CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tem Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
City Council Regular Meeting 1 November 14, 2022
November 14, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on November 14, 2022 at 7:00 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tem Present
Mike O'Neill Councilmember Present
Sue Vaterlaus Councilmember Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Kirk Stratton, Interim Police Chief; Bill Glasgo, Police Captain; Ryan Adams, Safety Inspector; Greg McFann, Contract Building Official; Bonny O’Connor, Sr.
Planner; Jason Bustria, IT Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bier read the Land Acknowledgement.
Salute to the Flag led by Local Veterans from American Legion Post 238 / Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
Mayor Bier stated they had a special presentation to honor Veteran’s Day and introduced Alan Hale along with local veterans from American Legion Post 238 / Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), who then led them in the Pledge of Allegiance.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. San Mateo County Libraries Annual Report (Stephanie Saba) City Council Regular Meeting 2 November 14, 2022
Mayor Bier introduced Library Manager Stephanie Saba who was presenting the San Mateo County Libraries Annual Report.
Ms. Saba gave her presentation of the annual report, giving some details on their goals and accomplishments throughout the County with input by citizens in a video. She thanked everyone in Pacifica for their support.
Mayor Bier asked Councilmembers for comments.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she can’t wait until they have a new library in Pacifica.
Mayor Bier asked about the empowered card. Ms. Saba stated that it was a card available to all students in the county that gives them greater access to resources.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck thanked Ms. Saba for being here, and he thanked the system which affords him the opportunity to meditate on the journey that library had taken, and stated it wasn’t just access to books but other benefits, mentioning some of them, such as parking passes, and he thought it was amazing as they level the playing field and allow access to everyone.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was happy to be on the library JPA board for ten years, and today they had a meeting for elections, etc., as they are losing seven board members. He stated that, when they were at a Council of Cities dinner in Burlingame’s Recreation Center, they are putting a maker space there instead of the library as they run their own library system and he stated that it showed how popular the maker spaces are in the Peninsula and how they are used. He stated that it was exciting to see what a library is now as it is much more.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked Ms. Saba for the library making her job easier as the Cabrillo Library avails themselves of those resources every day, mentioning some specific details of how they have expanded the walls of school libraries and they bring staff from the library to the schools.
Councilmember O’Neill emphasized that, beyond CDs, people can check out laptops, etc., and during the summer they have food for the children on the lunch program and online services for applying for jobs.
Mayor Bier thanked her and her staff for participating in the Pacifica Collaborative which makes it a rich experience to have them there and their support as we move forward in our community response to hatred.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked to pull Item #7.
Mayor Bier then opened public comment for any items on the consent calendar except for Item #7 and, seeing no one, closed public comment.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve the consent calendar excluding Item #7, seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 November 14, 2022
CONSENT CALENDAR EXCL. ITEM #7
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 9/16/22 through 9/30/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 9/16/22 through 9/30/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on October 24, 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.
AGENDA ITEM #7
RESULT: ADOPTED
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus
NOES: Beckmeyer
7. Side letter agreement between the City of Pacifica and the Pacifica Police Officer's Association (PPOA) regarding compensation adjustment for Police Officer Trainee classification.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 November 14, 2022
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a side letter agreement between the City of Pacifica and PPOA to amend the salary structure for the Police Officer Trainee classification to bring compensation for this position closer to market and make it more attractive for future recruitments.
City Manager Woodhouse presented a brief staff report.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Linda Jonas, Pacifica, stated she is a volunteer records clerk at the Pacifica Police Department, and was in favor of anything they can do to enhance the police department and support them in every possible way.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she pulled the item because she has a couple of concerns about the timing and she didn’t think she had enough information to give an affirmative vote. She understood they were seeking to increase the base pay of the police trainee position as the City Manager stated and asked him if it would give them $40,000 per year of additional cost (less this year because of the timing and they were part way through the year).
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively, adding that Chief Stratton and Capt. Glasgo can fill in on the details of timing and the typical duration of a trainee might be before becoming an officer at that pay level. He stated that, if they have it at their fingertips, they could point out how low the training position is compared to other agencies.
Mayor Bier thought any information they can provide would help them.
Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that, while he didn’t have the numbers, recruitment and retention is very difficult. Some agencies are giving them $30,000 bonuses such as San Mateo County and it is hard to compete. He stated that they were at approximately $5,000 for a trainee salary while others were about $7,200. He stated that, by bringing that average up, we hope to attract trainees which means a trainee is getting paid while going through the academy.
He stated that the benefits of that is that they can observe the trainee all the way through and not hiring someone who has put themselves through the academy but monitoring them and it is beneficial for the city and they want to get that salary increase up to compete with all the agencies in San Mateo County.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if the trainees go through post police academy, and Interim Police Chief Stratton confirmed they do.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was at the city’s cost in addition to paying the trainee.
Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that, to attend the academy, it is roughly $5,000 to $7,000 in tuition.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if we elect not to hire that person, they are released as they are under probation. Interim Police Chief Stratton responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what happens if they elect not to apply for our job after post academy. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that they would already be hired, as they have to City Council Regular Meeting 5 November 14, 2022
go through a background check (medical and psychological) and they would be hired while attending the police academy as a probationary trainee.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if there were alternatives to this action that they have heard of in any other department such as is there a bonus if they complete the training, as opposed to coming in the door with the higher salary, giving them a reason to stay. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated he wasn’t aware of that, but upon completing the training and being hired, they will get an increase in salary to step 1 of a police officer.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that would be where they would pick up that additional 5%. Interim Police Chief Stratton responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how long is someone designated as a trainee. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that it was six months.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated, if that is an extra $40,000 a year for any person, that sounds like an extra $20,000. Interim Police Chief Stratton thought the estimate was $40,000 for two positions.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if that was the most they would have to fill. Interim Police Chief Stratton agreed with two vacancies.
Mayor Bier asked if he could talk about how recruitments are going now and what is needed in the police department. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated staffing is needed.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how many people are we short. Interim Police Chief Stratton thought it was three full-time police officers.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if that includes our records clerks. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that it did not.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked how many records clerks they are down. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that one full-time and one part-time. He stated that one is a two-year ARPA funded position.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she didn’t understand the timing of this request in terms of when the academy begins.
Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that there are academies in various locations. He stated that the one they would like to recruit from and send our officers to is the College of San Mateo, the local police academy, for staffing. If any personnel from Pacifica’s police department wants to check up, it is a short distance away. He asked if she was asking about the timing of the academy.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if the urgency around why this item is on our consent agenda because the academy’s about to begin and they want to increase the rate of pay so they can conceivably get one or two trainees into that academy.
Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that the current academy class graduates in about a week and the next academy class is in January. Even with passing this, it was a luxury of putting someone into the next class at the CSM academy site. He stated that there are other academy City Council Regular Meeting 6 November 14, 2022
classes and they are staggered but the one at CSM would begin on January 8. That is the reason for the timing as they were hoping to get this in place and get someone hired as a police officer trainee and send them to the CSM academy.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he thought the timing wouldn’t allow them to get anyone into the January. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that it was a possibility but it would be tight.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was a semester program. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated it was every six months.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that the next opportunity would be June. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated June or July as there is usually a couple of week breaks in between.
Mayor Bier stated that, for her, when they talk about our public safety, there are questions about equity between our police officers and our fire department and she thought there should be a lot of discussions about that moving forward and that was one thing that made her hesitate when she looked at it, as she didn’t understand what we are doing for fire.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck kind of agrees with the spirit of where she is coming from and for him it wasn’t just a matter of fire but we are about to enter into negotiations. Given how far behind our department is, he thought that was overriding it. He wants our community to be safe. He stated that was his greater consideration within the context of about to enter into a big long negotiation cycle with everyone in town, and he feels that every city employees’ eyes are on us and it was very uncomfortable for him to do a special thing for one designation when he is about to enter into that very long, possibly painful process with everyone on our payroll. He stated that the only reason he is going to vote with this is because he is hearing an urgency of need and part of that has to do with the timing of the training. He thought it sounds like, if they don’t do it now, they have the potential to miss two cycles of onboarding trainees, not just one. He thought it would be painful to miss out on one opportunity and really painful to do that to us twice. He stated that is the wrestling he has gone through over the past week, i.e., weighing what ultimately is a legitimate question of public safety against trying to duly respect all of our employees.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if Interim Police Chief Stratton just said that the disposition was
7.5% below the market on average in pay. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated that the staff report has a number in there.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the current classification is $5,799 per month and the average in the county for trainees is $7,200 per month. Councilmember O’Neill concluded we are roughly 30% cheaper or pay 30% less. Interim Police Chief Stratton stated Captain Glasgo advised him that, for a trainee, it is approximately 15% below.
Councilmember O’Neill thought, if Council recalls, when they started negotiations, they had a number that he won’t state as it may have been in closed session, where they wanted to bring all positions to within a certain amount and this is well under that amount. He felt, if they want to be fair to this position, they have to bring it up to what our goal was in negotiations.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that this is information she doesn’t have which is why she feels she doesn’t have enough information to make a decision, such as where all the other positions are in all the other departments and how difficult those recruitments are. She doesn’t City Council Regular Meeting 7 November 14, 2022
want to hobble the police department, but she is looking at the issue of equity. She can’t say, without more information, such as where is their DPW relative to other departments, what other failed recruitments they are having, and are they sure it is the salary or are there other factors.
That is why she feels she doesn’t have enough information.
Councilmember O’Neill stated, looking at it in the obverse of the mirror, he said that this position is 7.5% below a comparable position in the market. He stated that they have strived to have all other positions to be within the 5% so is it equitable for this position not to be at the same parity as the other positions.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they have been striving to do that, but she doesn’t know if they met it.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they did a couple of salary adjustments in closed session negotiations where they made special arrangements for positions that were very underfunded, and if they want to maintain equity, parity and recruitment possibilities, we have to try to be fair to everybody to be within that certain percentage. He asked the City Attorney if he can state the number or was it in closed session.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they should not be discussing anything that was discussed within closed session. If there was a specific number discussed in closed session, she recommended he not say it.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she gets that it is very low but when she calculated the difference in the rate that is presently the rate and what it was proposed to be and that brings it within 5% below the beginning salary set of the police officer classification that they are training for, it also represents a 23% increase in that one job class.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, in closed session negotiations, they have given a couple of other positions something similar.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought it was a big issue that they can’t recruit because we aren’t paying enough and they are going to go somewhere else. If we can pay them and hire them ahead before they go to the academy, they are hired and are going to be more loyal and, if they get the better salary, they will stay here instead of leaving and she sees the benefits of this.
She felt it was really important for public safety that we have enough officers we need.
Mayor Bier agreed, adding she thinks we need to be prepared as people are paying attention and negotiations are coming up.
City Manager Woodhouse didn’t want there to be a misunderstanding about the intent. He stated that, whenever we conduct recruitments and they fail, and in recent years there have been numerous of those, it is a matter of best practice to assess why that happened and, regardless of MOU labor negotiation timelines, if necessary to bring back adjustments to the classification, whether taking a position that was formerly a combined deputy city clerk and executive assistant and splitting it into two full-time positions or raising the salary range to be more attractive like it was done for the deputy finance director as tools to be able to recruit quality employees to serve the community. He stated that is what is happening here, adding that it is not ideal that it is not within the context of actual labor negotiations of all the groups, but on balance they are faced with not being able to fill three vacant positions in the police department and the overtime cost that those vacancies bring to the department and the service City Council Regular Meeting 8 November 14, 2022
level of not filling those and they look at it from many different angles. He stated that often new police officers are not brand new trainees that have to go to the academy but lateral hirings from departments if they are lucky to have that. He stated that, in this case, isolating this one piece which they would do for all groups in all positions as they look at compensation, internal alignment and success. He wanted to make sure it was clear that there is a best practice and a reason why this is happening now and, as Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck said, if we don’t do this and we wait for labor negotiations as they won’t end until the end of June, then we wouldn’t even make the June academy and would still have this impact.
Mayor Bier appreciated the additional information.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to approve Item #7, seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
8. Authorization to extend contract with HdL to provide cannabis inspections/audit services.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a contract extension with Hinderliter, de Llamas and Associates (HdL), and additional (2) years to provide cannabis inspection compliance and financial audit services.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, appreciated the upgrades to the Council Chambers.
She then shared the fact that, on October 28, PRC was the victim of a hate crime when someone threw a rock through their window and thanked the police for responding quickly and PW for helping them cover the hole in the window so their office was secured. She shared the thought that anyone having issues or disagreements with PRC can talk to her as their ultimate goal is to support the community. She mentioned their open hours, current scheduled and ongoing programs and events, as well as how they are currently enrolling families for Thanksgiving and support during the holidays.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, referred to the growing homeless problem and mentioned a lady reaching out on NextDoor because she had no food and PRC was closed and shared her story.
She also shared the concerns everyone has about the trash problem, and her suggestion for a simple solution. She also referred to housing for homeless and hoped they could partner with San Mateo County to end homelessness in Pacifica.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, (by phone) stated he was disappointed that Measure Q did not pass and he suggested that police and fire departments work with the community to do fireworks safely in the beaches for July 4 and New Year’s so everyone can enjoy it at a safe distance. He also referred to the bluff top issue and the concrete pieces still falling where apartments were, and he recommended that the city close that section of the beach.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Vaterlaus attended the city’s meeting on housing and it was interesting to all the comments from the public. She attended a meeting, Smart Coast California, where they discussed everyone’s local coastal program updates, and she thought it was interesting to hear other city program updates. She attended the County’s Working to End Homelessness update.
She stated many of them attended the Council of Cities in Burlingame and they saw their new City Council Regular Meeting 9 November 14, 2022
community center and had a great dinner. She went to the community center to see the electric vehicle exhibit which was interesting to learn about different vehicles and their different aspects.
She attended Pacificans Care’s 40th anniversary. She went to Sustainable San Mateo County and they sent out a new booklet on electrification. She attended the regular CCAG meeting and they discussed managed lanes which are currently in testing on 101 and, if you have 3 people in your vehicle and you have the tag, you can go in the managed lanes now and they are not charging. On Arbor Day, her group planted two trees, one giant 15-foot tall tree.
Councilmember O’Neill attended the Pacificans Care event and Council of Cities. He also attended congestion management meeting and the library JPA meeting early this morning, and a couple of meetings on closed session items.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she attended a number of the same meetings Councilmember Vaterlaus mentioned. The housing element was a great turnout at Cabrillo School and she was pleased, during the table top discussion, they were interacting and sharing information. She attended a fundraiser at Pedro Point Community Center for the Rockaway Ricky Fund, part of the PRC, for people who need assistance in meeting needs for their pets, including veterinary visits. At the Council of Cities in Burlingame, it was a beautiful community facility. They had an updated presentation from One Shoreline. At the EV Fair, she appreciated the efforts of Pacifica’s environmental family in pulling that together and the local citizens who brought their vehicles out. She attended another such event but it was dealers selling EVs and it was nice to have an opportunity to chat with people about their experience, etc. She participated in a candidate forum and was inspired. It was put together by Oceana high school students most of whom are probably not of voting age yet and they wanted to hear from the candidates and had very thoughtful questions. She stated the Beautification Advisory Committee happened and they heard updates on the various projects they are working on, such as the bump outs, planted areas on Palmetto and there was an activity last Saturday after Arbor Day where they spruced up some of the corners. She attended a community meeting at Pedro Point Fire House sponsored by those who have concerns about building in the south end of town. She was there to hear their concerns. The Economic Development Committee meeting happened last week, and they got to hear the after event report about Blues and Brews, a great initiative and hearing the excitement and exuberance of the members and welcoming new members to the group.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was sitting with Ms. Rees at the seminar about homelessness when he got the news from her that a rock had been thrown through the window at PRC. He feels that he has to say something as discussion of approach is a matter of discussion among the community but the idea of torturing people seeking help or torturing those trying to help others speaks volumes about perpetrators of such crimes. He is reminded that violence is always an act of fear and perceiving such violent acts invokes his compassion that he would alleviate the pain of those so obviously afraid if he had the means at his disposal. He was at the working to end homeless event and one quote that stuck out to him was the iteration that the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for their most helpless members. He stated that Jackie Speier spoke and it was good to hear the good works that the county is engaged in around matters of homelessness. He attended the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting: They procured more power and adopted their diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion policy and the action plan to implement that will follow soon. He stated there was also a meeting between him, the mayor and PCE and city staff which was wonderful. He was at the housing element meeting at Sunset Ridge and, as he was listening to the various conversations, it seemed like the conversations tended to go in a similar direction. He attended former Dep. Fire Chief Chuck Pomicpic’s retirement. He attended the Ohlone Portola Heritage Day celebration information City Council Regular Meeting 10 November 14, 2022
session at the Community Center followed by the walk up to the Colonial discovery site. He attended the Pacificans Care 40th anniversary and a Boys and Girls Club budget meeting. He mentioned that he normally begins his report by talking Ukraine and how they are in his heart, following them on a daily basis. He stated that, on election night, he paid his respects to Diane Papan, Ray Mueller and Kevin Mullin at their various events. He highlighted that, one reason he brings up Ukraine every time, even though it doesn’t directly affect Pacifica, is because of nights like election night where our democracy is there and we can celebrate together. He attended the PRC Board meeting and they had a strategic planning update and he was reminded that their holiday joy and Thanksgiving programs are coming up and he suggested that the public sign up for the programs, and if they want to volunteer to help communities that can use the help. He enjoyed the Arbor Day celebration, planting a tree at Oceana, and attended today the San Mateo County Library JPA meeting at which Councilmember O’Neill was honored for his ten years of being on that board.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she attended Ernie Delasarte’s memorial and it was a true celebration of life at the Moose Lodge and it was great to be part of acknowledging how much he gave to this community as an employer for 20+ years. To see the camaraderie among his former coworkers who are retired and those who are still on staff and see the connections among their families. She felt it was inspiring and she felt it was important for her to be there and pay her respects to him.
Mayor Bier referred to the rock at PRC. She stated that there have been various acts of hatred in our community for a while, two incidents at Sunset Ridge, flag stolen from Oceana High School and the rock through the window, and people who are harassing our permit parking program holders. She stated that we can’t stand for this anymore. She stated that they have to stand up for PRC as they are doing all the work they can possibly do to make our community healthy and safe and we need to stand up for them. She appreciated all the members of the Pacifica Collaborative as at last Thursday’s meeting they spoke about an extended community response. She will be meeting with a subgroup of the collaborative and creating a work plan and will be working at every meeting on their collective response to the hatred in our community and will not stop. She stated that, when you are out there, tell people to be kind. She was sick for a week and missed so many things, one being the working to end homelessness event where she was going to be one of the MCs for the event and she was upset at not being able to attend but she thanked everyone who did attend. She also missed the regional Bike and Pedestrian Commission meeting but she was still appointed to be on the subcommittee to give some responses and comments for the OBAG for funding which is one Bay Area grant funding and it will be good for Pacifica to have a seat at the table to talk about that funding cycle and what it will entail. She also missed the Pacifica Environmental Family’s EV event and she thanked Pacifica Environmental Family for putting that on. She attended the housing element meeting at Sunset Ridge, the youth civic engagement panel for the candidates, the Save San Pedro Mountain meeting, the Covid recovery meeting, Pacificans Care 40th Anniversary, Economic Development Committee, tree planting on Arbor Day, the Cal Cities peninsula division executive committee meeting today, and the cancer drive on Saturday morning hosted by Pacifica Hotrods who raised $4,000 for a family with a sick teenager.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated, because it was mentioned by a caller during oral communications, he had an update about the concrete along 300 Esplanade. He stated that the Public Works engineering staff has been assessing the situation, talking with adjacent property owner and is pursuing a potential solution to that. As most things on bluffs on the coast, it is City Council Regular Meeting 11 November 14, 2022
much more complicated than what meets the eye. An emergency coastal development permit would be required and PW engineering staff is on it and trying to come up with a solution. He announced two important meetings that will be happening. November 15 is the economic opportunities study second community workshop which is part of the Vision 2025 and beyond financial sustainability study they are conducting. The economic opportunities workshop is open to the public and will be at the Community Center with dinner provided beginning at 5:30. The presentation and tabletop discussions begin at 6:00. He stated that this study is critically important to look at the different business districts in the city and what services they should be providing. It is interesting in parallel with the housing element conversations because they are looking at opportunity sites around the city for both enhancing the business services and enhancing our housing capacity. They have to work together. He stated that it should be a very robust discussion. The consultant, Kosmont Companies, will be presenting the results of their initial analysis and getting public input and the report will be presented early next year to the Planning Commission and City Council. On Saturday, November 19, at a special City Council meeting at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, the Council will be honoring Congresswoman Speier. It will be open to the public and they will have refreshments to honor her and her long tenure.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, and Recommendation for City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, Rezoning RZ-194-16, Zoning Text Amendment TA-116-19, and Development Agreement DA-4-21, filed by Brendan and Eamon Murphy, for construction of a three-building mixed-use project with 3,165-square feet (sf) of commercial floor area and 19 residential units, and associated condominium subdivision, at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420). The proposed General Plan amendment and zoning text amendment would have city-wide applicability and allow residential uses to be established either in the same building as a commercial use above the ground floor or in residential-only buildings on a site that also contains a commercial use (horizontal mixed-use) with approval of a use permit.
Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Provide direction to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (File No. 2016-004).
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached Resolution to refer the subject project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration following the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) as provided in PMC section 9-4.3208(b)(2).
Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
Mayor Bier opened the public hearing starting with the appellant.
City Clerk Coffey asked her if she would like to reserve up to three minutes for a rebuttal period.
Margaret Goodale, appellant, stated that she is going to speak for three minutes.
City Clerk Coffey stated that her testimony can be up to ten minutes, and she can reserve up to three of those minutes for rebuttal.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 November 14, 2022
Ms. Goodale stated that it is fine as she is only going to speak for three minutes. She stated that her primary concern about this project has always been the protection of historic remnant of Lake Matilda. She stated that wetlands are more significant than just vacant undeveloped land from water storage ponds. She supports staff’s recommendation to prepare an environmental impact report. She thanks staff and Council for understanding that an EIR is necessary. She also supports a reasonable project for the Crespi site but an EIR creates the possibility to align the project with Pacifica’s excellent strategic plan goal No. 1, i.e., “enhance Pacifica’s natural resources and open space to ensure an ecologically vibrant community”. She stated that finding Matilda wetlands is serious consideration and they can do it by paying attention to the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife comment for the FEIR in March regarding the wetlands which she read. She then mentioned a document published by the National Environmental Law Institute entitled Planner’s Guide to Wetland Buffers for Local Governments, and she read some of the specifics in the document. She asked that Council honor their plan goal No. 1 and vote for staff recommendation of an EIR.
Mayor Bier asked the applicant if he wanted to share anything, and seeing that he did not, she asked if Council had any questions before she opened it for public comment. She opened public comments.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated he was in support of the appeal mentioning his thoughts and concerns regarding the issue, and was pleased to know that the applicants and staff have proposed an EIR and sending it back to the Planning Commission and hoped Council approves that.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that he was in full support of this project, giving his thoughts on this issue and believes ecology and the project can coexist.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked the appellant for the expertise, composure, and courage to raise this issue. She looked forward to a robust review focusing on the historic wetlands and eco-system and a project that addresses all the specific concerns.
Frank Vella, Pacifica, stated he is a director of the San Mateo County Associate of Realtors but is speaking for himself. He supports this project and expressed his thoughts and concerns on the issue.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, (by phone) expressed his thoughts and concerns on this issue and encouraged the city to expedite this EIR.
Jodi, Pacifica, stated she was in full support of this project and supported expediting this to move forward as fast as possible.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she attended the Planning Commission meeting with this on the agenda and expressed her thoughts, concerns, and suggestions on this issue and supports the EIR.
Linda Jonas, Pacifica, (by phone) expressed her support of this project and expressed her total approval that the applicants will do the best they can on this project.
Mario, Pacifica, (by phone) stated he was in full support of the project, and he expressed his thoughts on this issue and encouraged that Council push through on it.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 November 14, 2022
Olga, San Mateo County, (by phone) was in full support of the project, and she expressed her thoughts on this issue and encouraged that Council expedite this project.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing. She asked if there were any ex parte conversations before they start deliberations.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that he spoke with the applicant and appellant prior to meeting, but before the continuation.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he spoke with both applicant and appellant but not within the last month.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she spoke with both the applicant and appellant and met with the appellant in a little while and did speak with the applicant more recently.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she met with both of them but it has been quite some time; she spoke briefly at the housing meeting with Mr. Murphy.
Mayor Bier stated that she has met with both but it has been some time.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that this project has been in the making for so long and she agrees that it was blighted and is so much better. She walked through the site and she didn’t see wetlands when she was there and there was absolutely no water. She preferred to send this through, but she understands that, with the changes, there needs to be an EIR done and she will go along with the staff’s recommendation.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that appeals are always a painful process and, in this instance, it is personally relieving that things aren’t more contentious than the comments they already heard and they don’t have the elaborate deliberation that would normally follow. He commended the Murphy’s for taking this extra step of more added pain into their project that has been going on for almost a decade to make sure that the next time Planning Commission has this conversation they get to have every bit of information at their disposal and it can go away from a place where it gets contentious and painful. He hoped we are stepping away from something far worse and he thanked them for choosing the route of an EIR.
Councilmember Beckmeyer echoed his comments and she looked forward to hearing the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to adopt the attached Resolution to refer the subject project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration following the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) as provided in PMC section 9-4.3208(b)(2), seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Mayor Bier called a five-minute break and then resumed the meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 November 14, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
10. Council call-up and consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 which authorizes the operation of a cannabis retail operation known as Seaweed Holistics, LLC at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021- 640), for the sale of medicinal and adult use cannabis.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached Resolution to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 (File Nos. 2018-029 and 2020-020), which authorizes operation of a cannabis retail operation known as Seaweed Holistics at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021-640), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A.
Sr. Planner O’Connor presented the staff report.
Mayor Bier asked if anyone had ex parte conversations with the appellant.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she did.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck responded that he did.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he had conversations with the owner.
Mayor Bier asked if they had any questions.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked what the exact difference is in the window from what is required and what is there.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that, based on staff’s calculations, the store front area needs an additional 15.4 square feet of window to meet the 45% glazing requirement. In addition, the store front needs an additional 2'3" of horizontal window glazing to meet the 60% horizontal glazing requirements.
Mayor Bier asked, because this is a call up, whether there has to be an appeal and did they have to pay for the appeal even though it was a call up.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they informed the owners that the item had been called up and the way it played out is that they came in and paid for appeal but did not file the paperwork after paying. Councilmember O’Neill called it up, and they informed them that it has been called up so they don’t need to appeal unless they want to have the appellant designated time for the hearing and, if they decided to not appeal it, they would refund the money. At that time, they decided to go ahead and appeal.
Mayor Bier invited the appellant to speak for ten minutes with the option to reserve up to three minutes for rebuttal.
Patrick Goggin stated he is representing Seaweed Holistics and they will reserve up to three minutes time in case they need it. He stated that they did submit an appellant brief last week, City Council Regular Meeting 15 November 14, 2022
and he hoped they had an opportunity to review it. He stated that, on deck with them, Mr. Ron Grindrod who will assist in the presentation to speak to the windows issue. He stated that Anna and Tony Williams have poured their savings, etc., into Seaweed Holistics. During this time, it has integrated into Pacifica and the neighborhood as a stalwart in the community and the only dispensary in town primarily serving individuals over 50. It provides seven living wage jobs and plays an important symbiotic role with its neighboring businesses, sharing customers and referring customers to each other. Possibly most significant, Seaweed is a substantial revenue generator for Pacifica, paying over $100,000 in fees and taxes since the inception. One might think they are on the agenda for accommodation but nothing is further from that. They are fighting for its survival, and he questioned why. He asked if there have been issues with security, theft, or irresponsibility. He stated that during their five years in operation, they have served as a model cannabis dispensary contributing significantly to Pacifica and its neighborhood, but Planning has voted to revoke Seaweed’s cannabis activity permit and license over an alleged minor and inconsequential technical violation of the cannabis ordinance’s facade window rule. He stated that, in considering all the facts, there is no violation of this rule.
If they could conclude there is a technical violation, revocation of a land use entitlement for this reason, for which half a million dollars has been invested, is unjustifiable and tantamount to a taking. He thought it was shocking that Planning would move to revoke Seaweed’s license on this basis rather than taking alternative, less draconian actions available to it. He stated that they were present imploring that Council take a step back, view the issues holistically, and appropriately reverse Planning’s revocation vote and find that the spirit, if not the black letter reading of the window rule, has been met requiring no further action. In relation to the facade issue and the exorbitant cost for coming into strict compliance with the rule, he referred to Mr.
Ron Grindrod, Seaweed’s landlord, developer of its business, former San Mateo building development department inspector and general building expert.
Ron Grindrod stated that he has been asked by Seaweed’s owners to work out some type of solution for the window issue. He stated that some were shocked when they heard there was 15 square feet short and two square feet in length short. He stated that, with the extra two feet, it gets most of the 15 square feet. He stated that they need a bigger window, and that was his focus at meetings with Planning staff and one with the Planning Commission. He stated that, if you make the window wider, you cut down the length of the shared wall which will be building up. Earthquake codes have gotten more restrictive since that building was built and they end up having to come up with a different structural plan which would be steel frames, steel columns, steel beams, and a greatly beefed up concrete foundation. He thinks he quoted two years ago $75,000 to $100,000 and probably significantly more now for a very small benefit. He argued this point every time he came before Planning. He stated that after they were shut down in August, he thought about it for a few days and he thought there is a solution in front of their faces and no one has thought about it, i.e., if they contrast the exterior store front with the interior sales front, you have about 20 feet interior and stairway is not part of the business operations and very easily they made an area in all respects that is not available to customers.
If they take that area and distort that, and the interior store front, they basically comply as it comes very close. He thought that was an elegant and reasonable solution as they can’t afford the additional money it will take to comply with the strict requirements of the ordinance and why staff can’t look at the interior sales area frontage, 20 feet, compared to the exterior front of 24 feet. He thought it is the area where they are doing business and under that stairway is a storage closet and that is not part of the sales area. His understanding is that the police department wants to see what is going on in the sales area as that would greatly simplify things.
The well-meaning ordinance was conjured up but every bad effect that could occur to people wasn’t considered, and this was an existing building.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 November 14, 2022
City Clerk Coffey stated that was the end of the initial seven minutes.
Mr. Goggin wanted to use one more minute and reserve two.
Mayor Bier thanked Mr. Grindrod.
Mr. Goggin noted that Mr. Grindrod and the appellants did meet with Planning Department several different times in advance of this issue being forwarded and it is not true that they didn’t meet and discuss this. He stated that they heard that there is actually no violation of the facade window rule, and even if there is, remedying it is cost-prohibitive and a waste of resources relative to any additional security achieved. He stated that Planning is actually implementing a strict liability standard. Under the law, this onerous standard is reserved for those who house wild animals or conduct hazardous activities, and obviously none of those are present here. He referred to the $26,000 that Seaweed allegedly owes the city, which ballooned from over $4,000 to the current amount principally because of the window issue. Seaweed proposes to pay the $4,000 as a reasonable compromise.
Mayor Bier asked if he wanted to extend his time.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano wanted to be clear on how much time will be reserved for rebuttal.
She asked the City Clerk how much time is left for rebuttal.
City Clerk Coffey stated that at this point there are two minutes for rebuttal and it will come down from there and she will stop the timer when he completes his comment and let him know how much time he has left for rebuttal.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified that he won’t have rebuttal if he runs out of time.
Mr. Goggin understood. He then stated that Seaweed proposes to pay the $4,000 as a reasonable compromise of the outstanding fees issue. Should Council not choose to reverse Planning’s vote to revoke, it would devastate the Williams’ financially and possibly leave them and their daughter homeless as well as seven individuals unemployed and shutter a significant resource to Pacifica’s seniors and interdependent neighboring businesses as well as lead to litigation where there is nobody winning but lawyers. He has faith that Council will do the just equitable and proper and humane thing, i.e., reverse the revocation vote and get the city back to the middle path with an accommodation of the window issue if necessary, reinstate Seaweed’s good name and stop the bleeding.
City Clerk Coffey stated that he has one minute left for rebuttal.
Mayor Bier asked if Council had questions and, seeing none, opened the public hearing.
Pamela Wiston, Pacifica, stated, after listening to all the problems, she questioned why the window is such a big deal and shared her positive thoughts on this business with suggested positive options.
Molly Muller, Pacifica, is a customer and she felt the window issue is bizarre and shared her positive thoughts and requested Council approve of them staying in business to help everyone.
Lori Muller, Pacifica, stated that she is in support of Seaweed and shared her positive thoughts on their business and supported not shutting them down over a silly window City Council Regular Meeting 17 November 14, 2022
requirement.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, expressed her thoughts and concerns on what went wrong with the condition of approval. She asked several questions of concern and felt Council had the power to grant a variance.
Ella Woods, Pacifica, stated she owned Acupuncture Works near Seaweeds and expressed her positive thoughts on this business and hope for its continued operation.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated that there was plenty of glass, and referred to the concerns about security, robbery, etc. and stated that made no sense by comparing the visibility of another cannabis business to Seaweeds and expressed his thoughts on ruling on a case-by-case basis.
City Clerk Coffey stated Mr. Williams needs to identify if he is speaking as the appellant or as a member of the public.
Tony Williams, Pacifica, stated he is speaking as an individual. He explained why they created Seaweed Holistics and how positive their business is with all issues.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, (by phone) thought this seemed to be a very frustrating situation, and he shared his concerns on the problem and positive thoughts for solving the problem by granting an automatic variance.
Tony White, Pacifica, (by phone) stated is an employee of a local dispensary, and he shared his thoughts and concerns on the issue and thought they had enough businesses in the area.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reminded the mayor that the appellant had one minute for rebuttal.
Mr. Goggin stated that there wasn’t much to rebut as the last comment in opposition was a selfinterested statement looking for more gainful employment at another dispensary. He asked to see the hands of all the supporters of the appeal in the audience. He also asked if he saw any opposition to overturn the appeal.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it was inappropriate as comments need to be addressed to Council.
Mr. Goggin stated that he did that to show people were here to show support and not all testifying to save time. He stated that a variance can be granted that was brought up in the appeal and the ATM extends beyond the stairway and can be moved and is a good solution.
Mayor Bier closed the public hearing.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, with significant comment about the window requirement in the ordinance approved by Council seemed silly or arbitrary, Interim Police Chief Stratton and Capt. Glasgo are present and can speak to the public safety aspects of the window requirement now or during discussion.
Planning Director Murdock would like to provide responses to the points raised by the appellant.
He stated that the appellant representative described the window issue as a minor technical violation. In actuality, it is a Pacifica Municipal Code requirement for operation of a cannabis retail operation and imposed by a condition of approval and agreed to by the appellant. He City Council Regular Meeting 18 November 14, 2022
stated that it was also claimed that the city was pursuing a policy of strict compliance and he stated that they are not talking about a matter of a couple of inches but a 21.7% deficiency in terms of the window area and 18.8% deficiency in the window width. Staff thought they are sizeable differences beyond a claim of strict compliance. He also referred to a statement that the city should have considered less draconian methods, short of a revocation, and he would claim that the city has been extremely patient and provided a number of opportunities for the appellant to come into compliance, including a deferral of conditions of approval that were supposed to be completed prior to operation and all other operating cannabis operators completed prior to operation. The City has given an extensive period of time to this particular operator to come into compliance, which they have not, and other options that are less than draconian have also included entering into a deferral agreement that provided them with significant additional time to come into compliance, including payment of fees, which are also outstanding in addition to the window. He stated that there is a claim that the window modifications are cost-prohibitive; they have received a single estimate from the property owner as to the estimated cost which he will not dispute but he stated that all other four operating cannabis retail operations have either selected sites that could comply in their existing form or undertaken costly renovation to bring them into compliance with the requirement, including the Bloom Room on Palmetto with an estimated building permit evaluation of $200,000; Coastside Cannabis on Old County Road at $ 60,000; and Greenhaven on Dondee with a cost of $100,000. These are evidence that these types of businesses as a class do have the financial means to undertake these costly improvements and there is not a cost-prohibitive factor to this requirement. He stated that the regulations were adopted in advance of any applications being received and they were known in advance to this applicant and all others as an applicable requirement for a cannabis retail operation. The applicant submitted the application, processed the application, accepted the conditions of approval, did not appeal the conditions of approval and, on more than one occasion, requested the city to amend its application and enter into deferral agreement. He stated that there is ample evidence that these application requirements and standards were known by the applicant. He stated that it was mentioned that a variance should be considered. It was staff’s opinion that a variance is not a remedy that is available as this is not a zoning standard but a cannabis public safety license standard outside of the city zoning regulations. Staff does not believe that is a form of relief that Council could consider in this instance.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that one of the commenters made a statement allowing the business owner to move in when the permit was applied for, and he asked if they were already residing in that space.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it was his recollection was that a non-cannabis business was operated in that location, selling vintage clothing (non-cannabis retail).
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if it was the same business owner.
Planning Director Murdock thought at least one of the operators of that business was also the appellant in this instance.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck referred to a question about why this is considered to be a nuisance, and he took the questioner to be implying that the generally understood meaning of nuisance.
This does not seem to be such a case in this instance; in this instance they are talking a specific legal definition of nuisance. He asked for the legal definition so they all understand the same legal definition.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 November 14, 2022
Planning Director Murdock stated that they are familiar with various forms of nuisances such as piles of garbage, etc., and in this case, in enacting the cannabis regulations for Pacifica, Council determined a number of different operating criteria required for cannabis operations, including the store front window requirements. In considering those regulations in totality said, if any cannabis operation fails to comply with these minimum operating requirements of the municipal code or fails to comply with condition of approval imposed in approved application, failure to meet those requirements itself constitutes a public nuisance. He thought this makes sense when Council considers that these requirements were put in place to protect the public health safety and welfare and is the purpose the entire regulatory plan. He stated that Council determined that the failure to comply with one or multiple requirements was appropriate to constitute a public nuisance.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that there is a specific cite that identifies what Planning Director Murdock just said about a violation constituting a public nuisance and among other areas within the municipal code.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck understood, and then asked why is the window such a big deal.
Planning Director Murdock stated that Capt. Bill Glasgo will come up to answer that question.
Capt. Glasgo stated that, more than 5 years ago, Chief Steidle embarked on a journey of creating a cannabis program to Pacifica. He provided Council and staff with recommendations and part of the window discussion today came up and they developed a size for public safety.
Due to a great deal of money being exchanged and product on hand, the potential for various acts to be committed in these establishments, he presented those requirements to Council.
These requirements aren’t just for the business owners; it’s for patrons who come into the business and officers being able to respond to incidents to prevent circumstances where they can’t look into, see, plan, or tactfully and safely respond to any incidents taking place. He stated that, what is difficult about this location, as he responded in two prior Planning Commission meetings previously, is it is very unique with an elevated platform and brings an additional challenge to law enforcement if responding to an incident, unlike other businesses where there is not an elevation or potentially other distractions that they may encounter when responding to an emergency. Those are the things which Chief Steidle recommended. The police stands by their comments made in support of the current requirements of those window sizes as it is a matter of public safety. He then referred to the difference between this one and another establishment across the parking lot. He agreed it is unique and a business where they cannot readily see while an officer is on routine patrol, but that window is still in compliance with the requirements as set forth in the code and that business is unique as well because of an alleyway and a street alleyway. That business has two distinct avenues of police response in two separate locations in which that window is large enough to see should something be going down and plan a safe response to an incident in that business.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that, what he heard him say regarding that other business, alleyway notwithstanding, that window from a public safety perspective does what it is supposed to be doing and makes the police’s job more likely to succeed.
Capt. Glasgo agreed, along with all the other cannabis retail businesses in Pacifica.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if, in his opinion, would his job be made more likely if Seaweed’s window was in compliance.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 November 14, 2022
Capt. Glasgo stated that it needs to be in compliance for safe response as outlined.
Mayor pro Tem Glasgo asked if he believed it would make it safer.
Capt. Glasgo responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he asked to have this called up for a couple of the reasons mentioned. He stated that he has been on Council for ten years and has utmost respect for our staff, planning, police, fire, etc. He has a difference of opinion in that driving past all the other cannabis businesses, they can see in the window and they can see in the window here and he disagrees on the one in the alley. He stated, for the police officer to look inside at night for a potential burglar, they would have to get out of the car, walk directly in front of the window to look in; here, you can drive by and see the inside of it. He feels that this business is being treated differently than another business and he is looking at what the intent of our ordinance and law, which is for police to see into the business. He feels, with the one in the alleyway, that intent is not met even though they have a big window. He stated that the house would be full of glass and you could see into it, but he doesn’t feel that. He then referred to why there wasn’t a variance approached with the Planning Commission, and staff said it was because it was in the municipal code and not a planning code.
Planning Director Murdock confirmed, adding that both the zoning provisions and the cannabis public safety license provisions are in the municipal code. The issue is that a variance is a mechanism for relief of zoning standards, and this particular set of regulations in the cannabis public safety license portion of the municipal code does not have such a mechanism for deviations from the required standards.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he trusts Planning Director Murdock, and he then asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if, when they have a municipal code, they cannot have a variance from the municipal code.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Planning Director Murdock was correct, clarifying that the variance is a process by which you can seek relief from a zoning standard and this is not a zoning standard.
Councilmember O’Neill thought this was the first time they have ever had a municipal code get in the way of a variance. He brought it up as he thought this business was being held to a higher standard in terms of the intent of the law.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if the business had 24-hour cameras available so the police department can see what is going on inside this business for 24 hours.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he would look for a confirmation from Capt. Glasgo but it was his understanding that it does and it is an alternative accommodation that the city agreed to in lieu of the window modification on a temporary basis to provide some offsetting visual access into the space; that arrangement was not intended to be a permanent accommodation, and that is not a direct replacement for instantaneous direct line of sight into the space for the purposes Capt. Glasgo described for an immediate public health and safety response.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if all of the other businesses have that 24-hour camera access.
Planning Director Murdock thought most, if not all, have surveillance cameras but he is not City Council Regular Meeting 21 November 14, 2022
aware that the city has access to those cameras. He stated that, on an instantaneous basis, 24/7 live, the city does have the opportunity to request footage as part of the investigation as required by the code.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if the city had access for instantaneous monitoring. Capt. Glasgo stated that they do. Councilmember O’Neill concluded not with any of the others. Capt. Glasgo confirmed that not with any of the others.
Mayor Bier asked what temporary basis means.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it was intended as an accommodation when this operator identified they needed additional time to complete the storefront modifications. At that time, in consultation with the Police Chief, he assisted with creating that alternative 24/7 camera access to provide some alternative police visual access in lieu of the complete compliant storefront.
Mayor Bier asked if there was a date where this ended.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it was supposed to end some time ago; however, the operator has not complied with the conditions of approval and the deferral agreement to complete the storefront modifications. He thought it was a year to a year and a half, if not longer, when it should have been completed and the access no longer required by the city.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had no ex parte communication with the applicant.
She has been reading all the documents and looking at the situation from different perspectives.
One of the lenses through which she looks at this is the Economic Development lens. She asks what the purpose is of having cannabis businesses in Pacifica and why did Pacifica decide to put this forward and asked our citizens if we were interested in having adult use cannabis retail operations in town. The answer was yes, and it was a very lengthy and arduous process for staff, as mentioned by Capt. Glasgo and the Police Chief, to create this. They went through years of development of the standards as a leader. She believed they are experiencing part of the growing pains of implementing and living with what we created. She added that there are people of good will on all sides of this issue. She feels that some of the comments she heard at this meeting and others from the public through email on this matter have been very oppositional. She acknowledged and respected staff as they do what they ask them to do and don’t make stuff up; they do what we ask and they put it in front of the decision-making body.
When they have a challenge in what they are facing at this time, they have to do hard work to figure out how they handle this. She thought staff’s report delineates two issues, one is the window issue and the other is the money issue. She would like to propose to Council to come up with a way to work on one of those issues specifically; she thought the big one is the window.
She feels like the money can be figured out. She stated that she was looking for is some guidance from the Asst. City Attorney and City Manager around what remedies are available, as well as Planning staff, to shed some light for Council on what their options are.
Mayor Bier thought it goes back to having this ordinance in place for so long, and there comes a point in time when they have to review it and see how things are going and if it is matching up to what needs to happen for everything to work well. She wondered if that could be an option for some time in the future to revisit the ordinance.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that in Sacramento, they call it a cleanup bill. He felt our Airbnb and this one are both right for cleanup.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 November 14, 2022
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they have not agendized an item at this meeting to amend the municipal code and is not before Council. Council could give direction to bring back an item in the future addressing potential revisions to the code which is dependent on staff timing and other priorities and issues in terms of when it comes back to Council. For this meeting’s purpose, Council is looking at the code in place now, and based on that code requirement, whether Council would like to consider the options they had on an appeal whether to accept the Planning Commission determination, modify it or deny it.
Mayor Bier stated that she saw the City Manager’s wheels turning, and stated, if they are going to take something on, they would have to discuss that at goal setting.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, as any ordinance revision, separated from the decision about this case, but what is before them is a decision about this case. A revision to the ordinance at a future time doesn’t help them now.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that it is just either denying or approving the decision of the Planning Commission now and could convey the intent of the Council whether or not it is a nuisance.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, as indicated in the staff report, Council can approve, deny, or modify the Planning Commission decision based on the code. The Commission identified two primary conditions of approval that were not in compliance. As indicated in staff’s presentation, there are some other specific conditions of approval that fall behind conditions 9 and 18; because they are not in compliance with those, they are also in violation of conditions 1, 5 and 6. She reiterated that, while they have a typical idea of what a nuisance is, Council has decided that any violations of conditions of approval or the code are a public nuisance. It is not there is blight on the property or things are falling apart, but that there is something the applicant is not complying with that causes it to be a public nuisance.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck agreed with Councilmember Beckmeyer that they are looking at two specific issues. He thought they can separate them from each other and tackle them individually. He referred to the window discussion, and two things that occurred to him was the option of reinterpreting how they are looking at whether they are in compliance with the window compared to how they have been interpreting it with other businesses or they could be giving direction to staff to come back to have a discussion on how they want to amend that ordinance because they have discovered that it needs to be tweaked. He looks to staff to tell them how they can send this back to have that discussion about the ordinance and it doesn’t immediately effect this business which is suffering the consequences of a part of the ordinance that they are thinking they may want to reconfigure. Then they can talk about money.
Mayor Bier thanked him for that, as that is what she meant.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought there were solutions: If you move the ATM machine, you are counting a different frontage of the building than they were or if you could mandate that the 24- hour cameras be continued in perpetuity so there is always access to the property. Whether you can see in from the street or not is another issue. She didn’t know if you can see in from the street on a regular basis and didn’t know if that is a possibility even if it were larger windows, as with the way that the buildings are situated you cannot see in the windows most of the time.
Therefore, the camera would probably be the most ideal situation because you can see all the time.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 November 14, 2022
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to comment before Council discusses reinterpretation of the ordinance. He stated that staff’s opinion was that the ordinance was very clear about what a facade is and what the window area of what that facade needs to be. He stated that there have been creative ideas thrown out but implementing those ideas would require staff revising the ordinance to allow that flexibility.
Planning Director Murdock agreed with the City Manager and stated that discussing the interior misses the plain language of the requirement as written now and an amendment to that would be the more appropriate approach. He stated he needed to clarify one portion of his prior statement with respect to the 24/7 camera access. He stated that stating that it is not a direct substitute for the window modification remains correct, but that requirement was imposed for reasons not directly related to the storefront window and it was not directly intended to be a substitute but intended to address other concerns related to the application at that time. It was intended to be a temporary measure, not a permanent measure.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he was hearing that it might be more advantageous to send this off to be reconsidered in terms of the ordinance itself. He stated that, if they were to reinterpret, he would want to hear from public safety. Je was completely okay moving the ATM, but from an officer’s perspective, he wasn’t sure what it means that the stairwell can’t necessarily be seen.
He would want public safety input before signing off on a reinterpretation at this time but would be comfortable figuring out the proper way to tweak the ordinance if they are in consensus that there is a better way the ordinance can be written. They can then do things in such a fashion so that part of the issue doesn’t immediately and directly affect this business.
Mayor Bier stated that he mentioned that the big thing was the window and the money could be resolved, and she was thinking of it as the other way around and they might want to address the money and that they could look at the window later. She asked if they agreed to talk about the window first.
Councilmember O’Neill thought they needed to talk about the window first because that is what is declared a nuisance and, if they want the business to stay open, that needs to be dealt with.
He stated he will make a motion.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to adopt the attached Resolution to UPHOLD appeal and DENY the Planning Commission’s revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 (File Nos. 2018- 029 and 2020-020), which authorizes operation of a cannabis retail operation known as Seaweed Holistics at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021-6400), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that he wasn’t including the resolution.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he changed the word in the recommended action and changed the word deny to uphold the appeal and uphold to deny the revocation.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understood that he wants to uphold the appeal and deny the Planning Commission’s revocation. She stated that the resolution included in the package is supporting staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal. She stated that there is no resolution in the package at this meeting that does what his motion seeks to do.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they would need to develop sufficient evidence to support City Council Regular Meeting 24 November 14, 2022
such a resolution and, at this time, he didn’t know if they have that evidence related to the facts of the storefront relative to the municipal code requirement. He stated that there may be other alternatives that they can discuss that achieve a purpose to not immediately result in a revocation but to give one last chance with respect to paying the outstanding fees and potentially having Council have an opportunity to amend the ordinance before finality of the revocation.
City Manager Woodhouse added to Planning Director Murdock’s comment that one of the options for Council to consider would be to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation and add conditions that need to be met within a certain time period and if they were not met then the revocation goes into play. He suggested that one condition could be that the fees due to the city are paid within 30 days and, if that is not met, then it is revoked. Another option would be that, as mentioned, in order to adjust or reinterpret the window size requirement in code would require an ordinance revisio; another condition could be that the city pursue an ordinance revision to allow that and, if that passes through Planning Commission and Council, with a time period of maybe 120 days (as they need to talk about the priority ordinances that staff has to work on), but if that condition were met, they are revising the ordinance to allow this window to exist the way it is despite all the other cannabis businesses already having made those revisions to meet the requirements of the ordinance. He stated that would allow the permit to not be revoked.
Councilmember O’Neill wondered if they want to do a straw vote to see what the intent of the majority of Council is and they don’t spend 20 minutes on a motion that might fail.
Mayor Bier stated that he has to rescind his motion.
Councilmember O’Neill rescinded it. He urged them to do a straw vote to see what is the intent of Council before they spend a lot of time doing what is suggested.
Mayor Bier thought there needs to be something in place to pay the fees so they can show good faith and pay back some of the fees. She can’t morally revoke a license for this reason and she is having a hard time with the word revocation. She feels that Council needs to do everything they can so the owners have one last chance to make some payments and give Council an opportunity to review the ordinance in the future, as it won’t happen right away.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he is very supportive of keeping the business open and, regarding the fees, he is willing to listen to his fellow Councilmembers. He would also say that, if they leave the business open and they figure out a payment schedule, that there is a provision of if they do not pay, no more extensions - they pay or the business license is revoked, as this has been going on for years.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that City Manager Woodhouse’s recommendation would meet that. What he is recommending is that Council proceed with the revocation but condition it to be a date in the future, say 120 days, unless the appellant/applicant meets the following conditions: 1) payment of fees within 30 days or within 60 days or what Council feels is appropriate, keeping in mind that these fees were supposed to be paid back in February 2021.
She stated that the conditions of approval would need to be amended, the ordinance would need to be amended, and the conditions of approval would need to be amended consistent with the revisions to the ordinance. Additionally, the applicant/appellant would need to amend the deferral agreement because that would be inconsistent. The Council could revoke the permit with a specified period of time and subject to specific conditions.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 November 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they can pass a resolution of revoking the revocation and direct staff to come back with the correct motion for payment resolutions, as they are doing things at 11:00 at night.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, regarding the revisions City Manager Woodhouse is talking about to the resolution, they can make that resolution at this meeting, as they have the resolution for revocation, but it would be a matter adding language specifying the effective date of the revocation depending on the appellant/applicant’s compliance.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated, if they are revoking the revocation, why are they saying that they are going to continue with the revocation. She thinks they should do away with that, continue the business, let them continue, not automatically revoke and set up the payment schedule with an automatic revocation but not revoke the business now.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that they are not revoking the business permit now but setting it at a certain date in the future when that revocation would happen if certain conditions Council established weren’t met.
Planning Director Murdock stated, if Council were to undertake what City Manager Woodhouse has outlined, tomorrow and the next day, the business would remain open; there would be no immediate sanction except that, at whatever stated date in the future, this revocation will take effect unless the specified conditions have been achieved.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he is okay with that. He asked if he can make a motion to extend the meeting.
Councilmember O’Neill extended the meeting to 12:00 midnight, seconded by Councilmember Vaterlaus.
Councilmember Beckmeyer explained that, under Council rules, they need to make a motion if they are going to extend their meeting and they need to do that by 11:00 p.m.
Mayor Bier stated that they are extending the meeting.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Mayor Bier asked how they set up a payment schedule, what they are paying back, and if that all has to be decided now.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked for clarification on the fees, i.e., there was a lot of public comment and letters to Council about it, and from the appellant and applicant’s attorney claiming that the fees exist only because of the length of time that this window business has been going on - in other words, it is like a fee machine that this window is an ongoing issue and causing more fees. She wants to be sure she understands that is not the case. As she read the staff report, there was a deferral agreement and the CAP was what generated the fees, not City Council Regular Meeting 26 November 14, 2022
the window issue. She asked, if she is correct, if someone can clarify that for her. She needs to understand that and the public needs to understand that better also.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, of that $26,000, around $4,000 are fees related to the processing of the initial cannabis activity permit that the applicant has not paid for a couple of years at this point. They have made multiple requests, and those fees have not been paid. In addition, beyond those fees, there were other requirements, including the storefront modification that needed to be completed prior to commencement of operation of this business, which was a standard condition applied to all the other cannabis retail operations. However, this unique circumstance was such that the operator claimed that they could not comply with those without generating revenue from operating the business. Thus, the city took the extraordinary step to enter into a deferral agreement to authorize them to begin operating and defer certain other aspects of their requirements until they were operating and to allow time for the Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the approved permit to align with that deferral agreement, again an extraordinary circumstance. The processing of that amendment and the deferral agreement accumulated roughly another $22,000 worth of city processing cost as a result of the applicant’s failure to comply in the first instance with the requirements imposed on its application and those of other cannabis operations. He stated that those fees have not been accumulating, and there are no fee machine, no periodic increase or interest penalty, but the fees related to the processing cost for those various components.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano was involved in assisting staff in discussing when that applicant or appellant came to city staff about what options were available to them. Their office was consulted and they also reviewed/prepared the deferral agreement and processed that deferral agreement through the Planning Commission meetings. There are a lot of staff time involved in just preparing a deferral agreement and then putting the amended conditions of approval. She stated that all of that was set forth in the deferral agreement that would be the responsibility of the appellant/applicant and it clearly states the obligations of Seaweed reimbursing the city because the city wanted to be made whole and they should not have to pay the costs associated with the request that is made by a permittee at that point and that is a cost that is typically passed on to an applicant.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to get that into the record because she understood that it would be like, when someone wants to have a business and there are certain costs associated with getting that business started off the ground, the cost of planning time, all of city staff costs associated with that business, are to be borne by the business seeking a permit to have a business in town. If that businessperson doesn’t pay those costs, the citizens of Pacifica pay those costs. She didn’t think the citizens of Pacifica want to do that, but want potholes filled and basic city services done. That is why all of the costs associated with starting businesses are borne by the business owners. She acknowledged that it is a lot of money and it is shocking to people when they find out how expensive it is, but it is because staff gets paid a decent wage for the work they provide and costed out on an hourly basis. That is the gist of what she perceived to be that some citizens were seeking, and as someone responsible for city finances, she cannot do that. She stated when she says they can work out the money, she is not talking about erasing it, but finding a way to allow the business owner to pay the debt to get it erased and settled in a comfortable way. She agrees with the mayor that 30 days isn’t reasonable.
Councilmember O’Neill thinks 30 days for the $4,300 mentioned to open up the business, that is paid within 30 days or the license is revoked. He stated that was supposed to be paid four years ago in order to open their business.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 November 14, 2022
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed with that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer added there should be some kind of payment plan for the rest of it.
Mayor Bier stated that they know how much the cannabis business costs, and all of the merchants had to pay a lot of money to start their business, run their business, etc., and she agrees with the $4,000 original fee.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to be sure they have the majority of Council in agreement about the approach being contemplated now, i.e., setting a future revocation date of the permit if certain conditions aren’t met, and now going down the list establishing what those conditions are.
Mayor Bier stated being fully clear that the business can continue running until that time.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that, if the payments are not paid, the license is revoked.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the first condition on the floor is the payment of the $4,000.
Planning Director Murdock confirmed $4,080.56.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the $4,080.56 payment within 30 days is the first condition.
The balance of funds owed minus that amount.
Councilmember Vaterlaus, Councilmember O’Neill, and Mayor Bier discussed equal monthly dollar amounts to be paid in a timely manner when due.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if, after the initial 30 days to pay the $4,000, they have another 12 months.
Councilmember O’Neill stated the 30 days to pay the $4,000 and then the clock starts ticking for the one year.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if they are saying, should they miss any one of those 12 payments, there goes the business.
Councilmember O’Neill responded affirmatively, adding the fees are to be paid in a timely manner.
City Manager Woodhouse stated another cost component is, from this point forward until issues are resolved, there are the ongoing staff costs that need to be paid. This is an unknown cost and is a continuing process due to reimbursement; so, at some point in the future, there is that additional amount of money.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he was speaking about collecting payment.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they are asking staff to come back with conditions and the language to make this permanent so that could be ten hours and will involve city attorney time City Council Regular Meeting 28 November 14, 2022
and staff time to do that.
Planning Director Murdock stated, as a frame of reference, the initial application ended up costing around $14,000, all inclusive of staff and attorney time. He would imagine this is likely to be much less expensive than that, but they are talking about at least several thousands of dollars of processing costs.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if they put the appellant will pay staff costs and they set a ceiling on it.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked how they know what it is going to be, so they can’t set a ceiling.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that they can set a ceiling and, if staff goes over, they can eat it, if they get it done quicker then he pays what is due, not their ceiling.
Mayor Bier stated that there needs to be language that there will be additional payments. She asked how they put that into language.
Councilmember O’Neill didn’t think it was fair to ask him to sign a blank piece of paper saying he agree to pay the fees. He thinks they need to put some sort of limit to a maximum of $5,000 or $7,500 as it is not fair to ask him to sign a blank sheet of paper.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it would be not to exceed a certain amount.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that a more typical alternative is that the Planning Department takes in a deposit and charges against that deposit for the work that needs to be done to process this. They could set an amount and, if the processing costs exceed that deposit, then they wouldn’t be charged more, as that would be the ceiling. He asked if that was more consistent.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it would be, as the applicant shall furnish a $5,000 deposit for estimated processing costs and any unused portions shall be refunded but no additional fees required.
Councilmember O’Neill thought that was fine as that is the standard practice and they have the system set up to do that.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, where that deviates from the standard practices in instances where the deposit is exhausted and they request a supplemental deposit, as was the case with this initial application processing where the initial $10,000 deposit was exhausted and a supplemental deposit was never provided.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that is where the $4,000 or came from. Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
City Manager Woodhouse suggested one timing way to handle that would be that, within the first 30 days, the $4,000 is paid plus the $5,000 deposit or whatever amount Council sets, and subsequently the monthly charges. He stated that, if Council is directing as a condition that they City Council Regular Meeting 29 November 14, 2022
are going to go back and do substantial work on revising the ordinance in order to allow Seaweed’s existing window to comply with the program, that is a significant amount of work.
Councilmember Beckmeyer believes that revising the ordinance is going to benefit all future business people, not just one individual.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked the public to be patient with the process. She stated that this is government and they are here for it. Mayor Bier stated that they are doing their very best they can. City Manager Woodhouse agreed. Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it was to find a solution.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the ordinance revision would apply to all future businesses, but currently, in our cannabis program, all of the slots are filled. Therefore, they have the existing businesses that this doesn’t benefit at all, but if they turned over or closed, a new one opening in that zone, they would be complying with new ordinance requirements.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, following her initial comments, was that they needed to look back at our ordinance. This is the growing pain and what happens after you’re the first and now they are looking back at it.
Mayor Bier stated that she finds that to be separate.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember O’Neill agreed that it was separate. The cost for his specific business is what they pay.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding his statement that it was separate, they are talking about a condition of staff having to go and revise the ordinance and process the requirements that essentially change the window requirements that allows the current window to comply and applies to future businesses - that is a significant undertaking to review the ordinance and process that through the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she had in mind on that point is that not so much focusing on the window as the issue of safety. She referred to Councilmember Vaterlaus alluding to the 24-hour surveillance process and the cameras and Mayor Bier’s comments. That is just one possibility. She thought that was the creative solution the Planning Director came up with around how to get from here to there inasmuch as the window wasn’t compliant. She was suggesting that or other possible things they haven’t thought of which is the work in updating the ordinance, and they are directing the issue to safety and that is what they heard from Capt.
Glasgo and from the Chief in the form of Capt. Glasgo referring to what Chief Steidle had done in coming up with those recommendations. She was interested in what is safe for all concerned. She stated that this building has very unique characteristics as they heard from Capt. Glasgo, such as a second story component. She doesn’t know what all the elements are, but she knows that there are lots of buildings in Pacifica that have unique characteristics and we may need to be a little flexible around how we address safety and not requiring a building owner to rebuild their building to accomplish that.
Councilmember O’Neill asked, as they couldn’t give a variance because it is a municipal ordinance, if they could switch those rules to business licenses and grant variances in business licenses.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 November 14, 2022
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that a business license is not a regulatory license but a revenue generating license and they would not be able to impose public safety license conditions on a business license. She stated that the public safety license requirements are that the window coverings be a certain percentage and she thought what City Manager Woodhouse was contemplating when he suggested these conditions was making specific amendments that are required to allow this business to comply or comport with the requirements, not doing an overhaul but making the amendments specific for this business and that is why it is appropriate to take staff time necessary for those amendments and tie it to the applicant/appellant the way they did the condition of approval. If they are talking about a complete overhaul of the public safety license requirements, she thinks what she is hearing from Council is that might be a separate cost that is not assessed to the applicant, but for their purposes at this meeting, the suggestion was to submit a change to address exactly what is necessary to allow this business to operate in compliance with the code regulations and that is what they are saying is appropriate for reimbursement.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if there would be a difference if they made it specifically to the Rockaway Beach area and not the entire city.
Planning Director Murdock thought the Council has broad discretion in considering the amendments; any variation from a simple modification to the storefront dimensions adds additional complexity to the amendment, thus additional time and additional cost. There is the simple version of make the standard be what Seaweed has so it can operate and be in compliance all the way up to more boutique approaches to tailor them by zoning district or by block. The Council has ultimate discretion to do that. He stated another factor to consider is, if changes to the zoning regulations are entertained, those also require a local coastal program amendment by the Coastal Commission, so containing any revisions to the public safety provisions is the most cost-effective and time-efficient manner in which Council can address this particular issue, even though it has broader applicability but for the direct benefit of this single business owner.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that he was thinking that, if there is another cannabis business that wants to open in Rockaway, as there are several stores there, and they have three in each unit, it would make it more efficient if they did it just to the Rockaway Beach area.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck doesn’t like the idea of making an adjustment specifically for the one business but he does like the idea of making the adjustment. He appreciates that they are trying to find a simple solution which rarely exists in government, and given what they have to work with, he would rather have them do the work and come up with a solution that is going to work for all businesses here and thereafter. He thinks that is what he is hearing from his fellow Councilmembers.
Councilmember Vaterlaus was looking for the simplest solution possible.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated he wasn’t convinced that it is making the adjustment in this way for that business to the exclusion of all other businesses that complied but maybe a condition they are learning should not have been there to begin with. If that is the case, the simplest thing, even though the work would suggest otherwise, is to make sure that they permanently fix it so that not just this business benefits from it, but any other business that would come after.
Mayor Bier thinks that all of them came up with a pretty decent suggestion about the payment City Council Regular Meeting 31 November 14, 2022
plan. She thinks it is generous and she feels good about that. As long as this business can keep running and make the payments, they can have time to do the rest.
Councilmember O’Neill asked if, looking at the time and two other agenda items, they can put a fork in this.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that one thing that needs to be discussed is what is the deadline date for the revocation if the conditions are not met. He thought maybe staff can summarize how they are looking at the conditions in terms of the ordinance revision. He suggested for that type of work, given everything on their plate, that maybe a 120 day timeline would apply for coming up with processing.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the discussion he heard took a different path where the outer bound is the 12-month payment plan plus two months at the front end for payment of $4,000 and a $5,000 deposit. He thought, potentially revocation is set at 14 months from today subject to payment of the $4,000 within 30 days, payment of the $5,000 deposit within another 30 days. Beyond that, he wasn’t sure if they needed to time limit the city’s action to consider the ordinance amendment as he thought there were ample performance standards in terms of the payment that provides a pace for coming into compliance on the payment while giving the city time to prioritize this ordinance amendment in the way that the City Manager thinks is most appropriate in light of all the other workload considerations.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano heard from Councilmember O’Neill that he wanted revocation to take place immediately if they do not comply with some of the initial requirements, i.e. to pay within 30 days $4,080.56. She asked if they want to make revocation immediately upon failure to comply with any conditions set forth or all of them or some combination.
Councilmember O’Neill asks if by immediate she means that, if they don’t get the check on Friday, on Monday they close it.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano heard that the original application fee needed to be paid within a very short time frame.
Councilmember O’Neill confirmed 30 days.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if Council was inclined to proceed with the revocation if that is not paid within 30 days.
Councilmember O’Neill stated he would give them a two-week demand letter and then if that doesn’t get the money, they would follow procedure.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the benefit to doing it this way is that they don‘t have to do another procedural step. She would propose that, if Council is inclined to set that as the first step, the revocation be effective immediately upon failure to make that payment within 30 days.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked if she is talking about that initial payment or every other payment thereafter.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she was focusing on the first threshold payment, $4,080.56, but she did hear from someone else that, if one of the installment payments was not made, it would be revoked. She didn’t know if Council was inclined to proceed with that, as that City Council Regular Meeting 32 November 14, 2022
might be a more appropriate area to allow some flexibility in terms of being late and are given a notice. She stated that, if they are going to have a revocation effective immediately, it should be that first threshold payment.
Councilmember O’Neill stated that is part of the money from the original payment.
Planning Director Murdock stated, with respect to payments and additional flexibility, that he would reiterate the fact that this particular operator has had since March 2021 to make any payments for these unpaid amounts. Providing additional leniency or second chance clauses is an additional burden that clouds the picture as to whether they are finally coming into compliance with what has been a very permissive process and complicates staff’s administration of this revocation. He stated that payment deadline month by month is a very easy clear standard for staff as well as for this particular operator.
Mayor Bier realizes how much work has gone into this and how many years they have been working on this and she can feel his frustration and she appreciates all the work they do. She appreciated the conversation they have had at this time, and they have done everything they possibly can to help Seaweed stay open and show good faith and make payments and they will take it from there. She thinks there should be some flexibility.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to acknowledge a chart that had all the conditions and whether the applicant/appellant was in compliance or not, where the vast majority of them were yes. She feels that they have to zero in on these are where they are not, but she doesn’t want color opinions or make some implications about this particular business owner. She stated that there is one outstanding item that she wanted to follow up on, i.e., conditions of approval No. 20 in regard to quarterly compliance reporting to Chief of Police. She wanted to know if that is an ongoing requirement or short term as it seemed that it happened for a time and then it stopped happening. She wanted to know if they are done with that, need to renew that, etc.
Sr. Planner O’Connor stated that she can answer that question. She stated that, similar to the 24-hour surveillance monitoring requirement in the initial approval of this cannabis activity permit, another measure added to this operator was the requirement to provide quarterly reports. She stated that, at the first annual report of this operation, it was found that they were out of compliance with submitting those quarterly reports. The police staff has worked with the applicant and brought them into compliance so that condition of approval is no longer found to be out of compliance. This standard is one that is required through their second annual report:
Their first one occurred in August and their next one will occur in August 2023.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that her understanding is that they have one more year of quarterly reports. Sr. Planner O’Connor responded affirmatively.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that they spoke earlier about the planning processing fees deposit of $5,000 and he asked if that was part of the initial 30-day deadline.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was the second 30-days for that: the initial $4,000, then another 30 days, where Planning Director Murdock stated they would pay the $5,000 in the second month, and then start the monthly payments on the $22,000.
Planning Director Murdock referred to the Council’s desire to provide some payment flexibility, and he asked that it not shift a burden to city staff but perhaps set the payment due date reflecting Council’s adoption on the 14th of this month, beginning the requirements on the 15th City Council Regular Meeting 33 November 14, 2022
and applying them each month thereafter. He stated that essentially, the monthly payments will be due on the 15th of each month and, if not paid by the end of that month, that constitutes a late payment and breach of this requirement. He asked if that is acceptable and not requiring a notice to be triggered and generated by the city.
Councilmembers all agreed.
Appellant wanted to ask a question regarding the $5,000 deposit.
Mayor Bier stated that he needed to wait and can ask them after the meeting.
Planning Director Murdock stated he would read the key points, and then with Council’s consensus, he will read the technical language they need which will take a few minutes. He stated that Council will consider revoking the cannabis activity permit effective 14 months after November 15, 2022. The permit will not be revoked if the following conditions are satisfied before that date 14 months from tomorrow: Applicant will pay $4,080,56 by December 15, 30 days from tomorrow. The applicant shall pay $5,000 deposit for amendment fees by January 15, 60 days from Council’s action; any unused portion will be refunded, and any additional costs will be borne by the city. The applicant shall pay the remaining $21,872.33 for all the other prior processing and amendments in 12 equal monthly payments of $1,822.69 by the end of the business day on the 15th day of each month beginning in February 2023. In the event there is a failure to make the payment by the due date, failure to pay by the last day of the month in which the payment is due shall constitute a breach of that requirement.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that it shall warrant immediate revocation.
Planning Director Murdock reiterated that it shall warrant immediate revocation.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if he could specify what the amendments mean.
Planning Director Murdock stated, with respect to the $5,000, the amendments include the ordinance amendment, the cannabis activity permit amendment by the Planning Commission, and the deferral agreement amendment by the City Attorney’s office and the City Manager. He stated that there is no time limit, but within the 14 months, City Council will need to amend the ordinance related to the window configuration so that the current configuration of this operation will be allowed to remain and be compliant with the ordinance and confirming the amendments approved by the Commission and the deferral agreement is amended. They will go on to say that once revoked, the permit shall be deemed expired and no longer entitled to permit the operation which is recognized. He stated that, if those points seem agreeable by Council, he can begin the process of reading the actual modifications to the draft resolution.
Mayor Bier confirmed that.
Planning Director Murdock stated, with respect to the resolution included as Attachment A, there is a paragraph that Council will delete, “be it further resolved that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby revoke cannabis activity permit CAP-8-18 and cannabis is henceforth deemed to be expired and show no longer entitled the permittee to any uses authorized by the cannabis activity permit. The permittee shall immediately cease operating, engaging in conducting or carrying out any cannabis operation at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2, including dispensing, selling and/or delivering cannabis and/or cannabis products”. They also deleted the recital reading, “be it further resolved that the City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby City Council Regular Meeting 34 November 14, 2022
direct staff to refund in full the permittee’s payment of the 2022 yearly cannabis public safety license renewal fee of $23,577.” New resolved clauses are added to read as follows, “be it further resolved that the City Council of the City of Pacific does hereby revoke cannabis activity permit CAP-8-18 which shall take effect 14 months after November 15, 2022 ‘revocation date’ unless all the following conditions ‘revocation conditions’ are satisfied before the revocation date. Beginning the list, No. 1, applicant shall pay $4,080.56 for all outstanding and applicable fees and costs associated with the processing of the application for approval of CAP-8-18 by end of business day, December 15, 2022. No. 2, applicant shall pay $5,000 deposit for estimated fees and costs associated with the processing of amendments to CAP-8-18 to incorporate any revisions to the Pacific Municipal Code adopted by the City Council by end of business day on January 15, 2023. Any unused portion of the deposit shall be refunded and any additional costs beyond the deposit shall be paid by the City of Pacifica, adding processing of amendments themselves. No. 3, applicant shall pay $21,872.33 for all outstanding and applicable fees and costs associated with processing the amendment to CAP-8-18 and all outstanding and applicable fees and costs associated with the preparation and execution of the deferral agreement in 12 equal monthly payments of $1,822.69 by the end of the business day on the 15th day of each month, beginning February 15, 2023, or on the next business day when the 15th day of the month is not a business day. Failure to make any required monthly payment by the last day of the subject month in which the payment is due shall warrant immediate revocation. No. 4, PMC Section 4-16.03C1 II relating to window coverings is amended in a manner which allows applicant to retain its current window configuration. No. 5, Conditions of approval Nos. 9 and 18 are modified by the Planning Commission to conform to any revisions made to PMC Section 4-16.03C1 II and reflects satisfaction of outstanding fees as described in paragraph 1. No. 6, City and applicant execute an amendment to the deferral agreement to conform to revisions to PMC Section 4-16.03C1 II and reflects satisfaction of outstanding fees and provides reimbursement to the City for all costs including, but not limited to, staff time, administrative cost, legal fees and other costs incurred by the city in processing amendments to conditions of approval Nos. 9 and 18 and amendment to deferral agreement subject to the $5,000 limit above.” Then there is a new resolve clause, “Be it further resolved that, if the foregoing revocation conditions are not completely satisfied by the revocation date of...” Asst. City Attorney Bazzano made suggestions regarding the language on the revocation date, certain conditions, and immediate revocation. Planning Director Murdock agreed.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the last resolve clause would say, “Be it further resolved that, if the foregoing revocation conditions are not completely satisfied by the revocation date, CAP-8-18 shall be deemed to be expired and shall no longer entitle the permittee to any uses authorized by the cannabis activity permit and the permittee shall immediately cease operating, engaging in, conducting or carrying out any cannabis operation at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2, including dispensing, selling and/or delivering cannabis and/or cannabis products.” Asst. City Attorney Bazzano offered to read the motion, and the maker can consider adopting as her own: “To adopt the attached Resolution as has been modified by Planning Director Murdock to DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Planning Commission’s revocation of Cannabis Activity Permit CAP-8-18 (File Nos. 2018-029 and 2020-020), which authorizes operation of a cannabis retail operation known as Seaweed Holistics at 450 Dondee Way, Suite 2 (APN 022-021-640), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting the resolution included as Attachment A as amended by Director Murdock from the hearing.”
Councilmember Vaterlaus clarified that they are still calling it a revocation subject to the City Council Regular Meeting 35 November 14, 2022
following items that the resolution changed.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it was a revocation. It does not prevent them from operating tomorrow or the next day unless any of those required conditions fail to be met. Day 31 from tomorrow and they have not paid the $4,080, the revocation takes effect.
Councilmember Vaterlaus clarified that they have to state it that way.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, as discussed earlier, the resolution that is in the package at this meeting was a recommendation from staff to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission. Based on what they heard from Council, they talked about making changes to that resolution to condition the revocation to take place at a future date if they don’t comply with the conditions.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated so moved, seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thanked everyone involved, especially staff, as she knows they did something different than what was expected or brought forward from staff and she appreciated all staff.
AGENDA ITEM #10
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
CONSIDERATION
11. Introduction of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code with Local Amendments, including amendments to require building electrification (Reach Codes), underground utility installation, and expanded geotechnical hazard evaluation.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to take the following actions:
1) Introduce by title only and waive the first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica:
a. Repealing and replacing Chapters 1 (Building Code), 2 (Mechanical Code), 3 (Plumbing Code), 4 (Electrical Code), 5 (International Property Maintenance Code), 6 (Energy Code), 7 (Green Building Code), 7.5 (Residential Code), 8 (Historical Buildings Code,
8.5 (Existing Buildings Code), 9 (Reference Standards Code) of Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards (California Code of Regulation, Title 24, Parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12) and the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code and making certain amendments thereto;
b. Repealing and replacing Article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 (Fire Protection) of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt the 2022 California Fire Code and making certain amendments thereto; and
City Council Regular Meeting 36 November 14, 2022
c. Finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act 2) Set a public hearing to consider adoption of the Ordinance on November 28, 2022.
Planning Director Murdock stated he was joined by Fire Inspector Ryan Adams from the North County Fire Authority and Contract Building Official Greg McFann, and presented the brief staff report.
Mayor Bier opened public comments.
Margo Meiman, Pacifica, stated she attended two climate related events which illustrated the importance of the updated Reach codes that she hoped Council approves, and shared her thoughts on the details of this issue.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, supported Council on this issue, mentioning her thoughts on the issue and sharing some questions she has.
Juliana Woehl and Arwun Clancy Parast, Pacifica, stated they are Oceana High School students and members of the Ocean Conservation Club. They stated that they were passionate students in protecting our environment and expressed their thoughts in support of the passing of the updated Reach codes for new building construction.
Mayor Bier stated, before they go to call-in speakers, they should vote to extend the meeting time.
Councilmember O’Neill moved to extend the meeting to 12:15 a.m., seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:15 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Mayor Bier stated that they will now go to call-in speakers.
Dashiell Leeds, Pacifica, (by phone) stated he is the conservation organizer for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, and hoped they adopt the Reach codes at this meeting. He shared his thoughts on this issue and clarification suggestions on the item’s text.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, (by phone) applauded Council and staff on moving forward with Reach codes and shared his thoughts on this issue.
Mayor Bier closed public comments. She thought they should talk about the changes suggested.
Planning Director Murdock referred to the desire to make the all-electric building conversion requirements consistent between residential and non-residential, and stated that it made sense City Council Regular Meeting 37 November 14, 2022
as it was a drafting oversight on staff’s part, and the intent will be to add “or any other purpose” to section 5.106.13 to match the similar language in 4.106.5. He stated they can make that change if Council desires. He stated that the other item to be considered is deleting residential from section 112.4.2(b)(II), the utility undergrounding as that was an old text leftover when the ordinance was initially drafted to apply to residential only and they broadened that but missed that reference to residential and deleting that would align with their recommendation.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to packet page 291, stating that the issue of green building standards code No. 3 about the specification of for-profit restaurants, and she asked if there was a reason to keep the word, for-profit, in there.
Planning Director Murdock thought maybe so or not, and he explained the reason for that is that they carried forward the exception that was in the 2019 Reach code to align that as closely as possible and they didn’t receive direction from Council to explore alternatives to that. He thought the real reason that exception exists is that certain types of food preparation can be very costly when using all electric heating appliances which was the thought, and Peninsula Clean Energy staff previously has relayed that to him. He stated that it is unusual but there are certain types of food preparation that are not cost-effective using all electric cooking and he understood that was the rationale of that initial exception.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought keeping the word, for-profit, gives more flexibility.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it would narrow the exception, but he didn’t know of any non-profit restaurants in Pacifica, but they may exist and he isn’t aware of them, or maybe the thought is related to more institutional or religious organizations in their cooking facilities and perhaps replacing restaurant with cooking facility but that is an undefined term that is perhaps not commonly understood. He thought the potential misapplication of this was limited, and perhaps Council could make that adjustment if some unforeseen issue were to arise, which he thought was unlikely to occur.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated, on packet page 301, there is a reference to the appeal process that an appeal should be heard before the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission, and she was looking to paragraph 3 where it says notwithstanding any other provision of the Pacifica Municipal Code, the determination of the Commission shall be final and binding. She asked if that means it isn’t appealable to Council.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively. He thought part of the rationale is that the code looks to have the appeal body have some subject matter expertise in the technical codes and part of the composition of the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission makes them such that they are determined to be qualified to hear those types of appeals and he thought the idea was not to put it into a political realm but a technical realm for purposes of the appeals. He stated that, when you look at the nature of the appeals and how they are limited, they are to a technical misapplication of the code and having the decision-making body be competent in those issues is the real intent that is at issue here.
Councilmember Beckmeyer then referred to packet page 317, stating that they have talked before about examples include barbecue themes, restaurants and pizza ovens, and the thought was whether they need to have those examples in there and can it just say usually cook with a flame that cannot be reasonably achieved with an electric fuel source.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there was no binding language with respect to those City Council Regular Meeting 38 November 14, 2022
examples, but intended to provide some helpful context but there is no need to have that if Council desires to delete it.
Mayor Bier asked, if there were no further comments, was there a motion.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated that it looked like Christine Boles left otherwise he was going to follow up on her comment on Nos. 5 and 6 on pages 291 and 292.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was about the EV charging stations.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck stated one was about the affordability which he thought they need to incentivize affordable housing and he didn’t quite understand her question that had something to do with cost, on No. 5 on page 291.
Planning Director Murdock thought he could shed some light on both of those questions. He referred to the question about the affordable housing exemption, they discussed at the last Council meeting on that topic, it was an option for the affordable housing developer, but not a mandate or automatic exclusion. If there are some cost basis that affects the ability to construct the affordable unit, he thought Council was striking the balance on better to have the unit without EV parking than to have some requirement that sounds great but results in not having housing constructed. He stated that Mr. Reyes from PCE also mentioned that, in some cases for 100% affordable projects, there is also funding available from PCE so there is also potentially that funding source. He referred to the cost question regarding the geotechnical hazard requirement and stated that there was a potentially very high cost associated with some of these risk minimization measures if they require large debris, deflection walls or other site drainage that could be very costly relative to the project. The commenter was recognizing that it may be a very important risk reduction component to the project that is disproportionate because it costs “X” dollars but there is only a very small primary project being proposed and that could present risk to the community. He stated that may be the case and in consulting with Mr. McFann, they think there are very few circumstances where such a small project is likely to generate such a high risk. The potential exists and they can’t discount it entirely, but he thought it was better to have that safeguard in terms of cost proportionality than to eliminate it and have the city subject to some other infeasibility claim.
Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck asked, if they identify such a genuine threat in the review process, whether they have a mechanism by which they can necessitate that a costly measure is put in.
Planning Director Murdock understood the concern and his lead is to reflect on the language to see. Planning Director Murdock stated, if that is the only outstanding issue, he will find that requirement.
Mayor Bier stated that there were a few changes and they need to make sure they include those in the motion.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to take the following actions: 1) introduce by title only and waive the first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, a) repealing and replacing Chapters 1 (Building Code), 2 (Mechanical Code), 3 (Plumbing Code, 4 (electrical Code), 5 (International Property Maintenance Code), 6 (Energy Code), 7 (Green Building Code),
7.5 (Residential Code), 8 (Historical Buildings Code, 8.5 (Existing Buildings Code), 9 (reference Standards Code) of Title 8 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, to adopt by reference the 2022 California Building Standards (California Code of Regulation, Title 24, Parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, City Council Regular Meeting 39 November 14, 2022
8, 10, 11 and 12) and the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code and making certain amendments thereto; b) Repealing and replacing Article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 (Fire Protection) of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt the 2022 California Fire Code and making certain amendments thereto; and c) Finding adoption of the ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act including the items that have been adjusted; 2) set a public hearing to consider adoption of the Ordinance on November 28, 2022.
Planning Director Murdock stated that those amendments were, in brief, to add or any other purpose to the non-residential all electric building conversion prohibition, deleting the word residential from 112.4.2 (b)(II) and deleting the sentence in the non-residential for-profit restaurant exemption with sentence beginning with examples included in the motion.
Councilmember Vaterlaus accepts that, seconded by Councilmember O’Neill.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
12. Update on Highway1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Update Report on Highway 1/Manor Drive Overcrossing Improvement Project
Mayor Bier suggested that they move item #12, the update on the Manor drive overcrossing, to a future meeting.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed, and asked if they needed to do the Reach item at this meeting.
Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bier hoped there is flexibility on that last item.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, before they vote, they must take public comment on the motion to continue.
Mayor Bier opened public comment on the motion to continue.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he wasn’t sure if there are any deadlines, as he referred to $2.7 million of grant funding they were applying for and he was concerned as this item was to cut the consultants loose and wondered if, by deferring, they were jeopardizing the funding.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the item was an information update with no action necessary so he will defer to Director Petersen if she wants to say differently but he didn’t think there as any deadline related to that.
Mayor Bier closed public comment.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated there was a motion on the floor.
City Council Regular Meeting 40 November 14, 2022
Councilmember O’Neill moved to defer the item on Manor Drive overcrossing to another meeting in the future to be determined, seconded by Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck.
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 11/28/2022 6:30 PM
MOVER: Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor Pro Tem
AYES: Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 12:08 a.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 11/28/2022
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor