CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck
Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 January 23, 2023
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 23, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on January 23, 2023 at 4:30 PM 4:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bigstyck called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present, and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session.
There were no public comments.
00a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS - Government Code section 54957.6 - Agency designated representatives: Timothy Davis, Mark Wilson, Rachel Balchum of Burke, Williams, and Sorenson; Employee organizations: Fire Battalion Chiefs, IAFF Local 2400; Fire Fighters, IAFF Local 240; Management Unit, Teamsters Local 350 ; Miscellaneous Employee, Teamster Local 856; Pacifica Police Officers Association; Police Mgmnt (PPMA) & Police Supervisors (PPSA); Wastewater Treatment Plant Teamsters Local 856
5:30 PM - OPEN JOINT STUDY SESSION OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor Bigstyck opened study session at 5:34 p.m.
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call of Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners for the joint study session and stated that Planning Commissioners Ferguson and Leal were absent.
Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session to hear a presentation and discuss the Pacifica Economic Opportunities Study report.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and discuss the Economic Opportunities Study report prepared by Kosmont Companies and provide direction on next steps for integrating and prioritizing the report’s findings and recommendations into the Pacifica Economic Development program.
City Manager Woodhouse introduced the presentation and then turned it over to Consultant Ken Hira of Kosmont.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 January 23, 2023
Consultant Hira made the presentation.
City Manager Woodhouse added further to his comments regarding the specific financial goal of this item and then turned it over to Consultant Brian Moura of RGS to present further slides.
Consultant Moura completed the presentation.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if the council and/or commission had any questions for staff.
Commissioner Godwin referred to the increased number of short-term rentals in homes in the city and stated that he thought it decreased the viability of hotels. He would like future discussion on short-term rental approaches to preserve the viability of hotels while following the guidelines of the Coastal Commission. He also referred to the development of the General Plan where some of the sites they identified in this discussion were also identified as being considered for providing some of the housing units they would have to build; he thought they would have to clearly decide which sites are better for housing units or for economic development. He stated that it would be helpful if they could summarize that in some document.
Vice Chair Hauser referred to attachment 3 relating to the Beach Blvd. site, which is listed as a medium-term opportunity that has to go through SLA, and she wanted to know if that mediumterm opportunity still made sense with SLA.
Consultant Hira stated, without SLA, it is really a short-term opportunity as it is a site that could be viable now. However, with the SLA, they look at it as a six-month process, which means they can say it is a short- to medium-term opportunity.
Vice Chair Hauser referred to the 50-unit multi-home project as an $85,000 per year tax generator, and wondered if it was an annual recurring generation or if it included development impact fees amortized over time.
Consultant Hira stated that it is an annual static tax revenue generation and that didn’t take into consideration that it could grow, as property taxes will grow at 2% and sales tax could grow and TOT could grow at another rate, thus, a future growth to those numbers. They were trying to identify a relative scale of tax generation which is annual.
Vice Chair Hauser thought they have 1.25% tax rate and 6% gets passed back to the city from the County.
Consultant Hira stated that there was the addition of the VLF (vehicle license fee) which adds to that as well as other fees generated such as franchise fees, business license fees, and potentially sales and TOT fees.
Councilmember Boles referred to the Beach Blvd. site and the surplus land act question, and wanted to ask about the timing and make sure they are aware that there is a lot going on in that area; this includes the Sharp Park Specific Plan which still has to go through the Coastal Commission and will take place probably a few years down the line. She mentioned that, since 1999, they have been trying to get a hotel developer to come to that area, with a lot of things involved, and it leads her to the sites they are looking at as long-term projects which will take a long time to permit and build and bring income; but she thought there was a lot they could do with the sites now with temporary use of the space as they look at long-term goals which can help them meet some of the financial obligations. She says what is missing is a discussion of City Council Regular Meeting 3 January 23, 2023
work force or affordable housing which affects our businesses to fully operate so she wondered what we can do to pursue low-income housing developers which takes time.
Consultant Hira thought they were good questions. He stated that they have Coastal Commission jurisdiction matters for some sites, they have to contend with those elongating the schedule. Regarding the timing, he thought they would want to start that process to see if they can get interest as early as possible. He understood there was an RFP that was put on hold in 2019 for the hotel opportunity site and he questioned if, during COVID-19, that is the right time to find a hotel developer. He stated that he is in the process of working on two other hotel sites and opportunities, and there is an interest in coastal regions. He thought the timing to start the process makes sense, knowing they may get delayed as a result of bigger hurdles, such as the Coastal Commission. Regarding the housing question and surplus land act, that is what it is designed for, as that site will need to be offered to an affordable housing developer. He stated that the city has to negotiate in good faith but is not obligated to sell the property or lease it for below market value. He stated that the good faith negotiation period is 90 days which is a process that may have an end result that could have affordable housing related to the site or during the negotiations for affordable housing there is no meeting of the minds. He pointed out that land on the coast has a lot of value for hospitality use and that the environmental issues, such as sea level rise, etc., are real issues to contend with which is why they believe they have to go through environmental studies to make sure they end up in a site that has the proper resiliency. He concluded that there is a lot of work to do and their work is just the tip of the iceberg before the next steps to be taken.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that Kosmont put on a workshop he attended at CalCities Conference in Long Beach regarding the surplus land act and he feels it is ingrained in his brain. He asked Councilmember Boles if she thought it would be helpful if the consultant expounded on the surplus land act.
Councilmember Boles understood that, while she understands the process, it may be good for the public.
Mayor Bigstyck then asked the consultant if he would go into the surplus land act with a brief history of what the process looks like for all city land of what they have to go through to develop it.
Consultant Hira stated that the original surplus land act has been around for years and required cities to offer property they wanted to sell or dispose of to school districts, parks, and other public entities. There was the ability, based on an economic development finding for any public entities, that they were subject to the law; in 2019, AB1486 was passed which amended the surplus land use act and said that all those public entities have to offer property whether lease or sale to a list created by HCD and locally of affordable housing developers so that the opportunity was presented to them first. That NOA (notice of availability) gets issued to hundreds of facilities in the state and a 60-day period begins. Within that 60-day period, if an affordable housing developer does not show interest, the city has the ability to sell or lease the property at its leisure. If the goal is for private investment, they can move forward. If during that 60-day period, there is interest expressed, and more than one entity interested, the city would have to negotiate in good faith after the 60-day period for a 90-day period, where they are studying all the factors of the site, and during the process there is a declaration of surplus which Council does, as well as an appraisal so public agencies know the worth of the property. They are not obligated to sell below market value. He stated that affordable housing developers generally need subsidies to build affordable housing. He stated that there is a strategy to try to City Council Regular Meeting 4 January 23, 2023
get affordable housing into communities because it is needed, part of RHNA, and it makes sense whether work force level or low or very low-income level. He stated that, if the city goes through the 60 or 90-day period and there is no deal struck, there is a 25% obligation to build affordable housing on that site so there is affordable housing requirement of 10 or more units are built. He stated that if it is a hotel or other visitor serving uses or retail, there is a covenant but no obligation to build affordable housing, but if they build ten units, there is that affordable housing restriction below market rent.
Councilmember Boles asked, if they don’t get an affordable housing developer or a hotel interested, if they have to start the process over years later.
Consultant Hira stated that the process is done insomuch as, at the end of the 90 days, the entity is required to settle up with HCD. The communication during the process is important and they are talking through the gray areas, such as splitting the site for hospitality use and residential use. He mentioned various factors involved, such as a penalty if the city didn’t comply with the surplus land act.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added that the city could designate land as surplus as part of the process and could also designate it as exempt surplus land. She stated that there are exemptions under the surplus land act, and it is a complex area of the law and it is evolving and may not be the same two years from now.
Chair Berman thanked Consultant Hira for the analysis. She wondered if he could go into what analysis they completed on existing hotel utilization and the conclusion that she thought implied additional hotels would be just as, if not more, utilized.
Consultant Hira referred to an analysis they would have used through resources called Smith Travel Research (STR), a significant data source for hotel occupancies. He stated that the metrics they study are occupancy and ADR (average daily rate). As a result, there is revenue that gets generated at a 12% TOT rate and that is how they would calculate that this was a potential revenue source. He stated, when baseline occupancy levels are 75% or greater than 75% and based on number of hotel rooms, they have a strong hotel market. They can look at the history of occupancy trending, as they sometimes do see occupancy declining over years or increasing for whatever reasons. As it increases, it tells them it is better market demand. They look at the ADR increase - when the rate is going up, it can create an opportunity for the city. In doing all that, they look at it and say there is a greater demand than there is supply and the type of hotel in places like Pacifica on the coastline are a high value hotel proposition that has an opportunity to be here. He mentioned the different scale of hotels and believed there is an upscale opportunity in Pacifica.
Chair Berman asked if any of their indicators they use indicate seasonality.
Consultant Hira responded affirmatively, stating that they look at STR to help them regarding which days of the week have what levels of occupancy, i.e. weekends and weekdays, businessoriented markets, business travel following COVID-19, summer and non-summer months, etc.
He concluded that the data is available and powerful.
Councilmember Bier thanked him for the detailed report. She referred to the data collected from the community, stating that it is never a large sample. She was at some in-person meetings and saw that reflected in his report and wondered if they could see the data specifically from those in-person meetings.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 January 23, 2023
Consultant Hira agreed, stating the points made were important and very well made and they are happy to share that data with them.
Councilmember Bier appreciated that. She asked if they looked at landscape beautification, such as do trees add any value.
Consultant Hira stated that they didn’t look at it specifically.
Councilmember Bier stated that they talked about signs.
Consultant Hira agreed that signage was important, but it isn’t about signage per se. It comes with a landscape and facade treatment with an opportunity for improvement, mentioning that he sees both soft scape and hard scape, and facade treatments and landscaping can make a difference.
Mayor Bigstyck fielded additional questions.
Councilmember Boles stated she had another question about slide 8 where he refers to generation based on type of building such as restaurants and residential, and referred to the residential numbers; knowing RHNA is requiring a variety of housing for low income to moderate market rates, she asked what is used in their calculations, such as market rate at the $85,000.
Consultant Hira stated that it is considered market rate in terms of the construction costs, which is expensive per unit
Councilmember Boles understood, and asked if some are deed restricted, whether the property tax revenue might be lower and affect the bottom line.
Consultant Hira agreed, stating that the property tax revenue in these examples is assumed to be at market rate.
Councilmember Boles thought residential costs more in city services than parks, child care, etc., and she asked if that was factored in at all.
Consultant Hira stated it was not as this was a gross projection, and he stated that there was no doubt the net fiscal impact needs to be looked at closely as you don’t want to promote a project that has a net negative fiscal impact. He added that is where community benefits come in and there are a host of things that can be done in collaboration with the private sector.
Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments.
Pete Shoemaker, Pacifica, thanked the consultant for the report. He then gave some of his concerns and shared his thoughts on how the community can help the city on the various items discussed and improve the efficiency of the processes.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, appreciated the ongoing focus, and shared her thoughts for more data in appreciating neighborhood strategies, such as signage and working with CalTrans, etc.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, agreed with the previous speakers, and appreciated both Council and Commission on their questions and comments; she shared her thoughts and suggestions on City Council Regular Meeting 6 January 23, 2023
various issues, such as revenue, and addressed all assets we have that bring in money and could bring in more with collaboration strategies.
City Manager Woodhouse referred to Ms. Abbott’s point on CalTrans signage, stating that staff has been working with CalTrans on that in recent years which is an ongoing process. He does agree with the recommendation that it can be short-term and mediu- term and is a complicated process. He mentioned some signage that was added but felt there could be more.
Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments.
Mayor Bigstyck thought all the commenters made great points and he thought it would be helpful if they are considered in the mix.
Councilmember Bier referred to the CalTrans comment. They met with them after OSPAC came out with the desire about Fairway Park and signage is part of their 5-year plan.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed with that, stating that the last coordination meeting was in the October or November 2021 time frame.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to questions on the cost basis, acknowledging that this was an overview report; she wanted to dig more deeply into some of the issues, such as average revenue that might be generated from these properties. She wanted to understand infrastructure costs that might come up as a result of increasing the densities and amount of building in these areas. She understands that a lot of it is tied to the developer, but she wanted to understand if there was a multiplier or factor they’re putting into this, as where we are now with what we have is a lot infrastructure costs and many projects we can’t fund. She wanted to better understand how that relationship works with any proposed idea. She referred to comments about inventory and seasonality, etc., and asked if that was data they are going to be receiving from STR was part of this next step analysis or not. She had a question about a statement in the executive summary: “over the past decade, Pacifica has seen sales tax growth of 7.2% despite a drop of 13% during the first year of the pandemic.” She realized it was a dip situation but further down it said “actual onsite sales in Pacifica business has seen little or no growth since 2012.” Her conclusion from that is that sales tax revenue coming to them from sales outside of Pacifica, such as online sales, but would like a deeper understanding of that on the next phase of the report.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus wondered why they didn’t include the Pedro Point Calson property in any analysis as there is little to no area to increase in Pedro Point. She referred to the 50 houses, and she thought that was a very small amount to be generated in property tax from 50 houses. She thought the most inexpensive thing in Pacifica is $750 and they came up with $85,000, so she said that was a really small amount in the report compared to the actual.
Vice Chair Hauser appreciated the addition of information about housing and the revenue it generates as it was important to think about it. She thought understanding the net revenue was important, and she wasn’t suggesting where residential could go made sense, but in putting a unit count to these sites, she wasn’t sure there was enough land use study to go hand in hand with that. She thought it may cause confusion as they go through some of the other housing element processes, and she thought it may not quite fit into the report.
Councilmember Bier thought that might be the opinion of some of the public as well.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 January 23, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked staff, if there is no more feedback, whether they had what they need to move forward.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if there were additional comments or questions on the short-, medium- and long-term actions they will look to build into the long-term economic development strategy. He stated that they have already heard a couple of comments on some of these strategies, but if there weren’t any additional comments from Council and Commission on these items, they will move forward with the recommendations for the next iteration of the study.
Chair Berman stated, as a reminder, that Vice Chair Hauser mentioned some more complicated analysis on the Beach Blvd. site and any public site regarding SLA, and she didn’t know if that could be added into the record and considered if any changes are needed or another column needs to be added. She also stated that Councilmember Boles brought up a good point in that some of the properties, especially the vacant ones, may have temporary opportunities which could bring some revenue, especially sites with long-term timing currently, and she thought it might be beneficial to look at temporary activations on some of the vacant parcels. She stated that ideas were included in the staff report in the executive summary on container shops or RV air stream popups, food trucks, etc., and she liked the idea that Councilmember Boles brought up using temporary timing for short term.
Councilmember Boles referred to Cindy Abbott’s comment regarding looking at neighborhoods.
She and Vice Chair Hauser, who both live in the Manor district, see that as an opportunity for the site as it isn’t just the shopping center for the community but a visual for people coming into Pacifica, and not just signage but trees, etc., that is more attractive visually that sets the stage for Pacifica. She stated that shopping center was left out on the square footage and she would like that to be fleshed out. She did think it was growing more quickly than some of the others, maybe because it is close to San Francisco and the parking lot is full at night because of restaurants, etc. She thought it was a place where there could be more long-term growth and redevelopment, and tying it into the Manor overcrossing project. She saw it as an opportunity for the city. She referred to commercial space, stating that they showed them that it didn’t pay as much, and she asked if there has been any survey on the businesses there that want to grow and what space needs they may have. She knows Rosalind Bakery in the Manor Shopping Center is looking at having a commercial bakery which would be a larger space and she thought it would be great to encourage our businesses that are performing well to grow and develop.
Councilmember Bier referred to Vallemar where there is a small shopping center and she didn’t know if there was any further opportunity there, but she wanted to add it into the record and she thought an additional survey of our businesses could be done.
Councilmember Beckmeyer added that there is also private property adjacent to those businesses there.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if staff had all they needed. Once he received confirmation, he thanked the Planning Commission for their participation, as well as the consultants, Mr. Hira and Moura.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
ADJOURN JOINT STUDY SESSION
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the study session and called for a 5-minute break.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 January 23, 2023
7:00 PM - OPEN SESSION - REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL Call to Order
Mayor Bigstyck called the regular meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Present
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor pro Tem Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Chris Clements, Acting Police Chief; Lucy Xie, Dep. Finance Director; Bob Palacio, PB&R Director; Kenneth Fong, IT Analyst; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bigstyck read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there was no reportable action.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - HumanTrafficking Prevention Month
Mayor Bigstyck introduced Acting Police Chief Chris Clements to accept the proclamation in honor of Human Trafficking Prevention Month.
Acting Police Chief Clements expressed appreciation for this proclamation and was privileged to accept it on behalf of Pamela Estes. He gave some details of their program which was created in 2016 and was a collaboration between the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office and San Mateo County Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Association. He reported that too many citizens believe it only occurs in other countries, but that is not true, and we have it occurring in San Mateo County. He stated that the data collected stated that up to 300 victims who have a nexus to San Mateo County, mentioning details of types of victims. Their program works to enhance response to human trafficking countywide in several different ways and encourages collaborative partnerships, enhances helping victims, trains law enforcement, and raises community awareness of this through various events throughout the year. They host a monthly meeting called Human Trafficking Initiative which is open to governmental members, non- City Council Regular Meeting 9 January 23, 2023
governmental, faith and community-based organizations and members of the public with a role or interest in the response to human trafficking in San Mateo County; they focus on response to human trafficking in the county and delivering relative information on all aspects of human trafficking. They ask the community to learn how to detect these crimes, and if they see something to report it, either by dialing 911 or contacting the national hotline or child protection services, etc.
Mayor Bigstyck then read the proclamation. He asked City Clerk Coffey to give the information of the website to find the proclamation and the link to report human trafficking.
City Clerk Coffey reported the information.
Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated she was surprised to hear that there were 300 reported cases in the county, and she would never have thought it was that large, adding that you also have to consider the ones that aren’t reported.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, as he was reading the proclamation and recalling some of the films he saw, he was struck by the notion that there are people who are being trafficked without realizing it. When he went to the inauguration of Sheriff Corpus, one of the women who spoke at the inauguration was someone whom had been trafficked. He stated that it is happening in our county but we don’t know what we don’t know and importantly, if something seems amiss, follow up on it because they may not know.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bigstyck asked if any councilmembers wished to pull an item from the consent calendar.
Seeing no one, he opened up public comments. Seeing no one, he closed public comments.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 11/16/22 through 12/31/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 11/16/22 through 12/31/22.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting held on January 9, 2023.
3. Merge three (3) current separate PB&R Supervisor job specifications documents (Childcare, Food/Senior Services, and Recreation/Aquatics) into one (1) comprehensive Recreation Supervisor job specification document
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution to merge and update the job specifications for Parks, Beaches & Recreation Childcare Supervisor, Food/Senior Services Supervisor, and Recreation/Aquatics Supervisor, into one (1) job specification title document, Recreation Supervisor.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 January 23, 2023
4. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the resolution to update and replace authorized signers on the City of Pacifica's Local Agency Investment Fund through the State of California Treasury Department.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ken Miles, Pacifica, stated he had a handout for Council regarding an issue on monuments planted on the streets. The handout detailed the concerns he was sharing regarding mistakes on property boundaries, and he gave several examples where it was a problem.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus attended the City & County Assn. Of Governments (CCAG) Legislative meeting, where the most important topic discussed was reform to the Brown Act.
They are working to make it so any commissions that vote on items would meet in person, but the accessory committees that report would still be allowed to meet in Zoom meetings, which is important going forward. She clarified that the Council meeting would need to be in person but the Open Space Committee could meet on Zoom as they don’t vote. She added that Planning is a Commission and they would meet in person. CCAG had a Congestion Management meeting. She attended the Fairmont Homeowners Board for the first time; they talked about concerns of the SI, former Fairmont School, laying of new fields and the traffic caused by that.
They talked about the turn on Skyline from Hickey which is a CalTrans issue. She attended two electrification meetings, trying to learn about the process of electrification and insert her comments. She learned about parliamentary procedure. The Open Space Committee has a work plan on the trails, sorting conflicts between hikers, walkers, and bike riders; different types of trails; and water issues and signage. Lastly, she remarked she went to the Democrat’s meeting, where Mike O’Neill was the speaker.
Councilmember Bier attended the special city selection where she applied for the HEART (Housing Endowment and Regional Trust) Board of San Mateo County and was selected; she will be serving and was excited to get Pacifica a seat at the table. She attended the Economic Development Committee meeting where Asst. City Manager Carter gave a beautiful presentation of the city’s finances. She attended the Pacifica Resource Center meeting and the Mayor’s Mental Health Initiative meeting where they were talking about rebranding and meeting with the county to continue the work they started. She observed the Oceana High School safety plan with Acting Police Chief Clements. She participated and watched closely the Code Red for Humanity and Pathways to Healthy Electric Cities. She stated that there was so much information; she learned a lot and she feels she needs to see it again. She stated that they had the Pacifica Pride meeting and they were moving along and the festival will be at IBL. They are doing some fundraising as it will cost money for the permitting and overtime for police officers.
She missed her first NCCWD meeting because they were at the CalCities Mayors and Councilmembers Academy. She went with the mayor and Councilmember Boles. She stated that they saw information about social media, Brown Act, and governor’s budget. She was on the peninsula division executive committee for CalCities and has been placed on the environmental quality policy committee and they talked and will hopefully recruit some new people to join in on the policy committees moving forward. She also attended the Pacifica Democrat’s meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Boles attended Code Red for Humanity, something that Palo Alto and San Mateo cities are working on. They have identified water heaters as one of the biggest emission issues in homes and are working to switch them to electric heat pumps and providing outreach with a lot of grants from Peninsula Clean Energy, and these are things they can bring back in talking about climate goals and action plan. She attended the Pacific Beach Coalition meeting:
They stopped some of the beach cleanups because of safety issues with some of the sewage and safety concerns at the bluffs, but they have started up again. They have a fundraiser on February 10 at the Mildred Owen Concert Hall which is a surf movie on surfing in Ireland. She missed the Emergency Preparedness meeting because she was in Sacramento with councilmembers. She didn’t know what the League of Cities was before she went and it is an organization that advocates at the state level for cities to maintain local control and keep the state from taking our funding; all but four cities in the state participate in this. They also give a lot of training to new and existing councilmembers on all kinds of issues, like CEQA, Brown Act, land use, etc. She stated that it is good networking with people in other cities as they can share ideas and bring them to Pacifica. She stated that the state is facing a deficit and Governor Newsom is proposing cuts for climate change, climate resiliency, and adaptation, and those may have impacts in Pacifica. She stated that it is a proposed budget and we need to advocate to the state and elected leaders. She stated that they heard they might be cutting the Coastal Commission funding by 50%, which is already understaffed and overworked. She stated that the new fire maps are out for state responsibility areas and are being reviewed by various departments and the local maps should be out soon. She asked City Manager Woodhouse if he could update them on the housing element, as well as the public.
Councilmember Beckmeyer she had three meetings back-to-back and tried to cover them all.
She described some confusion that occurred when she joined the NCCWD meeting, following her JPA advanced life support meeting. Afterwards, she referred to the Advanced Life Support meeting which was a very productive meeting. She stated that it was the joint powers agreement between the cities in San Mateo County and has everything to do with our ambulance service and our pre-hospital life support services. She stated that there are complicated financial arrangements and service levels. They need to respond within a certain amount of minutes, and if our paramedics respond before the ambulance gets there, there is a payback that goes to the city to cover those costs. She stated that Rico Medina was named chair of that group and she was looking forward to having more detailed conversations in the future. She attended a sea level rise local government workshop meeting on the 17th in preparation for a meeting happening on this coming Friday in Santa Barbara. She had a great opportunity to virtually meet the new executive director of the Coastal Commission, Kate Hucklebridge. She stated that the meeting on Friday is going to include a range of stakeholders, and what the meeting is designed to do is take to the next level the work that the local governments have been doing with Coastal Commissioners of their subcommittee and Coastal Commission staff. She stated it is a nice representation of people, and there is a framework for working together and a number of documents that the Coastal Commission had approved around how we move forward; the next step is to bring stakeholders they have been hearing from to a meeting to have frank discussions about how we handle sea level rise, what is covered in the coastal act, what isn’t, how we address when there is a neighborhood section where some properties have armory and some don’t, and how they handle those (as now it is handled parcel by parcel, each individual separately). She stated that we know that our neighborhoods suffer or benefit from the same circumstances and to flush out what is a neighborhood scale look like; it is something that was brought forward by the former executive director of the Coastal Commission, Jack Ainsworth, into this group for discussion. She stated that it has been discussed a lot among the elected officials and some staff members, but it is now time to bring in other groups who have been very interested in these issues and have been City Council Regular Meeting 12 January 23, 2023
letting them know of their interest. She knows she will have a lot to report back after the 27th.
She stated that the Pride meeting was wonderful and she was working on the parade. The resource management and climate protection meeting she attended on the 18th had a great presentation from the California work force development board. She appreciated that this group was working on developing work force people ready for green jobs. They keep hearing that the green jobs will be great for the economy, but they are talking about what the skills are needed and working with labor groups and identifying opportunities and industries so that there is a pathway for people into the jobs. Going back to the electrification issues, she noted that a lot of times when she is in the meetings and resource management climate protection comes up about changing equipment, appliances and systems, and how many providers of these services at this time aren’t well versed in this and what are the professional development training opportunities that need to be made available for people already working in the industry but also for educating people coming up into the industry so that electric water heaters aren’t an anomaly or something they have to call three different plumbers to find someone who can take care of that for you. She stated that BAWSCA (Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency) presents at this meeting every month and she was excited to hear their presentation.
They get this report every month, and it is always dire and reinforcing the message we still need to conserve because, while we had a tremendous amount of rain and our reservoirs are doing well relative to how they were doing two months ago, we have had a drought for several years and we need to continue to see consistent rainfall to be able to see the reservoirs really regain what they lost.
Mayor Bigstyck wished everyone a happy Lunar New Year. He attended the city selection committee meeting that Councilmember Bier alluded to earlier where all the mayors get together and vote on which Councilmembers are appointed to certain regional boards. He congratulated Councilmember Bier for being appointed to HEART. He was appointed to LAFCO and subsequently had the first meeting the previous Wednesday. They had a study session about a special police protection district in Broadmoor and it was interesting serving on a board with our newly elected supervisor, Ray Mueller, along with Supervisor Slocum and other councilmembers from the area. He attended Chris Hunter’s retirement party, who was chief of staff for former supervisor Don Horsley, and he was struck by how much love he has cultivated in not just our community but the region given those who attended his soiree. He attended the code red with fellow councilmembers by Zoom. He walked away from it with an understanding that they will likely be discussing codes around existing buildings at goal setting and reaffirmed him keeping an eye on the way the city of San Mateo has been handling it they may have come up with a good working model that might translate well in Pacifica. He had the opportunity to attend Mike Perez’ retirement party, former PB&R director. He stated that it was amazing to see how many lives he touched in our community. He watched Planning Commission meeting the previous Monday. He participated in the CalCities new mayors and councilmembers orientation with Councilmembers Boles and Bier and City Manager Woodhouse. He stated that Councilmember Boles talked quite comprehensively about everything they experienced. He stated that one thing that struck him was that the state is thinking about a 50% cut to the Coastal Commission budget which will not make our lives any easier. He had the opportunity in Sacramento to network with fellow councilmembers and got to see State Senator Becker in his new natural habitat in Sacramento. He was introduced to other lawmakers and that was a wonderful networking opportunity to build their relationships and bring them closer to fruition in their respective communities. They spent time talking to Eddie Flores from South City. He hoped City Manager Woodhouse would acquiesce to Councilmember Boles’ request in giving them a brief update on where we are with the housing element. He then described the recent state of affairs with the Monterey Park mass shooting in relation to Lunar New Year and then hours prior to the Council meeting the Half Moon Bay mass shooting. He expressed that this City Council Regular Meeting 13 January 23, 2023
moment in time is when it is important to remember that community is not merely Pacifica.
When a sister city is suffering in this fashion, Pacifica’s heart is with them.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated he had several brief communications. He had good news in that they received a recent letter from Congresswoman Eshoo that our request for federal repaving dollars has been approved by both the House and Senate and is on its way for a signature from the President which is approximately an $800,000 federal funding for the Sharp Park priority development area, i.e., Francisco leading into Sharp Park. He stated that the city is working on a storm response summary that they will publish tomorrow on the website. Due to the significance of the storms that hit us over the holidays and the weeks thereafter and have now subsided, they have brought together a comprehensive summary to note the extent of the work required, impacts received, trees down, and the amount of staff time involved in responding to storms. He referred to the request for updated information on the housing element he can provide: the work for this significant undertaking continues and staff and consultants have been working diligently to finalize the public review draft following the public meetings that were held. A rough draft is undergoing internal review in planning as well as with consultants. As that review has proceeded, gaps have been identified that require further work to address those gaps. At this point in time, the estimated release date for as comprehensive a draft as possible is early February. Finally, he enjoyed being in Sacramento at the new mayors and councilmembers orientation of League of Cities conference with the mayor and Councilmembers Boles and Bier, and it was great to catch up statewide with other city managers and meet other elected officials across the state and realize how much all of our cities have in common.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that at the end of the meeting he would adjourn the meeting in honor of those who have lost their lives in Half Moon Bay this afternoon. He called a 15-minute recess and then reconvened the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
5. Accept the City of Pacifica's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and related financial reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022 PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the City of Pacifica's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), and other related financial reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022.
Asst. City Manager Carter introduced the staff report.
Dep. Finance Director Xie presented the staff report.
Mayor Bigstyck thanked them for the report detailing a very complex issue.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked for an explanation of direct and overlapping government activities debt and how it interrelates with the City of Pacifica.
Dep. Finance Director Xie stated that it is in the statistic section and normally they get the information from the county tax assessor’s or auditor’s office; this is for the credited agency to City Council Regular Meeting 14 January 23, 2023
take a look and see what our debt ratio is like.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought it has something to do with what percent of the debt of these other entities when they have parcel taxes and bonds and COPs and all the debt instruments they take out. She is looking at the Pacifica Elementary School District Laguna Salada and the estimated percentage applicable is 99.877% and that is probably because so many of the payors of that debt reside in Pacifica, whereas the community college district is a big thing in San Mateo County, not just Pacifica.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is a statistical faction of the report, which was prepared by an outside consultant, not the audit firm. It is usually a requirement of the ACFR.
Councilmember Boles referred to the $84.4 million mentioned as assets exceed liabilities and wanted to understand those numbers as she didn’t know if they included the long-term debt.
Dep. Finance Director Xie stated it did, as it was a full basis of accounting and captures all the fixed assets and the liabilities.
Councilmember Boles asked if it included our pension debt.
Dep. Finance Director Xie responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles asked for an explanation of debt we are currently carrying, i.e., $25.5 million in government activities that mentions the 2016 COP (certificate of participation) and $38 million in business type which she thought were the sewer bonds. She referred to the new Civic Center lease was the new $4 million that was added this year, but she was trying to understand what the older numbers are for.
Dep. Finance Director Xie stated the notes have all the details in the breakdown and for the governmental activity debt they have a 2016 COP and the 2019 pension bond. She explained the breakdown between the pension fund and the sewer later fund.
Asst. City Manager Carter further explained the explanations of each line item in the audit report, including issued services, governmental activities, and details from prior years.
City Manager Woodhouse added that the 2016 COPs are a refunding of the borrowing for the police station construction.
Councilmember Boles confirmed that was her question. She concluded they were still paying some of that off. She wanted to point out the wastewater bond and looking at possibly issuing other bonds for the five-year CIP, as it struck her that the principal they are borrowing was $22 million and the interest they are paying over the terms of the loan is $13 million which she thought was quite a lot. She referred to projections such as a 2% cost of living for salaries and she thought that might go up with inflation issues. She referred to CalCities and looking at financing, stating they recommended the best practice for audit firms, to work with them for a term of 3-5 years and have some change for a new perspective and new eyes.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that was an important point: the best practices applied unless they have new staff and new team on the auditor’s side so there is no conflict of interest. This was the case for their audit team and city team, as all staff were completely new, and that makes them compliant with best practice to continue.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 January 23, 2023
Dep. Finance Director Xie stated that the audit team firms generally have several engagement partners; one partner can work on this engagement for 3-4 years and they can turn it over to another engagement partner.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, eventually, they will go out for an RFP and solicit proposals. She wanted to highlight that it is difficult with staff to change the auditors because the first time of the new engagement is typically a more intense process.
Dep. Finance Director Xie stated that, with most other cities, most of the time they keep the same auditing firm for a long time because the engagement partners are different.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if they could take a moment and go over the certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reports is the highest forms of recognition by national centers. In response to Mayor Bigstyck asking if they will be applying again, Asst. City Manager Carter responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bigstyck congratulated our city and congratulations to the staff for putting together a report of this caliber. He opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments. He asked, if there was no deliberation, if they can have a motion.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to accept the City of Pacifica’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), and other related financial reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
6. Updates to the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt updates to the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics as recommended by the Council-appointed two Councilmember Ad Hoc Subcommittee, the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.
After confirming the order and format of the review of the items on the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics, City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report. The Council also confirmed they would provide initial thoughts as they occurred and following public comment would hold deliberation for refinements.
Councilmember Boles, Mayor Bigstyck, and City Manager Woodhouse reviewed the time limit for public comments and confirmed adding language to indicate it specifically in the document and avoid confusion.
Once they had gone through the material that had been previously edited, Mayor Bigstyck suggested they save the wordsmithing for deliberation, but if they have questions for anything specific the City Manager is going over, ask the specific questions.
City Manager Woodhouse then transitioned into the section on not requiring a reason for City Council Regular Meeting 16 January 23, 2023
abstention from vote, requesting clarification from the Asst. City Attorney.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified non-legal abstentions. Per the Conflict of Interest Code under the Political Reform Act, there is a process for stating the reasons for recusal, and they would need to follow that for legal and non-legal abstentions. Personal reasons to recuse themselves from an item would not need to be stated in the record.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if the process to leave the dais would be followed for both legal and nonlegal abstentions. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed a Councilmember could abstain from a vote; if it is a non-legal but a personal reason for recusing themselves, it is up to the Councilmember if they want to step off the dais. She stated that would eliminate any confusion as to whether they are participating in the item when you leave the dais, and she thought it was a best practice for leaving the dais for non-legal abstentions as well. Regarding the possibility of a Councilmember going through the deliberative process and abstain from voting at the last minute, Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they typically decide to disqualify themselves at the beginning of the item.
Councilmember Bier asked what a non-legal abstention would include and how it would proceed. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed the provision is about abstention from the vote for non-legal reasons; it provides a way for the Councilmember’s decision, such as a friendship or appearance of impropriety. If there is a friendship that isn’t a conflict under the Political Reform Act and you feel you could handle the matter in an unbiased manner, but you think in an abundance of caution because of the friendship, it would be a personal reason to abstain from the vote, it would be a good idea to handle it in the same way you would handle other conflicts where you just say that you will abstain from the item. You do not have to identify the actual conflict and you may either leave or remain on the dais.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus, Mayor Bigstyck, and Councilmember Boles discussed the choice of the Councilmember to recuse oneself and its effect on what people bring forward to Council.
City Manager Woodhouse confirmed that abstention from voting applies in various scenarios.
He added that a lot of times the question about recusal or abstention from vote is a very issue specific discussion and hence why the City Attorney exists to advise Councilmembers about what they should do.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought they have to be careful about not getting into the specifics as City Manager mentioned, but it is a very personal decision. If it is a non-legal abstention that you are not required by law, you need to consider why you would or would not participate, and for every Councilmember that is a process that they are willing and able to help with.
City Manager Woodhouse continued the staff report.
Councilmember Bier asked about the language surrounding tie votes. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, regarding tie votes, “generally” means that no action has been taken on a matter. She thought there could be instances where a tie vote means something different than no action, and this speaks specifically to appeals or land use decisions. There could be instances where a tie vote means more than just that the underlying action stands. She stated that is why “generally” was often used as a caveat meaning that we can’t speak to every instance and there may be certain exceptions that are not being contemplated now.
Councilmember Boles asked for an explanation of the Rule of Necessity. Asst. City Attorney City Council Regular Meeting 17 January 23, 2023
Bazzano stated that the Rule of Necessity is a rule under the Political Reform Act that allows a Councilmember to participate even though they do have a disqualifying conflict of interest. If there are three Councilmembers with a conflict of interest but they need at least three Councilmembers to take the action, such as an ordinance, the Rule of Necessity would apply and the three Councilmembers who have conflicts of interest would draw lots to determine which one is brought back in to participate in the item.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus confirmed an example would include three members who work for the school district. Mayor Bigstyck asked when the last time was that they had to draw lots in order to determine something legal in Pacifica. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano didn’t know about Pacifica but confirmed it does happen.
Councilmembers Bier and Boles requested a footnote to the legal definition, and Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they can add that footnote with the regulation number.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed and continued the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked a question on reconsideration and if it would be possible to make a motion to reconsider something that happened years ago. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, in that instance, she would propose a new agenda item to discuss that topic again.
She stated that it wouldn’t be a motion to reconsider because they don’t have an item before them to reconsider after all that time has passed. After Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus added a note about resolutions, Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that you would propose a new agenda item to reconsider either repealing or rescinding certain resolutions.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked for clarification on a sentence that defined when you could do a motion to reconsider. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought one suggestion would be to reinsert that sentence so that the motion to reconsider can only be taken at the meeting at which the action was taken. She stated that you could add some other language down further in the paragraph that indicates that nothing in that section would preclude a Councilmember from bringing an item back to consider a prior action of the Council at a future agenda through the agendizing process set forth in the rules.
Mayor Bigstyck reiterated the confirmed changes to content and format, which Asst. City Attorney Bazzano verified. Asst. City Attorney Bazzano confirmed there is nothing that would prevent a Councilmember from bringing that issue up at a future Council meeting as a new agenda item. She stated that the motion to reconsider would be moot because the item had already passed and action had already taken place. She stated that is consistent with Roberts Rules which provides that the motion to reconsider needs to be made at that meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse continued the staff report.
Councilmember Bier raised a question about clarity of language, and City Manager Woodhouse confirmed that the tracked change clarified the language further than the previous language. He then continued the staff report.
Councilmember Boles asked about the definition of personal privilege and the motion to raise a question of personal privilege. Councilmember Boles asked if City Manager Woodhouse can explain how that would be used, i.e. if a Councilmember would interrupt another Councilmember but somehow get the mayor’s recognition.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 January 23, 2023
City Manager Woodhouse asked Asst. City Attorney if she had any insight on that personal privilege provision.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that she has seen it done during deliberations and after public comments: the maker of the motion may interrupt another speaker if the mayor recognizes the privilege, and the motion does not require a second motion. She stated that the right of a Councilmember to address Council on a question of personal privilege is usually related to someone having said something that is negative about their character, motives, or integrity, and the Councilmember wants to address it immediately. That is when she has seen that motion made, but it doesn’t come up very frequently.
City Manager Woodhouse continued with the staff report.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano noted the motion to take from the table wasn’t necessary because there is a way for Councilmembers to agendize items.
City Manager Woodhouse continued with the staff report and reached the item on administrative matters regarding agendizing items. Due to the amount of public interest in this item, Mayor Bigstyck reminded Council that deliberation will come after public comment in order for them to have a more robust conversation.
City Manager Woodhouse described the recommendations to the process of agendizing items (which do not change the ability of a Councilmember to place an item on the agenda), including extending the 7-day timeline to a 10-day timeline and assessing items that take more than 1 hour of staff time to analyze and create a staff report.
Mayor Bigstyck referred to the possible change as written that an item may require more than one hour of staff time and asked if their deliberation tonight may include changing one hour to five hour or what they think is an acceptable workload for an agendized item brought forth by a Councilmember. He stated that the reason he is bringing up that question is because the original text did say requiring a detailed staff report which he thought was an ambiguous term. If the idea is to hone in on what is a reasonable amount of staff time to bring forth for Council discussion, then an interpretation could be that before you could call for more than an hour of work from staff unilaterally and now it whittles down to what may be an important issue going forward that maybe more TLC is needed to enable that Council person to discuss it with fellow Councilmembers. He thought a part of their discussion could be honing in on what a reasonable amount of time is, i.e. one hour or five hours.
City Manager Woodhouse thought Council could discuss that parameter and he would be happy to offer his input about staff workload in the context of that discussion.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they get to work with staff on a constant basis, and with a recommendation like this, his initial response is that it makes sense, as they work with them, know how they operate, and want to keep the machine functioning and running smoothly. He also appreciates that the original nomenclature is a detailed staff report. He stated that soon they will be going into public comment and with some of the phrases used questioning the democracy of the change, what might be helpful to him are suggestions from the public as to what a reasonable workload would be when a single Councilmember requests to have an item agendized.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they keep in mind during that discussion that there are City Council Regular Meeting 19 January 23, 2023
five Councilmembers. He then continued the staff report.
Councilmember Boles asked about a portion that stated Councilmembers shall notify the mayor of planned attendance at meetings wherever possible. She wanted to clarify the intent and how much Mayor Bigstyck wanted them to tell him, such as meeting with a neighbor about potholes, which is a meeting about city business. She asked if the intention was to make sure they are not violating the Brown Act by going to a meeting at the same time.
Mayor Bigstyck asked to be corrected if he is wrong, but he thought this refers specifically to city-led meetings.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus referred to it as a wider scope, i.e. an organization at which she would speak.
Councilmember Beckmeyer added that she would inform him that she would be attending.
Councilmember Boles thought it was okay if more than two Councilmembers go as long as they aren’t speaking and talking to each other.
Mayor Bigstyck asked, when it comes up that they will be giving the state of the city speech at the City Democrats, about the proper Brown Act compliant procedures they need to follow, such as other councilmembers being there.
City Manager Woodhouse thought this section was more to how a Councilmember is representing city issues at a meeting and making sure, if you are going to appear in a personal capacity and express personal opinions, you clarify that those statements don’t represent the position of the Council but, if the city does have a position on that issue, you state that you are representing that position as you are a representative of the city.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano expressed her understanding that the concern was regarding the language about notifying the mayor applies to meetings where Councilmembers may attend before another governmental agency or organization or if it applies to even private meetings, such as one-on-one meetings with constituents. She thinks the answer is no as it doesn’t extend that far as the intent was that it addresses when a Councilmember goes to the County Board of Supervisors meetings or local Chamber of Commerce meetings, rather than private one-on-one meetings with constituents.
Councilmember Boles agreed, adding not just constituents but also meetings with public officials like Josh Becker, and do they need to tell them about all of those things if they are meeting one on one with someone when there is not a possibility of another Councilmember being there.
She understood that they need to convey the city’s position, but she wished to clarify how much they need to notify each other and the mayor.
Councilmember Bier asked whether they notify the mayor or the city manager, as she noted that, if she was going to a meeting with Josh Becker, she would tell the city manager.
City Manager Woodhouse thought that was a good point and agreed that that section should be revised to denote notifying the city manager. His thought was that this notification was not going to specifically define every agency or organization, but it was not meant to be one-on-one meetings; the intent of this section is more toward, when you are going to a larger group meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Bier and City Manager Woodhouse further clarified that, when a vote is taken, a Councilmember represents that vote, whether or not they agreed with it. Then, if a Councilmember wanted to clarify that speaking personally on an issue regarding what their position was in the meeting, they could do that but they would have to be very specific about clarifying that it was a personal opinion and not the position of the Council.
City Manager Woodhouse completed the staff report.
After asking Councilmembers if they had any further questions, Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, informed Council of technological difficulties with the live stream. She then thought they had time to read her written comments and she wanted to briefly convey hers and others’ opposition to the changes in Section 11.3, and gave an example.
Jan Hansen, Pacifica, referred to technical issues with the financial report. Mayor Bigstyck advised her to send her comments on the financial report to Council. Ms. Hansen then referred to Section 11, Subsection 3, regarding things being kicked down the road, and she shared her thoughts on the wordage proposed regarding a timeframe.
Mark Hubble, Pacifica, voiced his concerns about the issue of getting items on the agenda, as he thought a lot of people have dropped off the meeting and would have taken part in the conversation.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, appreciated the comments by the public, adding that she felt it was alarming and understood they may not have meant it to be alarming, and shared her thoughts on the issue.
Kimberly Williams, Pacifica, stated this was the first time she has been aware of this issue, and shared her concerns and thoughts about how to address the process issue for full public participation.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated that he supports Dinah Verby’s comments and shared his thoughts on the issue regarding minority positions on controversial issues.
Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify that, no matter whether the issue is controversial or mundane, there is not a majority of Council required to put an item on the agenda - a single Councilmember can place an item on the agenda. The difference is the amount of staff and city resources spent in preparing the item, i.e., if a Councilmember wants to raise rent control, what is placed on the agenda is whether Council wants to prioritize staff time to work on the issue, and as in every other Council decision, it is a majority vote, democracy; the majority vote is what directs the city’s resources and staff time. He stated that for clarification any item can get on the agenda, but it is how Council prioritizes where staff resources are spent and an alternative is that Council can say it is a big issue and maybe should be taken up during goal setting.
Mayor Bigstyck thanked him and thought it would be prudent to begin the deliberative process with 11.3. Because the word “controversial” was brought up a number of times, he asked if Council was okay with getting rid of the word, “controversial”. Seeing no disagreement, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting 21 January 23, 2023
Bigstyck stated to the public that they had not intended to create controversy with that language.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, if the item is going to be complex, they might want to hone in how much staff time is going to be devoted to it. He alluded to the notion that what the original wording said is “all agenda items require a detailed staff report.” He was in the audience when John Keener was trying to get that item agendized in 2015. His recollection is that Mr. Keener brought it up on the dais and the discussion among Council in that moment was to take a vote on whether to bring it up at a future meeting and it was killed in that vote. He stated that it is well-taken that the community is giving them an example of when an item might be important to everyone, they don’t want it to be summarily killed because of nomenclature and an ethics code that people aren’t necessarily reading. He referred to Ms. Williams asking about best practices in other Councils and asked City Manager Woodhouse if he could speak on that.
City Manager Woodhouse highlights two points: 1) Each city is different and it is up to Councils to decide their rules and they can do whatever this 5-member Council decides they want to do. 2) In his experience, this is a best practice and he had polled all the city managers in San Mateo County and the ones who had responded all had a version of the one-hour rule. He stated that they haven’t done an extensive survey, but tools to manage getting staff focus from nondiscretionary city items they need to focus on and Council priorities are a common best practice so just one voice isn’t going to send staff resources down a rabbit hole when it is not known whether the majority of Council supports that use of resources. That is the premise of council manager form of government, and his responsibility is to manage what they are trying to produce and bring forth to Council good analysis of items on the agenda.
Mayor Bigstyck thanked him for that and remembered that City Manager Woodhouse had provided him with the names of the cities. He emphasized that it was helpful to know that we aren’t going to be the outlier of the region to create draconian anti-free speech, anti-democracy measures by adopting what seems to be a similar practice to what other municipalities do. He was not discussing this for the purpose of opposing to free speech in considering these changes. He stated that there were two other interesting points brought up that he thought needed discussion: 1) The point was well-taken by him because they aren’t used to being districts and they don’t know what it looks like to have district-specific needs that suddenly arise.
If there are one or two unique issues faced by his district and one was escalated to a point where he felt some sense of urgency, it might be that he wanted it brought as a more thoroughly analyzed item than one hour, as he needs to let his fellow Councilmembers know it is happening and he might need background analyzed. 2) The point transitioned into whether it had to be one hour or if it could be five hours. He stated that, in many cities, the best practice is two hours. He thought Councilmembers could hone in on what a proper workload looks like, and they can get to something closer to a detailed staff report as it originally says but without going overboard to the detriment of a work plan they are trying to enact. He then felt it is back to process as, for any given item, about how they devote staff time. Generally speaking, they have goal setting in March when they say what items they would like to work on for the year, and things come up between this work plan and the next work plan. He thought something important to say to the public is that they are not trying to give their power to the City Manager; the City Manager knows what staff time is needed to accomplish issues at any given moment and they need to work closely with him to ensure that their work plan is enacted and, if not, and they are taking resources away from that, they want to make sure that, as a majority, they are directing staff time to work on something new, likely to the detriment of something they had agreed upon prior.
Councilmember Bier stated that she wanted to apologize to the community for the delay in the City Council Regular Meeting 22 January 23, 2023
live stream. She feels like the whole idea around this section is so that items, moving forward, have the proper amount of staff time to work on them; she feels that the language they used to change was very confusing for the community. She stated that, from her personal experience on Council, they haven’t had any problems with this. She stated that, if she has something she wants to put onto the agenda, she would talk to the City Manager; it would come on the agenda as a consideration item, where we would discuss it, and based on that discussion, it would move forward to whatever happens next. She stated that usually, what happens next is what takes the larger amount of staff time. She feels that it works for them, and she wasn’t sure if changing the words in that section is going to change that process. She wanted to be sure the community isn’t feeling that they are chopping them off. She stated the idea of the districts made her eyes open up, as her district does have things that aren’t like another district. She likes the idea of changing the timeline to ten days which she feels is a must. She stated that things have been going fine for them with the current process.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he feels sometimes things come up that are of a more urgent nature, such as the eviction moratorium that came up in 2015, a very time-sensitive thing that would be agendized more robustly than one hour’s worth and would need to be agendized swiftly.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus remarked that, even if they were elected in districts, they still represent the entire city and care about what happens in the entire city. She understood they may have an item that applies more to their district than another one, but she thinks they are all reasonable and do represent the entire city.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that this item has generated a lot of conversation in the community and that tells her that the community is paying attention to what they do, and she appreciates that. She referred to public comments they received in email, and she is trying to figure out all the statements made about restricting the democratic process. She stated that it seemed that having the majority of Council agree to put something on the Council agenda was, in some way, limiting the democratic process, but she didn’t know if she agrees with that. She was worried that what was being called for was a specific rule here that is different from the way Council operates as a whole. She stated that everything they do is by majority, and while not written down, they strive for is consensus. She made suggestions on simplifying and streamlining the language, namely that “the City Manager shall consult with the Mayor about when a proposed item should be agendized for Council consideration”. She stated, to Councilmember Bier’s point, that is what they do now. She gets all the stuff about urgency, state deadlines, etc., but she also thinks that is exactly what is factored into that conversation between the City Manager and Mayor when agendizing items.
Councilmember Boles referred to Councilmember Bier’s remarks and asked if this is problem or are they trying to fix something that isn’t broken and upsetting everyone in the process. She asked if it has been an issue and has a Councilmember gone rogue and made a lot of work for staff that no one else agreed to. She thought they all respect the staff and try to be mindful of their work and understand that there are time constraints, etc. She asked if they need to change it at all. She liked what Ms. Williams said, to not codify staff needs over public process.
She stated that they are elected to represent the people and bring their issues to debate and decide what the best policies are going forward. She thought, if it becomes an issue and takes away from the process that has been working well before, they can revisit it.
Mayor Bigstyck stated, before further deliberation, the time is 10:44 p.m. and he asked if someone would like to make a motion.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 January 23, 2023
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
Vote: 5-0
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he personally favors leaving in the ten days. He felt the part they need to hammer out is the question between what “detailed” means in the first version versus what might be an appropriate constraint on staff time for agendizing an item if they choose to.
He stated that, if they are going with the new language, he favors keeping the language of “depending on urgency etc.” in, and that is because he thinks this tells people what they can expect, Councilmembers what they can expect. He felt the real question is the original language requiring a detailed staff report versus the new language of what that really means if one Councilmember agendizes something.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked him if he can give her an example of why they need to have the language that she proposed striking out to stay in. She can’t imagine any scenario of why that is urgent.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he would rework it a little bit, but depending on the urgency of the proposed item that the City Manager shall consult with the Mayor, he thought it was important to say that even though common practice would be a minimum of ten days or seven days, but if there is something that becomes more urgent, there is instruction that it isn’t prohibitive to bring it forward even though they passed whatever time frame they have. He liked the idea of “after City Manager shall consult with the Mayor about proposed agenda item, such as can occur for action deadlines that apply to proposed state legislation” and he would go a step beyond and say “or other urgent matters”. He stated that it is demonstrating an example to someone who might be new and doesn’t know what these things can look like. He stated those are the reasons for his suggestion to reword the phrasing.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thinks she hears that he is saying that, depending on the urgency of the proposed item is what allows the Councilmember to actually put something on the agenda with less than ten days’ notice.
Mayor Bigstyck agreed that it is depending on the urgency.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that is what she was saying, that she didn’t understand it that way at all until he clarified that. She asked if that made sense to Councilmember Bier.
Councilmember Bier agreed that she didn’t understand that and she thinks there are too many words. She is trying to come up with the new language that she would prefer, adding that she feels like it is what they already do. She didn’t think they would move something forward if there isn’t a consensus to move it forward. She stated that, after it’s on the agenda, they talk about it, and ultimately they make the decision and direct staff to move forward or not; thus, she didn’t think that all of that part is necessary in the document.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that his experience so far is that, if he brings an item to the City Manager that he thinks they should agendize, there usually follows a conversation about what that will take, and then he is asked if he still wants to go forward or hold off. He stated that there is a respectful conversation going on backstage. He remembers Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus’ first election in which of the four people running for two spots, one may not have understood being as robustly considerate of time constraints; that might have been an example in which rules like City Council Regular Meeting 24 January 23, 2023
this might have come in handy. He cross-referenced that with the fact of being the other side of district elections where Councilmember Bier ran unopposed. He stated that, if the person who ran against her had run unopposed, it would have been intuitive to follow the decorum as the rules would suggest.
Councilmember Bier stated that they can’t put a policy here that is only addressing one type of person.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if she was saying to leave it as it used to be, i.e., the entire struck out version, except changing 7 to 10.
Councilmember Bier stated that was what she was saying.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that part of bringing the revision forward is that the existing provision says that one Councilmember can request an item to be agendized seven days or now ten days in advance. The existing language says all agendized item requiring a detailed staff report may be placed on the agenda if the request is made seven days before the Council meeting. Therefore, a Councilmember can come to him and ask for consideration of an ordinance to do “X” on the agenda next week, and development of ordinances requires a bunch of city attorney time and money to pay the attorney’s office, planning staff, or whatever department the ordinance affects. He stated that is an example of how important it is, i.e., “it is important for the policy to be transparent about the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of the governing board and staff”. He stated that the existing provision is seeming to say that the scenario he just mentioned can happen, and at one Councilmember’s decision, they would have to spend $10,000 and endless hours of staff time to prepare that ordinance and get it on the agenda for the next Council meeting. He stated that part of the goal of clarifying this process in a best practice is to be transparent about how this governance should work.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that something a lot of commenters raised was the moment that happened in 2015. He stated the idea was along the lines of what happened regarding an eviction moratorium: Mr. Keener wanted to agendize that, and during that meeting it was shot down by the rest of Council on how it went, and that never came to fruition. He stated that, if it did happen, this is suggesting that, if it had been requested otherwise, what would have been successful was getting the eviction moratorium agendized, and if they can get it together quickly, putting the ordinance ready for a vote is what that translates into. He thought the difference is that it was known in advance that the ordinance was going to ultimately fail, but in the version that is being suggested, maybe it was going to fail, but there is value in agendizing it; therefore, there is a robust discussion about it and it may lead to a deeper process that is gained by having that robust discussion, even though it is a losing proposition. He thought something along those lines is what is being suggested by having that ability.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that an eviction moratorium decision is an immense amount of staff and city attorney time to prepare. If a Councilmember comes forward asking Council to consider whether to pursue or spend staff resources on preparing an eviction moratorium, that is the agendized item: Council discusses it, public gives input to the discussion, Council votes and, if a majority, then staff is directed to prepare the item. In the meantime, as part of the report, he would list a litany of other things they are working on that they will not be able to get done if this is happening but Council gets to decide. Then staff prepares it. But the initial item that is agendized didn’t require much time as they put together what is an eviction moratorium and the legal issues listed to be considered. He stated that is how it has always worked since he became City Manager on any item brought forth despite this rule. If it would require a lot of City Council Regular Meeting 25 January 23, 2023
staff time, the item he brings forth is a short decision. He mentioned Councilmember O’Neill’s request for the city to pursue public/private partnership with the school district which would cost $10,000 to do the feasibility study; we brought an item to Council and asked if a majority wants to pursue it, and Council agreed to pursue it and they pursued. He stated it wasn’t on the work plan but a new item to be added.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is important to note that the City Attorney’s office takes the direction from the majority of Council and it is important for them to hear from a majority of Council that they want them to do work as significant as preparing an ordinance.
She also pointed out that, in all these scenarios, the public still has an opportunity to come and provide public comment and there is a democratic process, i.e., majority of Council decides, the public can comment on whether it is agendized by one or if it comes to Council for majority consideration for further direction and action.
Mayor Bigstyck asked, in the case of an eviction moratorium, if they would need full Council to weigh in on that before drafting the ordinance.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, in playing out that scenario, if the City Manager came to City Attorney and stated he had a Councilmember who wants to agendize the eviction moratorium ordinance, they would say it is a lot of work and they don’t feel comfortable preparing the item without getting direction from a majority of the Council; they would want to hear from a majority of Council before they undertake all the effort, time, and cost to the city.
Councilmember Boles stated that she was rereading Ms. Verby’s description of what happened about the eviction moratorium. She stated that there was a short agenda put forth and then there was discussion with a lot of public comment in support of it but it was voted down by the majority. She thought often Councils are split 3-2 and the question is whether they are totally eliminating the minority voice. She stated that two Councilmembers and a lot of the public may really want something but, for whatever reason, the other three don’t and she asked if there is a way that something that important to our community still gets reviewed and addressed. She referred to City Attorney Kenyon saying that there were two different ways that a lot of cities are organized for agendizing items, i.e., one is what they are discussing now and the other is where you have two Councilmembers to put something on the agenda, and you are not the one lone rogue Councilmember to do something and you have to at least convince another person, but it still gives the opportunity for the minority voice on Council to have a say on what gets discussed. She stated that she could read Half Moon Bay’s ordinance as that is the way theirs is written, i.e., “Councilmember may request an item to be considered on a future agenda and, if a second Councilmember agrees with the request, staff will prepare a staff report”. She thought that was another way to look at it if they are worried about a rogue Councilmember wanting to put a lot of work on staff that is not supported otherwise.
Councilmember Bier stated that, either way, they are still going to have the conversation about how they want it to move forward and there will be an opportunity for them to vote on whether they want it to move forward or not.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus suggested a change and further thoughts. She stated that, if only two people are requesting it and it’s going to fail, they spent a lot of time on something that isn’t going to pass, although they have given the public the right to speak and it could change the mind of someone who was against something, but she thought that happens in the very beginning when they bring it forward for discussion. The members of the public and Council get to speak and she admits she has changed her mind lots of times, based on rethinking what was City Council Regular Meeting 26 January 23, 2023
proposed, input from the community, and what other Councilmembers have said. She sees it coming to the entire Council.
Mayor Bigstyck favored keeping it at one Councilmember can agendize. He thought, even if they are the lone wolf, they might have a good sense of something that the community should have an opportunity to speak out on. How much staff time should go to a report that one Councilmember asks for is an interesting question, but even a one-hour staff report is not nothing and thought it could be thoroughly augmented by a Councilmember who feels passionately about an item coupled with whatever the turnout is from the public on that item.
He thought, even for items that aren’t strictly agendized, he has seen many times an outpouring of public during public communication in which the entire room was filled and person after person robustly gave feedback to the point that Council had enough to work with and could agendize later. He thought they were accustomed to giving robust opportunity for public feedback, and he didn’t know that anything they changed would change that. He thought the point is well-taken that there is a process to come to a conclusion of what Council as the majority of the body determines should take substantial staff time. He isn’t sure if one hour quite fits the bill for the analysis needed when one Councilmember does a request, but he is convinced it shouldn’t take up half of the work plan for the year. He stated that this time, he is erring on the side of what is brought before them, i.e. getting rid of “controversial items” and changing it to ten days and maybe adding whether it is one hour of staff time or five. He stated that, after all the discussion he has just heard, the language proposed makes sense to him.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus suggested two hours.
Councilmember Bier reread the language and thought there might be confusion where it stated if staff time should be spent preparing a report on the proposed item. She stated that there will have to be a small report if they are going to discuss it in the first place. What they would be discussing later is what direction they are going to give moving forward. She thought there was confusion there.
Mayor Bigstyck agreed it made sense. He asked if they should just strike “preparing a report on the proposed item” and reworking that to be something other than that. He thought they were getting to whether staff time should be spent on taking a deeper dive.
Councilmember Bier stated that her point is that would not be the only thing they would be talking about on the item. She didn’t think they would come and ask if they should spend time on this or not, but rather a small report and they would talk about the item, get public comment, deliberate, and give direction.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano was going to suggest that “may require more than one hour of staff time to completely analyze and prepare the agenda item” so that it encompasses the entire item rather than the staff report.
Mayor Bigstyck asked her to repeat it.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, instead of saying “to prepare a staff report for Council consideration”. If the items that may require more than one hour of staff time to completely analyze the agenda item.
Councilmember Boles asked if she was making a distinction between analyzing and the staff report itself.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 January 23, 2023
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively, clarifying that it is not just the staff report, but the entire item, as the staff report could take an hour, but you still need the ordinance and the resolutions or whatever you need to completely analyze the item.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that was what they were talking about, analyzing the item to bring forward to determine whether more time should be spent doing the resolution in the future.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understood but thought Councilmember Bier was saying that the threshold issues shouldn’t be one hour of staff time to prepare the staff report because the staff report has to be prepared either way; rather, it should be how long is it going to take to completely prepare the item, whether it be an ordinance, agreement, some other document, and that time limit applies to the entire item as there will be a staff report that has to be prepared for that item regardless.
Mayor Bigstyck suggested clarifying language: “if staff time should be spent on taking up an item” or “fully taking up the proposed item”.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they could say more than one hour to prepare.
City Manager Woodhouse stated preparing the staff report, in his mind, is researching the item, analyzing the item, evaluating alternatives, providing the analysis background discussion, etc.
They could simplify it and say the time limit related to preparing an item for Council consideration, and they don’t have to say staff report, just prepare an item which means a staff report, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that is always going to take more than an hour.
City Manager Woodhouse gave an example, i.e., there was a piece of legislation related to net energy usage, a PCE item, and it was a quick conversation with PCE, a quick request of what Burlingame would do in their letter and was a fairly quick writing of the staff report, give or take one hour. He stated that he does a lot of these himself and he didn’t do a lot of analysis on it, just mentioned the analysis that Burlingame conducted and attached it, and it was agendized as a legislative support item. He stated that was basically an hour item. He stated that there are often a lot of issues to analyze on either side, and then it gets to where it will be complicated to analyze that and take several departments’ staff’s time, and each time it is a judgment call. He stated that there are one-hour items that can be easily agendized for Council decision on that agenda for a yes or no. He stated that there are others where there needs to be whether they want to spend all that money on developing that ordinance.
Mayor Bigstyck thought there must be a way they can agendize something quickly and enable Council to have a discussion as to whether they want to take a deeper dive on it and fully flesh it out and pursue it or is Council not willing to proceed. He stated that there are instances where they want to be empowered to have that conversation and have it publicly. He thought one Councilmember should be able to bring forth that conversation. That shouldn’t mean staff time is taken to fully assess all the ramifications, but they should put a staff report together to conclude whether they will have the conversation and they decide if they want staff to do everything needed if there is a majority of Council.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought something the City Manager just said made a distinction between an item such as writing the net zero energy letter. She stated that the difference in that City Council Regular Meeting 28 January 23, 2023
case is that it would take an hour or so to prepare a brief description in the staff report with alternatives for Council to vote on it that night versus something that will take more than an hour to prepare, do research, look at, and eventually have Council vote on it, as it is probably going to be more detailed than that. She stated that those cases are the ones they want to agendize to decide if they’re going to do it or not. She stated that the description doesn’t talk about the first example, so it feels like they are going to have to agendize every decision they are going to make. But they are not, as a lot of times, they don’t have to agendize a discussion about voting on something brought forward by a Councilmember, and the City Attorney put it on the agenda and they vote on it, but the one that needs more study, before any staff spends hours to prepare the full item, they would direct that to be done. She asked if she is correct.
Councilmember Bier agreed, like they do now, and that is what they do now. She stated that Councilmember O’Neill brought up the subject of public/private partnerships and they discussed and are still discussing it, but they had to make the decision as to whether they are going to or not. She thought that was what they do already and all of this was confusing the community as well as her. She asked how they can simplify it so staff is given enough time to do what they need to do and they are allowed to talk about it and make that decision.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if people object to the “detailed” staff report (which was in the old one) instead of specifically an hour. She suggested ton continue to say that they can “place it on the agenda with ten days… a Councilmember request to agendize an item for consideration shall require the majority approval of Council”.
Councilmember Bier stated that what Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus said is that they decide if one Councilmember can bring an item.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that in ten days one person can bring an item and if it is going to require a detailed staff report, they all make a decision of whether to continue on that item or not. She asked if that makes sense.
Councilmember Bier stated that is kind of how she feels about it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he is trying to coalesce a few of the comments he just heard. He stated Councilmember Beckmeyer was talking about the converse, which is not explicitly mentioned. An item that requires less than one hour of staff time to prepare for Council consideration would be agendized for Council consideration and decision; an item requiring more than one hour of staff time to prepare for Council consideration would be prepared and agendized for Council to give direction on the next steps on the item, i.e., to spend more time and more analysis.
Mayor Bigstyck and Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus agreed on that language.
Councilmember Boles and Mayor Bigstyck discussed the adequate time frame for the staff report, i.e. one or two hours.
Councilmember Boles and Councilmember Bier discussed the issue of majority/minority, Council shifting back and forth, and the possibility of silencing the minority voice.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they need to vote on whether to extend their meeting further.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to extend the meeting to midnight; seconded by City Council Regular Meeting 29 January 23, 2023
Councilmember Boles.
Vote: 5-0
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he is relatively adamant that they keep it to one member able to agendize on the one hand. On the other hand, they decide as a majority and having one Councilmember having the ability to agendize sometime to about two hours of staff time to prepare a report, brought to Council’s meeting, and they can discuss it, with public opportunity to comment on it - that is giving minority voice. If it should happen that the majority decides that they don’t want to continue the discussion and put more staff time, he thought that was as close to minority voice as they can get. He stated that it will always be a majority of Council that makes a decision.
Councilmember Boles stated that what she is hearing from the public is a little bit of distress.
She didn’t know if there was a lot of opinion in the other direction or not but where there are a lot of public voices for or against one item and Council votes otherwise, and whether the public feels listened to. She thinks that is the fear that she is hearing in a lot of the comments.
Mayor Bigstyck asked her to say it into the microphone as he thinks that was an important point she raised and he wanted to make sure everyone hears what she said.
Councilmember Boles reiterated that she was hearing from the public is the fear that when a good number of the public come to speak in favor or against a particular item, and then Council votes the other way, there is not a trust that they feel listened to, and she thinks that is where some of the fear is coming in the comments, as maybe there is only a minority in Council that strongly wants to support it, but there is a strong public will. She concluded that they can vote them out or recall as there is a recourse.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that there are 38,000 people in Pacifica and seven people came and talked, who have a very good distribution system between them and passed the items to their group. She asked how large is that actual group, a lot larger than 6 or 7, and that is such a small minority of our public. She stated that it doesn’t necessarily represent our whole public.
Councilmember Boles agreed that the whole public isn’t here, but the people who are engaged.
She stated she wasn’t talking about just this issue.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus agreed it is any issue.
Councilmember Boles stated she feels better about it by taking out “controversial” and having more staff time and having it come back to them.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if she feels good about Councilmember Beckmeyer’s idea of having the converse.
Councilmember Boles agreed.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if they have consensus.
Councilmember Bier verified what they were having consensus about.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 January 23, 2023
City Manager Woodhouse restated what he said and noted he was open to any revisions to the following: removing “potentially controversial items,” updating the timeline to ten days before the next Council meeting for a request to place an item on an agenda, adding staff reports of over and under an hour of staff time, and those requiring more than an hour of staff time to be agendized for Council direction on next steps.
Mayor Bigstyck, Councilmember Boles, Councilmember Bier, and City Manager Woodhouse confirmed that the amount of staff time spent on a staff report would be updated to two hours.
Councilmember Beckmeyer restated two hours, ten days distinction. There can be things agendized to discuss versus things that can be agendized, discussed and voted on.
City Manager Woodhouse asked City Clerk Coffey to read the edits back.
City Clerk Coffey stated, for Section 11-3, “an individual Councilmember may agendize an item for a City Council meeting by contacting the City Manager. Items that may require less than two hours of staff time to prepare for Council consideration can be agendized for Council consideration and decision. Items that may require more than two hours of staff time to prepare for Council consideration will first be agendized for Council consideration and direction on next steps. Requests from Councilmembers to place an item on the agenda shall be made to the City Manager a minimum of ten days before the next City Council meeting. Depending on the urgency of the proposed item such as can occur for action deadlines that apply to proposed state legislation, the City Manager shall consult with the Mayor about when a proposed item should be agendized for Council consideration.
The Council, City Manager, and Asst. City Attorney discussed edits to make the language clear and concise regarding the urgency of proposed items and the next step of Council consideration City Clerk Coffey stated that she switched the view to a clean version and read the edited version: “An individual Councilmember may agendize an item for Council meeting by contacting the City Manager. Items that may require less than two hours of staff time to prepare for Council consideration can be agendized for Council consideration and decision. Items that may require more than two hours of staff time to prepare for Council consideration will first be agendized for a future Council meeting for discussion and direction on next steps.” Councilmember Bier and Mayor Bigstyck discussed clarification on the “urgent” wording.
City Clerk Coffey read additional edits: “Except for items where the Mayor and City Manager have determined an urgency request from Councilmembers to place an item on the agenda shall be made to the City Manager a minimum of ten days before the next City Council meeting.
The City Manager shall consult with the Mayor about when the proposed item should be agendized for Council consideration.”
The Council, City Manager, and Asst. City Attorney discussed edits to make the language clear and concise regarding the timeline for urgent items to be agendized.
Mayor Bigstyck gauged Council’s agreement with the edits. He asked if there are any other parts of this section that they wanted to take up.
Councilmember Boles would like to consider adding something. She referred to the 3-minute comment section, and as she was reading Half Moon Bay’s ordinance, they had another City Council Regular Meeting 31 January 23, 2023
sentence that discussed translation services for public speakers.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano pointed out that, under the Brown Act, public speakers whose comments are translated into a different language get double the time.
The Council, City Manager, and Asst. City Attorney discussed and agreed upon adding the doubling of the time for those who need translation services.
Councilmember Boles asked a clarifying question on the amount of time for appeals and rebuttals.
City Manager Woodhouse recalled Council discussing that you take up to ten minutes for the appeal and up to three minutes for rebuttal.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked, if they only use eight minutes, can they have five for their rebuttal.
City Manager Woodhouse said they cannot; the point is that you take as much as you want up to ten minutes and you get three minutes for rebuttal. If you take 5 or 8 minutes, you still get three minutes for rebuttal.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that specifically that idea is giving both parties have equal time to do what they are doing. He liked it because it is clear and gives both parties equal time to do what they need to do.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that two items that aren’t resolved are related to a standing special meeting date. He mentioned that whenever they have the need for special meetings, they poll Councilmembers and they figure out a time and that is their ad hoc approach.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the Council calendar would reflect a hold on the fifth Mondays as a special meeting date if needed. He stated that the other items was whether they want to revisit or ask staff to refine the motion to reconsider language as they discussed it earlier and felt the language was confusing and they needed to get back to it.
The Council came to a consensus on reverting to the original language.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano highlighted a sentence about reconsideration that could benefit from further conciseness. Councilmember Boles asked if it would be heard at the same meeting, and Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
City Manager Woodhouse referred to the last sentence regarding a Councilmember having the ability to bring an item back to consider at a future Council meeting as a new agenda item and asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if any Councilmember would be able to do so regardless of the outcome.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano answered affirmatively: A Councilmember could bring back an item at a future meeting, and there is nothing in future agenda item that would preclude.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus restated that you can bring anything back that happened in the past as a new agenda item.
Councilmember Boles asked if it needs to be part of reconsideration.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 January 23, 2023
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that a motion to reconsider is a specific parliamentary procedure to have the body consider something they just took action on, such as they just learned X/Y/Z was important but they didn’t have that information at the time they made the motion and a member of the majority that was successful in the original motion can bring back the action for a motion to reconsider. It is a very specific parliamentary procedure and not meant to preclude that item from ever coming back to the body, just revisit the issue to decide whether there is a different decision or outcome the body wants to make.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if the Council can have it agendized for consideration after the meeting itself.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, stating that it would just be a new item.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify that, theoretically, a Councilmember on either side of a vote on an issue could at each agenda request that the item be agendized again, as infinitum, going through the same vote. He didn’t say that happens but it is possible.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus wanted to ask a question about ties. She stated that, in Robert’s rules, if there is tie and someone has recused themselves and they are in the back and it is 2-2 and it loses, but she didn’t think it says that.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that a tie vote generally means that no action has been taken on a matter.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that it doesn’t mean that. If there is a tie vote, it loses.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it loses in the sense that no action is taken, but it is not going to proceed forward. The reality is that no action was taken because there was not a majority.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that it was an effective no, even though it was not a technical no.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively, as practically speaking it is a no, but technically speaking, no action was taken.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if there was a Council majority about the special Monday meeting days.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that the special Mondays don’t necessarily seem like enough to him. He asked if the idea is that there aren’t any other days on a regular basis where no one has anything. Mayor Bigstyck stated that, by consensus, he was fine including those two dates as standing dates and after that they can do the poll method as they usually do.
Council agreed but noted schedule conflicts with the fifth Mondays available.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in practice, if there is an issue they need to take up and there is a fifth Monday on the horizon, they will look at that day for polling to see if Council is available. He thought the difference is that Councilmembers block out days that are designated at the beginning of the year but they can still have that practice. He confirmed with Council that they were not going to generally leave that language in.
City Council Regular Meeting 33 January 23, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked if there was any direction or motion needed.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they do need a motion.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to accept the recommendations on City Council Rules and Code of Ethics as amended; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
ADJOURN
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 11:53 p.m. with memory and thoughts of the seven members of Half Moon Bay community who are no longer with us as of that afternoon.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 2/13/2023
__________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor