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 September 11, 2023
September 11, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on September 11, 2023 at 7:03 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bigstyck called the meeting to order at 7:03 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: Yulia Carter, Acting City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Bob Palacio, PB&R Director; Bill Glasgo, Police Captain; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Elizabeth Brooks, Mgmt. Analyst.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bigstyck read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Special Presentation - Pacific Coast Fog Fest
Mayor Bigstyck introduced Paige Miller, Vice President of Fog Fest Organizing Group (FFOG).
Vice President Miller gave a presentation on the 36th Annual Pacific Coast Fog Fest on City Council Regular Meeting 2 September 11, 2023
September 23 and 24. He handed out posters and gave a brief report on the success of the Fog Fest last year, the first since the COVID-19 pandemic: they raised over $92,000 for local charities, and they expect to exceed that this year. He then introduced the new Board of Directors and various additional changes, especially to increase safety for the event and use recyclable material. He also mentioned businesses that are donating their time and resources.
Councilmember Bier thanked him for stepping up and asked about expanding safety measures.
Vice President Miller stated they worked with the Police Department to help with assisted lost individuals in previous years and they thought the system this year would help everyone.
Councilmember Bier appreciated their efforts and for thinking about age-friendly events.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus looked forward to going to the Fog Fest again as it is one of her favorite Pacifica events. She knows it is so much work and she thanked them.
Councilmember Boles thanked new and outgoing members, and she appreciated how they look at things and solve problems. She asked for clarification on bringing dogs to Fog Fest.
Vice President Miller stated that it has been the policy for about 15 years that Fog Fest doesn’t allow dogs in the festival area. He knows it has been a compliance issue. They have already notified people on social media to not bring their dogs but they will have to address as it arises.
Councilmember Boles thanked him for the information and she can’t wait to come to the event.
Councilmember Beckmeyer wanted to give a shout out to city staff as well for all they do in preparation for Fog Fest. She is very much looking forward to the future and how they work with their partners in addressing recycling.
Mayor Bigstyck was excited for Fog Fest and looking forward to the celebration of our community. He thanked Vice President Miller for his presence and thanked the board.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bigstyck asked if any councilmember wants to pull an item from consent.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like to pull Item #5 to get a brief presentation from Police Chief Sarasua.
Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments for Consent Calendar Items excluding Item #5 and, seeing none, closed public comments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to approve the consent calendar excluding Item #5; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
CONSENT ITEMS #1-4 and #6 (excluding #5):
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 8/01/23 through 8/31/23.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 September 11, 2023
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of August 2023
2. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
4. Approval of Agreement with Axon Enterprise Inc., for the purchase of new Axon Body Worn Camera System, Axon Fleet In-Car Camera System, and Axon Tasers in the amount of $593,000, and authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute All Documents Associated with the Project.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution Approving the Agreement with Axon Enterprise Inc., for the purchase of new Axon Body Worn Camera System, Axon Fleet In-Car Camera System, and Axon Tasers in the amount of $593,000, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all documents associated with the project.
5. 2023 July 4th Activities Report
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the staff report on July 4th 2023 activities.
Agenda Item #5 Discussion:
Police Captain Glasgo asked if there were any specific questions from Council.
Councilmember Boles stated she wanted the public to understand that they are charging fees for citations and a general description of what transpired compared to other years.
Police Captain Glasgo then mentioned that they received increased calls for service in some areas and decreased calls in other areas. Regarding the fees, staff was able to provide an update with a collection of about $11,000 and there are still about eight individuals who have yet to pay. Staff is working on collecting those fees.
Mayor Bigstyck asked for a quick overview of how this year’s activities compared to other activities, including fireworks.
Police Captain Glasgo then presented a brief staff report.
Councilmember Beckmeyer was pleased to see the numbers as they were. She also pointed out the 8% fee has been charged for a long time and seems to be holding. She thanked him for his service on the 4th of July.
Police Captain Glasgo stated it was a team effort and community members to have a successful 4th of July.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 September 11, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments.
Lynn Adams, Pacifica, commended Public Works and Police Department for organizing the cleanup teams, and they were very successful and very well-attended, and she then shared more details.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, appreciated the volunteers and was pleased with the efforts by the community.
Councilmember Boles moved to approve Item #5; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.
AGENDA ITEM #5
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
6. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code Renewing the Military Equipment Policy.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Waive the Second Reading of and Adopt by Title an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Chapter 19, “Acquisition and Use of Military Equipment” of Title 4 “Public Safety” of the Pacifica Municipal Code Renewing the Military Equipment Policy. (CEQA: The Ordinance and Policy are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because they will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a “project,” as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Lynn Adams, Pacifica, reported on the accomplishments of the Pacific Beach Coalition so far this year and invited everyone to participate in California Coastal Clean Up Day on Saturday, September 16, for sites in Pacifica, Daly City and Montara due to Fog Fest on September 23 and on September 23 for the rest of the state. She mentioned the “Butt Blitz” event from September 16 through October 31 to pick up cigarette butts and bring to collection cases.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, thanked Council for their dedication. He referred to SB330 and shared his thoughts on this issue connected to the Hillside Preservation District.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, referred to a recent Housing Element draft and shared her concerns and thoughts on the issue of parking, ADUs, etc.
Jen Hansen, Pacifica, also referred to the draft Housing Element and shared her concerns and thoughts on the issue of parking, ADUs, etc.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 September 11, 2023
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she had three meetings, one with the Coastal Cities Group on implementing sea level rise policies in San Mateo County, one with the City of Santa Cruz about strategies put in place to monitor changing conditions, and one was the Beautification Advisory Committee meeting. She mentioned the next deadline for submitting entries for Beautification Awards is at the end of the month. She attended the 50|50 Exhibit at Sanchez Art Center and participated in the fundraiser.
Councilmember Boles stated she and Councilmember Bier met with consultants for BBIRP.
She also met with the Pacific Beach Coalition and the cleanup day this time of year is important because of cleaning streets before the rains hit, as everything left is washed into the ocean.
She had her first orientation for the San Mateo County 9-month Leadership Training Program including civic leaders, business leaders and non-profits working to solve issues in the cities and county. She referred to the airplane noise letter to the FAA which should be wrapped up this week and encouraged people to file their own report with the FAA. She had a meeting with Penny Nixon, San Mateo County faith community liaison, and will be attending a conference with her in October. She referred to SB4 which allows churches and religious institutions by right to build affordable housing projects. She stated September is Transit Month and the Climate Committee will be doing things at Fog Fest and they are meeting with Commute.org to hear results from Pacificans who filled out their responses about their commutes.
Councilmember Bier had an important meeting with Police Chief Sarasua. She attended Senator Becker’s Town Hall with lots of information about opioid overdose and trends in our county. She also attended the Overdose Awareness Night on August 31 and they honored those who have died through overdose. She mentioned what they are doing on this subject in the schools. She attended the Coast Pride meeting and welcomed a new member from Pacifica, Lawrence Smith. She met with Ray Mueller and a few members of the Coast Pride Board to talk about funding for this agency. She thanked Councilmember Boles for talking about BBIRP. She stated Pacifica Peace People will be hosting Pacifica Talks About Race with the Pacifica School District and the Jefferson Union High School District on October 5. She attended the Marc Berman event and a lot of the community came to talk to him. She enjoyed hearing about age-friendly strategies for Fog Fest and there will be opportunities to join in on this age-friendly work. She thanked Cindy Abbott and Dr. Bill Michaelis for collaborating on a project through the Pacifica Collaborative: Art for a more Peaceful and Just Community. They found a grant and will be rolling that out.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus attended the Coffee with Marc Berman and enjoyed seeing and hearing people. She stated today is 9/11 and she wanted us to think about the loved ones who passed and their families.
Mayor Bigstyck wanted to start with 9/11. He thought it was poignant to have a Council meeting on this day. He felt it was sobering to note that many of the first responders have died as many of the Americans who lost their lives in the attack. He then thanked Jack Burgett for being present. He attended the Rotary Club meeting where Supervisor Ray Mueller was speaking and joined Supervisor Mueller for a few calls he was taking from constituents. He mentioned Cindy Abbott telling the Supervisor about all the Sanchez Art Center is doing. He stated that former councilmember Mike O’Neill was there and he enjoyed good company that morning. He and Councilmember Bier attended the CORA presentation about Speak Up, i.e., a training program for businesses. Following that, he has talked with various non-profits to see if there might be a community buy-in to the program. He taped the third episode of The Mayor’s Office City Council Regular Meeting 6 September 11, 2023
with Anita Rees and stated the episode with Ray Mueller is on YouTube. He attended the Community Overdose Awareness Night with Councilmember Bier and followed up with the City Manager to confirm that they talked about beginning the process of a formal community conversation around substance use issues. He had a couple of constituent meetings and attended the Peninsula Clean Energy surplus funds committee meeting. He attended the City Selection Committee and attended the 50|50 art show at Sanchez. He attended the Coffee with Assemblymember Marc Berman, introduced him to our community, and answered questions.
He thought it was a good example of how accessible higher levels of government can be, as they can always get through to his office and him directly. He had the opportunity to play bocce ball with city staff on the first game as part of an inter-city bocce ball tournament. He shared that the beach cleanup, the Rancho Day Fiesta at Sanchez Adobe, and the Fog Cutters Ball will be on September 16, alongside Fog Fest on September 23 and 24.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Acting City Manager Carter stated they had a kickoff meeting today for ERP implementation as the major project was discussed as part of the strategic plan.
Mayor Bigstyck thought it was helpful to learn about some of the mechanics of inter-city workings and demystifies some processes.
Acting City Manager Carter stated it was a long process. The Council approved the contract with Tyler Technologies for our new financial and human resources management system. They are replacing the software over the next 12 months.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
7. Discussion of Tree Permit Fee
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive presentation and provide direction to the City Manager about whether or not permits for substantial trimming, encroachment, or removal of private trees should be subsidized by the General Fund.
Acting City Manager Carter began the staff report, and Planning Director Murdock continued the staff report.
Mayor Bigstyck asked for clarification on the $7000 fee per tree in Menlo Park.
PB&R Director Palacio stated that, in Menlo Park, they will decide the size of tree you are going to put in; if you want to remove a heritage tree to do a project, they will decide whether that tree is worth $200 or $7000, and if it is $7000, you need to pay up front that cost or, once you put in a tree that is the equivalent, they will refund you the money but, if not, you wouldn’t get the money back.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if they are talking about a fully grown redwood.
PB&R Director Palacio stated that they have a list of mature trees that they would require a similar replacement size and their fees can be exorbitant. He heard from one arborist that they City Council Regular Meeting 7 September 11, 2023
did a project that was about $35,000 in Menlo Park. Thus, they don’t have many tree removals in Menlo Park.
Planning Director Murdock completed the staff report.
Mayor Bigstyck asked about the process for eliminating dead trees and the costs associated with that.
PW Director Petersen stated that, related to dead trees, there is no fee that is charged by the city. If a resident has a dead tree, they call PW; PW comes out, verifies that the tree is dead, and are given permission to remove it.
Councilmember Boles asked if we are charging the same $1,000 fee for pruning currently.
PW Director Petersen stated that is for anything over 15% of the tree. If you are pruning more than 15% of the tree, then you have to get a permit and have an arborist review to make sure you are pruning the tree appropriately. If pruning under 15%, you don’t need a permit.
Councilmember Boles asked if an arborist report is required, as the tree ordinance seemed to say it was up to the discretion of the director for both the arborist report and a tree plan of locating the tree on the property.
PW Director Petersen stated her understanding was that the track assessment is not required for it, but there is a report required from an arborist.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the dead tree question and asked about dying trees.
PW Director Petersen stated that the way the ordinance reads says “a dead or dying tree,” and that gets into the concept of what is a dying tree. They can get an arborist to come out and confirm if the tree can recover. To get PW approval to remove the tree, it has to be clearly dying or dead.
Councilmember Boles stated that in section 4-12.05, “Applications for Tree Trimming Permits,” it says the applicant may be required to provide a plot plan or survey drawn to scale depicting the tree and any improvements on the property and/or an arborist report. She stated that it doesn’t sound like it is required. She asked what the process would be.
PW Director Petersen would say that the city would require an arborist to take a look at how over 15% of a tree would get pruned, as they want to make sure they are pruning it in a manner that the tree will survive and they would need more detail related to that.
Planning Director Murdock referred to the preceding section 4-12.04 related to tree removal permits, as it does provide that an arborist report including an ISA basic tree risk assessment form would be required for removal of a protected tree needing a permit.
Councilmember Boles understood that for removal, but it seems like it’s a big burden for someone who is just pruning a little bit of a tree. She asked whether other cities charge permit fees for pruning.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 September 11, 2023
PB&R Director Palacio stated that other cities do charge those pruning fees, which are generally lower than the removal fees.
PW Director Petersen stated that Council may remember that, during consideration of the ordinance, the recommendation was 25% of the tree prior to needing to get a permit; it was ultimately determined that the 15% was going to be put in place. She stated, if someone is coming in and pruning over 15% of the tree, that wasn’t something, from staff perspective, they would be comfortable saying they can prune, for example, 60% of the tree and it will live.
Planning Director Murdock stated, regarding the fee, he thought once they have an arborist on the city staff or consultant team reviewing an arborist report, it isn’t likely to have a major difference in terms of time spent and thus cost. If an arborist report is required, there is time needed to review it and comment on it from the city’s consulting arborist which supports the fee related to the tree trimming permit. If an arborist report were not to be required, presumably the cost could be reduced to some degree.
Councilmember Boles asked if the fee went into effect on August 23.
Acting City Manager Carter stated that it was August 10.
Councilmember Boles concluded a month and stated they hadn’t received many complaints or applications about pruning or tree fees.
Planning Director Murdock stated a handful of the numbers in the staff report since the fee took effect. It is annualized, as it is about the level of activity they would expect on a monthly basis when looking at the trend line.
Councilmember Bier stated that they made a lot of changes to the tree ordinance and asked if they can go over what that has meant to specifically the PW department. She felt it was important for her to understand the additional work that went in and will continue to go into what we have requested. She stated that they were proud to make those changes to support our urban forest, but we also need to understand what is going on in that department.
PW Director Petersen stated our initial process was just getting the tree removal application submittal, followed by the Park Superintendent taking a look at the tree; ultimately, if approved, the tree was posted and taken down. Now, they have the new process which is much more intensive. There were a lot of great things Council put in the ordinance to help protect our trees, but it requires more work, including technical work. Part of that is the number of trees that are coming under the umbrella of the ordinance. As shown previously in the report, there were larger size trees that were coming under the ordinance (now 12 inches), which is quite significant even with talking with other arborists, and is causing a huge impact as we are going to be seeing the smaller trees coming forward. Because of the issue of private and city trees under the development and building permits, for all of the trees needing to be assessed, there is an application process that has to be put in place and standardized and go through one location, i.e., Planning Department. Staff takes in all these applications and, like anything else, there is a checklist that needs to be verified; after verification, the application has to go the technical person who reviews it. Usually, there are things that need to be corrected and they City Council Regular Meeting 9 September 11, 2023
will have to call the person to clarify, look at it, and get the additional information. When a decision is made, city staff send out letters and post the tree and, if it gets appealed, there is another process related to that.
Planning Director Murdock stated that all the process PW Director Petersen described needs to be paid for by someone, and if it the applicant or the city is one of the policy questions for Council at this time. He stated, under the old process under the heritage tree ordinance, it was easy to draw the wrong conclusions and lessons from that process. He stated that the Park Superintendent was involved in the process, making field observations without the benefit of an arborist report in most cases; that Park Superintendent for many years happened to be an arborist but wasn’t the city arborist, and that is a misconception some might have of observing that former process that more was being done in that review than was actually occurring and whether the people involved in that review were the right people to be making thoughtful, informed decisions on the tree removals remains to be seen in terms of that former process. He stated that this is a much more systematized, formalized process that has corresponding costs and requirements associated with it which is the point they are trying to relate to Council.
Councilmember Beckmeyer had questions for the Mayor and City Attorney. She asked about a further explanation of the term “community benefit” and instances of non-compliance.
City Attorney Kenyon thought it may not necessarily be a legal question in terms of what they do with any code enforcement matter. Staff can answer that question as she doesn’t know the details of what our procedural process would be. She’s not sure she understands the question about community benefit.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it has been asserted by community members that there is a benefit, that cities subsidize various things under the umbrella and under the explanation that it’s providing a community benefit, which is the rationale for why cities subsidize things.
She wants to have a better understanding of what goes in the bucket of community benefit.
City Attorney Kenyon didn’t think there was a bucket, as the term is whatever the person who used it intended it to mean.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that is a clarifying question and asked if it means anything in terms of the Planning world and, if so, what.
Planning Director Murdock didn’t think there was a formal community benefit discussion to be had on this topic. He has heard similar claims made in this context related to trees and the urban forest. He thinks they are trying to say is that, not only are there private benefits and costs associated with having a prominent tree on one’s property, there are also broader public benefits, or detriments if the tree is unsafe. Benefits include aesthetic benefits, environmental benefits, etc. He stated that all of that is probably true, but Council needs to frame it in the proper context. He stated it was important for the community for properties to be kept up and for homes to be aesthetically pleasing and painted every so often and rotten siding or degraded roofs to be replaced. They put that burden on the property owner who gets the benefit of upkeeping the property and the rest of the community gets incidental benefits from that. The city doesn’t subsidize the tree permit or roof, siding, or window replacement permits. He stated that there is a great public benefit to well-kept and maintained sidewalks, but the private City Council Regular Meeting 10 September 11, 2023
property owner bears the cost and responsibility to get the permits to replace the sidewalk to maintain it without cracks or trip hazards. He stated that is the burden of the private property ownership and, if you conceptualize it in that same context, proper maintenance and eventual removal of aged or unsafe trees is a burden on private property ownership. He acknowledged that there are some incidental public benefits, but it hasn’t been the city’s past practice to subsidize those types of permit applications that are a core obligation of the property owner related to maintenance of their property.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, to the extent she is asking the question of what most cities use subsidization for, it varies; it is just a term for a Council dipping into their General Fund to pay for costs that are not being paid for by the actual user of the benefit. She stated that Council has a lot of policy decisions, sometimes because of affordability regarding low income, or it can be whatever Council chooses it to be, as there is no legal term of community benefit. It is a term that Council can use in their police powers which has a lot of discretion in terms of determining whether or not this tree permit fee should be subsidized based on the benefit that it provides for staff or for the community. Council may provide in general any reason that could impact the city if Council feels there is a justifiable reason for subsidizing this fee.
PB&R Director Palacio added that an example of that would be the fees they passed this year for our seniors, i.e., $30 per year for seniors to sign up to be able to have a membership in the Seniors in Action and participate in classes. That is a highly subsidized rate as the cost to provide the classes, etc., is much more expensive to the city and there was a decision made at some point that said this has a public benefit and is something we are willing to subsidize.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if she got her question answered around non-compliance.
Councilmember Beckmeyer understands that there is a hefty fine associated with not following procedure but it has also been asserted that we never enforce that. She stated that it is hard to make a policy decision when you have various inputs and she wanted to hear from staff regarding protocol. She is aware they are short-staffed.
City Attorney Kenyon thought it was an excellent question that staff should answer that before they get to public comment.
Planning Director Murdock stated it was true that the tree protection ordinance includes a variety of tools for the city to take enforcement action when warranted. He thought it was disingenuous to talk about an ordinance that has been in effect for less than a year and describe the failure of the city to act in any sort of meaningful way related to non-compliance.
The first reason is these complex code enforcement matters, if and when significant action is needed, take a long time to develop and require significant city staff resources; the second is that they get very few complaints about unpermitted tree removal. He stated that the best numbers he can get, which are not completely comprehensive, but consulting with their code enforcement team, is around 1% or less than 1% of the overall complaints they typically get. In context, it is a relatively low level of reported violations that prompt investigations, which thus have a correspondingly low number of significant cases that then warrant significant penalties and intervention. He stated that they are talking about a small number issue and not a widespread issue. They received and investigated over 500 code enforcement complaints last year. The community knows how to file complaints related to perceived violations and he didn’t City Council Regular Meeting 11 September 11, 2023
think it is true that people don’t know that you can report a major tree being removed without a permit. He thought most people follow the law and very few non-permitted tree removals are occurring, at least based on the data the city team has. He stated that they are currently investigating one case now that, very likely, has a potential to manifest into significant penalties being assessed, but they are early in that process to advance all the documentation that is required and they have to work in lockstep with the City Attorney’s office on those types of enforcement cases.
Councilmember Boles wanted to follow up on the one they are investigating now and asked if the offenders were aware of the tree ordinance.
PW Director Petersen stated they are still looking into the details at this point.
Councilmember Boles asked, since the tree ordinance was put in place in October 2022, what outreach and education has been done to educate the community about the new ordinance.
PW Director Petersen stated there was a huge outreach that happened while they were putting the ordinance together; they had committees, commissions, joint meeting, Council meetings on that, as well as public outreach, specialized webpage, and polling done with the public.
Ultimately the ordinance got put in place. When they changed the fee to $1,000, there was information that went out on Connect with Pacifica that talked about the ordinance in detail and about the change in the fee at the end of June.
Councilmember Boles asked how many people subscribe to Connect with Pacifica.
Acting City Manager Carter stated over 3,500.
Councilmember Boles stated that it concerns her that we may be missing a section of the population that does not know yet.
Planning Director Murdock thought that could be the case related to the increased fee, but he wasn’t sure that was the case with respect to major trees being protected in Pacifica as that has been a city ordinance for multiple decades and, while some of the finer points about tree sizes have changed, he thought broadly speaking, it was understood in the community that prominent trees do require some sort of city review prior to their removal.
Councilmember Boles stated the definition of prominent trees has really increased dramatically.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that, of a half dozen that they have had in the last year related to complaints of unpermitted tree removal, there is a great number of what would have been treated that were not previously protected but are now. He stated that is a follow-up point they can come back with.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated she can see where it costs more because it is a much broader process, and she asked if they thought that process could be streamlined at all to lower the fees. She understands it is a further discussion and they would have to put that out, but she asked if that would help.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 September 11, 2023
PW Director Petersen agreed from the standpoint of the fact that it was simple previously and is much more complicated now. She thought there are a lot of things in the ordinance that are appealing to the community and Council, which was why it was put in place. She stated that there might be some tough decisions to try to scale it back, as the oversight is happening that Council was hoping would happen. They could see if there were some ways they could.
Councilmember Boles stated that staff report indicated that the city is looking to hire a city arborist and are putting out an RFP now. She asked if they could confirm what that person’s role would be and would it be a potential cost saving over an hourly consultant rate.
PW Director Petersen stated that they aren’t hiring an arborist but looking for a consultant who is going to be taking over from this temporary consultant who has been on board. When the ordinance got going, they started getting the applications and they said it was a lot of work and they needed some help. She stated thatthey went out and got a temporary arborist in place and a company to temporarily help the city while we could put together a Request For Proposals that they felt would ultimately get the most streamlined process in place for a consultant arborist to help us and that is what is there now. She stated that they will be getting those proposals in and reviewing those.
Councilmember Boles asked if it would be an hourly rate or a certain amount of time that is promised per year.
PW Director Petersen stated that it will typically be an hourly rate.
Mayor Bigstyck questioned how much that would be if they were to hire an arborist.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they haven’t done a comprehensive salary and benefits assessment but preliminary research suggests somewhere between $200,000 to $250,000 per year, and based on the level of tree permit activity we have, that would significantly increase the cost of the tree permits to achieve cost recovery. He stated that there is a small amount of additional other work that member could do that might bring the cost down slightly, but in every scenario they considered, the cost recovery component of the tree permit would probably at least double compared to the current contract arborist arrangement.
Acting City Manager Carter added that he mentioned only annual cost and they must count the ongoing liability for pension and long-term benefits as well.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the arborist component of the fee is a relatively minor share as the fee is structured. The administrative component is more significant than the arborist and the arborist may not perform some of those administrative tasks. It isn’t clear that the entirety of that tree permit fee would be addressed by that staff hiring.
PB&R Director Palacio thought it was also important to note that most cities that they spoke to that have an in-house arborist on their staff also do contracting out for arborist for special things, i.e. going on people’s property and tree protection plans when doing construction. It wasn’t just the salary of the in-house but also contracted arborist staff.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 September 11, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked, if they had a staff member who was trained to be an arborist, those weren’t the primary duties, whether that would save us money overall on the fee process. He stated if that is yes, is there a way to necessitate that a staff member get that upgrade.
Planning Director Murdock wasn’t sure it would change the cost situation as the fee is currently structured on the city staff’s hourly rate, whether city staff or the contractor who is in many cases charging more than the city staff rate, it is not likely that bringing that in-house would reduce the cost. He stated that PW Director Petersen could talk about how taxed her staff already is and it is not clear where that internal staff capacity would come from, even if the requisite qualifications would be obtained.
Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments.
Paul Totah, Pacifica, stated he was speaking on behalf of himself and Tree City Pacifica members who oppose the $1000 permit fee for pruning and removing trees, while thanking them for their hard work. He then shared their thoughts on the issue.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on the revised ordinance regarding costs, etc., thus supporting implementing and retaining the full fee for removal and reduced rates for substantial pruning and trimming.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked Council for bringing this issue forward regarding the fee increases, and she hoped they will direct staff to return the fees to the previous range, and shared her thoughts on the issue.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, wanted to advocate for senior citizens and those on a lower income level and shared her thoughts and suggestions on this issue.
Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments.
Mayor Bigstyck then had a question that PB&R Director Palacio touched on earlier regarding other cities’ review processes compared to Pacifica, and he asked if he could give them a sense of where our process is not as robust as other cities.
PB&R Director Palacio stated that the feedback and research he did showed that we are in the same area as others with similar processes and ours might have a few more things to look at that might not be happening in other cities but they may have another requirement. He thought it was important to note that, with a city like San Mateo, where they say it is a $100 fee, and on top of that, doing three trees, that is $300 and there are also refundable fees between $483 and $740 per equivalent tree.
Mayor Bigstyck asked him, regarding equivalent trees, if he was talking about a full-size tree.
PB&E Director Palacio agreed, and stated, if you take something out like that, it is a substantial tree and they are going to make you put in a substantial tree somewhere else on the property and, if not able to, they will keep that refundable fee you submitted. He stated that, on looking at San Mateo County, they do $616 per tree and if you do multiple trees, you are already over what Pacifica charges and they also have an additional fee of $451 for Planning to process that City Council Regular Meeting 14 September 11, 2023
application. He stated that what each city requires seems to be a little bit different, but we are in the ballpark. He stated that it is an expensive process.
Mayor Bigstyck asked how many trees are covered under one permit in Pacifica.
PB&R Director Palacio stated it was unlimited.
Mayor Bigstyck thought it was an interesting difference between us and other places.
PB&R Director Palacio didn’t encounter another one that was not per tree.
Councilmember Boles stated that she looked at Burlingame and it was $150 for any number of trees. She stated that we have a policy of 2 or 3-1 replacement trees and she assumed part of the $1,000 fee is someone following up to make sure that those were planted, and she liked the idea of having a deposit instead because that puts the onerous on the applicant and, if they don’t replant it or come back and reclaim it, the city can keep the money. She wondered if there were possibly some changes to our fee structure and charging for more trees in an application.
PW Director Petersen stated that there is a 2-1 replacement and it was important that we are only requiring a 15-gallon tree replacement, and that is not the same as she heard PB&R Director Palacio say that the other cities are doing, as other cities are requiring a tree to be similar to the tree removed or to some limit that they have in place. They are probably collecting a lot of their fees because people are not able to do that component, whereas ours is 15-gallon and it is an easy one to put in place.
Councilmember Boles didn’t think it was fair for us to be comparing to that $7,000 tree replacement if that is not in our ordinance. She looked at Menlo Park and called their city arborist and spoke to him. Their basic permit fees are $210 for up to three trees and then a lower rate per tree, $180 per tree, and obviously if you have 20, you are paying more.
PB&R Director Palacio stated that Menlo Park requires you to state whether or not you are paying an in-lieu fee. If you are going to pay an upfront dollar amount and you intend to put the trees in, you’ll get that back, but many people will just say they aren’t going to put the trees in and they would pay that and it could go up to $7,000 per tree.
Councilmember Boles looked at Menlo Park’s staff rate among the highest yearly salary for a city arborist was $126,000 and that doesn’t include the benefits. She thought they were a city that does trees well and it was interesting to talk to them. She didn’t understand Option 1, saying that city staff cost were $187.50 and that might be something that we could consider not charging out of the $1,000. She asked if that was right, and in that scenario, they would still be charging $812.50.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles concluded that she heard primarily we are using outside consultants, even for the basic processing which they used to do internally.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 September 11, 2023
Planning Director Murdock stated yes to the first part, but he wasn’t sure on the second part.
They are utilizing consultants for as much of the process as they can and it’s an intensive process and our staff is already significantly committed to other routine day-to-day work in the Planning Department, such as a significant building permit processing load and discretionary permit processing that the permit technicians that handle this inbound and outbound traffic are responsible for. The particular attention that is needed to treat permit processing really needs a specific focus which is why we have consultants overtaking most of the administrative processing. The city staff component of $187.50 is a small amount of initial intake and final communication to applicant, but most everything in the middle is done by the CSG Consultant for the administrative processing and the consultant arborist for the technical review component.
Councilmember Boles asked if this all used to be done by Public Works.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was not the correct characterization. They have tried to explain that very little process was occurring. The Planning Department initially was a conduit and they would take the applications and route them right away to the Public Works department.
The minimal process where the superintendent would go out, take a look at the tree, and remove it was the substantive review; there was a noticing and final permit issuance with very little administrative process and very little substantive review. The processes are completely different in staff’s assessment.
Mayor Bigstyck asked about the approach of a sliding scale for those who really do have difficulty paying that kind of a fee. One could imagine somebody who has lived here for the last 50 years of their life might be on a fixed income and need to remove a tree.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they haven’t evaluated that as an alternative and he would have to defer to Acting City Manager Carter for other financial hardship processes the city might have. He is only familiar when they come up in context of inability to pay penalties related to code enforcement matters, with a fair amount of documentation related to income and personal details needed. He stated that not everyone, if they would qualify, would be willing to go through that process. He stated that would be another administratively heavy process to add on to this already heavy process. He thought there would be costs to the city to administer that sliding scale and he didn’t know, based on past permit applicants how many might be senior citizens or low income, so there could be a different fiscal impact that they haven’t evaluated.
PB&R Director Palacio thought one thing he would like to say is they use the term “need.” If a tree is dead, there is no fee, and most of the applications submitted are not based on “need”, but “want.” That is different, as a tree is dead and it’s going to fall and hurt someone.
Councilmember Boles stated that there are sometimes needs when the tree is grown and undermining their foundation or in a fire area and too close to their house.
PB&R Director Palacio stated that there are occasions for that, as it is not a one size fits all. On many occasions, it is because someone is doing some sort of construction to their home and they want to take the tree out for that reason. He stated that they are talking about helping heritage trees generally.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 September 11, 2023
Acting City Manager Carter added that they currently don’t have a policy for any sliding scale and don’t have much information yet, but if Council wants to provide this direction to explore and research more of what the sliding scale may look like, we can take this direction.
Councilmember Bier stated that there is one thing she is battling with, because they carefully put into place all these new things into our ordinance because we wanted to protect and increase our urban forest and tree canopy, and by doing that, there is now more work to do, more assessments to happen and she thinks, from the beginning, she was confused when people were not happy with the fee. In her mind, she thought that was protecting trees. She wanted to hear all the information about what is going into it and how are the trees being protected, as they are being protected through all the parts of the ordinance that they put together. She knows they have heard from Tree City Pacifica several different times and she understands what they are saying, but she doesn’t understand how the fee is going to cause more trees to be cut down.
Councilmember Boles thought it may cause more trees to be cut illegally. She stated just look at the cost as someone has to get an arborist report. She stated that was $1,000 and they have an email from someone who paid $2,500 for a tree that was far away from her project that wasn’t really affecting it. She stated that is a huge expense to start with and then the $1,000 fee on top of that, and if you are doing plans too, even at the smallest amount, they are talking about $2,500 to take out a tree. If you need to for fire safety, she would think twice before she starts to take something out when sometimes it can be important to the community to take it out.
She thinks that is the concern of Tree City Pacifica that we are making it expensive and onerous that people aren’t going to get permits. She stated that they don’t know yet as it has been active for a month.
Councilmember Bier feels that we don’t know yet. We have the data about what has to happen but not about what is happening, and she is not ready to make a decision because of that piece.
She stated that they talk about education on the ordinance and fees, but we can all go out and start educating our community and encourage others to do that.
PW Director Petersen wanted to give information related to what she heard from the community during the storm season. After the storms came in with the high wind, everybody and their brother wanted their tree down. She stated that, having the current process in place, she was able to explain to a number of residents that this is the process and they need to make sure the tree is dangerous as they will have to pay the fee and get an arborist, and someone could appeal that if they don’t agree with them. She said what helped them to think about it was the process we have in place and they have to get an arborist and get them to agree, and the process could be appealed. They calmed down, thinking about it and looking into it more, and many of those people didn’t come in to get a tree removal permit. She stated that, from her perspective of what she saw, the process is helping people think about it, talk to an expert, get a little bit more comfort on what’s happening, and maybe they don’t need to take it down. She stated that to keep in mind related to removal, they were talking about this one situation of thousands of dollars that could be paid because of damage to trees. She thinks the $1,000 is minimal compared to what the ordinance is providing which could be thousands, if not tens of thousands, for someone to illegally take out a tree and she thought there was no comparison.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 September 11, 2023
Councilmember Boles wanted to read something from the tree ordinance as they talk about community benefits. She then read about the maintenance and preservation effects.
Councilmember Bier thinks they are increasing the canopy and protecting the trees. She stated that there is still a disconnect for her.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that, if they impose all these requirements, then someone has to pay for them. She doesn’t think the city should have to pay for these requirements they imposed on people to have their trees cut down. She stated that the whole process is about live trees, not dead trees, not emergencies that they will fall on their house, but choosing to remove the tree. She stated that keeps coming back into her mind that this is a choice.
Acting City Manager Carter stated that, to the point that they don’t have enough data yet as the ordinance and fee are very young so the Council is not ready to make a decision and they can bring this back, during the strategic planning discussion or in a year so they will have clear data for the whole year to see.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, adding that in the staff report, there is already intention in fiscal year 2024-25 to return to Council with proposed ordinance updates, initially conceived as clean up to iron out the wrinkles of a new ordinance. They mentioned that they have the opportunity to expand that, provide a more holistic view of the overall program and figure out if there are revisions to the ordinance beyond cleanup that make sense to better incentivize the right type of behavior to potentially reduce costs associated with administration of the ordinance.
He agrees that they don’t have enough data either way to suggest the fee is a barrier to compliance and they don’t know it it’s inhibiting people from undertaking appropriate tree removals at this point. He thought that holistic assessment in a year or 18 months from now with more data will be instructive and Council can consider appropriate policy steps at that time.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that this has been a challenging issue as we are an underfunded city and we put a lot of work on staff by maximizing our tree ordinance. She stated that maximizing means it’s a lot bigger and more complex than it ever was before. What she is hearing in the community is that they liked it the way it was before because it was cheap, but they want all the changes for that price. Talking about cost recovery implies that people have to pay and the city should have to pay. She is struggling with that because the city doesn’t have funds to pay. She does question if our process is as streamlined as it can be. She stated it is very new, but she thinks it is very complicated. She hears this not just about trees, but other processes. Something she thinks would cost a ton of money but she would love to do is to do a holistic overview of our processes for efficiency’s sake. She understands the need versus want, but she is also sensitive to the idea that this could be pricing some people out of the ability to do it and she is thinking that they can’t afford the $1000 fee, and can they afford the tree cutter that needs to come and cut the tree. The $1000 fee it may or may not have cost to get that tree removed was probably a drop in the bucket compared to what the actual cost of doing it was.
She stated that the whole thing is really frustrating to her as they are trying to do a good thing, and there have been some in the community who were very unhappy with expanding our tree ordinance and felt that we are being very naive and unrealistic. She stated that trees have a life cycle and eventually they are going to die anyway and all the carbon that they sequestered is going to be back in the cycle at that point. She is learning about all of this as they are being required to make a decision, and she was leaning toward Councilmember Bier’s point of view City Council Regular Meeting 18 September 11, 2023
about more data needed. She stated it applies to the city itself as well. She stated that she has been wondering about some city trees and how does that work in light of the idea of having a city arborist. What else can the city arborist or contractor that serves as the city arborist do, not just for the city’s trees but for the citizens in terms of service. She stated that having an arborist that knows the city, where trees are, what the history is an area where they need to think more deeply about. She stated that maybe goal setting is the time when they really talk about this.
Councilmember Bier wanted to talk about the city arborist. They didn’t do a salary and benefits analysis. She understands how much benefits cost and she thinks that it would be a great thing and she would be interested in talking about that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated based on the information given to them in the staff report and looking at the cost of what we spent so far on one part of our consultants, she calculated $288,000 is going to be the cost for the part that came in at around $24,000 so far. What she heard staff say is a full time person with benefits is $200,000 to $250,000. She stated that they are talking about a person who has significant credentials and maintain that professional level of training and we are looking to hire expertise and that costs money. Her thinking calculation looks kind of the same to her and what she thinks they gain is building that knowledge of our city and that commitment and camaraderie with our staff in a way that is harder to do with consultant arrangements.
Mayor Bigstyck stated it sounds like the consensus is leaning away from reducing the permit fee at this time. He thinks they need to give the ordinance they put in place the time to show us what it is and what it does. He also thinks that, in general, good governance means we put a policy into place, see what happens over a long period of time, re-evaluate and amend in accordance with our observations. He cannot tell them that he thinks the fee amount is the right amount, but he can say that he wants to see what the results of the ordinance they put through is so he has enough data to tell them whether or not he thinks it is the right fee amount. He will be more comfortable when they have a track record to deliberate more than that and they have on the agenda amending the ordinance as they have a better understanding of what it is doing and when they look at how they might want to amend the ordinance to make it more userfriendly for our community, that might be better time to look at how they might adjust fees in accordance with adjusting the ordinance altogether. He thinks there is too much unknown and too much newness to make a decision at this time in terms of what direction they should give and they need to stay on this path long enough to get a clearer perspective of what direction they should give.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that one opportunity we have before they conclude this discussion is to ask staff to collect specific data that will be helpful to them later. For example, is this all-encompassing fee rare, where it is predicated on the idea that it’s not usually one tree but more than one tree? What if you pay $500 with one tree and up to a maximum of a certain fee, such as $1,000? She asked if there is a point they cross over into logging and when they hit a number of trees they are in another category, not just a tree permit.
Planning Director Murdock stated she may be recalling the prior logging ordinance which kicked in at 20 or more trees, but this overall tree ordinance overhaul repealed the logging ordinance and unified those tree removal requirements under the tree protection ordinance.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 September 11, 2023
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if that would pertain whether you are doing development, brand new construction or a significant remodel of your backyard.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the tree ordinance has three categories of regulated activity: tree removal, tree encroachment, and significant pruning. He stated that the discussion at this meeting is related to the tree permit for a stand-alone tree permit removal, i.e., a tree permit that is not associated with a building permit or a Planning Commission type permit. He stated it is a little bit difficult to clearly delineate them, as they are talking about a very narrow singular category of tree permits not related to broader developments on a property. He stated that the ordinance provisions trigger tree permits in a variety of other scenarios, such as a building permit for an addition or approval from the Planning Commission. At this meeting, they are talking about tree permits that don’t involve that and you aren’t implicating a project that requires removal of a tree. These are trees that, as the ordinance is laid out, probably should not be removed in most cases unless they are significantly diseased or have some other compelling reason, as removal in isolation is not related to economic use of the property and doesn’t advance stability of the geology on the property. He stated that it is the exception, not the rule, that these tree permits should even be granted, let alone at a reduced cost.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there are three things she wrote down that she would like to revisit or have more data on to help her think about them when they talk about this again.
One is the substantial trimming or where does it become substantial, and did they make that too narrow and should it be a little broader, and if it is trimming versus removing, if it is a different fee basis. She asked if there was a way to have that assessed by some other means than an arborist report. She thought it might be too much to ask, but it seems there may be an opportunity for a staff member with expertise in building who can tell if putting a deck or an ADU is going to or not going to harm a tree and is that only the domain of the arborist to make that determination. On the issue of charging, is it one tree is this price, two or more trees is a different price, and is there any advantage because that could achieve the goal for some of what they are hearing from people is that it is too high. She stated staff is saying that it covers all the trees at the same fee no matter if one or two trees.
Mayor Bigstyck continues to have a question about the sliding scale for somebody with lower economic disposition or a senior. He would like to see some data around it and what it would require if they were to do something like that.
Councilmember Boles wanted to follow up on Councilmember Beckmeyer’s point, and professionally arborists do tree protection plans and it is typically when you have new construction, not when you have an existing building that you’re reviewing. She would like to see a city arborist with a little more discretion. She would trust the city arborist to make that determination. She added the same for pruning. She stated that the code doesn’t necessarily require an arborist report, but is up to the discretion of staff. She thought it could be a small fee for pruning and the city arborist determines whether he needs to go through the whole process and then they can charge more. She thought that was a lot of money to pay for someone pruning a tree and trying to keep it away from their house and saving it from fire.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked her for reminding them that they are talking about trees that don’t need to be cut down and it is a choice. She stated that doing the pruning in ways that are minimal and doesn’t kill the trees is a different thing than doing a giant pruning.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 September 11, 2023
Councilmember Bier asked if Councilmember Boles thought more information would be helpful about what she was talking about. She agreed with her and asked if they should be asking for more information and when would they be asking for that information to come back, such as when they review the ordinance. She wanted to be clear.
Councilmember Boles stated that it sounds like they are all saying that they will keep the fee as it is until next year and then we get a staff report. She asked when will they have enough data for that staff report.
Acting City Manager Carter stated that they typically review the fees as part of the budget process. They usually see it on the agenda, sometime in the spring, and the significant changes in fees usually need to be adopted no later than June to be in effect for the new fiscal year. She stated that the Council may consider either bringing it back to them with the data they have at that point and they consider the fees with all the data points at that time or they can also discuss it as part of the strategic planning process which they will have before the budget. They will be able to determine if they need more time or when they want to put it on the strategic objectives. She stated it will be around the March-April time frame.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that staff would begin collecting the data right after the first of the year to get it to Council by March. It will have been in place for a year but does Council want it a year and a few months from when the ordinance first became adopted. She thought spring makes more sense to get more data, and that’s the question.
Acting City Manager Carter clarified that they will be collecting data based on input now and direction, and Council may determine to put it on the strategic plan for fiscal year 2024-25 or later in the fiscal year. They have a current strategic plan and a list of tasks and objectives.
She hopes that makes sense for the timing and milestones that they usually bring to them.
Mayor Bigstyck thought so, but he thought they might want to see a full year cycle to see what that looks like. He didn’t know whether any particular season is going to be affecting whether or not people clamor for tree removal. He imagined, if they see a storm like last year or months’ worth of storms, people might plan during winter months to apply for permits at a higher rate.
He thought, if they get a full year’s worth of data, that puts them into the fiscal cycle for next year and they could say it would be nice to have an update around mid-year, around goal setting time to see where they are. He would like to see what a full year looks like to get the detail he is looking for. He thought the timeline for looking at updates to the ordinance itself looks a lot more like fiscal year 2024-25, at which point, if they are reviewing the updates to the ordinance itself, that might be an appropriate time to look at the fee structure simultaneously.
He thought they are already going to have a lift going on around that time, but within the context of trying to have sufficient data, he thought that might be appropriate. He stated they could also have an update sooner than that just to see where they are so far and get a sense earlier.
Planning Director Murdock stated, for Council consideration, the ordinance took effect in October 2022. There were some growing pains with identifying consultants, getting the processes realigned from the heritage tree ordinance to the tree protection ordinance, shifting responsibilities from Public Works to Planning, vice versa, and they didn’t have the opportunity to begin implementing the ordinance in earnest with expert consultants with additional City Council Regular Meeting 21 September 11, 2023
administrative support until the March-April 2023 time frame. He stated, to get a year worth of data which he thinks will be helpful, will take them through various seasons of the year, different challenges and complexities that arise due to weather, etc., they are really talking about MarchApril 2024 to have a robust data set. He stated that is generally consistent with what the current staff created work plan is to implement Council’s strategic priorities: to first get a year under their belts with implementation and then in the second year consider what amendments might be needed in terms of cleanup which, as mentioned earlier, they would expand to be more inclusive based on what he heard at this meeting, and to also look at opportunities for efficiencies, cost reductions, maybe better supporting certain policies and discouraging other behaviors. He stated that there are a lot of levers that Council can pull related to the tree protection ordinance that results in better outcomes in Council’s opinion and maybe discourages other kinds of outcomes as well. He stated that would be putting them at FY 2024-25 because there is a robust amount of work that is associated with formulating ordinance policy options after they process the data after a year or year plus of actual implementation.
Councilmember Boles didn’t want to wait until 2024-25 when they update the ordinance. If they have a whole year of data by March-April, she thought they could make a determination at that point if the fees need adjusting without waiting for the full bigger process. That would be her preference.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thinks that dovetails with when the fee schedule is being looked at and amended anyway.
Acting City Manager Carter agreed, stating that, if they are considering the fiscal year 2024-25 for a fee in the spring or some point in May, the full year under the new permit fee will be in August. She said earlier that they can add it to the strategic plan as that is part of their budget process and they will have a strategic plan discussion to add it to the fiscal year 2024-25. She stated that they will have to do some work to determine what the appropriate time would be based on the data they have, the fee results they will receive, the consultants they select, and all the moving parts they don’t have data on now to make a decision.
PW Director Petersen wanted to note that they have had a very unusual start because they put in an emergency contractor to start working on this, and they were working with other consultants to get the work done. She thought it would be great to have a certain amount of data under this new consultant that will be put in place because, at that point, things will be more streamlined and they will have a better data set. Her concern is that the data set they have from March up to this point is not going to be that accurate as they don’t have the streamlining in place. They have put out the RFP, and it is much clearer how the consultant should be moving forward. She hopes that they get better costs as they move forward but they will need a certain amount of time under that new consultant in order to assess that. She thought it would be nice to have nine months of data under the new consultant and that would be more in line with what Acting City Manager Carter was mentioning.
Planning Director Murdock stated, based on their estimation on how the new RFP process will play out, that he thought they will have probably 6-9 months of data heading into the consideration of the next master fee schedule. He offered to the Council to frame their expectations. If they have this conversation again during the fee schedule, they are talking about the same conversation, a subsidy or not, which doesn’t address the costs. He stated that City Council Regular Meeting 22 September 11, 2023
what they will have some data to help support is a potential revised fee as part of the fee schedule based on efficiencies and changed costs. He stated that those are different conversations. If the costs are lower than they are calculated now, staff will propose a reduced fee; if higher, they will need to consider what that recommendation is to Council. He stated that it is their job to disclose what the costs are and it is the Council’s job to set what the fees are.
He stated that they can’t have a conversation in this coming March or April time frame on efficiencies or cost reduction measures through an ordinance amendment that needs to wait until FY 2024-25 based on the current work plan. He stated that, depending on the conversation they want to have, that can only happen at a particular point in time.
Mayor Bigstyck stated he is now tracking three different data sets: the implementation of the ordinance, the RFP process for obtaining the new contractor, and the fee of the ordinance itself.
He stated that they are three distinct data sets because they have three distinct starting points.
He stated, when they discuss this in March, he thinks what will be interesting during their goal setting session is that staff will have insights and that will inform their conversation better, but he is hesitant to say that the insights they have will be the complete data sets they want to see before they make those final determinations. He stated that, to look to fiscal year 2024-25, to wrap this up in a package for tweaking the ordinance and see how that all falls into place in terms of the fee makes sense to him, and it may end up being that we make an informed decision when we look at that full package, even though he is welcoming what those initial insights look like when they discuss it during goal setting. He stated that there is no reason for them not to have whatever conversation they want when they get there to see whether the data is more robust than he is anticipating or whether they might want to consider due diligence and wait until they have more data than they will have at that time.
Councilmember Boles stated that there is no rule that they can’t revisit the fee schedule.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they revisit all the fees every year.
Councilmember Boles stated that she doesn’t want to close that door if they have enough information to adjust things; if the process is going better and they can adjust it then, they can always revisit it when they redo the complete ordinance.
Councilmember Bier and Mayor Bigstyck agreed.
Councilmember Boles thought it was also important to know how many violations we get. This still concerns her about the education piece as she doesn’t think the community knows. She stated that she knows some constituents who were surprised when someone complained about them taking out a tree during the rainy season. She thought maybe staff can comment on that, as she knows some PB&R members who were offering to help reach out to certain communities, i.e., real estate agents and arborists that work in our community, to make sure they know about the ordinance. Beyond Connect with Pacifica, what else can they do to educate people. She stated that we want to educate people so they are doing the right thing.
PW Director Petersen thought the city can do some more outreach as well just as they do with Connect with Pacifica. They have that and they can continue to put that out. She stated that, in talking with Gail Benton Shoemaker from Tree City Pacifica, she expressed an interest in that; if City Council Regular Meeting 23 September 11, 2023
Tree City Pacifica wants to send information, they can put it together for them and send it out to real estate agents, tree services, etc. who need to have that information.
Mayor Bigstyck asked Councilmembers if there was any more direction they want to give or any more data they want to receive.
Councilmember Beckmeyer has one question about tree arborist companies. She recalls a change in the ordinance that they have to register with the city or sign something that they understand the rules in Pacifica. She asked how that works as she sees lots of companies with lots of heavy equipment around, and she questioned if they should ask them if they’re registered with the city and do they know about the tree ordinance. She wants to know that.
PW Director Petersen stated that they have talked with them about during the most recent appeal process about all the tree companies who work in the city or outside of the city needing to have a city business license, as that is under the umbrella of them being able to work within the city. That was part of the discussion related to the ordinance to begin with: telling the companies that they need to have a business license that allows them to work within the city and, if they are violating the rules by cutting down trees they aren’t supposed to or not following the rules, that gives the city some leverage to say that they aren’t getting a business license to work here.
Councilmember Boles stated that she is thinking of Hillsborough where she has to have a business license to work there and they also provide a tag for your vehicle. She asked if that is something we do, and if you are driving by, you know that company has a license. She stated that they don’t know who all those people are.
Planning Director Murdock stated that our business license process does not include that type of tag or permit. He is aware San Francisco also has a similar contractor decal that is supposed to be affixed to a vehicle. That would be an addition to the city’s process that hasn’t historically been there. He also noted that the business license process is not really the right process to institute or impose regulatory requirements. It explicitly says that it’s not intended for that purpose in our municipal code so they would need to think more broadly and creatively, if there is an interest in more administration and direct oversight, on what that would look like while keeping in mind that it has staff and financial costs associated with it. He stated that could be discussed in a broader discussion at some point by Council.
PB&R Director Palacio summarized the questions that they want them to answer: How many trees are being taken out per application? How many of these applications have multiple trees, and how many are single trees? What is substantial trimming? What are some pricing alternatives, such as one tree price, two tree price, three tree price, and the sliding scale as well? Could a city arborist have more discretion in applications and the pruning requirement? How many violations are being reported? What is the outreach that we’re doing and what avenues can we outreach to?
Councilmember Boles added whether it might make sense to ask for a deposit for replanting as opposed to the city having to follow up.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 September 11, 2023
Planning Director Murdock also interpreted some of the feedback from Councilmember Boles asking whether there were enough exemptions for minor projects like deck replacements, making sure that this is calibrated to capture the right scope of work and activity without unduly burdening people.
Councilmember Boles didn’t think it was as much about the scale as it is whether the 50 feet is reasonable. If a tree canopy is far away, is there some discretion that they don’t necessarily need to do an arborist report, as it wasn’t needed for that deck.
Councilmember Bier thanked staff and everyone for following along.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that the fact that they have three departments represented to help them to navigate this one fee is a testament to the complexity of a seemingly otherwise simple issue.
He thanked them for helping them navigate that.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
ADJOURN
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 9/25/2023
__________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor