Minutes — Pacifica City Council, October 9, 2023

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 October 09, 2023

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
October 09, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on October 9, 2023 at 5:34 PM 5:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
The closed session item was canceled.
00a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation. Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: one potential case. 5:30 PM - OPEN STUDY SESSION
Mayor Bigstyck called the study session to order at 5:34 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 (via Zoom); Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Bob Palacio, PB&R Director; Stefanie Cervantes, Senior Planner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk, Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.

Mayor Bigstyck explained the conditions for people to submit comments, explaining that all Councilmembers are present in the Council Chambers and none are participating pursuant to AB 2449. He stated that City staff, City consultants and guest presenters may be allowed to participate as panelists via Zoom. Mayor Bigstyck stated that verbal public comments for City Council Regular Meeting 2 October 09, 2023
tonight’s meeting may only be made in person at Council Chambers; remote public comments are not being allowed during this meeting. Written public comments may be submitted as described in the Agenda.

Mayor Bigstyck then read the Land Acknowledgment.

Hate Speech and Remote Public Comment during City Council and Planning Commission Meetings
PROPOSED ACTION: Discuss the recent occurrence of hate speech through remote public comment during the September 25, 2023, City Council meeting and provide direction to the City Manager regarding remote public comment procedure changes.

City Manager Woodhouse presented the study session report dealing with the hate comments at the previous Council meeting and Council’s decision on how they continue going forward regarding public comments via Zoom. He then said he was open for questions, as is the city attorney.

Mayor Bigstyck asked the effect on staff since the previous Council meeting.

City Manager Woodhouse would offer some thoughts and then City Clerk Coffey and PW Director Petersen can offer theirs. He stated that the Public Works employees didn’t feel they could stay for the presentation from Congresswoman Eshoo’s office. He thought it was hard to quantify what the impact of hate speech to any individual, and the solution is to try to prevent entirely or as much as possible. He then stated that PW Director Petersen and her staff were very upset through discussions the next day.

PW Director Petersen stated that Public Works was being honored by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s office at that meeting and there was a retirement in the city and six of the Public Works employees were staying to listen to the speech from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s office and receiving a proclamation. When the hate speech first started, she saw that her staff members were upset. When she talked to them, she acknowledged that they were uncomfortable and stated that they didn’t need to stay. They all opted to walk out. She stated that it was a big deal and important to them to get the award. They had a quarterly meeting after that. There are 60 people in their department, and everyone was upset that it had happened. They are a very diverse group in PW and they held up the United Against Hate poster in the staff picture and it was helpful, but they are still upset about it. She knows it will take time for them to get over that as it was very disturbing to hear that kind of speech and she thought it was very harmful to her employees. Several employees have asked her what the city will be doing about it. At their quarterly meeting, she informed them that they city manager would be coming out with a statement.

City Clerk Coffey stated she would add some comments from her perspective, as well as staff’s.

She felt it was very difficult to get through those comments even for a minute. Staff that heard about it and watched the recording of the meeting were also upset by it: She had a staff person who was involved in putting together the Pacifica United Against Hate collage and was prompted to look at the meeting to see why we were doing that all of a sudden, and came to her in tears after viewing the comments. They have staff involved in putting together the meeting minutes and, to protect the transcriptionist from having to listen to that portion of the meeting, she suggested putting time stamps for when that starts and ends; having to listen through the City Council Regular Meeting 3 October 09, 2023
recording and putting time stamps to protect another person was very difficult for staff. They will have to listen to the meeting recording in reviewing the draft minutes, and she wanted to protect staff as much as possible from having to listen to that again. She was very shaken and physically ill during that portion of the meeting, and she never wants to sit through that again.

She understands our legal obligations in First Amendment speech, but she never wants to sit through those words of hate again. She wants to do what she can to protect others from that.

Asst. City Manager Carter added that, unfortunately, the damage was done. We did our best to address it and bring it to our department employees and reiterate our values, but the damage was done and was hard on her as well. She stated that the collage speaks louder than the words. The important part is to highlight what values we have and what happened during those public comments goes against it.

City Clerk Coffey stated that the hate speech has been happening in other cities in the Bay Area and throughout California. She shared the negative experience at a recent incident from the City of San Mateo.

Mayor Bigstyck acknowledged the difficulties staff experienced following the previous meeting.

He stated, before opening public comment, he wanted to ask a question regarding legality after.

He referred to First Amendment rights. As he received inquiries from the public, he has been asked if there is a way they can cut them off quickly and continue on with the meeting. He has been asking similar questions of legal counsel and asked if counsel can help him understand better what his options are.

City Attorney Kenyon thanked him for this opportunity. She would be giving a long-winded response to incorporate a response to his first question. She stated that Pacifica is not alone, as other jurisdictions have faced this hate speech. She is finding similar stories they hear from every staff she deals with. The first response she understandably gets is asking her why can’t they stop this. She understands the frustration and anger. She and her colleagues from about every county in the Bay Area, and throughout Southern California, have been dealing with this issue as unitedly as they can to come up with a universal response. To see if there was a way for them to stop it before it could happen, they tried, with many conference calls with her colleagues from around the Bay and Southern California to talk about what they are all doing.

She stated, as hard as it is to believe, First Amendment law as we have seen it develop over the years has said that the public, no matter who you are or where you live, has the right to express your thoughts and we as a jurisdiction do not have the legal authority to prevent that speech prior to you speaking, i.e. prior restraint. Prior restraint says that cities cannot prohibit someone from saying things cities think they are going to say, based on their character, prior comments they made, where they live, who they are as people, and their background. She stated we are legally prohibited from doing that, and that is what the law says. She stated that the position it puts all Councils across the state in is trying to weigh the community interest in remote participation or participation in general, staff interests, as well as the legal risks associated with how far the jurisdictional body wants to go to eliminate this speech. She stated that what they presented in the staff report are procedural tools in the event the city does desire to hold remote participation as an option for their community. There are other communities that decided to eliminate it because, ultimately, there is nothing they can do short of eliminating remote participation that will eliminate remote hate speech entirely. Because of that concept of prior restraint, in the staff report she is suggesting the most effective procedural tool, not one that will eliminate it but will reduce the amount of time, which is the warning system. They have to hear that hate speech and then they will be able to cut it off. She stated that they don’t know how many speakers there are going to be. They cannot eliminate it for every speaker so they will City Council Regular Meeting 4 October 09, 2023
have to give every speaker who has the desire to use that hate speech at least a few seconds to say it. She cannot tell them what it means in terms of real time, but the only way to truly eliminate it is to eliminate remote participation; otherwise, they have developed the most effective warning system to reduce the amount of time they will have to listen to it. She understands this isn’t popular, but it is unfortunately the law.

Councilmember Boles wanted to clarify some of the potential strategies identified in the staff report and wanted to make sure it is communicated to others as well. Regarding the warning system, she understands it will probably be 8-10 seconds at a minimum before they could control it. While they can reduce is substantially, that doesn’t help people calling in, with some of the same people using different numbers; without some time restrictions, that could go on indefinitely. At the last meeting, the City Clerk decided there were four more people in line and they would stop taking new comments because it was becoming disruptive to the work on the agenda for the meeting. She asked if that was possible.

City Attorney Kenyon noted at the last meeting that there was a decision that the public comments became disruptive. She stated that, in order to disrupt the meeting, it does require more than simply words; if they want to go down just the disruption angle, it isn’t as easy as it sounds. It is disruptive to staff, but it wasn’t disruptive to the meeting. It becomes a disruption to the meeting when they physically disrupt the meeting, not simply by their words, but an action. It is difficult to see it in that respect. The warning system comes into play and sets forth the rules very clearly, that you will receive two warnings, one in the beginning of all public comments and then another warning immediately should you hear a hate speech, and if they continue after that warning for even a second, they will cut off their mic. She added that the problem is how you discern in those few seconds of hearing the speech that it is actually hate speech. Some of the speakers are becoming more creative: they will read our agendas try to tie their hate speech to one of our agenda topics and speak on topic. If they are veering off-topic, that is when they can give them a warning. She stated that the problem is when to determine that they are very off-topic, as a simple use of a slur or hate speech alone in a word or sentence riddled with on-topic comments is very difficult to discern. There is no guarantee that they are only going to listen to it for five seconds or ten seconds. She stated that, like a rubber band, it will change and stretch. We will have to be nimble. She will be listening very carefully throughout all public comments because her ears and the mayor’s ears are going to be very attuned for this. She will be focused on listening for that particular type of inappropriate speech.

They will try to do the best they can to cut it off as soon as possible, but there is no guarantee how long that will be.

Councilmember Boles stated that, because they have no technical way to know if a phone number is connected to a real person, they could go on indefinitely.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that another drawback under the law is that there is no vehicle or method for them to pre-screen. They can request, but if the caller chooses not to give them their name, it wouldn’t matter, as they would still have to call on whatever way they describe themselves, as they have a right to speak.

Councilmember Boles referred to the other three options identified, beginning with the first, temporarily moving non-agendized public comments to the end of the agenda, as our hope is that they might not want to pay attention when our meetings run late.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that there is no guarantee that it will work but they may not have a full room at that time who would be subject to listening.

City Council Regular Meeting 5 October 09, 2023
Councilmember Boles stated that item 2 is limiting the entire time for oral communications to a set period of time. That may difficult based on the number of public comments in person and on Zoom. The third item was making a cut-off time to accept public comments remotely, and she asked if she can clarify what that means.

City Attorney Kenyon stated it was a procedural rule they can put in place, that no public comments, whether in person or remotely, would be accepted after the agenda item is called.

That would be a protocol change that would say, if you want to make a public comment on any item on the agenda, whether oral communications or a specific agenda topic, you must submit a card before the item is called or you must raise your hand as a remote speaker prior to the time this agenda item is called; at the time the agenda item is called, the mayor would ask if there were any other remote speakers who want to speak on this item and are there any other speakers in the audience who want to speak on this item; at that time, before the staff report is given, any other future speakers would be cut off. She stated that the practical difficulty with that is there are a lot of people watching remotely who decide to make a comment because of the comments they heard previously; that opportunity would no longer exist because they have to treat all public comment the same.

Councilmember Boles thought the benefits of that is someone would raise their hand and they wouldn’t be able to switch to a different number and call again.

City Attorney Kenyon added that one of the attributes of some of the hate commenters is that they have somehow an ability to change their phone number to be a different phone number automatically so it is the same person with multiple phone numbers saying the exact same hate speech but there is no way for staff to pre-screen for that. That is one problem the set time period to eliminate further public comments would address.

Councilmember Bier asked if it was possible to temporarily remove Zoom for a period of time.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed that they can, stating that there are a lot of communities doing that. To temporarily eliminate remote comment for a set period of time is an option, such as for a couple of months; Council can always change that at any time.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she knows in some instances they have been instructed in the past to state a time certain by which some action will take place, and in other cases it is time to be determined. She asked if there is any legal opinion on how we would go about it if we were to consider a temporary stay on the ability to have a Zoom call-in.

City Attorney Kenyon stated they have that discretion as well.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that they will go to public comment. He referred to an interview with Rachel Carroll Rivas, a Southern Poverty Law Center member, who stated, “Their goals were to intimidate and harass communities and create such a spectacle that they don’t allow communities to continue to do their work.” He thought it was important that, as they figure out what they are going to do, their options seem to be that for some period of time they would suspend remote comment or put in their best guess of what would allow the least amount of hate speech to come through. They are deciding between suspending or allowing, and either way they go, there is some harm we will feel in our community. He stated their objective is to heal from this. They will attempt to make a decision that is the most healing for our community.

Whatever conclusion they come to will be a good faith effort to do what they think is in the best City Council Regular Meeting 6 October 09, 2023
interest of all parties involved. He then opened public comments.

Rabbi Moshe, Pacifica, stated he was the rabbi of the local Coastside Jewish Community for four years while that community has been here for 30 years, and shared his concerns on the hate issue as well as what is happening in Israel as well as his thoughts on working with the city and Jewish community.

Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, stated he stands against hate, and shared his concerns and thoughts about everyone’s freedom, especially granted by the First Amendment.

Dan Stegink, Pacifica, shared his concerns regarding the Mayor not shutting down those comments and added that Pacifica has a long history of racist comments and shared his concerns on the process for allowing comments.

Maxlin Merino, Pacifica, stated that she felt we need to stand up for each other no matter our race, and should treat each other as we wanted to be treated, and feels everyone should be protected.

Alice Lui, Pacifica, stated she has lived in Pacifica since 1983 and is proud of our city and is present to spread love and unity. She then sang “Star Spangled Banner” and “We are the World”.

Rosa Pumacajo, Pacifica, stated she is an immigrant from Peru, and shared her thoughts and concerns on racism and what our city was doing with their power for change, stating “together all things are possible”.

Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, stated that she was in the audience when the Council meeting was disrupted and shared her concerns on feeling they were attacked by white supremacists and shared her thoughts on the need for the Zoom process going forward.

Anthony Spaelti, Pacifica, stated he was talking about the City Manager’s second point on remote public comments, and hoped his suggestions are more solution-oriented.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on the hate speech creating wounds in the community for a week, and he shared his thoughts on the goals needed going forward to keep us in a higher plane and not let them win.

Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that hate speech was not protected under the First Amendment, and expressed her concerns and requested we find a way to deal with this problem going forward and encouraged greater public participation.

Peter Loeb, Pacifica, hoped they keep Zoom access as he was able to participate in meetings when he could not physically and felt there are ways to deal with it. He then shared a personal story to point out that anti-semitism, racism or anti-LGBTQ speech is nothing new and can’t be avoided and shared his concerns as how we handle the problem then and going forward.

Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that hate speech has been on the rise since 2014 and shared her thoughts on this problem and the need to address it properly to protect all rights.

JoAnne Arnos, Pacifica, stated it was hard to hear this problem happening in our community, but she was an advocate for inclusion, diversity and equity, and she shared her thoughts on the City Council Regular Meeting 7 October 09, 2023
difficulty of dealing with it going forward and she appreciated finding a remedy rather than exclude Zoom.

Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared her concerns on this problem, adding that she doesn’t have an answer to solve the problem, but she supports turning a negative into a positive with kindness and she believes Council’s decision will be in good faith and with good intentions.

Summer Lee, Pacifica, stated she agreed that accountability is the way to achieve inclusion and equity, and shared her thoughts on the problem, and suggestions on possible goals.

Delia McGrath, Pacifica, offered her deepest sorrow and sympathy to all residents who were disrespected by the hate speech at the Council meeting and is adding her voice to underscore her values and emphasize the necessity to continue welcoming public comments remotely in the future, by not allowing any hate speeches and set proper boundaries.

Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus heard that everyone in Pacifica was hurt. She stated that they want us to react, and she tried her best not to react to anything they said. She still feels it and never wants to hear anything like that ever again. She understands the First Amendment rights, but she feels this is difficult.

Councilmember Bier stated that she was in a state of shock and her statement to her community is the work that happened afterwards, as they are getting together as a community on projects that emanate love, kindness and compassion. She stated that diversity, equity and inclusion are the most important things we can be working on, and she thanked the Pacifica Peace People for their dialogue to speak about racism last week. She stated we are coming together as a community to address this issue and making things happen. She stands with every person of color in our community and fights against anti-semitism, adding she is the daughter of a Polish Jew who had to escape Nazi Germany. This affects us on all different levels. She asked that no one assume they know what we are supposed to do in that moment, as it is what we do now and how we come together.

Councilmember Boles thanked everyone who was present. She stated that the mayor kept a calm face, and talking to him afterwards, his response was stoicism, not wanting to show they were affecting him in any way. She saw all the citizens who left the room, and it was a painful moment. She stated she was born in Belgium and her grandparents fought in the war and her family experienced tremendous danger. She stated that hate has exacerbated since 2014. She knows our community is better than that and is also not perfect and without hate. She appreciated the event by the Peace People. She sat with some of her African-American neighbors and heard the racism and hatred towards them that comes from members in our community as well. She stated that is something people with white skin don’t see or think about when they are in public but people of color often face every day. It pains her as no one should have to live their lives that way. She thought it was important to talk about and deal with it as we need to stand strongly against it as a community. She believes in public engagement.

Since it happened, she has done everything she can to find other solutions to keep our Zoom and phone call-ins, as she knows it is important and how many are participating now that could not otherwise. She knows other cities, such as San Mateo, have experienced this at their meetings, and they decided, because of work on their General Plan, that it was more important to be able to have that community engagement at that time and somehow work through what they were experiencing in the meeting. She found it painful to hear of the pain to our staff.

City Council Regular Meeting 8 October 09, 2023
Council has to hear it, and she personally was willing to take it if it means they can move forward and have as much public engagement as they can. She stated that they also have to think about staff, as they don’t have that choice. She would like to talk about what they can do, such as limits. She stated that City Attorney Kenyon shared with her that the City of Tiburon experienced hate speech and put in some other protocols and it hasn’t happened again. She wasn’t ready to give up without a try. She appreciated talking with Anthony from CivicBell about the idea of virtual speaker cards and the case that he mentioned in Santa Monica and Santa Barbara where they did allow some sign-ins. She stated that you can’t control who can be at the meeting, as it has to be open to everyone, but the laws are not very well-defined because the technology is pretty new about the ability to comment. She thinks, as they move forward, there may be some things they can pursue in that direction.

City Attorney Kenyon was not familiar with that case, but she will look into it, should Council decide to move on with remote participation and whatever procedural message to include.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that there were a handful of instances brought up by the public that he would like to follow up with. He referred to the notion of the system the state uses regarding registering in advance.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that they can always ask as there is nothing prohibiting them from asking, but what they choose to say in their registration is something they cannot mandate, a question of how can you enforce that requirement. If they choose not to give them real names or real identifying information, they cannot say that they cannot confirm their identity and therefore they don’t have the ability to speak.

Mayor Bigstyck stated a speaker said hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that that is the case when the hate speech is off-topic or is creating an actual disruption. She stated in Norse v. City of Santa Cruz the commentor was making statements while making the Nazi salute and he was removed from the meeting for disruptive speech. That court held it was not a disruption that allowed a removal. The other case cited is Williamson v. City of National City, where the public commenter, along with others, laid prone on the floor, which was a physical action that was disrupting the meeting; they were removed from the chambers and that was allowed.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if there was some way PCT could leverage the delay in some way that is beneficial to those watching from home.

City Attorney Kenyon stated they could look into that option.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that there is not a delay via Zoom and they don’t have the statistics of how many people watch the meeting streamed via Zoom or the PCT stream.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked Councilmember Boles for her comment and she appreciated what she said. She is having a very hard time articulating this issue as it is upsetting. She thinks her values were compromised by hearing what she heard and her ability to set it aside and continue to do the business at hand was very challenged; having that happen in the future would make it equally hard if not harder. She appreciated the comments and she wanted to make it clear that she didn’t think the intent of the staff report or any comments made in that report were assuming that the Zoom opportunity is just a convenience that can be easily changed. She knows that the amount of public engagement in our process has been increased City Council Regular Meeting 9 October 09, 2023
because we have had Zoom and remote meetings and she didn’t want that to stop; thus, it makes it very challenging to think about suspending Zoom for any period of time. The notion of black and white, do the bad guys win if they close off the Zoom, doesn’t feel that simple. She appreciated everyone’s candor and respect, as well as the mayor’s opinion piece in the Pacifica Tribune this week. She thought staff had some kind of awareness that this might happen as it had occurred in some other cities in the county and informed them accordingly. She didn’t want to react, but it was still shocking. She tried to be stoic, but it didn’t work. She thanked everyone for their candor and understanding.

Councilmember Bier also thanked Councilmember Boles for her comments. She feels that, if there is a way to protect our staff and community from hearing this kind of rhetoric, it is so important. She asked if we have the resources to help our staff work through that and protect them from that, while allowing our public to participate. She is going back and forth. She wonders if they need some time to figure out the absolute best way to go about this, if it means suspending Zoom for a meeting so staff can come back and give suggestions regarding registrations. She asks if they need more time to figure out the best way to move forward to bring Zoom back and keep our community safe. She wants it all so our community never has to deal with that, our staff to be safe, our community to be able to participate. The hate commentors want us to shut down and we come together in Pacifica.

Mayor Bigstyck has pondered every way he can conceivably approach this and shared those approaches with various people and have been urged by some not to make it too personal, but he thought it was hard not to. He was blessed that many people over these past two weeks have come up to him and thank him for some measure of stoicism, although he understands that is not appreciated by all. He has been preparing for Nazis to come his entire life. He stated, when he hears someone trying in some way to get under his skin, that is the point in time when he be as unreactive and inert as soil, and he thanks every single speaker every single time. Before he got to the meeting, he was as adequately prepared as he could have fathomed for what transpired, and he got that five-minute warning from staff. What is best with the law is that he should thank everyone equally and that is what he is going to do. He believes the proper response each time to somebody who is trying to rile them up is to not give a response. After that, he has time to de-construct it. He suggests that they proceed as though they aren’t going to be reacting to whatever stimulus they give them as that is what they want.

He stated that his personal bias is that he agrees with the speakers who said this is what life looks like and the time and place we are in. He thought there may be a reason why we should all be exposed to it to remind us that it is very much alive and present, what we stand against.

He stated that it is hard for him to weigh that bias against what is responsible for a community who doesn’t necessarily need to hear it, and it is hard to turn to the staff we pay and say they get to hear this indefinitely. He thought the exercise is one in which we learn how to come together as a community, learn to love each other, learn to be kind to one another, and expose each other to it within the context of learning now not to react to it in the way that they want us to. He stated he will now defer to fellow councilmembers.

Councilmember Bier thought maybe they can hear from City staff.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is a very difficult topic. He referred to a commenter who said that the staff report presented a binary decision to Council, but that isn’t the case. He stated this is one of degrees, i.e., a decision about what degree of risk of this happening again would be allowed or not. He stated that the highest degree of not allowing this to happen is to temporarily not do Zoom public comment. He stated that they heard a lot of speakers and a lot of comments that it may not be acceptable as some amount of the harm done by hate speech is City Council Regular Meeting 10 October 09, 2023
acceptable to allow; that is the degree or spectrum Council has to deliberate. He wanted to focus on the immediate decision about what they are going to do beginning with Monday’s joint Council/Planning Commission discussion about the Housing Element and what they will do about remote Zoom public comment. They also have a process that would need to unfold if Council is interested in continuing to allow Zoom but putting into place some of the other procedures. None of them will prevent hate speech from happening in the future, and whenever it happens, the First Amendment has protections to allow that. He stated that they will need to research more if they go with any of the types of strategies mentioned in the staff report or other evolving technologies and analyze those against what the First Amendment and the Brown Act allow or don’t allow and put those procedures in place. He stated that it will take time to figure out what the procedures should be to reduce the risk as much as possible and he is seeking Council’s direction about any of those strategies mentioned or about whether Zoom public comment should continue or be suspended for the near future and specific direction about what they are going to do for the joint Council/Planning Commission meeting.

Mayor Bigstyck wanted to thank Councilmember Boles for the opportunity to work through this issue with her and he was grateful for the work she has done.

Councilmember Boles thanked him in return. She stated the joint study session is an important conversation for the community, and she was hoping they can find some other way to make the meeting better. She added that, when this happened two weeks ago, they also had a joint study session with the Planning Commission and were running late because of these comments. The Planning Chair was emotionally affected and she has told her that, as painful as it was, she doesn’t want to stop commenters either. She didn’t know how the rest of the Planning Commission feels and she hoped they can get their opinions. She would like to try some of new strategies next week, such as the warning system, limiting a certain amount of time for oral communications, and not allowing people to raise their hand after the first minute or so to avoid repeat comments. She is not comfortable moving all comments on non-agenda items to the end of the meeting, as they will be missing community members being able to give input. She thought they could take a certain amount of time and say any others after that time could go to the end of the meeting. She would want to explore all the other options and be able to verify who is talking and that they are a real person and be able to have more control.

City Attorney Kenyon thanked her for those comments. She noted the joint study session is a special meeting because it is a joint Council special meeting, not a regular Planning Commission meeting, and that means they can put in protocols for special meetings, and only apply to the special meeting. They have protocols that address how they have to procedurally handle regular meetings, and they would need to go through a process to amend those if they are going to put in more protocols. For the regular meeting, the only system that they can put in immediately is the warning system; that doesn’t require any amendment to the protocols.

With regard to regular meetings, she would have to look at them more closely as the City Manager referred to. Once they know what procedures Council wants to implement immediately with regard to the regular meetings, that will require some time; if they are talking about implementing procedures other than the warning system for the regular meeting, that may take longer than two weeks. She stated that they can implement additional procedures for the special meeting, but apart from that, they will have to change protocol.

City Manager Woodhouse stated there won’t be public comment on non-agendized items because it is a special meeting just about the Housing Element. As they saw previously, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be potential off-topic commenters that start as if they are commenting about the Housing Element and then veer into the hate speech that they want to City Council Regular Meeting 11 October 09, 2023
accomplish. They would have to implement a warning system in that case and endure the harm they achieved until the warning is provided.

Mayor Bigstyck concluded that the warning system is probably the most likely approach recommended by staff.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed that the warning system is a system that will be the most immediate so, if Council does not want to eliminate remote participation, that would be a recommendation that they can implement the next special and regular meetings without any change to our protocols. She stated, if Council is moving toward continuing remote participation, her strong recommendation would be to implement that warning system. They can give staff that direction at this meeting, and they will implement that for the next meeting.

Mayor Bigstyck stated he wanted to restate that, if they were to engage in that possibility of the hate speech creeping through, it is with an understanding that they are doing it with the intention of strengthening our resolve as a community to teach ourselves peace.

Councilmember Bier asked if they would have to change the protocol for virtual speaker cards.

City Attorney Kenyon stated that virtual speaker cards or Zoom registration would have no enforcement mechanism.

Councilmember Bier would appreciate it if they can do that.

City Clerk Coffey stated that they would need to have some time to figure out how to implement that. Even with the virtual speaker cards, the city attorney stated that it isn’t a mechanism to confirm the real identity of a person.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that their process currently is that anyone with a Zoom link can participate and raise their hand as there is no current virtual registration. As mentioned by City Clerk, that would be a technological tool that they would need to research and explore more regarding the restrictions or legalities.

Mayor Bigstyck noted the names on Zoom are derogatory in and of themselves.

City Clerk Coffey stated that, regarding information from other cities, some individuals have used names that are familiar to the community but are not the commenter’s real name.

City Attorney Kenyon agreed, as she has a lot of examples of creative ways that she doesn’t want to publicize. She stated that it goes to her overall point that, at the end of the day, the best tool that she has found along with other colleagues of hers throughout the state is the warning system. That has become the most effective tool we have now and it will reduce the time, but it is the only mechanism that will be able to make discernable impact on the length of time that they will have to hear that hate speech. There are some communities that have decided that living with this warning system is the best system procedurally if they are going to allow remote participation. She stated that they can research all the other virtual technologies that may exist and determine what she knows from other communities. At the end of the day, even with all those existing tools, the best tool to date has still been the warning system. They are going to look for more tools. She thinks, if they implement it as designed, it can be effective. She stated they aren’t going to stop hearing hate speech, whether on the internet or from members of our community, so it is a difficult decision.

City Council Regular Meeting 12 October 09, 2023
Councilmember Beckmeyer heard that there is an interest in implementing the warning system, as well as an interest in investigating virtual speaker cards and implementing that as soon as possible. She heard there was no interest in moving public comments for items not on the agenda to the end of the meeting, and she agreed with that point of view. She stated that the safety they can create for themselves comes from having strong, unwavering reaction to this kind of hate speech. She referred to other protocols, such as our Land Acknowledgment, and would like part of the process to include a statement from Council about a position on hate speech in the beginning of the meeting.

Councilmember Bier suggested a Statement of Solidarity.

Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.

Councilmember Boles added that Planning Chair Hauser did prepare such a statement at the last Planning Commission meeting.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus came to this meeting thinking that she wanted to not have public comment because of what happened, but she has changed and understands the importance of people not being able to be present. She thinks the registration in advance will help a little bit as it may deter a few people. She agreed with the other items brought up by Council.

Mayor Bigstyck concluded they have consensus and asked staff if they have direction.

City Manager Woodhouse summarized that Council wants to continue Zoom public comment, including at the upcoming special meeting and thereafter presently; they will immediately employ the warning system to the best of their ability and look into developing the Solidarity Statement; they will research various technology tools, such as virtual registration cards and how that might work, and that would require potentially bringing an item back to Council depending on the cost of the technologies.

Councilmember Bier thought that, at Goal Setting, they can have some time to bring someone in to facilitate and help them learn new ways to respond.

City Manager Woodhouse imagines, given the recent rise on this issue, CalCities will probably continue to have even more trainings about that in the future as a resource.

Councilmember Boles added that, if they are getting repeat callers, she was happy looking at the option of a cutoff time for people raising their hand.

Mayor Bigstyck thought they start with the direction the City Manager already has and if they should continue to have these experiences they will probably have to reevaluate as they go along. He asked if the City Manager has what he needs.

City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.

Mayor Bigstyck stated what they have directed is a warriors’ practice in alignment with cultivating peace in our chambers and amongst our community. He spoke against the hate speech that took place. One of the commentors mentioned Pacifica stands for compassion, as well as against hate and in favor of love. He thought it was important to take this as an opportunity to know the best possible approach to these people is one of the deepest form of City Council Regular Meeting 13 October 09, 2023
compassion because of how broken these individuals are. He adjourned the study session.

RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
City Council Regular Meeting 14 October 09, 2023
7:00 PM - OPEN REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Bigstyck reconvened the regular meeting at 8:18 p.m.

Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bigstyck read the Land Acknowledgment.

Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Bigstyck
Closed Session Report – n/a.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Indigenous People's Day
Mayor Bigstyck read a proclamation honoring the Indigenous People’s Day on the 2nd Monday in October. He then introduced Jonathan Cordero, Chair of the Association of Ramaytush Ohlone.

Mr. Cordero referenced what they have done for years in connection with their long and wonderful relationship with Pacifica as it is a part of their ancestral land and village of origin.

They are grateful to receive the proclamation, not just on behalf of the original natives of the San Francisco Peninsula but on behalf of all California American Indians and other indigenous peoples around the world. They looked forward to being there in person and to continuing their relationship.

City Council Regular Meeting 15 October 09, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they have had the opportunity to become fast friends, and he is grateful for that. Mayor Bigstyck asked Mr. Cordero if he would take a brief moment to tell them about him personally and the organization.

Mr. Cordero stated he was chair of the Association of Ramaytush Ohlone non-profit which they started a few years ago. He mentioned that they have done quite a bit of work in Pacifica and the peninsula, specifically to get their land back, do research, etc.

Councilmember Bier stated it was good to see him and thanked him for everything he does.

Councilmember Beckmeyer congratulated him on their milestones. She stated she looked forward to a future conversation with him and she would love to help them in whatever capacity she can.

Mr. Cordero thanked her.

Councilmember Boles appreciated his involvement in our community and the commitment to educating people and caring for people and the earth, and she hoped to be in close partnership with them and providing a vision for this beautiful place in Pacifica.

Mr. Cordero stated that, for the record, the quarry site is not a cultural or village site, but there are village and cultural sites nearby, and he will clarify that for all of them.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus thanked him as she learned so much at the Council of Cities dinner they had.

Mayor Bigstyck reiterated that he appreciated to have the opportunity to get to know him and learn from him. He looks forward to a continuing friendship.

Mr. Cordero thanked him and all councilmembers as well as the support of people of Pacifica.

B. Proclamation - Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Mayor Bigstyck read a proclamation honoring Domestic Violence Awareness Month. He then introduced Lynn Schuette, representative from Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA).

Ms. Schuette, representative of Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA), thanked them for the opportunity to speak on Domestic Violence Awareness Month. She stated that she has gone to many cities to accept their proclamations and is particularly proud to be here in her hometown. She applauded all the work Council is doing to raise awareness. She thanked them for recognizing this issue and making Pacifica an engaging place to live. She stated that, if there is anyone listening to her speak and they think they are being abused, they can connect them to resources.

Councilmember Bier thanked her, adding that she had an opportunity to tour their facility and learn a lot about CORA services, and they have referred many people to their services.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus thanked her for being here, and she appreciated everything they have done for years and being there for people who need them.

City Council Regular Meeting 16 October 09, 2023
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they have had the opportunity at the Council of Cities meeting to tour their facility. To see the facility and meet staff was impressive and comforting to know that resource exists in our county and community.

Councilmember Boles stated that is one of her favorite things about the Council of Cities dinners, as they get to learn about other agencies and buildings. One thing she was proud of on the tour was that they had the statistics from different cities and Pacifica is one of the top referrals and users of their services, and she appreciated all the good they are doing in our community.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that he has friends who have utilized their services or worked with their service. He thought there was not anyone who has not been touched in some way by domestic violence, even if not personally.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bigstyck asked if any councilmembers wanted to pull an item from consent, and seeing no one, opened public comment.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, commenting on both Items 6 and 7, thanked Public Works and Engineering staff and Council for action on the flooding issues that have plagued lower Linda Mar, and shared his thoughts on both issues.

Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer thanked Mr. Redfield for his comment, as she was going to say the same thing as she is thrilled to see this moving forward in lower Linda Mar and thanked PW and Engineering staff for working together to get these contracts.

Councilmember Boles also wanted to thank the two residents as two of the pipes for the drainage are going on private property and it is a beautiful testament of public and private partnership working together to solve that problem. She also thanked PB&R Director Palacio for bringing janitors to our pool staffers on item 8.

CONSENT ITEMS #1-8
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles

1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 9/01/23 through 9/30/23.

PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of September 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.

City Council Regular Meeting 17 October 09, 2023
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 To Purchase Replacement Structural Fire Fighting Safety Gear PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution to approve the replacement purchase of the Structural Fire Fighting Safety Gear (protective clothing) from LN Curtis in the amount of $169,634.

5. Resolution to Approve the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and One Water LLC DBA Aqua Staffing in the amount not to exceed $200,000.

PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution Approving the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and One Water LLC DBA Aqua Staffing in the amount not to exceed $200,000 to provide wastewater operation services; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to this project.

6. Resolution to Approve an Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Casey Construction for Construction of the Anza/Arguello Interim Storm Drain Project in Lower Linda Mar
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Approving an Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Casey Construction for Construction of the Anza/Arguello Interim Storm Drain Project, in an Amount Not to Exceed $220,000 with a 20% Contingency, for a Total of $264,000.

7. Resolution to Approve a Master Agreement and Task Order 1 for Carollo Engineering for the Anza Interim Storm Drain Design
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Approving a Master Agreement and Task Order 1 between the City of Pacifica and Carollo Engineers for Design of the Anza/Arguello Interim Storm Drain Project, in an Amount Not to Exceed $64,944.

8. Amendment No. 1 To Agreement Between the City of Pacifica and Universal Building Services (UBS) For Janitorial Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt Resolution to Approve Amendment Number 1 to the agreement with Universal Building Services to provide additional janitorial services at the Pacifica Community Center and Jean E Brink Pool.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Tokuko Hirano, Pacifica, stated they have freedom to speak, and she shared her thoughts on the positive aspect walking her dog while having to deal with unclean property in the neighborhoods.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, appreciated removing Sea Bowl property from the Housing Element project and shared his potential options going forward.

City Council Regular Meeting 18 October 09, 2023

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated several of them went to Council of Cities in Half Moon Bay and discussed the CARE program which provides mental health assistance to the police. She attended the Palmapalooza. She stumbled in on the city’s Health Fair for city employees and she learned a lot. She has had various constituent meetings and phone calls over the past couple of weeks. She went to the police inspection and family day. She also shared it was Breast Cancer Awareness month and encouraged both men and women to get mammograms as well as do their self-exams.

Councilmember Bier stated she had several Age-Friendly Coalition meetings and asked the community to keep their eye out for an adult resident livability survey. They want to collect information on housing, outdoor spaces, buildings, transportation, communication, social participation and different kinds of information so they will have some date when moving forward with their work plan. She stated that the day after their last meeting was Fog Fest. She thanked everyone for the Fog Fest and their prevention booth collected surveys and talked to people about overdose prevention. She attended the Rotary Club meeting with Cindy Abbott and they had an opportunity to talk about their art projects for a more peaceful and just community. She shared their project goal and stated they had a work plan for activities that will be going on in the community and appreciated that Cindy Abbott was able to get some funding for it. She attended the San Mateo County HEART meeting and they voted on authorizing a $3 million loan to an affordable housing site at 678 Ralston Avenue with 65 units. She felt it was an honor to be part of it and she will keep them updated as she gets more information. She attended the CCAG Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting where they reviewed and confirmed the MTC complete street check with Pacifica’s Manor Drive Overcrossing Project for the 2024 State Transportation Improvement Program. She thanked Roland Yip for being able to answer questions. She stated it is their work on regional boards that gives them the opportunity to represent Pacifica. She stepped back from the CalCities Peninsula Division Executive Committee. She stated Palmapalooza was awesome, and she thanked the community for supporting PRC. She attended the Coast Pride meeting where they are going to talk about planning Pacifica Pride, and she was excited to work with their new co-chair, Lauren Smith, on Pacifica Pride. She stated that the Pacifica Peace People had a well-attended evening talking about racism. She attended the BID meeting to talk about the money supporting our hotels.

She thanked Chief Sarasua for the beautiful display at the Pacifica Police Department inspection day which showed the unity within the police department.

Councilmember Boles added they had a BBIRP meeting to talk about amenities and different options. She reminded everyone of additional opportunities to participate. She had a Commute.org meeting and had the results of the SMC transportation survey. Planning Director Murdock and she had a separate meeting to review the data from Pacifica. She stated that what came out of that was that going to a shuttle means several years of a commitment of financial resources and the first step is to start a van pool and know if there is enough sustained interest to fund that program. She met with Bill Chang, PG&E representative for our area, and he shared some legislation the state had passed, including a new rate structure for electric use.

The state has mandated changing it from based on use to income so there will be three different tiers. She stated that they are also pushing to underground some electrical lines as those can be sources of fires. She stated the Council of Cities in Half Moon Bay was great and she had great conversations with their councilmembers. She stated Palmapalooza and the Peace People event were great. She started her San Mateo County Leadership Training Program, starting with a 2-day retreat with two different groups, and they will be meeting once a month on different issues, such as economic development. She had a good meeting with Asst. City City Council Regular Meeting 19 October 09, 2023
Manager Carter and Economic Development Manager Tara Schiff so she could be thinking about what they needed. She stated that there are some interesting grants coming up and partnership within the county that she will share later. As part of that training, they have CAP projects they are working on over ten months and she will be working with Supervisor Ray Mueller’s office to look at water capture projects along the coast to build resilience. One of the options they are considering, following discussions with Chair Hauser, NCCWD Director Adrienne Carr, and NCCWD President Jack Burgett, is fog harvesting. As part of that, she went to a different project in Santa Cruz by scientists at UC Santa Cruz studying fog harvesting.

She added that their most successful test site was at Milagra Ridge on the NCCWD property.

She had an Airport Roundtable meeting; they are working on possible expansion of the NIITE/HUSSH program so the flights don’t come over Pacifica and turn down the coast but instead continue over the ocean before they turn. She stated that there is an upcoming electric home tour 40 projects all over San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties which includes her house.

Councilmember Beckmeyer has been spending the past couple of weeks recovering from Fog Fest, which was an amazing event. She met with Angelina Soldatos from California Apartment Association and took her on our walk along Esplanade, as she is new to the organization. Ms.

Soldatos did work in the City of Fairfax which has similar issues. She agreed that the community dialogue about racism was very useful and beneficial. She was at the BID meeting and she thanked the attendees for being there and thanked staff for helping the meeting happen, especially General Manager Ella Patel for her willingness to work with city staff on a subcommittee for outlining some options as the BID transitions from the fiscal agent overseeing and working with BID formerly being the Chamber of Commerce and now the city in identifying what its next steps will be and how the hotels want their funds invested to promote more hotel nights and tourism in Pacifica. She was looking forward to hearing more about a more peaceful and just community. She thanked Councilmember Boles for all she does, as well as the update about CPUC and undergrounding powerlines. She then thanked Councilmember Bier for the time she represented the coast at previous League of Cities meetings.

Mayor Bigstyck shared commiserations with the community on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. He attended the PCE board meeting and heard the ways they are communicating with the state at the LCTA board retreat and conversations they are having with PG&E about power, etc. He received some legislative updates on the EV ready programs. He stated that, instead of attending Council of Cities, he interviewed State Senator Josh Becker for The Mayor’s Office. He also has interviews coming up with Assemblymember Marc Berman as well as colleagues from around the region, including Anders Fung from Millbrae, Mark Nagales of South San Francisco, and potentially Maurice Goodman and Glenn Sylvester. He was happy to attend Palmapalooza. He then took a family trip to Disneyland shared some of his positive experiences while there.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse had the opportunity last week, along with Asst. City Manager Carter, to attend the International City and County Management Association (ICMA) Annual Conference where more than 5,000 city management professionals gather together. It was a great conference with a lot of keynote speakers and breakout sessions covering topics like strategic leadership, storytelling to advance priorities, multi-generational workplaces, connection intelligence ethics, community engagement, and personal and professional resilience.

City Council Regular Meeting 20 October 09, 2023
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.

CONSIDERATION

9. Resolution to Approve a One-Time Donation to CORA (Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse) and Amend the FY 2023-24 Budget to Appropriate the Funds PROPOSED ACTION:

1. Adopt the attached resolution to approve a one-time donation of $10,000 to CORA (Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse) for SPEAK UP, a County-wide education and training pilot program in the City of Pacifica and amend the FY 2023-24 General Fund Budget to appropriate the funds;

2. Direct the City Manager to develop a process for City Council annual consideration of non-profit donations during the annual budget development process, and return to City Council to consider the process in late winter/early spring 2024 prior to FY2024-25 budget development.

City Manager Woodhouse gave a brief staff report and then turned it over to Ms. Schuette, who gave the presentation.

There were no public comments.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they heard about the Speak Up program at the Council of Cities dinner and it was very beneficial. She recalled Pacifica’s use of services indicates it doesn’t mean your community has more incidents of partner violence, but that your community is utilizing the resources available. She stated that, knowing we have this safety net, participating with CORA, and hearing about Speak Up, it was very inspirational. She stated that, the more you learn, the more you realize it’s everywhere and happening all the time, and learning more will be beneficial for our community. She wants to join with other communities in the county that are doing this work with Speak Up.

Councilmember Bier stated that the staff report calls it a one-time donation but it is bringing service to our community. The amount of interactions that CORA will be able to have with our community will be important to get that general information out. She feels they benefit from it and is all for it
Councilmember Boles is grateful for the organization and all the education they will provide to the community. She thanked staff for finding a way to fund things mid-year.

Mayor Bigstyck thought it was wonderful having the opportunity through Council of Cities to see CORA and that was the gateway to this opportunity. He has come to discover the interest in community buy-in regarding the discussion of distribution of funds to nonprofits and organizations. He asked if they want to adopt the resolution and make the motion before they discuss the direction around nonprofits or give that direction first and then make the motion.

City Attorney Kenyon stated it is Council’s preference but they do need a motion.

Councilmember Bier moved to adopt the attached resolution to approve a one-time donation of $10,000 to CORA (Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse) for SPEAK UP, a County-wide education and training pilot program in the City of Pacifica and amend the FY 2023-24 General Fund Budget to appropriate the finds; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus.

City Council Regular Meeting 21 October 09, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck stated that the conversation of distributing funds to nonprofits has come up several times so he thinks it’s a good idea to direct City Manager to come up with a policy. He stated that this was unexpected after the fact of their budget process and he thinks it would be good to incorporate such occasions in their process.

Councilmember Bier noted, in other cities, they have a process where different groups can apply for different fundings. She asked them to think about it for their next conversation about the Pacifica Resource Center being outside of that.

Councilmember Beckmeyer supports having the City Manager and staff develop this idea and bring it back to Council for approval. She appreciated the comment about the unforeseen as that is important and she appreciated the leadership bringing this forward as an item. She stated that they brought up Pride and other instances since the budget approval cycle and the timing recommended here makes a lot of sense. To have the process brought back in late winter/early spring of 2024 and prior to the 2024-25 budget development cycle.

Councilmember Boles agreed, and she asked if there was anything the City Manager needed specifically from Council at this point.

City Manager Woodhouse stated they needed only the direction that they will go and develop a policy or alternatives in bringing it back for Council discussion in the future.

Mayor Bigstyck concluded they have consensus.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles

10. Update regarding Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) certification process and incorporating 2040 General Plan consistency revisions into the existing Certification Draft LCLUP and approving a Revised Certification Draft LCLUP to transmit to the California Coastal Commission.

PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution: 1) certifying that the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act; 2) directing the City Manager to incorporate 2040 General Plan consistency revisions into the existing Certification Draft LCLUP to form the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP and adopting the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP; 3) approving transmittal of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for certification; and, 4) finding that approval of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; and
Provide direction on a community engagement plan to update the public on the status of Pacifica’s efforts to obtain CCC certification of the LCLUP.

Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.

Councilmember Bier referred to community engagement and asked if the first meeting will be with the Planning Commission.

City Council Regular Meeting 22 October 09, 2023
Planning Director Murdock stated, as conceived, it would be a City Council meeting only.

Councilmember Bier asked if the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to work on it.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the process, as they are conceiving it, is a Council-driven process because the ultimate decisionmakers are talking about additional steps beyond what the City Council has already finally approved. That is why they structured the process in this way. Assuming that the process plays out as staff has recommended, the Planning Commission would then hear the LCLUP again following Coastal Commission final action and have an opportunity for public input at that time.

Mayor Bigstyck wanted to be sure that the California Coastal Commission concurs with staff recommendation.

Planning Director Murdock stated he is correct, adding that the letter was not received prior to the agenda packet publication but it did come in and was included in the public comments submitted prior to this meeting.

Councilmember Boles stated that the current deadline for the process was December 22, 2023, and if they pull it and resubmit, is there a hard deadline to adopt a new LCLUP.

Planning Director Murdock stated that, if he understands the question, she is asking in terms of acceptance for filing and processing time by the Coastal Commission.

Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively.

Planning Director Murdock stated that there is not. He stated that, with staff discussions with appropriate leadership of the North Central District office, they have committed to timely review and processing with the application. They understand that the nature of this application is not changing but incorporating textual edits to achieve alignment with the General Plan and they aren’t anticipating any significant filing comments of the type that took multiple years previously.

He stated that is why staff feels confident about an estimated final action by the Coastal Commission no later than June 2024.

Councilmember Boles asked, if there ends being some back and forth, they haven’t given us a hard deadline to complete this process if it ends up needing more time.

Planning Director Murdock agreed.

Councilmember Boles stated that she was reading the document and thinking if the Planning Commission should review it. She wondered if there was some way to include them in an earlier meeting which could be helpful. She was confused about the third step in the process.

She concluded that they will have a study session where they explain all the changes the Coastal Commission is requesting and they will have a public discussion, but the third thing was a letter to the Coastal Commission, not that they are working on revisions to the LCLUP ourselves. She asked if it is correct that they are working on a letter to transmit something.

Planning Director Murdock agreed that what staff is recommending is that they would prepare a draft comment letter for Council to consider and revise as appropriate to transmit to the Coastal Commission. He referred to all of the mechanics and administrative processes of revising the redlines and resubmitting, etc., and asked her to set those aside and just think of the big picture City Council Regular Meeting 23 October 09, 2023
of where they are in the process. They filed their LCLUP amendment, went back and forth for years with the Coastal Commission, and they released their staff recommendation in March 2023, which we are scheduled to proceed to a hearing. If you think about those steps required to get to a public hearing, if we had proceeded as planned, they could imagine Council having submitted comments on Coastal Commission staff’s recommendations. It is the same process where they will be saying that they appreciate their staff’s recommendations but, in further discussions with them, they are going to suggest different modifications than those proposed.

The Coastal Commission would have those comments from the city and their staff’s analysis to consider. Ideally the Coastal Commission staff would concur with our city’s recommendations which is the thrust of this process, i.e., to allow time for our community and additional conversation with Coastal Commission staff to reach some sort of compromise or balanced approach between their suggested modifications and the city’s original LCLUP. He stated that all of that goes to the Coastal Commission process, the hearing, final Coastal Commission action, and it comes back to the city. We will have six months to finally adopt through Planning Commission and City Council the final Coastal Commission certified document. He stated that an alternative process would take much more time than submitting the comment letter and taking final action after the Coastal Commission. That is why staff has outlined this particular process.

Councilmember Boles asked if we won’t have an opportunity to review this document in detail line by line until after they sent the letter to the Coastal Commission that reviews it again and after they say it is okay. She asked if there were other opportunities for Council to modify this document between now and then.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the answer is yes. He asked her to not focus too much on the redline version as this is incorporating policy that Council and Planning Commission has already extensively poured over through the General Plan update process to achieve alignment with the LCLUP that came through that same process two years earlier. He stated that isn’t intended to be any sort of substantiative policy action at this meeting by directing this redline change. Council will have the opportunity to suggest modifications to the Coastal Commission staff’s recommendations through this process and culminating with meeting no. 3. He stated that if Council wants some other LCLUP update process that is not accounted for in this process. This is getting the 2020 City Council approval to the finish line and not a new LCLUP process, but intended to address Coastal Commission staff’s suggested modifications and find a third way to get Coastal Commission certification.

Councilmember Boles stated there might be some changes that she might want to suggest, some of which may relate to their comments. She is trying to understand what happened is, when the draft was written, it was a very contentious process; the city presented a document that talked about sea level rise in terms of triggers and that took out some of the triggering language that a lot of the community objected to, and that was a strong compromise. In the letters back and forth, the Coastal Commission has said they were fine with triggers but the city didn’t give them enough information; they would need to flesh that out more and that hasn’t been given to them. She stated that in the letter they just issued, this document says this is the bare minimum we need to be able to certify this document with the Coastal Act. She thought that may be a shift from what was the Council’s direction was earlier because they haven’t had that conversation. She wants to understand the policy more.

Planning Director Murdock thought, to her specific point, that understanding the details, would begin with the meeting no. 1 process by looking at the suggested modifications from the Coastal Commission staff. He stated that they aren’t prepared, and he wouldn’t recommend getting into City Council Regular Meeting 24 October 09, 2023
more details at this meeting, but one of the suggested modifications addresses just the point she is describing, i.e., the particular sub-area triggers for adaptation and subsequent policy changes. They suggested a different approach, largely along the lines they described, and they will have an opportunity concluding with the meeting no. 3 comment letter to suggest something different and explain their reasons for that. He stated that this process would allow the discussion of those types of subject matter that the Coastal Commission has commented on, but it wouldn’t allow for Council to get into entirely new subject matter to change what was submitted in June 2020. He stated that is not what this process is and would be a different process directed by Council.

City Attorney Kenyon clarified that essentially the way to look at it is that the process where we are to date has been that we have taken our direction from a prior Council on how to submit the LCP. If this Council decides to change that prior direction, staff needs that direction from a majority of Councilmembers through another meeting. As Planning Director Murdock mentioned, it isn’t prepared directly for discussion at this meeting, but if that is the direction from the majority of the Council to introduce a new process into this path and current LCP process, the majority of Councilmembers can do that. She stated it is not that their desires can’t be met, but procedurally, the way to make that happen is to get a concurrence from the majority of Council that they want to change the process that has already been instituted since 2020.

City Manager Woodhouse stated that he is not recommending restarting the LCLUP process at this point in time.

Councilmember Boles stated she doesn’t have a sense of what they can alter at this point and where they are, but they will learn more later about what is needed.

Planning Director Murdock suggested trying to frame her thinking along the lines of what the suggested modifications were from the Coastal Commission and thinking about ultimately Council transmitting a comment letter related to those Coastal Commission comments, and within the purview of what those suggested modifications were, it was probably fair game for discussion. He added that the process is not structured to accommodate that currently.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if Planning Director Murdock could describe the 3-meeting strategy that is laid out in light of Councilmember Boles’ questions. She wants to know if the 3- meeting process allows for a discussion about the trigger item as an example because of the differences in the redline versus where they are going.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the redline that they are recommending constitutes a revised application that doesn’t get into the suggested modifications of the Coastal Commission from March 2023. He stated that the first opportunity for Council to delve into that would be meeting no. 1. They will brief them and summarize those 100+ suggested modifications covering a broad range of subject matter and policies, some of which have been heartfelt testimonials by various members of our community throughout the process. Staff would ask them to think about changes to those in the context of City Council way from February 2020, Coastal Commission staff way from March 2023, and a possible third way that could be a “compromised approach” or some sort of way to bypass the difference between our agencies that would form a future comment through the meeting no. 3 process. They can talk as much as they would like about triggers, given that is one of the policies that the Coastal Commission suggested modifications to change. They can think about if they have it right or think of some other way to do it and suggest it as a comment back to the Coastal Commission.

City Council Regular Meeting 25 October 09, 2023
Councilmember Boles concluded that they aren’t writing the policy, just giving a letter.

Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that the letters are detailed specifically coming from what they discuss in meetings 1 and 2. She thought it would be an opportunity for Council and the community to dive into what the differences are from what the Commission staff submitted to the Commission in March 2023 and where they vary. She thought that was a good process.

Mayor Bigstyck agreed, especially if, as a result of that letter, when the time comes to be heard, their staff is able to say they have, through collaboration, found a way past our differences to find something that could work for all parties. That would be very powerful.

Councilmember Boles understood that the intent of the letter is to give staff the negotiating power to keep working on these things and not that they have an exact plan forward but giving direction.

Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating that the comment letter should be as specific as it needs to be to address the policy difference. It could, in some cases, involve alternative text suggestions and in other cases just be a clear reorientation of a policy that staff hammers out with the Coastal Commission staff for their final recommendation ahead of the adoption hearing, which then comes back to City Council and Planning Commission for confirmation post-Coastal Commission certification. The breadth and variety of the policy language and topics in the LCLUP are very broad and varied, and they will have to tailor and calibrate the approach to meet the particular policy substance.

Councilmember Boles asked, when it comes back to Council for approval, if they find something they still want to redline, and she asked if there was an opportunity for that process.

Planning Director Murdock would say the opportunity to continue to make changes diminishes later in the process, with fewer and fewer after the Coastal Commission certification action. He thought some very minor changes could be made, but whatever Council finally adopts goes back again to the Coastal Commission for their executive director’s determination that the city adopted what the Coastal Commission approved. He stated that, if there is great deviation, they may reject that and they may be back to square one, having to file other LCLUP amendment.

That is why they should do their best to get it as good as they can through this process they outlined.

Councilmember Boles asked about the present process.

Planning Director Murdock stated that this is all policy language that has been thoroughly vetted through the General Plan update process that they are simply aligning into the LCLUP for consistency between the two documents. He stated that there is no new policy language that hasn’t been thoroughly vetted by the community and Council. Whether everyone will agree with it is not what this process is, as that process already occurred in the General Plan update process. He stated that this isn’t the final opportunity that Council will have to say yes or no to whether this is the best language for Pacifica. What it does is gives them more time to complete the LCLUP process and result with the LCLUP certified by the Coastal Commission and is consistent with the General Plan which is a lot of value to us as a community.

Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments.

Sam Casillas, Pacifica, agreed with staff’s request to be allowed to negotiate with the Coastal City Council Regular Meeting 26 October 09, 2023
Commission staff to find a resolution of our LCLUP, expressing his concerns and thoughts on the ongoing process.

Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he understands and accepts what staff has proposed, but expressed his concerns on the relationship between the Coastal Commission and the city and ultimate results of the process.

Larry Bothon, Pacifica, stated he read the revision which seemed reasonable, solid and supporting public’s desires and expressed his support in passing this resolution.

Andy Narraway, Pacifica, stated he proposed that Council reject this proposal and he shared his concerns on the possible future problems if passed and requested that they submit a plan consistent with state law.

Chris Redfield, Pacifica, thanked Council, staff and all involved getting to this point, and he expressed his thoughts and supported this resolution and looked forward to further public engagement.

Robine Runneals, Pacifica, stated what is happening at this meeting is very confusing, and she has been involved in this for many years and knows they had submitted what the public also wanted for this plan and she shared her positive thoughts regarding this present proposal.

Mayor Bigstyck closed public comments and asked for a motion to extend the meeting.

Councilmember Bier moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Councilmember Bier stated that they received a letter from the California Coastal Commission and read the last paragraph which shows that Pacifica is working with the Coastal Commission.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if this is the appropriate time to highlight typos.

Planning Director Murdock stated they would value any input on typos.

Mayor Bigstyck suggested “new buildings in buffer areas shall be supported by…” on packet page 315.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they would eliminate the redline.

Mayor Bigstyck suggested eliminating the redline “however, water tanks located in the hills above populated areas to burst and inundate areas below due to a seismic event” on packet page 335.

Planning Director Murdock confirmed they could eliminate that redline.

City Council Regular Meeting 27 October 09, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck suggested on packet page 349, fourth paragraph, second line, that they eliminate the repeated “zone”.

Planning Director Murdock agreed.

Councilmember Bier referred to packet page 240 regarding a feasibility study of ultraviolet treatment system and asked if they are not planning on replacing them but just study it.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they are trying to make a 2020 document better with 2022 information which could be out-of-date.

Councilmember Boles referred to packet page 186, resolution no. 3, and asked for clarification regarding the CEQA requirement.

Planning Director Murdock stated yes. The provisions shift the burden for CEQA compliance from the local agency to the California Coastal Commission, and it was required. He stated that the Coastal Commission undertakes a CEQA equivalent process so not technically CEQA but compliance with state law.

Councilmember Boles concluded they will undertake that process as part of their review and it will be done before it gets to the Coastal Commissioners. She made some of these comments before on the General Plan, and she referred to mention of the coastal regional sediment management plan being developed, but she thought it was finished since 2017. She then referred to page 213, the addition of mixed use neighborhood and mixed use center zoning, which talked about commercial spaces on the ground floor for the most part; she wanted to be sure we aren’t limiting ourselves if we want commercial or restaurant or public recreation types on a higher level.

Planning Director Murdock understood, clarifying that these are redline edits to incorporate what is in the General Plan and not a policy discussion for changing the policies which would be a separate action by Council to amend both the General Plan and the LCLUP at a future time.

Mayor Bigstyck asked, after they adopt the Housing Element, whether there will be subsequent updates to the LCP at that time.

Planning Director Murdock stated that he was potentially correct depending on the final sites list if land use designation was changed. He stated that, as it relates to the 3-meeting structure and sequence that staff has articulated and recommended, he knows there are a lot of questions remaining by our community and potentially Councilmembers about whether these policies are the right ones for Pacifica for the next 20 years. He stated that they will take them through with the process with the sequence of events that explains what the Coastal Commission staff has recommended in meeting no. 1; potential alternatives to that, some of which staff has discussed with Coastal Commission staff, in meeting no. 2; and meeting no. 3 is when Council gets to decide if we want to push forward with prior Council action, some comment letter that was revised for certification, or do they think a broader LCLUP process needs to be revisited. They can choose not to authorize that comment letter and direct some other comprehensive process if the majority of Council wanted that at the conclusion of meeting no. 3. He stated that, to whatever extent a Councilmember might be unsettled in some of these policies, this isn’t their final endorsement that these will ultimately be certified LCLUP provisions. They do need Council’s direction in this regard to give staff time and space to have community conversations City Council Regular Meeting 28 October 09, 2023
to make that decision at the conclusion of meeting no. 3.

Councilmember Boles stated she was concerned about the coastal access map at the back of the document. She is concerned because there have been changes in the last few years, especially on the north end of town in places where we used to have access.

Planning Director Murdock stated that the diagram is consistent between the General Plan and LCLUP.

Councilmember Boles stated that she made those comments as part of the General Plan.

Planning Director Murdock stated the status of the access points and serviceability will always change over time and the plan won’t necessarily always reflect their current condition. It is intended to represent where existing accesses are and are they intended as type of access or just bluff top view or beach level access. If there are issues in maintenance and repairs or extensions and improvements that occur over time, those are not likely to be reflected effectively in a static map at one point in time. He stated that it is saying should it be beach level access or not, and then carrying that out and providing the policies that work to provide that type of access in that type of location.

Councilmembers Boles and Bier discussed when there may be changes before or after Coastal Commission review.

City Attorney Kenyon asked Planning Director Murdock to address questions on timeline.

Planning Director Murdock thought it was likely to be a future LCP amendment if they want something different. The item at this meeting is to achieve consistency between the General Plan and the LCLUP. These diagrams are consistent with one another. It is also not a topic that he recalls the Coastal Commission commenting on and it wouldn’t be set up in the framework of this process to comment on changing their suggested modification. It will perhaps be some follow-up on LCP periodic update or cleanup, similar to how they periodically revisit the General Plan to make sure it’s updated and aligned with current conditions and desires of Council.

Mayor Bigstyck stated that they have time in February that is carved out so they can look at how the General Plan is doing and make comments about updates that might be helpful to make and they have it set up before Goal Setting.

Planning Director Murdock agreed as the annual report on the General Plan implementation occurs in February for that reason, i.e., anything identified in that process can be considered by Council to work on in the coming fiscal year and early enough to influence the Goal Setting process. He stated that this is a good example as this diagram is also in the General Plan and, if there is a desire to work on this or any other aspect of the General Plan or LCLUP that can be identified in February, prioritized and, if adopted, programmed in for the subsequent year.

Councilmember Boles referred to PR-I-7, Adjustment of Lateral Shoreline Easement, and asked if Planning Director Murdock can explain how that relates to the General Plan.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it came directly from the General Plan, Policy OC-I-43, and that was a conforming edit in the redline to achieve consistency between the General Plan policy as adopted to include it in the comparable policy in the LCLUP.

City Council Regular Meeting 29 October 09, 2023
Councilmember Boles referred to packet page 262, and noted a typo at PR-I-26: “pursue public ownership of Rockaway Beach is maintained.”
Planning Director Murdock noted that.

Councilmember Boles referred to packet page 277, with two mentions of the Manor Drive Overcrossing, and noted inconsistencies with page 281, PR-I-67. Councilmember Boles clarified her comments with City Attorney Kenyon, and Councilmember Bier noted the inconsistency.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they found the final language in the General Plan that says, “The Manor Drive Overcrossing is planned to be widened and coordinated signal control is recommended to be added at the intersection of Manor Drive, Oceana Blvd., and Palmetto Avenue. The project could also potentially include a new on ramp to SR1 from Oceana and Milagra Drive, though other alternatives that achieve similar congestion relief objectives are also being considered.”
Councilmember Boles stated she was okay with that language.

Planning Director Murdock understood and they will make the conforming amendment.

Councilmember Boles referred to page 283, and she appreciated that a lot of the transit things have been updated but Route 140 is also deleted and she thinks the SamTrans On Demand rideshare service pilot in Linda Mar has also been deleted. She is curious why they are deleting and updating some things and not other things.

Planning Director Murdock stated the only answer he has is that they are aligning with the General Plan and, to the extent that the General Plan provisions may have been out of date or inaccurate, it could be inconsistency.

Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he was suggesting that could be a cleanup item.

Planning Director Murdock stated it absolutely could be.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus stated that things change all the time so it is going to be difficult to continue for another 20 years based on something.

Councilmember Boles understood. She mentioned looking at the flooding and storm water discussions on page 297. She knows they just completed the Storm Water Master Plan that identified the flooding in Sharp Park and she thought that was an important thing to include and is missing but maybe it’s not in the General Plan.

Councilmember Bier stated that, if they just finished it, then it wouldn’t be in the General Plan.

Planning Director Murdock stated this is an example where the annual progress report on implementation of the General Plan where we would hopefully recognize we have accomplished some of these Planning or Capital Improvement components. They could report on it, and Council could determine if it was important enough to trigger the work required to amend the General Plan or do they recognize with plan of the 20-year horizon over time, bits and pieces will be completed but we don’t necessarily need to make every line by line revision to reflect City Council Regular Meeting 30 October 09, 2023
current status. He stated that it is a judgment call for Council and there is a fair amount of work involved even with minor General Plan amendments, but that would be an established process to do these periodic status changes about completion or setbacks or inclusion of new work needed.

Councilmember Boles stated she had two more things. On packet pages 336-7, she read the paragraph about coastal zone new development setbacks. She stated it is new and she asked if that ties into the General Plan policy.

Planning Director Murdock stated that it does on page 8-10 of the General Plan.

Councilmember Boles stated the next page continues about site stability surveys. She recalled sea walls and protection are okay for existing structures and she knows the definition of such is being considered and litigated, but this is talking about protection for new development which she considered problematic.

Planning Director Murdock stated this reflects the reality of the Constitution and Takings considerations. There may be an instance where, despite the best imperatives of coastal resource protection in the Coastal Act, it could deny all economic use of one’s property; when that occurs, the potential exists for a Takings. This is saying, in certain circumstances, you may need to allow some minimal amount of development with the sea wall to avoid a Takings.

Councilmember Boles wasn’t sure the Coastal Commission is going to go for this.

Planning Director Murdock stated it will be a case-by-case basis as the Coastal Act does account for circumstances like this and the Coastal Act needs to comply with the U.S.

Constitution related to property rights and Takings, and there are instances where the Coastal Commission will be obliged to okay development. There will be instances where the facts apply to that circumstance and may not justify allowing development.

City Attorney Kenyon added that it was an excellent point Councilmember Boles made, that the Coastal Commission may raise this as an issue that they have, which means that, in this 3-step process staff have laid out, she will have the opportunity to address that because it will be a comment from the Coastal Commission and Council will have to weigh in on that. That is a perfect example of how the discussion she brought up will be discussed in the current process laid out by staff because it is most likely something the Coastal Commission will raise.

Councilmember Boles moved to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.

MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 11:45 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Councilmember Boles referred to the fire map, with discussion on page 349 and the map on page 444. She stated that this fire map does not match the fire map in the General Plan or in the EIR. It was the original fire map that was in the draft before it got changed in the last round and it shows very high fire hazards in various zones in the city limits and Pedro Point; the City Council Regular Meeting 31 October 09, 2023
General Plan specifically says there are no very high fire hazard zones in the city limits, so there is an inconsistency.

Planning Director Murdock stated that they can take a closer look and see if they can incorporate a comparable General Plan exhibit to replace this figure.

Councilmember Boles stated she preferred the current fire map. She was in favor of the process and pulling the current submittal and resubmitting and working with the Coastal Commission in the process identified, but she is not comfortable approving this redline version as it is today.

Mayor Bigstyck asked if there were any comments. He then said that he likes that it is apparent that the Coastal Commission’s own word that we are working with them and he likes that the community is going to have a robust opportunity to weigh in on that work and direct Council one way or the other when the time comes. He looks forward to seeing what that work with Coastal Commission staff has looked like so the community can weigh in on it, and will inform whether or not they like what that process looks like or not and hopefully there are recommendations that the community will be able to favor that move us in a positive direction to update the LCLUP.

Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to adopt the attached resolution: 1) certifying that the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act; 2) directing the City Manager to incorporate 2040 General Plan consistency revisions into the existing Certification Draft LCLUP to form the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP and adopting the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP; 3) approving transmittal of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for certification; and 4) finding that approval of the Revised Certification Draft LCLUP is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; seconded by Councilmember Beckmeyer.

RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier
NAYS: Boles

ADJOURN
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 11:28 p.m.

Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 11/13/2023
__________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor

Pacifica City CouncilOctober 9, 2023

Pacifica City Council
October 9, 2023