that they process administratively that become easier to process every year, such as the example of the pumpkin patch permit. She stated that they anticipate that, in the future, as they are renewed, they will become a very low level of effort and maybe they can recommend a lower deposit in the future for renewal, and they are hoping to have the experience to recommend that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if Councilmember Vaterlaus could live with the six-hour for the one type and ten-hour for the other type. She forgot about the difference between the rightof-way and the need to coordinate with engineering, PW and she asked what she thinks.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it seems like consensus is going in that direction. She thought $1,000 for one owner, $500 for another and $2,400 for another, and they are trying to have positive economic development which these parklets provide, but if they are going to refund the difference, she will go ahead with that.
Mayor Bier agreed with the train of thought. She didn’t want to put up all these blockades.
Planning Director Murdock stated, in the interest of full disclosure with respect to fees, in the event an appeal is filed, and it exceeds the amount, there potentially be additional funds required to process.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the appellant have to pay the $600 or so to process this.
City Council Regular Meeting 36 September 26, 2022
Planning Director Murdock is not aware of a current fee that Council has adopted to appeal an administrative decision of the Planning Director. He thought that, very likely, it would be a no fee appeal in the first instance, then an appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination would be subject to the ordinary appeal fee to City Council.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that no fee of Planning but to Council there would be a $600 or sum fee.
Planning Director Murdock agreed it would be whatever is set by Council each year.
Mayor Bier concluded they will move forward as is.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they need a motion for the other two items.
Planning Director Murdock did not think they did, but City Attorney Kenyon can confirm that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that no motion is needed as long as the City Manager and Planning Director feel that they have gotten enough direction.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are good.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
CONSIDERATION
12. Update on Returning to In-Person City Council and City Committee / Commission Meetings
PROPOSED ACTION: Hear an update about the status of the pandemic and confirm return to in-person City Council and Commission/Committee meetings beginning October 10, 2022.
City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill assumed the remodel will be finished by then.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, unless Director Petersen indicates differently, they expect that most of the components of the remodel will be done. He stated that the window replacements are delayed due to supply chain but painting, carpeting, furniture, electrical, will be completed before October 10. If Director Petersen doesn’t come online to state differently, then that is the case.
PW Director Petersen stated that is the goal. They send out and assigned the P.O. for the carpeting and, assuming everything comes in as they should, that is what they are still looking at, but she agrees that the windows are a couple of months out.
There were no public comments.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he is okay going back on October 10.
City Council Regular Meeting 37 September 26, 2022
Mayor Bier also was okay.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.
Mayor Bier stated that they need a motion.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved that they go back to in person meetings starting on October 10; seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m. in memory of Pius Garcia.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 10/10/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor