CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 January 08, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
January 08, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on January 8, 2024 at 6:30 PM 6:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present, and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session.
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (§ 54956.9(d)(1)) . Name of Case:
Aronovsky, et al. v. City of Pacifica, Ignatian Corporation, et al. (San Mateo Superior Court Case Nos. 21CIV5904, 21CIV6031).
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus reconvened the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor Present
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Roland Yip, PW Dep Director (Field Svcs/Engr); Daniel Patten, Wastewater Engineering Manager; Bob Palacio, PB&R Director; Tara Schiff, Economic Dev.
Manager; Stefanie Cervantes, Sr. Planner; Brianne Harkousha, Sr. Planner; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
City Council Regular Meeting 2 January 08, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Vaterlaus
Closed Session Report
City Manager Woodhouse stated there was no reportable action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Boles pulled Item #5 from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if there was public comments and, seeing none, closed public comments.
Councilmember Boles referred to Item #2 on the minutes, stating that they received a comment letter from Kimberly Finale wishing to make a correction to the minutes. She clarified Ms. Finale said “to request that the city does not hire a consultant that can provide a biased assessment of the route they need to take” instead of "non-biased assessment." City Clerk Coffey stated, for clarification, that the minutes stated that Ms. Finale requested that they do not hire a consultant that can provide a non-biased assessment and to strike the "non" from "non-biased assessment" on packet p. 24.
Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if there were any further comments.
Councilmember Boles stated that, on packet page 31, the second sentence said she met with Marian Hinshaw from the PRC but it should read Anita Rees.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to approve Consent Items 1 through 11, minus Item #5, with the amendments as stated to the minutes (Consent Item #2) by Councilmember Boles; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEMS #1-4, 6-11) EXCLUDING ITEM #5
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
1. Approval of Disbursements for 12/01/23 through 12/31/23.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of December 2023.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the following: (1) December 5, 2023 City Council Study Session and (2) December 11, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 January 08, 2024
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
5. 2022-2023 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving 2022-2023 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2023.”
Agenda Item #5 Discussion:
Councilmember Boles noticed one error in the development fees that she discussed with the City Manager and City Attorney previously and concluded that the Housing in Lieu fee was missing an amount of about $250,000 that is in that account and it shows a balance of 0. Her understanding was that they can approve it now but with a note that the item will be updated the next time they provide the development fee schedules as this has been posted and there is a deadline coming up soon.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, for clarity, that it was an administrative error, not substantive; thus, they can fix it administratively and will confirm it when the next report comes back for AB1600 next year.
Councilmember Boles highlighted that the amount was from Harmony One in lieu fees specifically for affordable housing. She wanted to be sure they are charging enough to keep up with the capacity of our infrastructure, Fire Department needs, etc. She wants to bring to Council’s attention as they may want to discuss it at goal setting as to whether to put on their agenda for next year. She then moved to approve Consent Item #5; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
AGENDA ITEM #5
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
6. Annual Part-Time Salary Schedule Update
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the resolution approving the annual parttime salary schedule update that went into effect January 1, 2024.
7. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Serra Cab for Senior Transportation Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution approving Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Serra Yellow Cab to increase rates for the City Council Regular Meeting 4 January 08, 2024
periods January 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024 and July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025 for the Senior Transportation Services CaR Program such that the total fees for services under the Agreement shall remain unchanged at $85,0000.
8. Consultant Services Agreement for Housing Related Activities and Assignments Between the City of Pacifica and the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) of San Mateo County.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution approving a Consultant Services Agreement with the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (“HEART”) of San Mateo County for housing related activities assignments and related services with a fixed monthly rate of $3,166.64 until June 30, 2026, for a total of 358 hours of consultants services each year for approximately 30 months and to authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement.
9. Resolution Authorizing a Contract Extension with Creative Digital Agency for Continuing Marketing Services
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution approving a one year extension to consultant services agreement between the City and Creative Digital Agency (CDA) to continue providing marketing services and authorize City Manager to execute the necessary amendments not to exceed the budget authority of $75,000, with an option to extend for two additional years at City Manager's discretion.
10. Resolution - Approving Master Agreement For Consulting Services with Woodard & Curran for Rockaway Pump Station Hydraulic Modeling Project PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution that:
A. Authorizes the City Manager to award and execute a Master Agreement For Consulting Services and Task Order No. 1 with Woodard & Curran, Inc. for sole source services and for providing engineering services for the Rockaway Pump Station Hydraulic Modeling Project; and
B. Appropriates $75,070.50 from Fund 34 Wastewater Sewer CIP fund balance to Sewer System Master Plan Project (C007); and
C. Approves a total project budget of $91,953 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $11,994; and
D. Authorizes the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project and future task orders not to exceed the project budget amount.
11. Ratification of Proclamation of Local Emergency related to December 28, 2023, High Tide/Large Wave Events
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution ratifying the Proclamation of Local Emergency related to a December 28, 2023 High Tide/Large Wave Events by the City Manager acting as Director of Emergency Services issued on January 5, 2024.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, stated that the California Coastal Commission heard a presentation by David Waxsmith, a Canadian researcher, regarding relationship between STRs and affordable housing in the LA area, and he shared data from his study.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 January 08, 2024
Doreen Cummins-Murphy, Pacifica, stated she was present to thank PB&R and Public Works staff and the city for the brand new playground structure at Driftwood Circle and shared her thoughts on the process.
Bonny O’Connor, Pacifica, stated she was also present to thank the city for the wonderful park of the Saltaire neighborhood. She shared her thoughts on the process as well. She also thanked the Planning Department for all the work they are doing with the Housing Element, LCLUP, etc.
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, stated that, at the LCLUP roundtable meeting, December 5, staff gave incorrect information regarding roofing materials, and shared his thoughts on follow-up to the city with no response received as well as concerns regarding California Coastal Commission’s re-write of the city’s LCLUP.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, thanked Council on their hard work, and echoed Bryan Reinero’s comment regarding the California Coastal Commission’s sea change on short term rentals, sharing her thoughts.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, referred to short term rentals, and shared her thoughts that we must move forward on this as an important element of our Housing Element.
Peter Garenani, Pacifica, stated he walks his dogs every night through Sharp Park and sees someone on every single block living in a vehicle and shared his thoughts on the homeless problem in the area and un-hosted STRs.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Vaterlaus asked, with many people present, if they can make their comments shorter.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed with her, and she would like to keep their comments as brief as possible and, if they need time to share with each other, that they move it to the end of the meeting.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she would like to bring that before Council to discuss having their communications permanently moved to the end of the meetings.
Councilmember Bier acknowledged the tragedy in her neighborhood in Vallemar where a young man was murdered and she thanked our first responders including Police Chief and also neighbors who came together to have a vigil and fundraiser.
Councilmember Boles was on vacation in Australia where she used to live 33 years ago and shared information on the town where she lived.
Councilmember Bigstyck attended a number of reorganizations and brought back some ideas from Burlingame that he can discuss later. He has worked with Peninsula Division of CalCities through the Legislative Action Committee. He attended the OneShoreline meeting. He stated Peninsula Clean Energy had their last meeting of 2023 and discussed the results of their decisions. He met with a constituent after the king tides. He stated that he will be hosting his last The Mayor’s Office and will be introducing Mayor Vaterlaus and turning the show over to her.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 January 08, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked the City Manager what the city was applying for with the grant funds to cities that are part of PCE.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that $11.5 million that will be divided between the 20 agencies in the county in terms of the percentage of usage.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that it is money they have not applied for yet.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated they need to apply but they need to follow certain steps.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer attended the Coastal Commission meeting in Santa Cruz about the short-term rentals. She attended the Council of Cities dinner in Colma and had the opportunity for our first reignited Library Advisory Committee. She stated that there was an open house at Supervisor Mueller’s office which ended up being a celebration of funding for farm worker housing.
Councilmember Bigstyck also mentioned that the One-Day Homeless Count is coming up on January 26. If anyone is interested in volunteering for that day, which happens once every two years, that is how we get funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer had a good meeting with Jack Burgett from the Water District. They met with a group of constituents regarding the Local Coastal Plan Update. She attended the Colma Creek meeting. She filmed with former mayor Bigstyck. She and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer went to the beach on the day of the king tides and talked to many people about sea wall, city hall, etc. She also thanked our first responders, police, firemen, etc. who were involved in the tragedy in Vallemar.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse followed up regarding the high tide and large wave event: On the consent calendar was the ratification of a Declaration of Local Emergency related to that event as there was a great deal of damage done to the Beach Boulevard area, including a large breach in the sea wall which was repaired very quickly. He added Public Works to the list of first responders and late night work related to the storm damage. He stated that everyone has heard that the pier needs to be closed for three weeks for an expedited assessment on the damage that was caused to the pier, and it is appropriate to declare a local emergency when there is a lot of assessment, work, and repair to be done. He stated that one benefit is making it viable for state or federal funding should those declarations be made at those levels. He stated that there is a lot of clean up to do and they will be working tirelessly on moving sand and repair whatever is necessary in the area. He stated that it is a very difficult situation for first responders in an emergency situation when people come to the scene of the disaster when they are not supposed to be there and they have police trying to take care of real emergencies and having to encourage people to leave an area that is dangerous. He also gave a shout out to the Economic Development program; Economic Development Manager Tara Schiff and Management Analyst Alyssa Barranti have been visiting businesses in town and completed 88 visitations to small businesses and have gotten great response and brought information and resources to those businesses. He stated that program will continue in 2024 and they will look forward to coordinating some of the visits, including Councilmembers, to figure out how to strategize it. He stated that, as it is 2024, he will be serving as the chair of the San Mateo County City Managers Association and they have their kick off meeting on January 11. He City Council Regular Meeting 7 January 08, 2024
thinks it will be a great year with a lot of interesting information and dialogue between city managers. He is also the chair of the Library JPA Operations Committee which is good timing related to our kick off of the Library Advisory Committee and library public outreach they will be doing.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked Public Works for the amazing job they did during the storms.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
12. Introduction of an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Article 2-“Animal Regulation:
Licensing, Vaccinations, Dangerous Animals, and Prohibited Conduct” of Chapter 1, “Animal Control” within Title 6, “Sanitation and Health” to clarify existing definitions, enact additional requirements for animal control and revise animal control service fees”; and finding introduction of Ordinance exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule Exemption)
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Repealing and Replacing Article 2- “Animal Regulation: Licensing, Vaccinations, Dangerous Animals, and Prohibited Conduct” of Chapter 1, “Animal Control” within Title 6, “Sanitation and Health” to clarify existing definitions, enact additional requirements for animal control and revise animal control service fees”; and finding introduction of Ordinance exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule Exemption)
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Lori Morton-Feazell, Chief of Animal Control and Licensing in San Mateo County, was on Zoom and available to answer any questions. He then presented the staff report.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to cats needing to be licensed once the law takes effect, and he asked if current unlicensed cats in Pacifica will be grandfathered in or, if not, what the process to license them would be.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the ordinance requires cats be licensed once the law takes effect, and he asked Chief Morton-Feazell to respond to a possible grace period.
Chief Morton-Feazell stated that, once the ordinance is passed, the licensing company will not apply a late fee for the first 60 days to get a license. There is no mechanism for a grandfathering clause.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked how the residents will know that they need to license their cat to not have a late fee.
Chief Morton-Feazell stated that, generally, when they take their cat for a rabies vaccine, the vaccination certificate is sent to her office; they will send them a notification and they will have a set period of time to register, usually a 30- to 60- day period. If there is a way to put it on the city’s website, she would recommend that.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 January 08, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if what triggers that grace period is when they are taken in for a rabies shot.
Chief Morton- Feazell responded affirmatively, stating that, when they get that slip, they alert the owner that they need to license their cat. She stated that they will not be doing any canvassing.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if he got his cat vaccinated last week and not for another year, a year from now when they go in, that triggers the alert for licensing.
Chief Morton-Feazell responded affirmatively. She added that another mechanism would be, if their cat were to bite someone and the Humane Society were to come out and quarantine their cat in their home, they would get a voidable license citation giving them a set amount of time to get a license.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to packet page 211, 6-1.231, regarding the provision of the article “being in effect in the unincorporated areas of the county and are not applicable to any cities”. He thought that it should pertain specifically to the city rather than unincorporated areas.
Chief Morton-Feazell agreed that the county section could be removed or state Pacifica.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she discussed that with Asst. City Attorney Denise Bazzano who worked on the ordinance. They agree that clarification makes sense and the language they are recommending, if Council is amendable, to insert the sentence, “The provisions of this article shall apply within the geographic boundaries of the city”. She understood that Chief Morton-Feazell would not object to that and is not a substantial deviation from the ordinance.
Councilmember Bier asked if they can explain to her why cats are included.
Chief Morton-Feazell stated there are several reasons. First is rabies: Bats are the highest carrier of rabies and cats are more likely to catch bats than dogs, and they want to make sure that more cats are vaccinated for rabies. The other reason is revenue. She is a Pacifica resident and has three dogs and she thought it should be the same for cat owners that are domestic. If their cats are feral and live outside or they have a cat colony, that does not pertain to those cats, but it does if you have a cat in your home. She stated that, at the end of the year, they look at the total that Pacifica owes for animal control and they subtract the number of licenses sold within the city. Therefore, it is a benefit for the cities to also have cat licenses.
Cat licenses per year, if they are altered, are $9.
Councilmember Boles stated that the staff report says the Supervisors are reviewing and hearing this tomorrow, and she wondered how that works with what they are approving at this meeting.
Chief Morton-Feazell stated they have already passed the ordinance and this is the second reading tomorrow and she does not anticipate any changes to the ordinance.
Councilmember Boles asked if this is the responsibility of everyone who owns a dog to pay the city but they are not given a bill. She asked, if there is a chance that people are not getting their shots but they are not getting notice that they are not paying. She asked if there is some other way that they are monitoring and enforcing the licensing.
Chief Morton-Feazell stated that it would be through a rabies vaccine. If your animal is City Council Regular Meeting 9 January 08, 2024
vaccinated, they get notification of that and you will receive a letter stating that you need to license your animal. She stated that the other way is through Animal Control if they contact you or go to your home for a complaint or a quarantine.
Councilmember Boles asked if they are enforcing it if they do not pay it.
Chief Morton-Feazell stated that they get a list and they know who has paid and who has not.
Their contractor has data, sends three notices to the owner, and then they get a list. One of the things that can happen is, with the new administrative citations, in the future, you could receive an administrative citation. She stated that they are not at that point now, but they are hoping in the ordinance where there is also a section for an amnesty month where all of the late fees are waived. Once a year, they will have that amnesty month which will be noticed to all of the residents in the county and they hope they increase the licensing that way.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked Asst. City Attorney Denise Bazzano as there was a team of five different city attorneys in the 20 jurisdictions and Denise Bazzano was one of them.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica repealing and Replacing Article 2-”Animal.
Regulation: Licensing, Vaccinations, Dangerous Animals and Prohibited Conduct” of Chapter 1, “Animal Control: within Title 6, “Sanitation and Health” to clarify existing definitions, enact additional requirements for animal control and revise animal control service fees”; and finding introduction of Ordinance exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act *(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule Exemption) with the amended language to 6-1.231 entitled Scope as read by City Attorney; seconded by Councilmember Boles.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
13. Update regarding the community engagement plan for the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) certification process.
PROPOSED ACTION: Consider and approve a revised community engagement plan for Pacifica’s efforts to obtain CCC certification of the LCLUP, and confirm reprioritization of Strategic Plan workplan items assigned to the Planning Department.
City Manager Woodhouse began the introduction to the report, and Sr. Planner Cervantes presented the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that this discussion is about the public engagement process for the LCLUP, not substantive policy issues that that process is intended to address.
Councilmember Bigstyck had one question for staff regarding one hour for live Q&A.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the recommendation is that they encourage the community to submit their questions in advance so staff can spend the time to analyze them and come up with good answers. He stated that a lot of these land use and policy applications City Council Regular Meeting 10 January 08, 2024
and questions are very complex. They realize the public will have questions the day of the meeting. They anticipate there will be a lot of time needed in the morning session to talk about questions submitted in advance. They want to allow time in that morning session for questions then and it could be that some of those questions are very complex and staff won’t have the answer right away as it might require some research. He stated that it was a framework, stating that they are trying to work together to be transparent about the information, and submitting questions in advance will allow them to do the appropriate homework to make the meeting run efficiently. If they have questions the day of the meeting, they are free to ask them, but they cannot guarantee that they will have concise answers on all the questions.
Councilmember Bier wanted to be clear about the things they are discussing at this time. She has concerns about the content of what they will be talking about at that third meeting and then the format. She wanted to know if they will be able to ask questions about that and deliberate about that, such as what will be included in the second half of the day.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the intent of this meeting and the packet that will be prepared over the next few weeks and released in advance of the meeting is to address all of the alternate modifications being considered, not just the special resiliency areas or substantial modifications policy. It is intended to lay it all out on the table, provide examples and case studies that address a host of things. The emphasis is on the major policy issues but the scope of the meeting is to talk about it all and have a draft letter that addresses all the Council can react to and discuss in the afternoon after the Q&A.
Councilmember Bier thought they need to hear from public comments.
Councilmember Boles stated one of her concerns is whether they are talking about the 125 green or white items also, as those affect the whole city except for possibly Rockaway and Sharp Park if they do these SRAs. She stated that it a huge conversation that the community has not had yet and she wants to be sure they have the opportunity at this meeting as well. She watched the December 5 meeting video and appreciated all the work that the city and planning staff have been doing on the SRAs. She referred to the City Manager stating specifically that the SRAs are essential to having a certified LCLUP that is acceptable to the city. What she is hearing from the public so far is whether we really are behind the idea of the SRAs at all. She stated that there are a lot of caveats to them. She wants to be sure they understand what is being requested of us in the 125 modifications and whether they can agree to them or not, where they have room to negotiate on them, as it impacts the whole rest of the city and, if they are going to the SRAs, explain clearly what the benefits of the SRAs and what are the additional policies or potential drawbacks to them. She wants to make sure they can talk about those 125 modifications. They may need some presentations that are more in depth than what they have heard from Planning before.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer has a lot of questions about the timeline and thinks they need some leeway.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified that, when the City Manager says we should not be talking substantive policy issues, that is because they do not have all the staff to answer those type questions, not an issue from a legal perspective. Staff was telling them that, regarding real substantive policy discussions, they want the appropriate staff to fully respond to those questions for accurate answers.
City Manager Woodhouse gave further clarification regarding some of the various issues that City Council Regular Meeting 11 January 08, 2024
staff is working on following the December 3 meeting in preparation the February meeting, etc..
He stated staff are not prepared at this meeting to go into all the substantive policy discussions.
Councilmember Boles thought they were asking a lot of input for the meeting in February.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Scott McIntosh, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on the positive resolutions connected with past problems of the sea wall and golf course and suggested best decision going forward.
Tisa Yonts, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on this policy going forward.
Dan Yonts, Pacifica, thanked Council and staff for plans on this topic, and shared his concerns and thoughts on this policy forum going forward.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, shared his thoughts and concerns on the process of this policy and acknowledged that it was confusing.
Jeff Guillet, Pacifica, expressed his concerns referring to the timing for addressing the 125 items to read the issue plus explain it, as well as have a Q&A but suggested a more reasonable process with an online Q&A, and another option is an AMA (Ask Me Anything) that would work.
Larry Bothen, Pacifica, stated the description of a roundtable meeting didn’t sound like the one he attended, which he didn’t think was a positive one, and shared his concerns and thoughts on this issue going forward.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that the only thing they are all united in is confusion, and she shared her concerns and thoughts on the best future process of this policy.
Mark Stechbart, Pacifica, shared his concerns and thoughts on the process of this policy going forward, possibly moving the meetings forward with a different process.
Frank Vella, Pacifica, referred to the importance of the sea wall, and shared his concerns and thoughts on the process with the Coastal Commission going forward.
Marie Sun, Pacifica, shared her concerns and thoughts on the Coastal Commission’s position on this issue.
Ed Ochi, Pacifica, shared his concerns and thoughts on the fast tracking process of this policy for deadlines he considered artificial.
Samuel Casillas, Pacifica, shared his concerns and thoughts on the city’s process regarding Coastal Commission’s stand on the Coastal Act that Californians approved.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated he agreed with almost everything everyone said, and thanked staff for considering additional meetings and his concerns regarding the opposition to the SRA policy and their process of this issue going forward.
Marianne Osberg, Pacifica, stated she wanted to clarify that SAMCAR and realtors’ mission is to protect property rights and she shared her concerns regarding the data regarding sea level rise, etc., and the proposed policy.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 January 08, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to several public comments that raised the idea of doing an Ask Me Anything online or an online forum for questions and processing answers and asked if staff had any response to that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he had not considered it before, but it sounds like a fulltime job for a very long time for staff to monitor that type of a forum but it is a possibility.
Sr. Planner Cervantes added that another reason they want to do this format on February 3 to ensure that Councilmembers are also participating, which is why the special meeting is the preferred format.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed that Councilmembers are aware of their resources and how they juggle them in terms of what they must accomplish. He thought many citizens are unaware of the process up until now, and the staff report mentioned this started in 2009. He was aware of it in 2012 and in 2018 he was making the decisions. He referred to a gap that exists aside from the 15-year process which is a recurring theme which is COVID-19 preventing many from people to show up if they wanted to. He is hearing them expressing that the city should be sensitive to how they can help people maximize their awareness to bring this long process to completion in the best possible way for our entire community.
Councilmember Boles thought the questions and answers in writing is a good idea, acknowledging that they were going to ask questions ahead of time and staff would prepare responses to give at the meeting. She thought they could still type them so it is all public information; they do not necessarily have to repeat that same information at the meeting and they can go on to further clarifying questions to make better use of their time. She feels that they have been working on it for a long time and they are finally close but they need to do the work to get them over the finish line, as well as address climate change and our environment.
She thought putting the time they need to make sure everyone understands it was really important. She thought the deadline presented is not the Coastal Commission’s deadline but the city’s. They want to give them the input to give them several months and they can prepare for that meeting. If they miss that date, it could be later. She asked for clarification on how much time they have.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the June timeline was not a statutory requirement but they know Coastal Commission staff are interested in moving this along to get to a decision on Pacifica’s LCLUP. He can only speak to the cascading effect on city staff, not Coastal Commission, and the LCLUP is one of the most important priorities for Council, but there is a robust work plan of many projects and initiatives that Council has directed him to implement and move forward in this timeline to bring to Council. He stated the Sharp Park Specific Plan does not happen until after the LCLUP is certified by the Coastal Commission. Redevelopment of West Sharp Park does not happen until the Sharp Park Specific Plan is certified as part of the LCLUP. Decisions about the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency project will be supported by the certification of the LCLUP. He referred to redevelopment of 2212 Beach Boulevard Council Chambers and the long-term financial sustainability of the city is a major project and stated it does not move until we have the General Plan for the coastal zone certified by the Coastal Commission. He stated that they can take as long as they want until the Coastal Commission deadlines kick in, but as the process of the LCLUP is time consuming, the Planning Department and he will not get anything else done. He stated that is not delivering on what the City Council Regular Meeting 13 January 08, 2024
Council has directed him to do with the Strategic Plan, such as revising the Short-Term Rental Ordinance, next phase of the Tree Ordinance, etc. He stated that any major initiative that he has been involved in while in Pacifica is a hard push to get it across the finish line and that is where they are with the LCLUP. He stated that it is Council’s prerogative to decide on the priorities and the timeline, which is part of this discussion; i.e., completely revamp, wipe off Strategic Plan priorities and focus on this over the next 6-9 months with more meetings. He wanted to be realistic on what staff resources are, what they can focus on and accomplish, and what is getting backlogged because of that.
Councilmember Bier thought it was apparent how important it is to take their time with this, as she has to understand all of it before she makes a decision and that her community understands as well. She stated, to do that, they have to take the time to go through and see the changes, see what the Coastal Commission wanted them to change, and see the full picture to understand why they asked for these changes. She feels there is a step missing for everyone to understand all of the content of the suggested changes by the Coastal Commission before they even start to address SRAs.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated the staff report lists a notion of an FAQ that goes out prior to the third meeting and he thought it at least partially addresses Councilmember Bier’s concerns. He needs to understand what they are working on (housing, trees, STRs, etc.), that may not be affected by the timing of meetings, but what the LCLUP specifically addresses that will be delayed in terms of larger planning efforts. At the third meeting, they will need a more detailed analysis about timelines with the current LCLUP versus an updated document to have a clear understanding of what planning efforts look like under an old document versus a new document.
He agrees about what we need to understand, as we need to be certain about a substantial structural modification with no lingering detail that we are uncertain about before they send commentary back to Coastal Commission. He referred to the comment about rejecting Coastal Commission recommendations, and he thought direction was given by Council and Coastal Commission’s response was different than the direction that it had previously been given by Council and they are trying to respond to what they were given. He returned to the staff report referencing “other potential alternatives” which applied to the green shaded modifications. He hoped to see, with the special resiliency areas, was what the other potential alternatives are and they can have that discussion about the entire menu and alleviate confusion on what kind of meeting structure we need. He hopes to start to understand from meeting No. 3 how much confusion is stirred up over what the other potential alternatives are which he is not currently aware of. He is aware that the special resiliency areas are one of those potential alternatives.
Once the entire menu of potential alternatives is in front of them, they will have a clearer sense of how deep this discussion needs to be with our community as well as each other. He is optimistic about a third meeting, and he thought the Terra Nova Theater might be the best venue. He is hesitant as he did not know if they can facilitate remote access through that venue. He wondered if they will need a fifth meeting, but he is not yet ready to discuss a fifth because he does not know yet what other potential alternatives are. He acknowledged that the third meeting will be a long day of hard work and they have to be committed to a full day of work to see what they get out of it to be workable in a fourth and fifth meeting in reference to the green modifications.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to them receiving a lot of emails, and she spent time meeting with a few people personally to hear their concerns prior to this meeting and after the December 5 meeting. She agreed with some speakers that they can all agree they are confused or not understanding what is before them and she does not have the confidence to explain it to anyone else. She hears a lot of conjecture and questions where SRAs come from, City Council Regular Meeting 14 January 08, 2024
as part of it comes from statewide work in response to many coastal communities questioning the Coastal Commission treating them all the same. She pointed out that most of our businesses are in the coastal zone and is a driver for our economy, and people ask where the money will come from and who will pay for things. She stated that protecting our community and its fiduciary ability to function is our primary responsibility and we have to look at everything we do and ask what it looks like and how does it work. She stated that the SRA concept was the first pass but is never the perfect one at creating something like a neighborhood approach.
She gets the question of what the difference is if you’re in the SRA or not in the SRA. They need to get answers to that and a good deal of the scenarios mentioned by staff of producing to look at what it means. She was asked what she thought of the December 5 meeting, and she responded that she liked it a lot better than the July 2018 meeting at the Community Center.
She acknowledged that they did not walk away completely understanding everything, but they were civil with an opportunity for an exchange of ideas. She acknowledged that it was not the perfect format, and they are constrained by the facilities they have and earlier they heard a request about having hybrid ability. She referred to the problems mentioned earlier regarding the COVID-19 pandemic interrupting them, but they did figure out ways to do business that did not involve everyone showing up at a time and place certain meeting. She acknowledged that Pacifica is more hampered than San Mateo County in its ability to have a hybrid meeting with call-ins but they improved after the first challenging meeting. She thought that was a key aspect of meetings going forward and mentioned the additional option of using vendors. She liked a lot of the ideas brought forward and would like to use the best suggestions that we can do in Pacifica. She also wanted to spend time delving into the timeline aspect and acknowledged that many things have evolved and we have to look to the future and find the timeline, the comfort zone, and ability to predict. She felt that was different than the purview and vision and view of the Coastal Commission. They have the things they need to be responsible for, and we have the things we need to be responsible for. She heard and agreed with 100% that we worked hard to get our 2020 submission done. She stated that a suggestion was made by email this past week that we should consider having a facilitator and support from the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center and she supports that idea, as they are trained in addressing conflicting viewpoints. She needs to understand the full menu of options and statutory deadlines available to Council as the idea to do this fast to meet the June deadline and move on and focus on other priorities, such as addressing the RHNA numbers and Housing Element. She felt they have to put all these things together and she did not think they can do it on a two-meeting timeline or even four-meeting timeline. She felt they need to have a combination of good ideas to give people a chance to submit questions, staff to respond, and everyone to see those responses.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, after the December 5 meeting, she had more questions than answers even after having been briefed. She had questions that no one may be able to answer, such as the SRA, insurance, lending, property values, what is going to happen, but they were important. She agreed that they will need more than the four meetings and with only an hour for question and answer seems too short to her. She thinks they need to have it in a location where the largest possible number of people can attend with the ability for everyone to participate via Zoom, phone, etc. She is now advocating for sending a postcard to every single person who owns any property or lives in Pacifica. She stated that it is very expensive and sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. This is one of the most important issues we have facing the entire town, it is the most important thing they have been doing for years.
Councilmember Bier referred to the AMA (Ask Me Anything) and thought it would be a good idea to have a start and finish to that, and maybe it can be on a postcard so people understand how much time they have to participate in the forum. She stated an important thing to her is to be able to understand the comparisons of the tracked modifications next to the original LCLUP City Council Regular Meeting 15 January 08, 2024
to understand what is being changed and why. She stated that there are columns of information that needs to be shared for a full understanding. She suggested they contact PCRC to see if they can be available to help with that, as it is an unbiased agency that can come and help them. She referred to a commenter asking how much sea level rise is there, and she thought about needing updated data. She agreed that they will need an additional couple of meetings plus an online forum. She appreciated the Terra Nova Theater and they could check it out.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought it was the biggest venue he could think of in Pacifica and, regarding technology, he thought it was a good time to talk to Marty Anaya of PCT and ask them what they can or cannot do. He referred to postcards going to every resident and asked if it would be inclusive of every business owner.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated everyone.
Councilmember Boles agreed with all the comments, including the need for postcards and including businesses. She referred to Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer working with the Coastal Cities working group and the new approach of SRAs. It is groundbreaking for the whole state as these policies have not been tried anywhere. This is our first draft and that may not be where it is going. She thought the first question was understanding the 125 comments. She feels like they have jumped ahead as they need to understand what they have, what they can work with, what they cannot, and then start to craft the policies and what we need. She is seeing a lot of resistance to those. She was concerned about asking staff to put so much time into providing all these examples now until we know that is the path we are interesting in going down. They may have more than one meeting and they start with the 125 modifications and understand where it is missing and go from there. She stated that we are tight on money and tight on staff time, but these are critical discussions and we are seeing the damage that has happened just in the last few weeks on Beach Boulevard and Rockaway. She felt these were pressing issues in Pacifica and they need to address them and find the path forward, spending the time educating ourselves as well as the community. She thinks the community is on board with wanting to understand and move this forward.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, even within what we already have received, we already have some questions that need to be resolved. There is a big question about roofs, and that alone could be a deal breaker. She said one point that was brought to her attention was what about disaster replacement: If you’re in the SRA and if you have a catastrophic loss, can you rebuild? If you are outside the SRA, can you rebuild? If you can, what are the constraints or requirements that are put on but wouldn’t have been under the 1980 LCLUP? She stated that we need to know that to be able to make an informed best decision on behalf of the community.
She stated that they have to take as much time as they need to figure them out.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he is hearing interest in potentially more than four meetings and he asked Council if they want to say potentially five dependent on how four go. He stated one of the variables is Coastal Commission staff and he will ask Sr. Planner Cervantes, as there is a timeline: Once their resubmitted LCLUP is accepted for completion, there is statutory timeline of possibly three months within which they have to act to give themselves a year extension, thus a 15-month period at most for Coastal Commission action. That was the deadline they faced in December. He asked if that was a correct summary.
Sr. Planner Cervantes responded affirmatively.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that one aspect of the timeline is that the city can take more City Council Regular Meeting 16 January 08, 2024
time to get to the point of submitting alternate modifications in a letter to Coastal staff. Until they get to that point and submit that letter, they do not know how Coastal staff is going to react to that which may trigger more meetings and more work or maybe they are on board and take it to Coastal Commission which acts and that triggers it coming back to Council. He stated that there is an element that is like turning in a draft to get feedback on it to know what the next step or revisions might need to be. He is hearing that they are suggesting is we delay the due date or extend out the due date for turning in that draft before we even have any feedback from Coastal staff about it. He reminded Council and the public that the only certain feedback from Coastal Commission staff is when they publish their recommendation to the Commission.
Feedback from staff conversation is not an official position and they do not know what staff is going to recommend until they get to that publishing of their recommendations. He stated those are important variables in how we strategize submittal milestones and the work to do. He reiterated that part of this discussion is that he needs Council’s authority to revise the Planning Department and City Manager’s department work plan to accommodate these extra meetings; some of the delays have already been mentioned, i.e., the Short-Term Rental Ordinance is not going to get worked on, the Heritage Tree Ordinance is not going to get worked on, the Outside Commercial Permit Ordinance revision is not going to get worked on, and Phase 2 of Housing Element Rezoning is going to get delayed. He stated one of the real priorities they have in parallel to the LCLUP work is the Housing Element and the Phase 1 Rezonings but implementation of the Housing Element and work on affordable housing projects, etc., are all coming out of a 4-person Planning Department and him in the city with our resources, and those are going to get delayed. He wanted to be very clear with Council about what the impacts on other strategic plan priorities are for Council. He will memorialize those in a report to Council about the impact of the work plan. As they start the mid-year budget process and the Strategic Plan update, they can talk about that. He stated that all of that is going to slow down in order to extend meetings on this in order to get to a point where they can submit the city’s best ideas to Coastal staff and see where it goes. He stated that he is hearing the idea of spending time on developing some sort of rolling online Q&A for a start and finish period of time. He also referenced Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center as that is one specific facilitation/mediation resource, but he would ask Council’s flexibility in selecting the mediator/facilitator they would need for the next meeting based on availability. He stated looking at a venue like Terra Nova Theater, there are vendors that do full blown portable Zoom hybrid meetings and his guess would be $20K to run a meeting for a vendor like that, based on what he has seen before. At this point, he does not think he needs to bring anything back to Council for that. He then thought postcards has staff time to develop it at around $5,000-$6,000 of postage to do the postcard citywide as they have done it for the LCLUP process and for BBIRP, and they can do that again. They will not know for certain about actual meeting dates so they could pick the next meeting date and note how they get on the mailing list. He asked if there is more input about venues, as he has no idea what internet connection is like at Terra Nova High School as a Zoom hybrid has to run off their system unless the vendors bring their own system.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to mention one other venue for consideration is Skyline.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that you cannot have a Council meeting outside the city.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood that it has to be within the city limits.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that they are referencing PCRC because they are generally trusted by the community, but he thinks, if they work with City Manager to pick the right facilitator with the understanding that we know and trust PCRC and ultimately they trust his decision. He thinks a quick conversation with Marty Anaya of PCT might be very helpful and it City Council Regular Meeting 17 January 08, 2024
would be good to see if he could figure out an arrangement for less than $20K. He attended the Half Moon Bay City Council reorganization and he saw how that was set up in a community room and PCT had it rigged up in such a way that it worked as smoothly as it does for us.
Regarding the AMA session, he thought they work as a live person on the other end of the forum for whatever the period of time is and understood between hours of X-Y and whomever is on the other line, this is the time to get those questions going.
Mayor Vaterlaus did not think they can have a live person doing it. She thought the public can submit questions and get answered, but only for a short time.
City Attorney Kenyon added that most of the questions that staff is answering will have legal review which they will not be able to have on real time.
Councilmember Boles wanted to throw out an idea that they do this mostly on Zoom with one place for people who do not have Zoom access. She stated that it takes away the whole complications of the space and remote viewing. She stated that they are meeting to get questions answered and understand. She referred to the schedule. She stated that they will get to the point where they write the letter to the Coastal Commission and they will be rewriting our LCP and the staff report that goes to the Commissioners will have a lot of changes to our LCP to incorporate their changes; there may be some back and forth with staff before that happens and will be a delay within their 2-3 months to a year plus process. She stated that all this is happening between our staff, mostly Coastal Commission staff, but she understands we are not looking at the final version that goes to the Coastal Commission. She stated that, until it goes to the Coastal Commission and they approve it or make changes, then it comes back to us. She wondered if they might need another step in between there to make sure we are on board with what the staff is presenting to the Commission.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, in light of the analogy he gave before, she asked if he can throw that in terms of the idea of more time to resubmit or extending the deadline without knowing what they need to change. She referred to the deadline to submit our draft, when he was using the analogy of the draft that he submitted.
Councilmember Boles stated that they are not resubmitting the draft, just the letter.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they are working on this concept and getting some feedback on it before really developing that concept in a paper and then submitting it to get feedback that may have been the same as what they would have received upon submitting earlier. He stated that is similar to the way the feedback from Coastal Commission staff works.
He referred to the point Councilmember Boles was making about another visitation of what Coastal staff recommends. If they recall with the last submittal, they published their recommendations to Coastal Commission with a hearing that was two weeks after that publication point; we could have had a special emergency Council meeting scheduled in order for Council to make comments on their recommendation and he thought that was the only way you can provide input at that time. They would have to hold the meeting, make quick comments to officially be in the record to say that the City Council agrees with X, Y and Z and disagrees with A, B and C in what their staff is recommending, and it goes to the Coastal Commission. It does not change anything and the process, as it still goes to the Coastal Commission.
Councilmember Boles stated that what is a little bit different when the last one was submitted in 2020 was that there were letters that went back and forth between our staff and Coastal Commission staff and even the letters before our hearing very clearly laid out from Coastal City Council Regular Meeting 18 January 08, 2024
Commission staff the areas of disagreement. She agreed they redlined and we only had two weeks, but she thinks most of those redlines were pretty clear from previous letters that we should know how they felt about those things. She stated that was what was missing now and other people have said that we are not getting.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer did not agree with that. She stated that she read the letters too, and she did not agree with that assessment. She stated that, what she saw in that redline was much more far-reaching than what she read in those letters. She agreed along a theme, but it was seriously marked up and she did not think she got that from the letter.
Councilmember Boles thinks she has to agree that they were not what we submitted and they had made their objections before it was submitted.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought that was possible, but she did not know. She stated that, on some level, she has to say that it is our plan and that is the challenge. We have to make sure it works for Pacifica, not for the Coastal Commission per se. She questioned who we are doing this for.
Councilmember Boles understood that, and that is where she is confused. Some of it is the Coastal Act which is law and other parts are more subject to interpretation and we have some leeway. She is hoping that they do not get through this process and then the Coastal Commission staff changes everything that we have done and then we have something we cannot approve again. She wants to make sure they are working toward a path where they actually have a chance to get this approved and whatever they can do to have more of those conversations and more back and forth; if it needs to come back to Council, as staff is talking to staff, then come back to us instead of just letting them put forth what they think is best.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that this seems to be a quasi-iterative process as they seem to have some momentum going between our staffs versus whether or not the Coastal Commission staff will simply turn around and make a final recommendation to the Coastal Commission at which point the presumed iterative process ceases to be. Regarding timeline issues, he stated he is not looking for infinite meetings but trying to wrap his head around information he does not currently have but will be a big conversation for the community, which he thinks are other potential alternatives. He thinks they need to have a conversation about the special resiliency areas to have clarity among ourselves, which has not happened, but they need to know what other potential alternatives look like to begin that robust conversation. He presumes a fourth meeting might be enough time but a fifth meeting would probably be enough time, and he is looking to seeing the menu to figure out if they need the meeting beyond the fourth.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, for planning purposes, he needs to know if it is 4 or 5 meetings but Council always has the prerogative to decide at a meeting whether they are not ready to make a decision and do another meeting. Regarding other potential alternatives, he wanted to make sure Sr. Planner Cervantes could chime in as he is not aware of other potential alternatives that have been discussed that are as significant as the neighborhoods approach, represented by the special resiliency areas, to get this across the finish line.
Sr. Planner Cervantes agreed that, at this time, staff does not have other alternative modifications besides what is included in the SRAs. She stated that they have ideas of what that would look like and there are some suggested modifications that are easy to say that it is an alternative modification, such as a typo or something that was not completely understood, leading to a revision. She stated, on the big policy items, they do not have alternative City Council Regular Meeting 19 January 08, 2024
modifications finalized.
Councilmember Boles asked if, while not finalized, there might be some modifications that staff perceives happening in this process. She is thinking about the substantial structural modifications, and one thing she is stuck on is the permits to define the 50%, you go back to when the building was built. She asked staff what they are presenting and who was suggesting some things and how and when does that happen.
Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that she has heard two different things: 1) they want to discuss the alternative modifications of meeting 3 which staff can draft some alternative modifications to present to Council to react and look at or 2) do more robust suggested modifications again and they provide the alternative modifications.
Councilmember Bier thinks they are mixing up terms as she thought they were talking about reviewing the green-coded modifications at the next meeting so there might be some confusion on what they were talking about.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought there were a couple of different references on packet page 218, i.e., “due to complexity and implications of SRAs, it was not possible to discuss other potential alternative modifications at the December 5 meeting,” and then another paragraph about agenda packet for meeting 3 “would include the draft, including all potential alternative modifications and will be eventually discussed by Council at meeting 4”. He feels that he will have a full and robust sense of what the entire menu of options are at the next meeting and he feels that, depending on what that menu looks like and where the conversation goes at the next meeting, that will be able to decide whether he will need to untangle more questions that come up or be more comfortable going into a 4th meeting as it feels that the SRAs have been discussed at meeting 3 and the other options may or may not exist may or may not be relatively straightforward. He is very curious as to what meeting 3 reveals.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to clarify that the goal as recommended in the staff report is meeting 3, when they say alternative modifications, Coastal Commission staff have recommended modifications and we are working on the alternative modifications we want to recommend back. He stated that SRA is one of the alternative modifications that is a large concept with ramifications for a lot of the other 125 comments. He stated that the scope of meeting 3 is, of the 125 comments, how much time they need to spend on those. They are on the table to talk about if Council needs to talk about them, but they are focused on all of them.
He stated that staff’s concept is that they want an initial draft letter that addresses everything so Council can react and discuss it which includes a draft related to the 125 comments; at that meeting, they are using the results of case studies that help explain the policies, which is selecting types of projects, like a house remodel, that is in an SRA evaluated under Coastal Commission modifications or in an SRA evaluated under Council recommended alternative modifications or is not in an SRA or is evaluated based on the 1980 LCLUP. Thus, there are four scenarios for one house remodel and what is practically different about those which is the concept they are going for in the case studies as it demonstrates in storybook fashion what the impact of these policies would be.
Sr. Planner Cervantes agreed and stated that staff is considering the case studies different types of projects that they might see in different areas of the cities under those four different scenarios, i.e., the 1980 LCLUP, 2020 city draft, and SRA alternative modifications.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the scope of meeting 3 is to lay it all out and see what the City Council Regular Meeting 20 January 08, 2024
level of understanding is and whether they need a 5-meeting system or if Council is ready to go with meeting 4, a decision which can be made at meeting 3. If the preliminary reaction is that they will need 5 meetings, that would be good to hear so they can tentatively plan on that timeline. They can take what comes out of meeting 3, plan meeting 4 regarding what is going to required, etc. He stated the last meeting, whether meeting no. 4 or 5, is Council’s vote on the alternative modifications letter that they need to submit to Coastal staff. He added that maybe after 5 meetings they continue on. He stated he will be clear about what they will not be working on during this time.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it concerns her to hear they are not going to work on the STR ordinance and she thinks they need to figure out where the priorities are. She recognizes there is a 4-person Planning Department but she is not clear on exactly who is doing that work, as she thought that was legal.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they will review what staff prepares, referring that, in all Goal Setting sessions, when staff gives them all the work they are doing, she emphasizes to Council that City Attorney’s Office has to review all the work they’re doing. City Attorney’s Office does not initiate as it is not a legal project but a Planning staff project. Their job is to prepare the ordinance and then give City Attorney’s staff a draft of the final ordinance and they review it for legality but they do not create it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the development analysis of all the options for Short-Term Rental ordinance is a Planning and City Manager’s office function and the time impact is significant. He mentioned that the Heritage Tree Ordinance reworking is going to be extremely time-consuming as well as the STR ordinance work. He stated that every month they extend out the all-consuming LCLUP work combined with and parallel with the Housing Element work extends that out. He stated that he is being transparent as it is not work that hired consultants can do. It is work staff has to do as there are many legal, political, and community nuances.
Councilmember Bier stated her main concern for her to agree is to understand the green sections before she can talk about SRAs. She stated it is two separate things and thinks one has to happen before the next.
City Manager Woodhouse stated there is tricky overlap. The SRA neighborhood approach concept affects the green-coded policies as they are inter-related.
Councilmember Boles asked if they are saying that the green-coded policies might change if they do SRAs because the green-coded sections are for non-SRAs. She previously asked if they do the SRAs, does that mean the 125 other comments do not apply to these areas. She was told that some apply and a lot of the difficult ones do not. Thus, they have no clarity to understand what applies where.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that is the goal of meeting 3, i.e., be able to illustrate and explain that.
Sr. Planner Cervantes stated that the alternative modifications that the city might propose are affected by the SRAs. The SRA may fix problems in the green-coded sections that will dictate what their potential alternative modification is, hence why they are so interlinked.
Councilmember Boles asked if they are saying the SRAs would change policies in the non-SRA areas.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 January 08, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was the way she was reading it but getting clarification from staff would be helpful.
Sr. Planner Cervantes agreed, stating that, for some of the green-coded sections, their proposed approach will be different based on what the SRAs allow and what they do not; thus, it might not be that the potential modifications only apply to non-SRA areas but the pros and benefits citywide and what is going to be affected based on the SRAs is what she is getting at.
Councilmember Bier thought they had to decide if they were even going with SRAs or not.
Sr. Planner Cervantes agreed, adding that they are looking at the pros and cons citywide and coastal wide.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to the postcard issue, and as they are talking about multiple meetings, she questioned when they send the postcards. She also asked if there was an opportunity for more clarity through the form of questions submitted and answers posted prior to the 3rd meeting occurring so everyone has a chance to submit questions and staff has a chance to answer them and the public has a chance to digest those answers and then they have a meeting. She questioned is there is a way to submit scenarios that clarify in advance of the actual meeting. She is wondering if online or website-based work that goes on in advance of the meeting that gets the postcards.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they committed, in the recommended approach, to being able to address a lot of the questions they received so far, i.e., FAQs, plus case studies that would be published as part of the packet for the February 3 meeting. If they are opening up an online forum of questions, they would not be able to commit to answering all of that before a February 3 meeting. Thus, a clarifying question for Council is are they going to do a February 3 meeting or push that back, understanding there are workload impacts in doing that.
Councilmember Boles referred to the staff report mentioning people asking questions ahead of time and Planning staff preparing a response. She thought they have not established a deadline of when the questions would start and end and responses would start and end and how it relates to a staff report for the meetings. She agreed that the more information we can answer online for everybody to read and have the same understanding would help the meeting go better, and if they cannot make all those things happen by February 3, they may need to delay that meeting.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought, regarding the City Manager’s question, if they agree to a 5th meeting, that makes it easier to have a February 3 meeting, put everything on the table, see what questions remain after they have an all-day session of wrapping their heads around SRA, the draft letter, and every conceivable thing to discuss. Then it makes the timing better to open for the public to send questions that they can answer ahead of a 4th meeting and anticipating the need to process that and be ready for the 5th and final meeting.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated they almost have a month until February 3 and it’s a lot of work for staff, but as far as the public it’s a time period for them to get the questions in.
Councilmember Boles proposed that they do not have to give them two full weeks.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated it is a cut-off date so they can let them try to submit their questions as City Council Regular Meeting 22 January 08, 2024
they have the questions now.
Councilmember Boles thought staff already has a lot of the questions raised at the meeting and they can be working on them now and may be the answers to a lot of questions that may come up. She stated that, if the meeting is on February 3, the staff report would come out the weekend before, January 26.
Councilmember Bier thought it was too soon and they need to delay it by two weeks because they need more time and suggested having it February 17th instead of the 3rd. She stated that they are asking a lot as it is, and if they are going to get a postcard out saying they have a certain amount of time, there is a lot that has to happen before.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if they have Goal Setting coming up in March.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they need to schedule that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if they were front loading Goal Setting in some way, and if they set goals that are unattainable because of this work, she questioned what the point was.
City Manager Woodhouse stated Goal Setting is an update to the Strategic Plan process and they need to pick a date. He would like direction, as all Councilmembers are available on February 3, but they can poll again for mid-February for a Saturday or another alternative.
Councilmember Bier stated that they will need a lot of time on meeting 3 so it needs to be a weekend.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they can poll for other weekends in February after February 3.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought they are getting closer to consensus.
City Manager Woodhouse heard an idea on the table unofficially thinking that this might be a five-meeting process, stating he was hearing head nods on that. He also thought he understood correctly that Councilmember Boles raised an interesting idea about a venue as to whether, if it is a hybrid meeting, do they need all the space that a Terra Nova Theater would offer or could it occur in the Council Chambers. In terms of staff resources, seeking out and finding vendors to conduct that kind of mobile meeting is a project unto itself that requires time, and if they want to be more efficient, that is an option. He stated that they cannot turn people away in the Council Chambers and they would have to promote that there would be online participation available and hope that works. He thought the final say on looking at locations would be helpful as they need to check those dates against when Council is available and they can look into it if it is a facilitated meeting.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they considered the revised community engagement plan and she asked if staff is satisfied with what they said.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would like to hear input on location, such as Council Chambers or a different venue.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is with Terra Nova Theater as it is the biggest venue but he does not know what PCT can do for them or if it is an offsite vendor but either way they can do City Council Regular Meeting 23 January 08, 2024
remote. He thinks Terra Nova Theater offers the biggest space, and if they need a satellite space, they can talk about that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to mention of how much can be done if in a hybrid forum, and asked if that relieves the need for so much space, and she heard him say no.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he heard the City Manager say no, and in doing the hybrid, they cannot turn people away at the door.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer is okay with that.
Councilmember Bier stated that they can check on Terra Nova Theater availability and, if not, the Community Center is bigger than the Council Chambers. She thought people are going to want to show up.
Councilmember Boles wants to make sure they have Zoom and have decent sound. The Community Center is much harder with the reverberation in the room for people to understand.
She has not been in the Terra Nova Theater.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is designed for sound.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the acoustics are better but what was challenging was the table format with everyone talking at once.
Councilmember Boles stated that they do not need that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Mayor Vaterlaus confirmed the largest venue possible. She stated that they did rent control meetings at IBL but it does not seem much bigger than the Community Center.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer recalled that Terra Nova Theater is around 400 or 425 capacity.
Councilmember Bier stated that they do not know if it is available.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they have to find out and so it is up in the air.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that they can still prioritize what their preference is.
City Manager Woodhouse recalled that Monday, February 19, is President’s Day, a three-day weekend and probably need to avoid that Saturday. Thus, they are limited on Saturdays in February. They will look at Terra Nova Auditorium, plan on a postcard, look at how to construct an online Q&A process, talk to PCT about remote Zoom help, and if they are limited, do an outside vendor. If Council is in agreement, the other head nod is the recognition that there are numerous other Planning work plan items that are going to get delayed.
Councilmember Boles wants to make sure the public knows about the results of the December 5 meeting of all the different groups will be published online.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the intent was to publish that as part of the packet and/or online for the February 3 meeting or whenever the meeting occurs.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 January 08, 2024
Councilmember Boles agreed that it could go earlier online if they add that to a website discussion. She stated that the more information there that they can all read to understand the community’s concerns ahead of time.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
14. 2024 City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments PROPOSED ACTION: Review the list of City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments, make any modifications for the calendar year 2024, and approve the final list.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 11:20 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 11:20 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
There were no public comments.
City Clerk Coffey summarized the changes to confirm the following: CCAG alternate changed from Beckmeyer to Bigstyck; Emergency Services Council alternate changed from Bigstyck to Boles; removing the Joint School District/Water District/City Articulation Committee; some discussion about potential change to North Coast County Water District but they ultimately left it the same; some discussion about San Mateo County JPA Advanced Life Support and ultimately leaving that the same.
City Clerk Coffey further confirmed the following: changing Bier to Bigstyck as the alternate for the BAC with Beckmeyer as the primary, removing the 2023 Pride Planning ad hoc subcommittee, and keeping for now the Council Chambers Renovations ad hoc subcommittee; Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project, phase 2, outreach ad hoc subcommittee; and Committee Commission Charter Review ad hoc subcommittee. She stated that concludes the changes proposed for Council Liaison Assignments.
AGENCY Council
Representative(s)
Council
Alternate
ABAG General Assembly Delegate BIGSTYCK BECKMEYER
Airport Community Roundtable BOLES VATERLAUS
City Council Regular Meeting 25 January 08, 2024
C/CAG Representative VATERLAUS BIGSTYCK
Colma Creek Flood Control Citizens Advisory
Committee VATERLAUS BOLES
Emergency Services Council SMC VATERLAUS BOLES
Fog Fest Committee Liaison VATERLAUS BECKMEYER
Housing Endowment and Regional Trust
(HEART) - Member Agency Committee (MAC) VATERLAUS BIER
Housing Our People Effectively (HOPE) - Inter
Agency Council (IAC) BIER VATERLAUS
North County Fire Authority JPA BIGSTYCK & BOLES
North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) BIER BECKMEYER Pacifica Community Television BIER VATERLAUS
Pacific Beach Coalition BOLES BIER
Pacifica Resource Center BIGSTYCK BIER
Pacifica School Volunteers BIER BECKMEYER
Peninsula Clean Energy JPA BIGSTYCK BOLES
Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance
(Commute.org) BOLES VATERLAUS
SMC JPA Advanced Life Support / Pre-Hospital
Emergency BECKMEYER BOLES
SMC Library JPA BIGSTYCK BECKMEYER
City Council Regular Meeting 26 January 08, 2024
* Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) BIGSTYCK NONE * C/CAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee BIER
* C/CAG Legislative Committee VATERLAUS
* C/CAG Resource Management & Climate
Protection Committee (RMCP) BECKMEYER
* Housing Endowment and Regional Trust
(HEART) - Regular Member Board of Directors BIER
*LCC Coastal Cities Group (CCG) Leadership
Committee, North Central Representative &
Chair (through mm/dd/yyyy)
BECKMEYER
*San Mateo County Recovery Council VATERLAUS
CITY OF PACIFICA COMMITTEES /
COMMISSIONS:
Beautification Advisory Committee BECKMEYER BIGSTYCK
Economic Development Committee BECKMEYER & BIER
Emergency Preparedness & Safety Comm. BOLES VATERLAUS
Library Advisory Committee BECKMEYER BOLES
Open Space Parkland Advisory Committee BIGSTYCK BECKMEYER * Representative selected by listed Agency not City Council Councilmember Bigstyck moved to review the list of City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments, make any modifications for the calendar year 2024 and approve the final list; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 January 08, 2024
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 28 January 08, 2024
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 2/12/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor