CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84059733437
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | WebinarID: 840 5973 3437
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Comcast Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 October 10, 2022
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
October 10, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on October 10, 2022 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present, and announced the business to be discussed and that the Council would meet in Closed Session.
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION – Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(1): (One Potential Case)
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
City Clerk Coffey introduced the speaker.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, expressed his thoughts on what Council would be discussing in closed session, and all the specifics and ramifications to the city.
Mayor Bier closed public comments and recessed to Closed Session. 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
City Council Regular Meeting 2 October 10, 2022
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; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Maria Aguilar, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Bonny O’Connor, Sr. Planner; Michael Perez, PB&R Director; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Alyssa Barranti, 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 Councilmember Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there was no reportable action, but she has received a lot of public questions or comments about not disclosing the particular fact and circumstances that would allow the closed session they held earlier. She stated that the Brown Act provides for several exceptions to holding open and public meetings, detailing what the facts and circumstances are regarding the subject matter. She stated that one of the exceptions is found in Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(1), which is noted on the agenda. That section specifically provides that no disclosure of facts or circumstances surrounding the need for the closed session need be disclosed when the subject could result in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs.
This is the circumstance they had and there are no legal requirements that they disclose particular facts and circumstances. To do so would be a violation of the Brown Act.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Special Presentation - California Department of Insurance Mayor Bier introduced Mary Beth Bykowsky with the California Department of Insurance who will be making a presentation.
Ms. Bykowsky thanked her for the opportunity to be present. She is a panelist in the community relations and outreach branch of the Department of Insurance (aka CDI) and she is happy to update them on what they have been doing for their constituents. She referred to California’s wildfires which have been a call to action. They have prioritized meetings with victims of wildfires as it is no longer a Northern California issue but a statewide issue. She stated that they have met with more than 25,000 people to help fix the events and hear all their concerns regarding availability and affordability of homeowners insurance and look for solutions. She reported on how they have worked with the state to help survivors, as well as updating regulations for better protection to the public and making their community safer.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 October 10, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill thanked her for coming. He had a call from a Linda Mar resident, whose insurance was being cancelled because he has knob-and-tube wiring, and he was concerned that this is a new industry standard for knob-and-tube as he thought 90% of the houses in Pacifica were knob-and-tube wiring.
Ms. Bykowsky stated that she was not sure about the knob-and-tube, but she will get back to him tomorrow and send it to the City Clerk or one of their specialists.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that sounds good.
Ms. Bykowsky stated that, if he has any questions, he can send to her and she will get an answer back to him.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked her for the explanation as she has provided them good information they didn’t know.
Ms. Bykowsky stated that they are having a town hall with Senator Becker on Wednesday. The City Clerk has the information. There will be a speaker from FEMA and someone from a fire safe council. She stated that Pacifica has the ocean with climate change and water rising as well as the fires. She even feels for the insurers after seeing what happened in Florida. She stated that they are in it together and they all have to do their part to take as many steps as they possibly can.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked her.
B. Proclamation - Fire Prevention Week
Mayor Bier then stated that they have a proclamation for Fire Prevention Week, and they have Dep. Fire Chief Sean Kavanaugh from North County Fire Authority. She appreciated having him present. She then read the proclamation.
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh thanked them for having him, adding that it was important to note that this year marks 100 years of Fire Prevention Week. It is the longest public health observance in the country which started after a Chicago fire in 1871, and he thought it was important to note that anniversary. He stated that the theme is all about fire won’t wait and to plan your escape. He stated a couple of focuses this year is to talk with family about the escape plans and meeting place outside the home. He stated the main focus is always about smoke alarms. He stated that they should check the smoke alarms once a month to be sure they are working properly and the batteries are good, and to change the batteries at least once a year and check the smoke alarms every month to make sure they are working properly. He stated that they can always go to North County Fire Authority for safety tips and they have them on their website. They appreciated and thanked them for the proclamation.
Mayor Bier thanked him for being present.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked him for being here. He has made a great deal of effort to learn as much as he can over the last couple of years. He thought it was a good opportunity to mention Zone Haven and SMC alerts. He was glad to have that tool on his phone and glad he has the magnet on his refrigerator that tells him what his zone is to plug it in. He asked if he can remind them more deeply about what he is alluding to.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 October 10, 2022
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh stated that it was a great point. He stated that for the Zone Haven, they can go to the North County Fire site and asked them to sign up for Zone Haven. They have the magnets mentioned by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck which are zoned specifically for Pacifica; they can write their zone on that, put it on the refrigerator, and they get their zone alert, it will pop up on your phone. He stated that it was important so they can use it throughout the communities. They can call or go to their website for more information.
Councilmember O’Neill thanked him for coming and thanked the Fire Department for the great job they do for Pacifica and North County.
Mayor Bier thanked him for coming and she wanted to give a shout out to their firefighters as they have done a wonderful job of creating relationships with us and keeping us updated. She felt that they have a partnership and she didn’t feel that before and she was happy as it makes her feels so good when they show up at events and she feels connected.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked him and appreciated everything that they do.
Councilmember Beckmeyer added that it was enjoyable to be on the Mack 49 vehicle and have a perspective from a different point of view. She thanked him for that availability at the Fog Fest parade. She also thanked him for the public information they are continually providing, such as news to her that she should check the alarms monthly and not just when it starts chirping, etc.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bier asked if any councilmember wanted to pull anything off the consent calendar and, seeing none, she opened up public comment.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti stated she did not see any hands raised.
Mayor Bier gave them a little time, and then seeing no one, closed public comment.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 8/16/22 through 8/31/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 8/16/22 through 8/31/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on September 12, 2022 and the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on September 26, 2022.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 October 10, 2022
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
5. Continuation of Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).
6. Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19.
7. Resolution approving the contract amendment with Regional Government Services for Financial consulting services
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to extend the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Regional Government Services for Financial Services at the estimated additional cost of up to $80,000 to cover services through the end of the current fiscal year.
8. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Approving Execution of Settlement Agreement among the City of Pacifica, Sierra Mountain Construction, Inc. (“SMCI”) Walter C. Smith Company, Inc. (“W.C. Smith”), Blocka Construction, Inc. (“Blocka”), Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”), Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), and First Specialty Insurance Corporation (“First Specialty”) arising out of the Wet Weather Equalization Basin Project (“Project”), CIP # C030.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the resolution approving execution of Settlement Agreement among the City, SMCI, W.C. Smith, Blocka, Travelers, Scottsdale, Hartford, and First Specialty arising out of the Project.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she was grateful that we have new district elections. She stated that, in campaigning in a small area, it gives them the opportunity to speak in depth with City Council Regular Meeting 6 October 10, 2022
potential constituents and understand their issues. She then shared input from various groups in various areas of the city on some issues of concern and possible solutions.
Jeremy Stafford, Pacifica, stated he was a member of the Pacifica Firefighters group. He appreciated the comments on the relations which they feel is mutual and that their voices are being heard. He informed them about their labor group meeting with other labor councils in the county at Linda Mar parking lot on Sunday in support of Measure Y and encouraged anyone interested to join them.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has been very busy, starting with the Council meeting in closed session, followed by the informative Reach Code Study Session to delve more deeply into those issues. She also met with a constituent who is knowledgeable about traffic and transportation issues; the constituent has been a font of knowledge with insightful, useful information and suggestions on partnering with south coastline neighbors. She attended a housing element meeting, which was very positive with a lot of engagement by the attendees; it is not the same as an in-person meeting, but she was glad there will be that opportunity coming up later in the process but she thought it was well-handled. She was at another study on Reach Codes provided by PCE and intended for elected officials in the county; a portion of that was recorded, and thought Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck can tell if it is or will be available on PCE’s website. She attended a Business Improvement District meeting involving members of the Business Improvement District, our hotels and their representatives, city staff as well as staff from the Chamber of Commerce, and the mayor and herself. She thought it was enlightening and useful to have the conversation of where they are moving forward with the goals when the reviewed the BID report; they were having success in collaborating and they are ready to start some challenges and resolve those issues together. She stated that, on the weekend, there were two community-based things for the environment. She had the opportunity on the first Saturday to become involved with the San Pedro Creek cleanup. She loved doing that: She ran into so many people on the trail and going in and cleaning different areas of the creek; she ran into some students and their families from where she works. She stated that the next day Cabrillo School had its green team community workday. They tried to reach out but weren’t able to this time, but they try to address some of the weeds that build up in the bioswales that are in front of Cabrillo School on Crespi Drive. Then, on Tuesday, it was a great opportunity to have a Pride meeting that the mayor led; they are getting ready and launching into planning for Pride 2023, and that is great as it takes a long time to coordinate some things for a community wide celebration. They had a Rotary dinner meeting, and she was pleased to report that Rotarians do what they love to do, which is supporting the community but in a fun and slightly competitive way. The Rotarians divide into two teams and have a competition over a period of weeks on which team is going to obtain most of the items on the list that the Resource Center needs for clients. She stated that they had a candidate briefing for a couple of hours on Wednesday and she was able to leave and catch the last bit of the Beautification Advisory Committee meeting. She stated that there is a community workday being planned at the Community Center to work on the planters that are located in front of the Community Center near the highway and the edge of the parking lot. That date is October 22, 10 am to noon. She stated that, if they have enough volunteers to spread out, they will go up Crespi and hit bioswales a little bit there as well.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he will pass as he had only one meeting for Roundtable and nothing took off.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 October 10, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she had the opposite of Councilmember Beckmeyer, i.e., very few meetings. She stated that she did the Reach Codes and she was not able to attend the housing because there were only two people allowed. She had a meeting with some people on Prop. 1 which is an important topic on the ballot. She attended a fundraiser for Caminar, a non-profit mental health corporation. She learned so much about Caminar and the services they have for people, and it warms her heart how amazing they are. She talked to a lot of people, including constituents, about their concerns, and she worked a lot.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck began, stating his heart is with Ukraine as they struggle for their freedom. He heard an interesting radio program talking about how Taiwan is being emboldened to not necessarily give away their freedom to China as a result of Ukraine and he thought that was interesting. He attended the housing element kickoff meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer. He jumped around between the various breakout sessions which was fun and listening to the community give input going into the process and giving that initial feedback; it was a very nice way to begin this process that will take a little way. He looks forward to one of the two meetings scheduled later in October. He attended the Reach Code meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer that PCE put on. He stated that it was a nice review after the robust Council discussion they had a couple of nights prior. They were not telling him new things, but it was nice reinforcement of the discussion they had. He stated that, to answer Councilmember Beckmeyer’s question about where to find that video, he suggested you go to BayAreaReachCodes.org where they will be able to find videos toward the bottom of the page at BayAreaReachCodes.org. He also got a little information from PCE community outreach specialist who lives in Pacifica that, as a result of being members of PCE, they have saved approximately $421,000 annually as a city; they have reduced the greenhouse gas emissions by 98% since 2016; and they taken approximately 48,000 metric tons of C02 out of the atmosphere, which is about 5.4 million gallons of gas. He had a lovely meeting with Carol Groom about a week previously, and he wanted to gain insight about Coastal Commission from an actual coastal commissioner. He was delighted when they were discussing it to discover that the relationship between Pacifica and Coastal Commission isn’t always as contentious as the conversation might lend itself, depending on which item they are discussing. He stated that it was helpful for him to know that they are working with, rather than against, more often than not; that was a nice way for him to break the ice with the Coastal Commission at all so he can look forward to deepening his understanding and whatever relationships he might be able to do so he can more deeply understand the city’s relationship with the Coastal Commission and head in that direction accordingly. He watched the Planning Commission meeting that evening and today is Indigenous Peoples’ Day. He got to reflect on that a little bit as the mayor was reading the land acknowledgement, and he internally expressed some gratitude that they do that every week. He stated that the following day, there is a Boys and Girls Club meeting which he thought was at the clubhouse in person not by Zoom.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he wasn’t aware of it. Then, he remembered it’s a parent meeting, and they are going to try it in person as they only had one person show up in Zoom.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that they will see how many show up but he was looking forward to that meeting at the Yosemite Clubhouse.
Mayor Bier referred to all Councilmember Beckmeyer’s meetings and mentioned that Fog Fest actually led into all those meetings, and she was feeling exhausted the week after. She attended the Business Improvement District meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer. She thought it was good to learn about the importance of the relationship between the hotels, the Chamber and the city, and she looks forward to continuing to learn more about that and help the City Council Regular Meeting 8 October 10, 2022
collaboration move forward. She had a lot of interaction with Coast Pride, attending their board meeting. They attended the Pacifica Collaborative meeting and presented all their information to them, which was in person at the school district office. She thanked Superintendent Heather Olson for having them. She stated that they had the Pacifica Pride planning meeting and were able to debrief last year, talking about the pros and cons from that and what they can improve, etc., and she thanked City Manager Woodhouse attending to show his support. She watched the Planning Commission meeting later in the week. She attended the Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative meeting where they were talking about what the work will look like in the next year.
She met at the Council Chambers; she thanked Cindy Abbott from the Sanchez Art Center for meeting them and helping them look around the room and figure out how they could display art.
She was glad Cindy Abbott was there because she taught them differently about how to highlight pictures, etc., and Mayor Bier was excited on what that will look like. She thanked PB&R Director Perez and Cindy Abbott for that work. She was looking forward to Arbor Day in November, and she hopes to hear more about that. She helped deliver the gifts for Pacifica Resource Center Palma-Palooza event on Saturday with her 7.5-year-old neighbor who went with her. He knocked on the doors and they talked to people and thanked them for supporting the Resource Center. She thanked the community for their continued support of the Pacifica Resource Center and asked for their continued support as we need each other.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if your house is bare of Halloween decorations, the Pacifica Historical Society has an overabundance of ghouls, goblins, pumpkins and ghosts; it will be part of the regular rummage sale, but they are also having a special exclusively Halloween two-day sale. He suggested they check their website as they might get a good deal on a goblin.
Mayor Bier asked if he had a date.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he will check his email and let her know.
Mayor Bier thanked him, adding that she knows people who would love to do that.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he has great news about a couple of awards the city administrative services department under Asst. City Manager Yulia Carter have received recently. For the first time to his knowledge, in recent decade history, for their annual comprehensive financial report for the year ending June 30, 2021, the city has received the highest award from the Government’s Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. He stated that it is a difficult award to get, and the significance of that is that the ACFR's are really a transparency statement about the city’s finances and that award is a great achievement. He stated hats off to the finance team and Ms. Carter for that. He stated that the next item from the administrative services department is an Information Technology award that they received and they received the news on both of these the previous week. He stated that IST Manager Tommy Yu and staff were down at the Municipal Information Systems Association of California, called MISAC, conference and found out that the city received the Quality IT Practices award for the first time for Pacifica. He stated that there are future tiers of awards to receive on the IT front and they will be striving for those as well, and he thanked the IT staff, Finance staff and the whole Administrative Services Department and Department Director and Asst. City Manager Carter. He referred to another item mentioned by Councilmember Beckmeyer: On Wednesday night, prior to Council elections, they conducted a city candidate orientation presentation for all the candidates. They had the entire executive team there to take two hours and talk about the City Council Regular Meeting 9 October 10, 2022
city organization and answer questions from all of the candidates. He reminded them that, while they are on Zoom at this meeting, their goal is to return to in person at the next City Council meeting on October 24. He stated that there are some final technology improvements and other cosmetic improvements being made to the Council Chambers. He is optimistic that they will be back in person on the 24th, adding that he didn’t want to definitively promise it because you don’t know what might happen, but they will keep everyone posted diligently about that status. They are shooting to be back in person and implementing their telephone for public comment hybrid model.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that on Friday the 14th and Saturday the 15th from 10-4 pm they can go by the Little Brown Church Historical Museum and get the Halloween stuff. He also forgot to congratulate PCT Channel 26 between the efforts of Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, and now the County of San Mateo who has helped them out; they are in escrow to purchase their site in the Crespi Business Center. He stated that they will be a truly community-owned TV station, and he thanked them for doing that as it has been a hurdle.
Mayor Bier thought it was amazing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
9. Resolution Approving a Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Recology of the Coast to extend the Term an additional ten years, with an option to extend an additional five years, approve the rate schedule set by Recology for single family residential and commercial rates for 2023, revise City fees to comply with applicable law, and other various amendments; and Finding approval of the Second Amendment exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; and Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution:
1) Approving a Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Recology of the Coast to extend the Term an additional ten years, with an option to extend an additional five years, approve the rate schedule set by Recology for single family residential and commercial rates for 2023, revise City fees to comply with applicable law, and other various amendments; and 2) Finding approval of the Second Amendment exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; and
3) Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment.
PW Director Petersen stated that they have Rick Simonton from HF&H Consultants and Special Legal Counsel Megan Burke from the City Attorney’s office who will be available to answer questions. She then presented the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill thought the bulky items pickup was three times under the existing contract.
PW Director Petersen stated that she thought they have been doing that for residents but the actual agreement currently says two times.
Councilmember O’Neill concluded that this was clarifying actual practice.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 October 10, 2022
PW Director Petersen responded affirmatively.
PW Director Petersen completed the staff report. She stated that they were ready to answer questions, adding that Gen. Manager Chris Porter and Controller Rich Lanser from Recology of the Coast were also present should Council wish to ask them questions.
Mayor Bier asked if the Council had any questions, and seeing none, she opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, mentioned rates having risen recently and asked if the city had put out an RFP and had different waste management companies throughout the Bay Area bid on it; he expressed his concerns on their schedule.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she had a question regarding their location and erosion and possible plans for them to move to another location.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he had some questions on behalf of the community. He referred to bluff erosion and long-term strategies that might currently be in place to find a better place, and he asked if there was anyone available to speak on that, adding that he understood that it was outside the purview of their discussion.
Mayor Bier asked if they can bring Chris Porter up as she was sure they will include her in the conversations.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he will start and PW Director Petersen can chime in and he thought it might be a question for Recology as he didn’t think the city has control over the lease they have for that private property.
PW Director Petersen agreed with him and thought Ms. Porter might have more information.
She asked if she had anything to add.
General Manager Porter stated that they don’t own the property where the recycling yard is and they have not lost any area off that yard in the last four years. They have recently rented the additional lot next door and the trucks are parked in the lot next door which is at 910 Palmetto and the recycling yard operation with the drop off of recycling materials is at 1046 Palmetto.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, generally speaking, circadian rhythms are established after two weeks of a regular sleep pattern, but there was a question about why they are offering early hours rather than the middle of the day.
PW Director Petersen stated that they discussed that a little bit in the presentation, stating that it is more cost-effective for Recology for their rates to operate at that time, and Ms. Porter has also mentioned the issue related to safety issues with her operators and problems they have had in the past related to operating when there is traffic. She wasn’t sure if there was a particular time in the middle of the day that Recology could find that they wouldn’t have traffic but she would refer that to Ms. Porter.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 October 10, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse added that, regarding greenhouse gas emissions for idling trucks, and when they are caught in traffic, there is that impact as well and the early hours and less traffic is more efficient. He also had a conversation with Police Chief Stratton about safety issues and a notable point is that the early morning hours are timed where Recology drivers in the early morning hours are eyes on the street in the community at a time when there could be other criminal activity happening. He stated that there was nothing specific about that, but anecdotally Chief Statton, in his previous city’s experience, has had numerous times, as well as Pacifica, where they have a good working direct connection with Recology and our PD and they call in issues when they see them.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there are many occasions when he goes to work at 5:00 in the morning and come home at 2:00 in the afternoon, with the difference is that at 5:00 in the morning, there is almost no cars on the street whereas, at 2:00 in the afternoon there are and that point is well-taken. He referred to the last question from the community as to why they aren’t putting this out for an RFP.
Mayor Bier asked if Ms. Porter wanted to respond to the time of day.
City Manager Woodhouse referred to the different purchasing processes is that this is an agreement amendment and not a new franchise agreement and it would be atypical to put an agreement amendment out to bid.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if the mayor was waiting for a response from Ms. Porter.
Mayor Bier stated only if they feel necessary.
Ms. Porter stated that she thanked City Manager Woodhouse for stating that he has discussed with the Police Chief because it was the Recology driver that caught the person breaking into the Chase ATM about a year ago, and they have caught numerous catalytic converter thefts.
They have also caught break-ins so she thinks her employees need to be deputized as they are very alert. She stated that 80% of the staff live in Pacifica and they are members of the community.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that the point is well-taken that this is an amendment to the current agreement and not a new agreement and Recology has been an amazing community partner over the course of their time with the city. He thought, in 2016, they reduced rates when they had the opportunity to and becoming crime fighters now is a sign of the time that we all have to watch out for each other in such a way that our people do watch out for our community in this way on top of everything else and looking for opportunities to reduce rates when able to, and the service is good. He thought it might be more costly to put out requests for proposals to look at different combinations of service and give Recology the opportunity to ask why they keep rates as low as they do. He has read this report and had experience with Recology over decades and they look good to him.
Councilmember Beckmeyer echoed some of what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was saying on that point. She stated that one thing she is very sensitive to is the changes that we make as a body that end up impacting Recology’s cost structures and how that factors into the cost of doing business. She stated that, while they are cognizant of and concerned about our pavement condition index and make a global decision around heavy trucks using our roads, pavement cuts for such things as sewer laterals, and this is the proof where it comes in and that is one of City Council Regular Meeting 12 October 10, 2022
the impacts they saw in the slides that factors into the franchise fee that is charged and the city approved it for a reason, as we need our roads to be brought up. She stated that her point is that you can’t have it both ways. She stated that the community needs to understand that. It is hard because it is a complicated thing, with all the factors going into the rate cost over time.
She stated that the other area which she believes is a huge impact is that Recology has been a strong partner for us and will continue to be because they are experts. With the implementation of Senate Bill 1383 and related state laws that have gone into effect prior to that and since then, those are huge lifts for the city and having a partnership and the expertise of someone like Chris Porter and Recology that has been in this business for decades and understands our community and the amount of organic waste material we actually generate, to have the notion of some other firm coming in and assess it, they could do it or we can rely on 20 or 40 years of personal expertise, which is immense and to have that brain trust involved in helping us as we come up with strategies to address the state laws and requirements of organic waste and removing it from the waste stream is acute and she can’t speak highly enough for Ms. Porter and all of her staff as they truly feel like partners and part of the city and she is so grateful and she is very comfortable with the rate increase structure as put forward.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that probably not a lot of the public has read the staff report. He stated that, what is good about Recology is that, when asked, they have stepped up to the plate and they are collecting the waste cans at the beach for the city seven days a week and it is a lot cheaper than it is for us to have city staff members doing that. He is proud of the fact that 80% of their workforce lives in Pacifica, a union company providing a living wage and benefits to their employees versus other companies that just hire someone who doesn’t have a class B license to drive a commercial truck. He thinks that is also important. He stated that, to time shift it from early morning to afternoon, they have to remember that, once you pick up that garbage, it has to go somewhere and the other side of the plate is that they will be sitting behind garbage trucks going to Ox Mountain when you come home at the commute hour as they can’t store the stuff in their place overnight. He stated that Ms. Porter can correct him if he is wrong, but he thought it was important to realize about the time.
Ms. Porter stated that he is right, as they would be stuck in the traffic going on Devil’s Slide and then going up 92 to Ox Mountain. Most of those roads are one lane roads and the traffic is getting to be horrendous. Since the tunnel opened, that traffic has increased drastically and going in the afternoon would be a huge addition to time, overtime, fuel, etc.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that Recology is a community partner as everyone has mentioned, and when they do the beach cleanups, they are there so the debris that people clean up from the beach goes to them and they are a huge participant in keeping this town clean. She stated that she called once when someone had dumped some mattresses, and the person was there to pick them up before she even got off the phone. She stated that they are always responsive and a great company to work with. She thinks they need to go forward.
Mayor Bier echoed all of that. She stated that the partnership we have with Recology is so important for our community in so many different ways. She referred to rate increases and stated Recology put a cap on the rate increases. She stated that they are paying for the recycling to keep it out of the landfill and there are all these extra things going on, and she doesn’t think our community understands. She stated that, if there are complaints at the beach, she calls and Ms. Porter answers her right away and her employees are out there emptying the cans. She stated she was able to send a picture of the empty cans to the person that complained to her, and they were emptied immediately on a Saturday or a Sunday, which is how they respond to our community and it is so important. She asked Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck City Council Regular Meeting 13 October 10, 2022
to talk and she would continue.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was just going to make a motion when she was done.
Mayor Bier stated that there were two more things she wanted to say. She understands that there are issues on Esplanade, and they all understand that, and they are going to work together to help the people on Esplanade by providing them resources so they know where they can take their trash and they are going to help them. She stated that they all know there is an issue out there. She then stated that she has not received any complaints about abandoned waste since Recology started emptying the city’s cans every day. She thanked Recology for that. She stated that she has heard about full trash cans at the beach, but she stated that they are on it right away and she appreciated that Recology also offers garbage drop-off where our permitted parking holders can empty their gray waste as there is also a garbage drop-off there.
She thanked them for always going the extra mile.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that there is a time for every purpose under heaven which is a rendition of Ecclesiastes because there is nothing new under the sun.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to adopt a resolution approving a Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Recology of the Coast to extend the Term an additional ten years, with an option to extend an additional five years, approve the rate schedule set by Recology for single family residential and commercial rates for 2023, revise City fees to comply with applicable law and other various amendments; and finding approval of the Second Amendment exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment; seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
10. Short-term Rental Program Update and Discussion of Options for Future Amendments to Existing Regulations
PROPOSED ACTION: Discuss the City’s existing Short-term Rental (STR) Program and information about residential property sales resulting in subsequent STR use and provide direction on whether amendments to the STR Program regulations are warranted at this time.
City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to his definition of residential and asked if it is single family homes or multi-family units.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that PW Director Carter might know from HDL on the data point and, if so, asked her to chime in for that question. He stated that these are talking about residential units that are sold and it would be a change in ownership.
Councilmember O’Neill understood but asked if a residential unit was a single-family home or a City Council Regular Meeting 14 October 10, 2022
four-unit complex that they converted and that would be one residential sale but four units that converted to STR. He stated that it would not account for any ADUs that might have been built for this purpose. He knows they don’t allow it but he was sure it happens.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the report for the latter question that they gave in June talked about some ADUs that they were aware of that are being short-term rented and they are working on bringing those into compliance because that is not allowed as part of the ADU program. He stated, in terms of the multi-family or four-unit type of apartment complex being sold and converted, he did not have that data point in front of him as to whether that was included in this, but he thought it was not. He stated that they can find out that information. He doesn’t know if that has actually occurred, i.e., a sale of an entire 4-unit apartment complex and conversion.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he has been anecdotally told of at least a couple of buildings:
One was a six-unit apartment building that was not sold but was converted entirely to Airbnb.
City Manager Woodhouse was aware of that situation, but this is about properties being sold and converted which was the driver for this inquiry.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, while they are on the present slide, he wondered if they analyzed any data by region and if they knew if, in any given district or the Coastal Commission jurisdiction or particular neighborhoods, there is a concentration of properties being bought and turned into SDRs and compared to other areas in town.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he didn’t have that data by district. He stated that they are all excellent questions and speaks to the point he wants to make sure Council is aware that this is the initial conversation about this issue to see if there is interest from Council in directing them to do anything further at this time. The geographical analysis of conversions could occur in the future.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was the point she wanted to make as well. She asked for this and isn’t the only Councilmember who had an interest in it; she is hearing from a lot of constituents on this matter, and she wanted to say that these specific kind of questions are the actual further study that is needed. While she didn’t expect staff to have answers, they may have some insight, as mentioned by City Manager Woodhouse, that HDL may have provided at this point, and what would be really helpful as they are thinking of these questions is to speak to them and then they can be noted and they are hearing what each other’s concerns are in this regard. They will certainly hear from the public shortly, but it would inform their later decision on this issue about whether they pursue it, move forward, etc. She wanted to echo what Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck was saying regarding regional. She was thinking regional as in bigger than Pacifica but also neighborhoods within Pacifica. So she thinks of two things. If they look at the heat map, they see the dots, and in areas by the beach, they see a lot of dots. There is the in Pacifica neighborhood analysis and the issue of what the situation is in other communities in San Mateo County. We often compare ourselves with them and how are they looking, what are we doing, what goes on there, and the other cut is what is happening with other coastal communities. She thought there may be some opportunity to learn something about that from the coastal cities group, to ask the question, and they have the facility to push out surveys statewide to other coastal communities. She knows anecdotally, we are not the only ones experiencing these increasing introspection between residents and visitors occupying short-term rentals. She wanted to put that coastal city comparison out there. She noted what Councilmember O’Neill is saying about the number of units versus the number of sales and she City Council Regular Meeting 15 October 10, 2022
thought that was an important issue as well. She knows that the City Manager has a lot more to tell them. She thanked him for the present slide as she thought it was enlightening and the very bottom, 2022, completely reflects what we are hearing from our community.
City Manager Woodhouse completed the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he was recommending that the cap on new permits would be the low hanging fruit in terms of doing something immediately. He asked, if they were to sign off on that at this time, how soon would they be able to implement that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, with any amendments, the difficulty is the Coastal Commission approval of the ordinance and he doesn’t have an answer to that timeline. He stated that the actual work for option 1 is a fairly easy ordinance amendment for the city to consider, for Planning Commission and Council to consider and according to the City Attorney and their involvement, once the direction is given, they can prepare something within a few weeks. Right now the Planning Department staffing is very impacted with three vacancies and working on some significant undertakings so preparing the ordinance and bringing it to Planning Commission and Council is an impact to their current workload.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he will have comments during deliberation about the need to work closely with Coastal Commission but they will be able to implement it within a few weeks everywhere that is not in the coastal zone. The Coastal Commission piece would be the other component and they don’t know how long that will take. He asked if that is what he heard him say.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively, adding that City Attorney Kenyon might wish to chime in on this. He stated that, if you are implementing a cap program that addresses the whole program, he didn’t know if they thought through how they would divide the cap allocations between non-coastal zone and coastal zone. He thought it could get complex quickly to implement it in half the city and not in the other half because it allows half of the city to take up the cap allocations.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she was not anticipating that this fix would, in any way, be applicable in non-coastal zone areas but not in coastal zone areas. She thought they would have to make sure that the Coastal Commission either felt this was not a significant enough change that required more input from the Coastal Commission or they would have to go to the Coastal Commission to make sure that, if they need a cap, that they will be open to it.
Councilmember O’Neill stated, for the public’s reference, he would like them to know that the Coastal Commission does not want to limit the number of short-term rentals in a coastal zone.
They look at any limit as infringing upon the rights of people to visit the beach. He stated, in one case which he thought was in Santa Barbara, they actually banned short-term rentals in the entire city but the Coastal Commission forced them to have short-term rentals in the coastal zone. He stated that, basically, any ordinance they are discussing, the Coastal Commission may throw it out for the coastal zone.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if anyone has looked into the unintended consequences of putting a limit on the short-term rentals because she is aware that, in South Lake Tahoe, they limited the amount of short-term rentals to what was already existing and, it might be good for some people, but the prices dropped tremendously: More than 30% drop in price for purchases and people who already own their houses were affected also, even if they weren’t doing short- City Council Regular Meeting 16 October 10, 2022
term rentals because of that limitation that they put on the short-term rentals. She wondered if anyone had looked into that yet. She stated that there are other things she will talk about during deliberation.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that staff has not done that sort of analysis or inquiry with other cities that have implemented caps about unintended consequences and such.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speakers.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated he was concerned about this ordinance being brought up at this time, as staff’s time should be completely focused on the housing element update as, if the city misses the January 31 deadline, there are some serious consequences, and expressed his concerns about priorities.
Jen Hansen, Pacifica, referred to collecting data off Airbnb and shared her data, thoughts and concerns on this issue.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, stated that she lives in West Sharp Park, and there are as many properties operating as unhosted STRs as there are properties occupied by residents, and she shared her serious concerns on this issue.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that she submitted written public comment regarding appreciation for this being on the agenda, and shared her concerns and suggested options on addressing this serious issue.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she appreciated having this put back on the agenda, and shared her concerns on consequence to the city and suggested options on addressing this serious issue.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, shared her concerns on consequences to the city and suggested options to address this serious issue, and requested a temporary moratorium.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, acknowledged that this is a problem and shared his concerns on this issue impacting housing for residents and appreciated the last two speakers and agreed on the need for a moratorium on this issue.
Julie Hong, Pacifica, appreciated having this on the agenda, and shared her thoughts and concerns on this serious issue impacting possible residents and supported a moratorium.
Cassandra Jones, Pacifica, stated that she has an Airbnb in Pacifica, and shared her thoughts on positive impacts for her on this issue.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify an inadvertent mistake in his PowerPoint presentation. He stated that option 3 on the slide it repeated the wording of option 2 and he wanted to clarify for Council and the public that option 3 talks about limiting the number of STR permits that can be issued to each person. He stated that it is a more complex option but it gets to the point that a single owner of multiple STRs.
Mayor Bier noticed that and appreciated his clarification.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 October 10, 2022
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it was helpful to hear that last commenter’s perspective as a host and is an onsite host. He stated that it makes the third option look more attractive to him.
He stated that he has a question that may be for City Attorney Kenyon regarding an emergency moratorium. He appreciated that they would need to make findings and, if they were to do that, they probably wouldn’t have the findings on hand. He asked what kind of findings would be required or the time to make those findings if they were to do an emergency moratorium, rather than a cap.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they did discuss as one of the options to perhaps recommend a moratorium. She stated that there were a couple of reasons they didn’t include that but, if that is the direction from Council, they will do it. She stated that, for this type of moratorium, it has an initial duration of 45 days; to adopt that ordinance in the first instance, they would make a finding that there is an immediate threat to public health safety or welfare. She stated that the data collected so far may not suggest that, but there is anecdotal evidence that they have heard from the speakers that they could arguably make that finding. She stated that the concern is that, after 45 days, they have to make another finding which is the threat still exists and there is nothing they can do to mitigate it. She stated that is why they put the option of the cap in because it has the effect of essentially doing the same thing as a moratorium. That cap would limit future residential properties from becoming STRs as there would be a cap on the permit.
She stated that they can discuss what that cap should be but they must understand that the manager and staff have told them is that the ability to create this wholesale revamp of our STR ordinance in light of the concerns raised, it will take longer than 45 days and it is going to most likely be months. Because of the statements made earlier regarding the housing element, that does need to be taken. It is not a January 1 deadline, but there is a deadline they will have to meet and it has to take priority. Her concern is whether they will be able to maintain the moratorium and it may be that, at the end of 45 days, they may have to go back and adopt a cap and the question for Council is do they want to have immediate impact: The immediate impact of a cap which practically serves the same purpose as a moratorium would be easier to accomplish and faster than a moratorium which would require a more detailed process; and after they adopt the initial ordinance, they will have to come back after 45 days to adopt another one, and they will have another extension, assuming they can make those findings, which she has a concern about because they are going to have to make a finding after 45 days that there is no way to mitigate it and that is the concern. She thinks they can mitigate it by imposing a cap.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked her for the answer, and he thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer for bringing this up. He likes the cap idea. More than the cap idea, he thinks it is going to take substantial time to develop those other ideas and why they need to discuss it at goal setting. He stated that they talked about the Coastal Commission on the other side, and he asked staff to respond to his comments when he is done. He stated that when they were at CalCities in Long Beach, he stated that they did a series of updates for lawyers and he attended an interesting last year and this year regarding housing development and one of the cases stuck out to him, i.e., Keene versus Manhattan Beach. He stated that the conclusion of that was because Manhattan Beach hadn’t vested their STR program with the Coastal Commission ahead of time and they took years to find out that they really should have. He then referred to the discussion earlier on this item; he thought it was important to our success that they make sure they reach out to the Coastal Commission sooner rather than later. If they are going to be successful even with a cap, they need to make sure that is their next phone call after they say yes to going forward with the cap as he doesn’t want that to undermine them.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 October 10, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated he is supportive of a cap but he would like to hear from City Attorney Kenyon if they can at least pass an ordinance that, if you buy a house or a building of multi-units, it is a year before you can make it a short-term rental. He stated that, when he was at the League of Cities, he went to one for Truckee. It had been operating about a year or so, and they had a plan where, if you buy something, it is certain amount of time before you make it an STR and then that just gets you on the list because they put an 8.5% cap on all their housing stock being STRs. He stated that you could conceivably be a couple of years after buying a house and not being able to make it an STR. He asked if they could pass an ordinance in an expeditious manner to get that done, and at least stop the purchasing of houses and units.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she didn’t believe that would be as expeditious as just imposing a cap because that issue of prohibiting STRs for even a year would create a bit more concern with the Coastal Commission. She wasn’t certain, but that would be her concern, as that might be something that could create more discussions with the Coastal Commission which could delay it. She didn’t know of Sr. Planner O’Connor has anything to add with regard to a cap in the Coastal Commission. She saw her turn on her video and, if she has any input, she stated now would be the time to provide that with regard to anything she may know about the Coastal Commission’s position on a cap.
Sr. Planner O’Connor just wanted to add that there are examples that they can point to where the Coastal Commission has been supportive of a cap in certain instances. She thought Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck’s idea of a consultation with the Coastal Commission and coordination with them, understanding where the balance is, will be an important step in moving forward.
Regarding Councilmember O’Neill’s idea of the waiting period, she stated that was mentioned in their staff report, and as detailed, the effects of the immediate transition to STR versus a yearlong transition doesn’t seem like it would address the overall concern by itself which is why it wasn’t a focus of one of the options that staff wanted to present at this time.
Councilmember O’Neill thought it would create a disincentive for someone to buy a house for that because, if you can flip it in a month, so you are getting $500 a night a month after close of escrow so he thought it created a disincentive for newer ones. He also feels strongly that, if an entire apartment building is converted to STRs, it is then a hotel and needs to go through the planning process of either changing to commercial or installing sprinklers, etc.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, for clarification, she thought the cap will address the issue that he just stated, i.e., you don’t want properties to be...
Councilmember O’Neill thought they needed to say units, not properties.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they don’t want units to be turned into STRs and not used for housing - a cap does that. She stated that is why staff’s recommended option is just to include a cap because it addresses all of these issues because nobody will be able to secure another permit if they have a cap and the cap has been met. She stated that she didn’t know what the number should be on the cap but she thought that, at this time, the most expeditious way to get something to address all of the concerns they heard at this meeting is not going through a moratorium, but imposing a cap. She stated that they can do that in the quickest fashion possible. She thinks it will create less concern by the Coastal Commission as Ms. O’Connor stated, as they have generally allowed cities to impose caps. She has some concerns with creating more questions.
Councilmember O’Neill thought they also need to address, if they do a cap, the difference City Council Regular Meeting 19 October 10, 2022
between hosted and not hosted.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she mentioned a friend who was going to lose his house and it was suggested to him that he do Airbnb. He lived in his house when people weren’t renting, and he is a part of the community but he rented the whole house out. It saved his house for him and there are such circumstances. She stated that there are a lot of rules in a lot of cities and the number of people in the unit is a big deal, as well as the number of cars that they can have in the units. She stated that she stayed in a lot of Airbnbs and she owned an Airbnb; the purpose for her owning it was because it was in Arizona where her daughter and granddaughter lived and she could go there and stay there for vacations for Christmas and birthdays and have a house yet rent it out as Airbnb when she wasn’t there. She stated that it was the way that she could afford to have that house and visit them often instead of staying in hotels. She looked at all of the sales of those 16 houses, and they were all purchased by different individuals and there was never a duplicate and, when saying that they would limit it to one purchase of a house per person, they couldn’t do that as it is illegal for them to decide who we sell the house to. She stated that they can’t discriminate against a corporation but every one of those was purchased by an individual. When they say they are writing an offer on a property, they say they are going to live there with their family and we can’t discrimination against that either, whether they live there or don’t live there, as it is illegal. She stated that a lot of times people say they are going to live there and in the county records it will say owner-occupied and they turned it around and made it into an Airbnb. She stated that it cannot be controlled by the real estate, and if you limit them, are the people going to go underground and not pay fees and they will try to do everything they can to get around paying fees because now there is a cap whereas in the past, they might have paid the fees but now they limit them and they can’t do it.
She understands the problem, as there are definitely problems with these houses and she gets it. She understands being a neighbor to an Airbnb and the difference in renting out rooms or renting out whole houses. She doesn’t live in Arizona so she rents out her whole house. She has more to say but she won’t now.
Mayor Bier thanked the callers who provided them with all this data. She wants to see the data and talk with them. She thought, in order to create an ordinance that we need, we will need the time to study it properly, by neighborhood, hosted versus unhosted, and there are so many pieces of the ordinance that they will need to look at, but she feels very strongly that they can’t allow this to go on while they’re taking the time to do all of that. They know that, technically, they aren’t going to be able to look at this ordinance until next year. They will have to talk about it, introduce it at goal setting to see if that flies, and there is going to have to be steps we take before we are going to be able to look at it again. Until then, she thought they need to have a moratorium, which she understands might not be the best route, or cap it as tightly as they possibly can so there is enough time for staff to move through the housing element and put some money and time towards it for the next work plan. She feels strongly about this and she referred to Erin’s comments on the RHNA numbers and asked what it is doing to our numbers.
She stated that there was a lot to think about and they needed time to do that and allow staff time to do it as thoroughly as they possibly can with all the things they want to talk about.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she has so much she wants to say, but she feels that she cannot collect her thoughts in a coherent way. She agreed with what Mayor Bier just said and she wants to see the data as well and speak with people. She stated that, with some of the speakers they heard from at this meeting, she wasn’t aware of the situations that they’re living with and others that she didn’t hear from at this meeting, she already heard from already and they live in some of the same neighborhoods. She stated that it multiplies the number of people who are being impacted by this. She stated that a number of individuals who reached out City Council Regular Meeting 20 October 10, 2022
weren’t present at this meeting, but it doesn’t minimize their stories, just that they didn’t have it in public at this time. She was most interested in stopping the harm. She stated that they didn’t pass a short-term rental ordinance to create harm for our community. They need to analyze all of the aspects as the Mayor said, and there is an aspect they heard from our last speaker that it is more nuanced and will be harder to address. She thinks the idea of an unhosted house that was intentionally remodeled with the idea of making it an STR because it is a great party house is pretty straightforward, but the instances that are more nuanced like a long-term resident family who needs to have this option to be able to hold onto their home, as Councilmember Vaterlaus brought up - those are also ideas that need to be factored in and that can also create harm to our community if we are too swift or too extensive in what they immediately stop or how they immediately stop it as it can have unintended consequences. She stated that, in this instance, she will trust our legal counsel in terms of how she is advising them. She liked the word moratorium - it sounds strong and clear in sending a message - but if the impact isn’t getting us what we want, then she is willing to do something that is called something else such as a cap. She needs to understand from staff more about how that would work and what kind of a cap that they suggest and those details. She stated that she didn’t expect them to have those at this time, but if so, she would love to hear it. She stated that she will need some guidance from staff to help her to formulate a motion and support a motion of others formulated and that is important to her, but she definitely wanted to say that she brought this up and other councilmembers have interest in this. She wants to take action on this, and she wants to stop harm to our community. She asked how they do that which is where she is at on this issue at this time. She welcomed any thoughts from anyone on the matter.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked her again for bringing it to them. He stated that it was extraordinary to him the way our community has networked around this issue and he has heard so many comments that they would like a collaborative approach between their work and the city. He thought that was the value of making sure they are discussing this at goal setting as he thought that wasn’t necessarily an easy thing to accomplish at this meeting, but they can figure out what they can do. He stated that, to see the networking they are already doing, the data they are already collecting, that they already have information to present to Council. He stated that, before he came to this meeting, he had a nice discussion with City Manager as he wants to do on any given issue, but he read all the emails and that formed so much of his perspective in terms of how he was listening and what he was looking for as he was going forward. Even as they stop short of formalizing it this evening, it was impressive to see the work the community is already doing and it was having an effect on how he is looking at it. He asked the community to keep reaching out and that is a testament to Councilmember Beckmeyer who saw this, tapped into it, and brought it to them at this meeting. He feels like they are heading in the cap direction so they can place the growth of STRs on hold; they can make it to March to discuss more robustly the staff time it will take to put together a robust program that is going to fit our community. He stated that his only question comes from something Councilmember O’Neill said which is, if they place a cap at this time, he imagined it would take a lot of work to figure out how to cap unhosted, rather than hosted. He wants to confirm that before they move forward if it would be a substantial work or something they can differentiate as of this meeting - if they are caping unhosted STRs, rather than hosted ones.
City Manager Woodhouse thought that discerning a divided cap like that would be more work.
He will turn to Asst. City Manager Carter as she has some data. Most of Pacifica’s STRs are unhosted. He knows from Malibu’s experience that the Coastal Commission has concern about limiting STRs to just hosted - that wasn’t what they are talking about exactly. Given complexity, conversation, and what the Coastal Commission says and how would they discern licenses between hosted and unhosted, he didn’t know if HDL tracks that information.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 October 10, 2022
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, when they prepared the staff report, they looked at the data. At that time, last week, there were no hosted leases. There was not a single unit offered as a hosted unit last week. She asked HDL to do some research and see how recent history was and they told her it was about 1% of listings. As far as how they differentiate, some cities actually do exactly what Mayor pro Tem said: They cap the unhosted only, and unlimited hosted permits are allowed. They are very prepared to assist and know how to track it and the system already allows to track it. As far as accounting, it shouldn’t be the problem.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he heard her say that it is easier than he thought it was when he first asked the question, and he would favor caping unhosted and keeping hosted uncapped.
He was looking forward to reaching out to the Coastal Commission sooner than later to make sure they are partnering so they can get the job done.
Mayor Bier thought they need time to work on that piece; they need to cap everything to give them time to see what that will look like before they make a decision about unhosted versus hosted. That is how she sees it, and they just need to cap it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, if it helps and Council wants to move into a conversation about what that cap direction should be, i.e., just the number of caps on STR licenses, regardless of hosted or unhosted, in the staff report, the suggestion was thrown out as a starting point but that could be 175 units. If they look at the city’s history, and add up the current registered and compliant ones, the ones after HDL worked with them, closed or ceased their operation and the ones they continued to work with to bring into compliance, that is about 175.
He stated that, alternatively, the bottom end would be a cap at about 125 which is the combination of the 101 that are registered and compliant STRs plus the 24 that are unregistered currently that HDL is working to bring into compliance. He stated, as reference, the city is working through HDL on trying to get operating STRs into compliance and, if the cap were lower than that amount, the city would be going back to them and saying they are out of luck and can’t do it. That is why he would suggest that administrative component to it that a floor would be 125 and you could look at up to 175. Coastal Commission staff would probably have something to say about where the cap falls based on the history of the number, etc. If tonight, 1) direction from Council about whether they are going to work towards implementing caps and 2) what that cap number should be… would be helpful.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he would be fine with the 175 and that includes everyone already there in all the other two categories and that is the existing people and they’re done.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thought he heard that 125 is what is currently existing and 175 was basically before they take out those 47 properties that were not in compliance and they had to go away.
Mayor Bier asked if that was correct.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the number that went away is not that they weren’t in compliance but that they weren’t doing it anymore or they weren’t doing it at that time. He reiterated the point that STR listings are very seasonal and they fluctuate a lot, and some of that category might be thinking that they want to get a license and run theirs next spring and summer, but he can’t tell them how many would want to do that.
Councilmember O’Neill added during the holidays.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 October 10, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse agreed that during the holidays as well, and it is a point in time data point.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, when they issue a license, how long is the license good, such as a year, six months.
City Manager Woodhouse thought it was a year and he asked Asst. City Manager Carter if that was correct.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, as part of the permit, they have to apply for the business license and the STR permit. The business license is an annual thing; every year they will have to renew. She referred to the City Manager’s point, the 175 is the snapshot in time and that data was based on one of peak season STRs a few months ago and that is why he used it as a guiding point, but they change every day. In the springtime, they may be back to 175, but now it is a lower number so that is why they gave them the range.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if someone who wants to do this needs to get two licenses, one is a business license and the other is an STR license.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is if they are a permit but it starts with a business license and then they change.
Councilmember O’Neill asked how long a permit is good for, such as a year or six months.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is at least a year. She can double check with HDL with all their internal process and how it works, but her guess is that it is an annual process. When the October renewal for business license comes around, and if she is still doing the STRs they have to apply and do the same process again.
Councilmember O’Neill was concerned about the dichotomy of someone having a business license and then being denied a short-term permit. He stated, if they limit it to the 125, someone might have a permit that wasn’t active anymore but if they were issuing them at the same time and length, they would be good and choose to go offline for Christmas, etc.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the permit is tied to the business license and STR is the business.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to briefly mention a couple of other points that were brought up. He referred to a question about RHNA, and he thought Sr. Planner O’Connor could clarify it, but they were talking about existing homes. He stated that someone could build a new home and could try to convert it, but when you are talking about existing homes, you aren’t talking about RHNA allocations or compliance. He stated that there were numerous comments more along the regulations and enforcement in the program, i.e., trash, noise, hot tubs, etc. He thinks in a broader and more holistic review of the STR ordinance, they can look again at those types of regulations and understand more specifically what Airbnb and VRBO are doing about enforcing their regulations and what the cities will do.
Mayor Bier appreciated that, as when they pass the STR ordinance they have to give it time before they actually reviewed it. She stated that this isn’t the first time that they have thought about this or brought to their attention and they have been thinking about this for a long time City Council Regular Meeting 23 October 10, 2022
and just have to work on it together.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated the hot tub one is funny as you can really outlaw a hot tub in a short-term rental versus a regular house. She stated that she could have seven kids living next door and they could be in the hot tub making noise until 2:00 a.m. and she asked what the difference was from making noise in a short-term rental and how do you outlaw it for one and not the other. She would go for a cap on the 175, but she would like to see more research done as they don’t have that. She thought they could put more rules on them, not a hot tub, but some of the ones she has seen in other places, like the number of people, number of cars, etc., but she also heard you can work around the number of cars by renting two 15-person vans and bringing those in. She thinks they need to do both cars and people at the same time. She knows it is a problem in neighborhoods and she didn’t think you can pick your neighbor anytime or anywhere, but she doesn’t think there should be problems with it either.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, if they do the 175, she wanted to explore what happens if someone falls out and decide they aren’t going to do it anymore. She stated that they are allowing someone else to come in and take that spot, so it isn’t like 175 now and falling. She thought they pick a number and that would allow new people to come in while they are figuring this out.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed that was the cap concept.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, essentially, it is going to be a management of a wait list and managing it effectively, depending on when you got on the waitlist, for someone to drop out, and the next eligible permit user will take that place.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, within that, they have also been talking about the unhosted whole home versus hosted renting out a portion of their home. She stated that would count as one within the 175. She presented the scenario that she is doing a hosted, rent out a room in her house and now she decides she doesn’t want to do it anymore, she falls out, and somebody who is renting a whole home could fall into that spot. She stated that they may not fully agree and they could ask each other, but she thought they were leaning toward the whole house unhosted that they aren’t in favor of and Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck brought up focusing on that versus the hosted. She is trying to figure out how they control that with a cap. She thought the answer is they can’t.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to throw out one idea for the sake of discussion and get input from everyone, including staff. He stated that the mayor didn’t feel they had enough information to go down this road at this meeting, but he proposed that the cap was 175 but Council wanted to identify 10% of that 175 and reserve it for hosted spots which would be 18 units that could be allowed for hosted spots. If you have a hosted site and are within that 18 category and you fell out, someone else within that 18 could go in and that would reduce whatever 175 minus 18 is, and that is the cap for unhosted. He is throwing it out there as an idea and he asked everyone to chime in on what the potential administrative challenges be with that. He stated that it was a concept they could bounce off Coastal Commission as well.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated one thought she would add to that proposal he suggested is that maybe it is a minimum of 10% for hosted and there is at least that 10% that is available for hosted STRs but should one of the other 90% spaces become available, they could be filled by either and you are at least maintaining that minimum. She is hearing that Council is at least leaning toward supporting the hosted units, rather than the unhosted. She stated that, in terms City Council Regular Meeting 24 October 10, 2022
of management, she thought it would be the creation of two lists through their consultant. She thought Ms. Carter may speak to that more but it might be a second list.
Asst. Cit Manager Carter agreed that they can certainly do the second list and once they get Council’s direction they can meet with HDL and see what practically they can do for us. She stated that, regardless of how they are going to manage this list, they will be relying on the data from HDL and she knows the system allows to track hosted versus unhosted and they are definitely very quick to do it for us. She stated that, as she mentioned before, the number or percentage of hosted listings is so small that they will never get to 10% of total STR business.
She stated that many communities do the same count and they choose not to even track the hosted listings, in other words allow them without the cap. She stated that they can certainly cap all of them together.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Ms. Carter mentioned an idea that would be you don’t cap hosted at all and you just decide to cap for unhosted and it only applies to unhosted. He thought City Attorney Kenyon can jump in, but he had a nagging thought in the back of his head that the hosted situation could be somehow difficult to practically track where someone says that it’s hosted but their gone for the weekend and their whole house is available. He thought those are things that they ask how they figure this out.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she doesn’t have a comment on that, but she was saying in hearing the discussion and if that is the direction of Council, she would like to explore the concept of just making the cap on non-hosted STRs. She thinks that may be an easy fix that is in line with all the comments they received from all five councilmembers. She can’t think of a concern with that approach and she would like to explore it if that’s the direction of Council.
Mayor Bier asked what the definition is of hosted and non-hosted, and how long do you have to stay in a house for it to be hosted. She didn’t know these things.
City Attorney Kenyon asked Ms. Carter if she was familiar with it, as she can give a general idea.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that she can only give general ideas and the idea is you rent the portion of the house with the residents living in the house and you rent a room.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it generally means that the host is present during the stay.
Mayor Bier assumed all the time.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they do not regulate all the time, but it is fair.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that you will advertise this way.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed that it would be advertised as you are renting a room, not the whole house without a host.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was basically room versus whole house, and it doesn’t mean you’re going to be there every minute because you probably aren’t but you generally live in the house and rent a room.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 October 10, 2022
Mayor Bier stated that was why she was seeking more information. She wants to cap them all so they can get all the information they need as well as they can. She stated, if you are talking about 175, the floor is 125 and the middle of the road person says they will have a 150 and she feels that they are negotiating but she wants to do it at tight as they can.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated someone used the analogy earlier that somebody goes to their vacation in Spain and while their house is available for that two weeks, that is when they rent it out and otherwise they are there full time, which strikes him as a definition of hosted, but more to the point, if they’re putting the cap on, he thought it has to come back to them as an ordinance.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, when the ordinance comes back to them and they look at an ordinance, within the context of that ordinance, there is a clear definition. He also concluded that, at that time, they have the ability to redefine it if they don’t like the definition that has been brought to them. He stated that, while they don’t necessarily have a crystal clear understanding of what the definition of hosted is at this moment, when it is brought back to them, there will be a definition there, and if they don’t like that definition, they can tweak it to their desire. He thought that lends itself to caping the unhosted and leaving the hosted un-caped and sending that direction for the ordinance they would like to see.
City Manager Woodhouse referred to his point about definitions and stated that the basic understanding of hosted versus unhosted at this point in time is that the host is there. He stated that, if you are gone for a month or two weeks and someone is renting your place, that is an unhosted rental.
Commissioner O’Neill thought this was an important discussion but he thought the next item is also going to be an important discussion and he wondered if staff feels they have the direction they need and they might want to move on to the next item.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she needs more clarity from the Council in drafting. She needs a clear consensus on what Council is looking to see back in a month in terms of an ordinance.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that she needs to ask specific questions she wants answered and they poll each other then.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he can start. He stated that one is the number of the cap and there are a couple of options, i.e., whether that is a cap for both hosted and unhosted or is that just a cap for unhosted and hosted is not caped. He felt those were the two variables for which they need to get direction. He added that they need clear direction whether Council is interested in taking a larger, more holistic review of the program and discussing that at goal setting and, depending on the outcome of that, setting the future for that work.
Mayor Bier stated that is the easier one for consensus and she will start with that one regarding goal setting and a larger holistic view and she asked if they were all in agreement with that.
All commissioners responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier stated that they will go back to the number and the unhosted or hosted. She was for City Council Regular Meeting 26 October 10, 2022
150 cap for all.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he would say 175 but he was okay with 150.
Councilmember Vaterlaus was in favor of 175.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the mayor also asked if it applied to both hosted and unhosted.
Councilmember O’Neill stated it would apply to hosted and unhosted.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they have two councilmembers who want the cap applied to all STRs.
Mayor Bier agreed.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated unhosted only.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if Councilmember Vaterlaus stating unhosted so cap only unhosted.
Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked about the number.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated 175.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded 175 only unhosted and 150 all of it. She asked if Councilmember O’Neill agreed that 150 is all of it.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he was either 175 both kinds, but he is was okay with 150 also.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she can live with 150 and she was okay with caping all of it.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, if the definition of hosted is someone is living in the house at all time, he would rather just cap the unhosted. He was okay with 175 or 150.
Mayor Bier asked if that was enough information.
City Manager Woodhouse was not sure they have consensus on that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they have three councilmembers who have said that they want the cap on all STRs and the number she believes is 175.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that Councilmember Beckmeyer said 150, Mayor Bier said 150 and he said he was okay with 150.
City Attorney Kenyon apologized and concluded that it was 150. That is her understanding of the direction of a majority of the Council. If that is correct, she asked Mayor Bier to confirm that with the majority.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked what they do about the ones who have their existing licenses.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 October 10, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they’re currently not listed or active.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, as far as they know, there are 101 that are currently licensed and in compliance and 24 that they are trying to bring into compliance and the other balance had stepped out of the game after HDL contacted them.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they could be back and forth because it could be the seasonal issue and that is why the 175 number made sense. She stated that it wouldn’t contribute to any additional ones.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, based on these numbers, there would be a waiting list of 25 spots, first come, first serve, if people want to get back into the program, and if they are able to bring the uncompliant ones into compliance and they stay in compliance.
Mayor Bier concluded that there would still be a waiting list.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there would be a waiting list of 25 versus, if they decided to cap at 175, as that would sort of be a waiting list of 50, speaking in rough numbers.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked Councilmember Vaterlaus if she was thinking of someone, referring to her example about her own personal experience, and she is out for the time being but then she wants to get back in and then finds out the Council made a decision that doesn’t allow her to do that anymore.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she bought her house specifically for that purpose. She stated that there needs to be an education process because people need to know about this.
She stated that is an important factor. If you are purchasing and then you don’t know that you no longer are allowed to have a short-term rental.
Mayor Bier thought that was what they are trying to cap until they can figure it all out as they don’t want whole houses going up. That is how she feels.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he doesn’t support people buying it specifically to make it an Airbnb.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed with him.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they can’t affect that without a law. She stated that they can’t say that.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are passing an ordinance saying they will limit it to 150 units. That is the law. If they go there and they go down to 540 Crespi and find out that they are 151 and they should have done their due diligence, their realtor should have told them, they then can make it a long-term rental.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that is the education piece.
Councilmember O’Neill stated it was up to the realtor to tell them.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that you have to let the realtor know.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 October 10, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill stated that was fine, and send a letter to SAMCAR and tell them that Pacifica now has a maximum Airbnb number of 150.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to the speaker, Cassandra Jones, and her case sounded like a hosted STR, but what he doesn’t know about her case is whether or not she does it seasonally and if that is one of those 25 that will be left out because of seasonal reasons. He stated that his preference is that this applies to unhosted, not hosted, in which case she would be fine. If they are doing this in terms of everybody, then he will change his preference to 175, specifically because in her case, he doesn’t know if she is going to be one of the ones left out If they move it back to 150 and they are caping it on everyone.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it sounded, from what she said, that she would be an unhosted STR because she tries to be in town three months of the year and he doesn’t know her operation but if she is currently renting, she should be one of the 101 that are licensed and in compliance.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, if that is not the case, he would like her to tell them before they pass the ordinance and otherwise he is okay with what he just said.
Mayor Bier thought they still have the consensus at 150 cap on both.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they have a majority.
Mayor Bier agreed that was what she meant.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they need any other direction from Council.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, unless there is further discussion about that, there is a majority suggesting 150 cap, whether hosted or unhosted, and they would bring back an ordinance based on that.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, for the public, that means it will come back at probably the second Council meeting in November and that ordinance would be an emergency ordinance which would need four votes.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it would not be an emergency ordinance. They would have a regular ordinance adopted and they would introduce it at the first meeting and at the next meeting they would adopt it and it would become effective 30 days thereafter.
Councilmember O’Neill just wanted to be sure the public understood what that meant.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that there are two members of the public with their hands raised. She stated, for the public to know, that once the public has the opportunity to speak and it comes back to deliberation, they really don’t have another opportunity to speak on this subject.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they can when they introduce the ordinance.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed that they can speak again.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that at times in the discussion some of them have asked that City Council Regular Meeting 29 October 10, 2022
the public reach out to them.
Mayor Bier thought one of them was Jen Hansen who supplied all that data.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked everyone for the time spent on this item.
Mayor Bier called a five-minute break then reconvened the meeting.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
11. Adoption 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); Adoption of Resolution Approving the Outdoor Permit Guidelines with standards for development relating to Outdoor Commercial Areas; and Adoption of Resolution Approving Maximum Application Deposit Fee for Outdoor Commercial Permits
PROPOSED ACTION:
1. Move to waive the second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled “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),”
2. Adopt Resolution Approving the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines and Finding the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(File No. 2022-017) included as Attachment A to this staff report.
3. Adopt Resolution Approving a Maximum Application Deposit Fee for Outdoor Commercial Permits (File No. 2022-017) included as Attachment B to this staff report.
Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report.
Councilmember O’Neill referred to her saying that there was a potential $15,000 deposit with the Coastal Commission, and he asked if she would be applying for a local coastal plan amendment to try to get rid of that cost. He asked if there is a way for a business to get that outside space without having to put that $15,000 on deposit.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that, in the staff report, they identified that a typical coastal development permit application requires a deposit of $15,000 and that money is intended to cover the staff time to process a CDP and that is what is represented in the staff report, i.e., our typical deposit for a coastal development permit. She stated that, based on staff’s conversation with Coastal Commission staff, staff is proposing prepare an umbrella CDP which would obtain that coastal development permit authorization for more than one outdoor commercial space that met the specifications of what is described in the umbrella CDP. Staff’s hope would be to design it in a way that captures as many applicants that they are aware of at the time to remove that cost burden from the applicant and get it done in an efficient effort by the city. If an applicant’s outdoor commercial space was to be outside of the scope of their umbrella CDP, those costs may be associated with that applicant. She reiterated that their intention is to do City Council Regular Meeting 30 October 10, 2022
their best to capture as many as they can, which may require multiple umbrella CDPs, specifically for each commercial district neighborhood in the coastal zone but they are hoping to do that work for the applicant.
City Manager Woodhouse added that, for part of what he is asking, city staff’s work to develop the umbrella CDPs is going to take quite a while. In the interim, if a business is going to get permitted and get their own CDP, that deposit would be required because it will be processed as a stand-alone CDP until in the future when they can hopefully achieve an umbrella CDP with the Coastal Commission, but they don’t know how complex that will be.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the governor’s waivers during Covid have all expired at this point.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they have not, and they are still in a state of emergency and still operating under that same allowance for the outdoor permit activity.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are not paying $15,000 now.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are not.
Sr. Planner O’Connor added that they would not be able to process that CDP until they have completed the certification stuff for the ordinance by Coastal Commission. Once Council has approved the ordinance, they need to bring it to the Coastal Commission to certify the ordinance and then they will be able to issue CDPs that address this permit.
Mayor Bier asked if there were questions, and seeing none, she opened public comments.
Mgmt. Analyst Barranti introduced the speaker.
Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated that, on behalf of Surf Rider, she commended them for the steps they are taking to work more closely with the Coastal Commission and expressed her thoughts and appreciation on this issue.
Mayor Bier closed public comments. Then asked if there was any deliberation.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he can make the motion if there is no further deliberation.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck moved to waive the second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled “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)”; Adopt Resolution Approving the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines and Finding the Outdoor Commercial Permit Guidelines Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (File No. 2022-017) included as Attachment A to this staff report; and Adopt Resolution Approving a Maximum Application Deposit Fee for Outdoor Commercial Permits (File No. 2022-017) included as Attachment B to this staff report; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 October 10, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier stated that it was time to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED 5 – 0 ; 10/24/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor