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 22, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
January 22, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on January 22, 2024 at 5:30 PM 5:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 00a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8. Property: APN: 022-320-180; JPN: 022-032-320-18. Agency negotiator: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager. Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and ATC Sequoia LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (American Tower) on behalf of GTE Mobilnet of California LP d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment of lease.
6:00 PM OPEN SESSION - SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus reconvened the meeting at 6:10 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; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Bob Palacio, PB&R Director; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Brianne Harkousha, Sr. Planner; Lucy Xie, Dep. Finance Director; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 January 22, 2024
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer
Closed Session Report
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated there was no reportable action.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Raymund Donguines
Mayor Vaterlaus read the proclamation honoring Raymund Donguines’ retirement in 2023 from Pacifica Public Works Department after 25 years of service.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer acknowledged his efforts and wished him a wonderful life.
Councilmember Bier congratulated his 25 years of service and wished him well.
Councilmember Bigstyck acknowledged all his accomplishments mentioned and thanked him for his service.
Councilmember Boles appreciated hearing about all his accomplishments and thanked him for all he has done for the city.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked him and appreciated how much he did for the city.
PW Director Petersen mentioned all of the things he has done for the city, the people he has touched, and the projects he has done; he helped on every emergency in the city, willing to do whatever he needed to do to help the city. She thought he was one of the most committed employees she has ever met. She added that he was the backbone of the Engineering Department and pointed out all the people who came to honor him, i.e., bosses, coworkers, etc.
She then stated she wanted to give him something that shows the city’s appreciation for his 25 years of service, as well as a picture of him on the Esplanade Plaza during the high tide with 45- foot waves.
Mr. Donguines’ wife expressed the pride of his children and family for working with Pacifica and being part of the city family, as well as being a wonderful husband and father.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Sam Bautista, Pacifica, stated he was former Dep. Director of PW and he wished Mr.
Donguines a great life in his retirement. He remembered his first day in Pacifica and he was the first person for him to go to as he had the knowledge and knew everyone in town. He congratulated him.
Van Ocampo, Pacifica, stated he was a former Pacifican public servant. He shared how he brought Mr. Donguines in as an intern and gave him projects until he moved back to Guam and then hired him when he applied for Asst. Civil Engineer in Pacifica. He mentioned that they City Council Regular Meeting 3 January 22, 2024
worked together as a team with some of the projects mentioned in the proclamation. He praised him for his abilities and he congratulated on his well-deserved retirement. He then mentioned that another retiree of Public Works is Maria Suzuki, who did not meet the required minimum years of service and therefore did not receive a proclamation, but her hard work and dedication for more than seven years in Field Services is well worth acknowledging, as she always gave priority to the needs of Pacificans. He thanked her for her more than seven years to Pacifica.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked him and Maria Suzuki for her years of service. She then closed public comments and asked Ray Donguines to speak.
Mr. Donguines thanked everyone who came to celebrate his retirement. He admitted it has been a long 25-year journey; he started as an intern and the rest is history. He thanked everyone from Pacifica in all departments that always supported him and Public Works in their projects. He thanked his past and present PW colleagues and everyone present for their support and their dedication and commitments to all the challenging times with the city and all their projects. He thanked his family, including his kids who inspired him to be great. He thanked his wife who has been his life partner, love of his life, and biggest supporter.
Mayor Vaterlaus invited him to come and take a picture.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if any Councilmembers wished to pull anything from the consent calendar. She then opened up for public comments, and seeing no one, she brought it back to Council.
Councilmember Bigstyck had comments for Item #1, ACFR. He thanked staff for their work and reminded everyone that the last two years we had the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officer’s Association. He then referred to Item #2, Re-roofing on the Community Center, which clears the way for photovoltaics to be put on the roof that PCE has been helping them and the savings on the power bill is what ultimately pays it off. He looks forward to the update when the project gets underway.
Councilmember Boles has a couple of questions on the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and thanked all staff for the long hours and hard work, especially with a new audit team. She knew there was a housing in lieu fund with about $250,000 and asked about the housing fund with the balance of $623,394.
Asst. City Manager Carter thanked her for all the kind words as her team worked hard to put this document together. She noted that the $623,394 is listed as a restricted portion of the fund balance and is designated for ongoing obligations for the Redevelopment Agency.
Councilmember Boles concluded it is restricted and not something they can use for housing.
She was also trying to find what the total revenue was for Transit Occupancy Taxes.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they can find the information and the specific page and provide them to her at a later time.
Councilmember Boles also appreciated the answers about the pension fund questions.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed it was very complicated and they will have to have more City Council Regular Meeting 4 January 22, 2024
communication on this.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked her for the comprehensiveness of this report.
Asst. City Manager Carter appreciated that and has fingers crossed for the next award.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
1. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the City of Pacifica Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), Independent Auditor’s Report, and other related documentation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.
2. Notice of Completion for the Community Center Roof Coating Project PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the Community Center Roof Coating Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
3. Lease Agreement between City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution titled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Lease Agreement Between the City of Pacifica and Stephen Johnson Photography for the Premises Located at 1220-C Linda Mar Boulevard (Located in the Sanchez Art Center)."
4. Adoption 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 second reading and adopt “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)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, stated that this is a big night for the Housing Element, and as part of that she wants to keep banging the drum about the ongoing issue of short-term rentals in Pacifica, and shared her thoughts and concerns on the connection to housing issues.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 January 22, 2024
Anita Rees, Pacifica Resource Center, shared some updates on their opening times, tax preparation appointment information, Temporary Safe Parking Program, new outreach staff and schedules.
Peter Gorenani, Pacifica, referred to the challenge of housing in the city and how STRs impact that, and shared his thoughts and concerns on the housing problems.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated he was a reporting a theft of opportunity from the people of Pacifica and visitors to teach, acknowledge and learn from history and shared his thoughts and concerns on the action of a state agency’s disposition of the depiction of Portola.
Michael Vernazza, Pacifica, stated the recent comments are part of the same problem, and shared his concerns on various issues such as AirBnB and VRBO, which impacts our community, and candidates running for office.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bigstyck shared, regarding the Portola statue, that State Senator Josh Becker’s office would investigate it thoroughly and let CalTrans know how we feel. He spoke to Assemblymember Marc Berman in person and was in communication with County Supervisor Ray Mueller who will be looking into where the statue is stored. He was reaching out to the San Mateo Historical Society to see if they can get it in the museum in Redwood City. He attended the reorganization meetings for Pacifica School District, Millbrae, Brisbane, Half Moon Bay, Atherton and Burlingame. He attended the North Coast County Water District meeting and worked with the Peninsula Division Legislative Action Committee of CalCities to plan various events. He met with Half Moon Bay Councilmember Debbie Ruddock to talk about common issues. He attended the PRC meeting and asked anyone with info of available office or food storage spaces to reach out to them. He attended the former County Supervisor Don Horsley memorial which was moving. He attended a Lion’s Club meeting to ask them to contribute to the Communities Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA) to the $10,000 for the service providing training businesses to look out for signs of domestic abuse and what to do if they see the signs. The Rotary Club gave $1,000; Pacificans Care gave $1,000; and PRC gave $1,000 to contribute to this and make it a community service. He stated that the Lion’s Club contacted him after he spoke to them and said they were contributing $3,000 to it. He attended the LAFCO meeting and the OSPAC meeting where they discussed the charter update. He and Councilmember Bier met for the Commission and Committee Charter Ad Hoc earlier today. He attended the City’s Democrat candidate forum for State Assembly.
Councilmember Bier appreciated that people take time to make sure Council gets all the information they need. She attended the Economic Development Committee meeting and she encouraged members of the public to attend. They are also considering an event on April 27, “Brews and Blues,” and looking to collaborate with our Business Improvement District. She thanked Economic Development Manager Tara Schiff and Management Analyst Alyssa Barranti for doing a great job. She attended the Age-Friendly Coalition meeting and there is a survey on City of Pacifica Senior Services site to talk about how to make our city more age-friendly. She thanked Economic Development Committee Member Lauren Smith who is heading up our Pride Committee and and appreciated her efforts. She attended the NCCWD meeting and appreciated that President Burgett kept her involved in that meeting. She stated that part of the Art for a Peaceful and Just Community, a collaboration between Sanchez Art Center and Pacifica Collaborative, is there will be a sing along at the Mildred Owens Theater, Leap into City Council Regular Meeting 6 January 22, 2024
Kindness, on Leap Day, February 29, from 7-9 pm for the community to come together in kindness and fun and sing. She thanked Cindy Abbott of the Art Center for bringing forward such a beautiful project and there will be different sectors of the community participating. She attended the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project community outreach meeting and they are working on the next meeting. She thanked the PRC and LifeMoves, an agency overseeing the shelter system in the county. She referred to a public comment about people sleeping in their cars and to let anyone sleeping in their cars know that there are services available. She asked that everyone support our core service agencies.
Councilmember Boles met with Anita Rees and the Unhoused on the Coast group; there used to be a 90-day residency policy for people to live in the county before they could get services, but now there is only a one-day notice as the goal is to get people into housing shelter right away. She stated that there is money coming from the County for encampments including more money for mental health. She stated that, regarding PRC, the Pirates of Manor are having a fundraiser for the PRC at Winters on February 3, and there are a couple of bands, live music, food, and raffle. She thanked the Pacific Beach Coalition for doing Linda Mar cleanup and planting and highlighted their yearly movie fundraiser on February 9. She met with the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission. At their next meeting on February 21, they have agendized talking about beach safety after a tragic death. She stated the virtual BBIRP meeting has been scheduled for February 22, and she encouraged everyone to attend it as the last design meeting to review the consultant’s proposals before going to environmental review.
At the San Mateo County Leadership Council meeting in Half Moon Bay, they focused on Human Services and they heard from some county leaders from non-profits; these included Thrive, an overall agency giving support to non-profits that helps with capacity building, fundraising, etc. Her group went to Coast House, our only transitional housing shelter on the coast from Pacifica to Pescadero; she stated that two of her cohorts run non-profits in the county and have some job training opportunities that they want to bring to Pacifica, i.e., construction workers and health workers, etc. She shared that Pacifica’s Environmental Family is hosting a talk about the Coastal Act and the formation of the Coastal Commission and their mission at Mildred Owens Concert Hall.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned, in terms of the Economic Development Committee, one of the subcommittees shared early work on a concept for a community-wide events calendar in terms of art, music, and theater. She attended the Library Advisory Committee meeting, and she stated that Council will be very excited to hear that our student, Maya Sinapuelas, stepped up to be the secretary of the committee and the Chair is Tina Wehrmeister. She thought it was excited to see Maya get so engaged quickly and the committee was fortunate to hear and engage with Evette from BergDavis who had done some work in the past with the Library Foundation on materials, social media outreach, messaging, etc. They had an update from San Mateo County Library staff on the 24/7 kiosk presently being constructed at the Sanchez Library. She stated the Coastal Commission Local Government Working Group met and discussed the work plan for the year, and the first item is to dig into Senate Bill 272 which was carried by Senator Laird and signed by the Governor, which establishes the Coastal Commission and Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) as the two entities in California that will be regulating and overseeing and establishing the need for sea level rise adaptation plans in every jurisdiction by a date certain. This year, both agencies are developing the guidance and we want to have a chance to dig into the specifics of the bill and understand how the working group, which is comprised of League of California Cities, California Counties, and two Coastal Commissioners and Coastal Commission staff to work together on looking at the issues for local jurisdictions and learn what will be coming in terms of guidance and helping to give input into that problem. She attended former County Supervisor Don Horsley’s memorial City Council Regular Meeting 7 January 22, 2024
which was very moving. She referred to the County Resource Management and Climate Protection Commission, gave an update on water conservation and the status of our reservoirs; there was discussion about the state requirement that specifically refers to fleets for organizations like cities and the requirement to convert a certain amount of our fleet to nonfossil fuel equipment. She also attended the Pre-Hospital Emergency Services Joint Powers Agreement meeting which is our ambulance services. Even with last winter’s rain and flooding in more outlying areas, they were able to meet the targets almost 100% of the time within the range they are allowed. She stated that the last item is the Pacifica Democrats meeting, which was very well attended with Assembly candidates present, and there will be a congressional forum next month on February 17.
Mayor Vaterlaus attended the former County Supervisor Don Horsley memorial, the Democrats Forum, and the NCCWD closing. She also met with the Fog Fest board who have been working to reduce their costs to continue Fog Fest which is an important issue. She met with constituents regarding STRs and she talked to many people online and emails. She is on the San Mateo County Emergency Services Council and they are getting a new system called Integrated Public Alert Warning and it is used only for emergencies, emergency alerts, and nonweather emergencies. Zone Haven was recently purchased by a new company called Genasys. She stated that will be a much more elaborate program than it was in the past.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, with that new system, if they plan to have an app.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there is an app called Genasys Protect. She talked to them about beach safety and we have a new director there and they asked us about each of our issues; they talked about posting the flags for warning based on tides and all the other problems.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that they all want to be basing policies and plans that they make around sea level rise on the best available science, and there are many sources of scientific data in California. Something called the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) is the agreed upon best available science and they are charged with updating their sea level rise projections for California every five years; the last time it was done was 2018 and their goal was to be done and have it adopted by now, but there was a delay. She stated that, if interested in going to their website, it is opc.ca.gov, State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance 2024 Science and Policy Update. It will be open for public comment until March 4.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated he has one main announcement about the Committee and Commission Charter Ad Hoc committee. He stated that the committee met today and prioritized the sequence of upcoming committee and commission charter reviews as part of our ongoing major Council priority for that. The next committee for review will be the Economic Development Committee followed by the Beautification Advisory Committee, followed by Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission. They will be getting that work now as they wrap up the OSPAC charter review and bring that back to Council. The other item he wanted to announce is that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, under the leadership of Director Bob Palacio, has redone their logo and branding; over the course of coming weeks, the public will see that new logo as the department plans on a rebranding campaign and an actual launch to that. He stated it was a very exciting logo, included input from the PB&R Commission and lots of staff, etc.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 January 22, 2024
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. General Plan Amendment GPA-106-24 for Adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan (File No. 2023-025). Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Action: Adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached Resolution to:
A. Adopt an Initial Study/Negative Declaration;
B. Approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan; and C. Incorporate all maps and testimony into the record by reference.
Planning Director Murdock introduced their full Housing Element team: Asst. City Attorney Karen Murphy; Consultants Nick Hamilton, Aaron Aknin, Carol Johnson, Sabina Mora, and Sandy Council from Good City Company; Planning Department Sr. Planner Brianne Harkousha; and Planning Commissioner liaison Greg Wright. He then presented the staff report.
Councilmember Bigstyck expressed appreciation to Good City and city staff on all the work they have put into this item. He asked Planning Commissioner Wright if he could give them the Commission’s perspective.
Planning Commissioner Wright appreciated staff and the consultants as they had a ton of detail needed to put into this document to conform with the state mandate and represent the values of Pacificans. He mentioned the various details of what they studied to come up with the document they sent to Council.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it has been a joy working with the Planning Commission through this process. He stated that they received an email from Cindy Abbott who recommended a small change in the document, and he wanted to verify that, if they make a small change in relation to STRs, it won’t derail the process.
Planning Director Murdock stated, related to STRs, the Housing Element does mention them and explains there is pressure in their assessment of potential displacement in order to convert some number of long-term housing units to short-term rental use. He stated that the best data they have is that less than 1% of the housing units in Pacifica. In regards to the purpose of analyzing and demonstrating potential impacts to housing from a variety of sources, the Housing Element is adequate and does identify short-term rentals in that policy context. He stated that the concern staff would have now is that inserting new language or amplifying certain polices at this time or particular issues such as short-term rentals beyond what is already in the document does have the potential for HCD on its next review to dig deeper into those issues we highlighted that were not subject to their prior comments. He stated staff’s goal for preparing this response is to address comments already put forth by HCD, try to check them off the list, and get to certification in substantial compliance. He stated that there is a risk to make a change of the sort requested that HCD could look at it and ask staff to tell them more about that, and it would trigger a new line of comment and response that could elongate the Housing Element process, thereby a risk with making that amendment at this stage in the process.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that adding language that may seem benign but might actually cause HCD to dig deeper into the document and prolong the process.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 January 22, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse added to what Planning Director Murdock said i.e., that it is important to acknowledge when it comes to short-term rentals that it is addressed and the city will be working on new regulations which are mentioned in the Housing Element; but for Council, outside of the Housing Element, the state compliance document is not the end all, be all of Council initiatives and Council has established a strategic priority to work on short-term regulations in Pacifica. Regarding a balancing question for Council, he asked if they want to risk opening up a new issue in HCD and delay the process of certification.
Councilmember Bigstyck appreciated that they are working fervently to the degree possible.
Councilmember Boles appreciated everything and all their work. She referred to the overall schedule and asked if staff can tell them a bit more about what is to come, and she knows the CEQA process is underway and will continue and she asked when they might see a draft.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he would address her question in two parts, the projected remainder of the Housing Element update process and the question of implementation programs. He stated the remaining Housing Element process is out of the city’s control now:
After Council adopts the Housing Element, they will submit it to HCD and they will have a 60- day review period and determine if they have further comments on the city’s draft Housing Element. The city’s goal is to get a letter from them indicating substantial compliance, but they may have further comments which will trigger further consideration by staff and return to Planning Commission and Council depending on the nature of changes needed. He stated it could be as soon as 60-90 days to have a certified Housing Element or a longer time based on HCD’s comments that come out of this next review. He stated that they are not planning to delay further work on the rezoning program that they know they need to complete and are waiting for HCD’s certification. He stated a critical outcome of Housing Element adoption is solidifying the sites Council has identified so they can finally advance formally the environmental review work to prepare the Environmental Impact Report for the rezoning program. It may be 2- 3 months to get a public review draft out to the community and the best projection is the middle of the year, June-July time frame, to have public hearings for the rezoning program contemplated in program No. 1. He stated that a lot of variables could affect the timelines, but that is a realistic and slightly optimistic timeline on those items.
Councilmember Boles wanted clarification on objective design standards. She understood there is a first phase as part of the rezoning and the EIR, and the second phase is later. She asked for an explanation of the differences between the documents and the two phases.
Planning Director Murdock referred to the Housing Element implementation timeline, and the first priority is to complete the rezoning program; they are obligated under the law to do that and establish the capacity to comply with our Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The second program identified in the Housing Element immediately follows and it is approximately a year timeline to do the comprehensive zoning update to come up with a broad range of objective development and design standards; that is a very time- and resource- intensive process and something the city has not done in decades. He stated that they need to go beyond what is traditionally entailed there because of changes in state law limiting the city to applying objective zoning standards that are adopted for most types of housing projects. He stated that the concern expressed earlier in this process is that there is a gap in time where the rezonings might be completed but all the standards to regulate projects would not be in place.
Interim direction was given to prepare a subset of development standards. He stated that they are trying to put those into the phase 1 rezoning program to be in the EIR and be adopted in the middle of 2024 timeframe while we take the better part of another year to come up with a much City Council Regular Meeting 10 January 22, 2024
more comprehensive and detailed sweep going beyond those six criteria.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened the public hearing.
Nick Kosla, Pleasanton, stated he is with Toll Brothers, a national homebuilding firm active in 26 states with their Bay Area office in Pleasanton, and he lives in the East Bay and understands this is a special community. He referred to the sale of the Sea Bowl and shared detailed information on their plans for 81 townhomes, 10 duplexes, and 22 affordable accessory dwelling units, and that plan represents 12% of the city’s above moderate RHNA and 7% of its lower income RHNA requirements and agreements to make the area better. He requested that they put the Sea Bowl site back into the Housing Element.
Judy Hanson, Pacifica, stated her main goal is to represent the frogs, and shared her thoughts on a topic in the 70s in connection with preserving the land on the ocean side of the freeway between Rockaway and Vallemar then and now.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, stated she is reminded of the garbage she picks up on the beach and shared her thoughts on suggesting the city ask new developers to set up refill water bottle stations.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, referred to her ongoing comments on concerns regarding short-term rentals and appreciated Council and the community’s concerns about the impact to the community and offered her information and suggestion of adding “not permitting unhosted rentals” as part of the Housing Element in the short-term rental portion.
Michael Vernazza, Pacifica, stated he appreciated Mr. Kosla’s comments and he shared his thoughts on representing our community and offer to help on this issue.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Boles referred to the CEQA review and to page 42 of the redlined version of the Housing Element. She asked if it is another CEQA analysis or left over. She stated it is Section H-I-2, No. 14, “initiating any required CEQA environmental analysis for comprehensive zoning modernization programs by January 2026”.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there is quite possibly a need to do further CEQA on the comprehensive zoning update, all the new objective standards and other zoning modernizations, and the potential exists for that to be necessary as part of program No. 2.
Councilmember Boles referred to her question in her email about ministerial review, same page, No. 8, and she asked if he can explain what happens with the CEQA review process. Once this is adopted and they have projects that are only ministerial review, she understands staff does an analysis of whether it is a negative declaration or some other review is required, but she did not think this was anything that goes to the public in terms of environmental review.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He began with what ministerial review means. The most ready example he has is the regular single family homeowner wants to do an addition to their home or build a new home on a vacant lot, and in many places in Pacifica, that is subject to ministerial review and approval; they can come to the Planning Department, apply for a building permit, go through the staff level review process (ministerial component), and get the permit once they meet all the standards on the books relative to that type of development. He stated City Council Regular Meeting 11 January 22, 2024
ministerial approvals are not subject to further environmental review (no CEQA process) and they meet the requirement adopted and get the permit and carry out the building project. He stated that many of these programs result in much larger types of projects being subject to ministerial review and is relatively uncommon in Pacifica; but, to comply with state law in a variety of circumstances, the city is obligated to adopt new regulations that do allow approval by ministerial process, such as certain types of affordable housing projects with 20% lower income units being one of the qualifying criteria. He stated that the process to amend the city’s regulations to put that type of ministerial process in place is subject to CEQA review, but subsequent to that, those projects will not be subject to further environmental review if they meet all the criteria and are eligible for a building permit only.
Councilmember Boles asked, if there is a big project with 40 units and 20% are affordable but there is a wetland on the site, what kind of CEQA review process, if any, would be required and is there any public input on that.
Planning Director Murdock thought likely no CEQA review, given it is a ministerial project, but other applicable state and federal laws, like wetland permitting requirements through the US Army Corp of Engineers or CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife or Water Resources all remain applicable, and those individual property owners would be obligated to comply with those state and federal laws regarding sensitive resource protections.
Councilmember Boles concluded that there is no opportunity for the public to be involved at all.
Planning Director Murdock stated, to the extent those permitting processes have a public component, there is, but, through the city with a public hearing locally, the answer is almost certainly no.
Councilmember Boles also asked about infrastructure capacity improvement and appreciated the technical memorandum that was sent about the Rockaway Pump Station. She noted that the analysis looked at the three sites that are in that area between Rockaway and Vallemar that are core sites in the RHNA and it lists surplus buffer of 21 units. She stated, in their last meeting, they ended up having more buffer sites there and she was wondering if that needs adjusting in the analysis.
Planning Director Murdock thought the answer is no, as the tasks they were setting out to demonstrate to HCD, relative to the infrastructure constraint capacity, was to meet the core RHNA. That is why they documented the infrastructure capacity that would result to implement the RHNA. He thought staff felt like the analysis for Housing Element adoption purposes is adequate. In the environmental review process, infrastructure capacity is something that requires analysis, and they may have additional data at that time, such as including additional flow data as Council approved by separate action recently approve a contract for that. They might learn more about that and perhaps confirm that there is more capacity than anticipated now or will result in the future infrastructure improvements in the area. He stated this is the best information available based on the data available to be analyzed currently.
Councilmember Boles stated that this report says the 200 units meet our RHNA in this area and are permissible after the sewer work is done. She thought there was a limitation.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, as it was staff’s assessment that, given the 8-year period, they are obligated to analyze. Given the estimated scheduling of those capital improvements, roughly in the middle of that period, thinking of the subsequent processes for rezoning and any City Council Regular Meeting 12 January 22, 2024
project of that scale to come in most are likely to be subject to discretionary review and subject to further environmental review. He stated that, given the things they can control and reasonably foresee, they feel comfortable with this estimation and relationship of that capital improvement to replace the sewers in Rockaway and Vallemar relative to the timing of the housing units potentially coming online.
Councilmember Boles stated she saw a reference to 1000 units which the NCCWD had analyzed and decided it was okay within their capacity. She thought that was shy of what they are zoning for. She thought all of this was being reviewed as part of the EIR if there are other capacity improvements they need in other infrastructure.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was a fair statement. He stated that they will make further contact with NCCWD as our water provider. His sense is that they looked primarily at what single family residential development would look like and calculated estimated water usage for those types of developments. The much denser multi-family development that they are anticipating through the Housing Element typically uses far less water. It is not clear that it is an apples-to-apples comparison of the 900 units or so of Water District forecast capacity relative to multi-family housing units forecast in the Housing Element.
Councilmember Boles referred to short-term rentals and stated she was disappointed that there is not more data in the document. She sees that HCD is concerned about the 51 units we lost in Esplanade and wanted to know information about that and low-income residents that were displaced. When she first brought the issue of STRs to the Council, it was an affordable unit and a person being displaced for that conversion; she feels like they are missing data to understand the impact to our affordable housing. Reading all the comment letters from the public now are all related to short-term rentals. She thought it was something the community cares about and she did not feel that they know the impact. As they are starting to work on policies, that would be important to understand. She asked if staff has not heard from HCD asking for any of that information. She knows they quoted certain letters from the public, and she asked if we know for sure that they are not looking for more information for that at this point.
Planning Director Murdock stated that staff has not assessed that HCD requires further analysis of that issue relative to the Housing Element. Regarding her broader range of concerns, he hears that and staff understands, and City Manager has expressed that we are bringing more information to Council outside of the Housing Element process. To the extent she wants that information to support some sort of policy action, he thought the Housing Element will not be a good place to have that information. Short-term rental statistics are dynamic; to dig deeper and stratify that across income levels and displacement will take a fair amount of time, and that information can be put together to support Council action on an ordinance outside of the Housing Element process and serve the purpose of supporting a decision relative to a policy action. He stated that a good place to do that is in the Short-Term Rental Ordinance process.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought their priorities look something like Housing Element, LCLUP, and short-term rentals. He stated that, when he got Cindy Abbott’s letter, he thought that would not cause a problem if they put it in. In his mind he wants to put it in there, and another part of his mind hears that we are trying to get this thing through. He would not mind collaborating with the state in such a way under normal circumstances. He could be convinced otherwise if there is consensus, but he feels that he wants to get this through as he is having trouble with the way the state has conducted the process.
Councilmember Bier is committed to look at our STR ordinance and thinks they are all City Council Regular Meeting 13 January 22, 2024
committed to that. She appreciates all the hard work. She had a question outside of the STR, i.e., why there is not a category for extremely low-income.
Planning Director Murdock can say where it fits in. He stated that the RHNA allocations as provided include moderate all the way down to very low-income. What the state allows them to do and what the city has done is use a methodology to allocate for extremely low by splitting the very low 50% to very low and 50% extremely low and that is what they have done and where the figures they see for extremely low-income are coming from.
Councilmember Bier understands there are a lot of questions on CEQA and they will be doing the EIR moving forward for the next phase, rezoning phase 1. She asks, if something goes wrong within that process, whether they have to go back and change the Housing Element.
Planning Director Murdock thought they will not and they would not want to. They would want to exhaust every other option short of doing that because of the risks of reopening the Housing Element, no longer having a certified Housing Element. etc. For the type of EIR that will be prepared for the rezoning program, this type of major rezoning could lead to impacts including potentially air quality issues, greenhouse gas issues, and vehicle miles traveled issues; they are also doing a biological reconnaissance assessment of the sites to see if there are critical resources that cannot be avoided or would be impacted by housing to be developed on those sites. The tools are there to acknowledge and disclose the impacts and still put into place the rezonings that are required without changing the sites. He thought that was ultimately something Council could do, as they can change any policy document. Staff’s strenuous recommendation, except for the most extreme environmental impact that could not be mitigated, while keeping the site, is that they would not recommend reopening the sites after adoption.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wants go back to the issue of short-term rentals. She agrees with statements that other councilmembers have made and others that the community seems to be looking for a commitment from Council that would seal the deal for the community that has communicated with them many times and will continue to do so on this issue. She knows it is not the agendized topic and asked the Asst. City Attorney if it is within the scope.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy agreed that she was discussing its inclusion in the Housing Element.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought she concurs with Councilmember Bier that this Council has indicated a support for discussing this issue at length and implementing an update to our ordinance. She was not sure putting those words into the document equates to studying the impact of not permitting unhosted rentals. She was not comfortable making that sweeping of a policy commitment when they have not had an opportunity to have our staff vet it. Even within the documents presented to Council at this meeting and through email and public comment, not every community in San Mateo County is not permitting unhosted rentals. She understands, as she has been pushing this issue for a while and did call for a moratorium on short-term rentals and was informed by our City Attorney that it is not a great strategy to accomplish what they want to accomplish. She stated that Council is very committed to addressing this issue due to the fact that they already have an ordinance and already in practice with permitted folks doing work with short-term rentals unhosted. She stated that reality is unfortunately before them, and she is pushing staff all the time about this. She referred to 27 words presently in the document and referred to other planned documents, stating there is a time element in the creation of these documents and there is an arc over which they are working. She referred to agenda packet page 458, Section B6, referenced by Cindy Abbott’s email, and the phrase specifically refers to the city putting additional regulations such as a cap on short-term rentals; she stated that is a City Council Regular Meeting 14 January 22, 2024
future action they are going to take, and when this was written, that was probably true, but as of a specific date, there has been a vote for a cap and there is a cap. She asked if it is triggering if we stated that fact in our document. She understands the issue and appreciates everyone’s urgency on this of not triggering a review and opening up a big issue. She concurs with the sentiment that at the end of the day HCD is not worried about this issue.
City Manager Woodhouse appreciated her comment, and he pointed out that the short-term rental cap is a work in progress and not implemented in the coastal zone and is under review by the Coastal Commission. The way that it is worded, that they are working on that option now and is not done, is accurate.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded it has not been approved by the Coastal Commission.
They submitted it, and they gave a response about getting back more information to them, and then it will be scheduled as an item.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles referred to amendments, etc., and she shows the Planning Commission does that in terms of changing the Emergency Shelter Ordinance we just had, and she asked the City Attorney previously if they wanted to make any changes but not complicate things and have to go back to Planning Commission, as long as it was something clearly directed and deliberated before, legally that is okay. Whether HCD picks up on it or not is a different question. She was looking at some of that language and she understood that the cap is still in progress. She stated that clause “the growing popularity of short-term rental market contributes to displacement pressure” bothers her as it makes it sound like something out of our control and part of the popularity is that we are on the coast and people like places with ocean views, etc., and other cities like Half Moon Bay have passed limitations. She stated that, in the data from other cities, almost all of them limited unhosted to either somewhere between 0 and 120 days.
She stated that it does not mean that the house has to be empty all the time but somebody has to live there part of the year or it is vacant. She agrees that it needs to come back. She thinks they have not done the analysis and the market conditions that contribute to our problem are because a lot of the other cities have passed regulations and it is more popular to buy and convert places to short-term rentals here, where we are more lenient and allow rentals all year long. She is missing the data she wished they had.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that this is something they are looking at in the future. They cannot add something that is not in our ordinance into the Housing Element as it is arbitrarily felt like in the public that they should add that but is not in our ordinance. They are discussing the ordinance further down the line and they keep discussing the Short-Term Rental Ordinance which has nothing to do with the Housing Element at this time because our regulations we have are what we have and not what we are going to look at in the future.
Councilmember Boles added that the analysis of the impact to our housing is not here. That is her comment, not that she is advocating to changing the wording, as she thinks it needs a bigger conversation. She stated she was going to suggest adding instead, as they have had discussion, and Planning Commission has given specific policies to look at and think about, that we are not just working on the cap but considering imposing limitations on unhosted rentals.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked why she is being that specific, as they are going to look at the whole STR ordinance, not just hosted and unhosted.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 January 22, 2024
Councilmember Boles again wished they had the data as they do not know how many of ours are unhosted versus hosted.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and wished they had the data as well. She stated that the good news on that is that it is coming.
Councilmember Bier agreed we need it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that at least 95%, if not 100%, of STRs in Pacifica are unhosted. There is a significant number, and it creates a significant policy issue with a lot of other factors; that is the intent of undertaking the robust holistic look at all the data and study about the STR ordinance. It is going to be very complex. Council will make very informed policy decisions in the future, based on all of that data. He stated, going back to the Housing Element, any change to the language, even the four simple words where it uses the word unhosted, one of the questions it could be is that HCD staff could ask how you define unhosted, and that raises the question, as we do not know because Council has not had that policy discussion to define for Pacifica what unhosted means. The balancing question they are expressing is that it is a very triggering issue and a triggering phrase. He is recommending that they do not invite additional discussions on STRs, although HCD could in the next go-around comment if they choose to.
Councilmember Boles stated she had one more question on short-term rentals. On page 51 of the redline version, on fair housing issues, before HE-I-8, it says “no loss of existing deed restricted affordable units in the planning period” and “no net loss of affordable housing units following any construction, redevelopment or demolition project resulting in the removal of affordable housing units”. She asked if that language applies to short-term rental conversions as well.
Planning Director Murdock stated, to the extent of the loss of a deed restricted affordable housing unit was the result of short-term rentals, that would be a connection.
Councilmember Boles thought it would apply. She is thinking of the people who were displaced for construction projects and then the project was converted from a unit of housing to a shortterm rental. She stated that, if they are saying it is a metric, how are they measuring that for short-term rentals.
Planning Director Murdock thought it would be likely challenging to do that within the current policy framework and the types of information that the ordinance requires them to collect in the current ordinance. He stated figuring out the best ways to address short-term rentals that might be proposed in a deed restricted affordable housing unit seems like a sensible part of the broader STR discussion to have at the time when they are talking about the ordinance.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that the deed restricted units for low-income housing have a deed restriction.
Councilmember Boles stated that the second sentence does not say deed restriction.
Councilmember Bier stated that Councilmember Boles’ advocacy will be important in our next conversation. She is looking forward to that and counting on her for that.
Councilmember Boles asked staff to talk more about deed restrictions. They are planning all City Council Regular Meeting 16 January 22, 2024
these extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income, etc. and she asked if the Housing Element describes any of that. If those types of units are proposed, what are the deed restrictions, rental rates, terms of the restrictions, and where is all that defined.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is currently in the city’s inclusionary zoning program where affordability requirements are set forth based on ownership of rental units; that is one place where you will find some of those criteria currently in the city’s regulations. He thought Consultant Sandy Council could elaborate more on 100% affordable housing projects that would not be subject to the city’s BMR ordinance and how, in her experience, those are worked through between the city and the developer and put into place.
Consultant Council stated that, to count all the affordable units, once you start doing your annual reports and evaluating the Housing Element, the state asks whether the low-income units you’re counting are deed restricted or not. She stated it was typical, especially on 100% affordable housing project that has many layers of financing, and every layer has its own criteria, and there are definitely recorded documents that call out the different rent levels and all of the affordability related requirements. She asked if, on the inclusionary units, there are deed restricted documents that are reported.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that any density bonus projects that are counted as affordable units would have deed restrictions or any projects that come in with 20% affordable, seeking by right approval, would also have deed restrictions. There are a number of different vehicles by which the city could require deed restrictions.
Councilmember Boles asked if they can point them to inclusionary ordinance and is it something they are suggesting that they review in the next few years.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the inclusionary zoning is in Article 47, Chapter 4, Title 9 of the Municipal Code. One of the programs (HE-I-6) in the Housing Element does indicate revisiting the program, considering the city’s current inclusionary zoning standards and determining whether they should be modified, such as going from 15% to 20% requirement, placing a greater emphasis on fee payment rather than on site construction, or changing the required income levels of the units that are provided. There are a number of different policy levers for Council to consider modifying, all of which have different tradeoffs, relative to incentivizing or disincentivizing housing construction, and so on. That is something contemplated in the Housing Element currently to have that broad discussion of whether to make those types of ordinance updates.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought the deed restrictions usually up to about 45 years. He was interested in that part of our Housing Element that says that once this gets passed, in the next couple of years, they will have the opportunity to talk about boosting our inclusionary ordinance from 15% to 20%, let alone going from a 45-year deed restriction to in perpetuity, which he was inspired by an ABAG conference about protecting and preserving, and they were talking about how some cities have actually figured out that they can do it in perpetuity rather than capping it at 45.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it was an opportune time to do it because the Housing Element is setting the conditions for many more projects to be subject to the BMR inclusionary zoning ordinance. Historically they have had more allowable densities, smaller projects sites, City Council Regular Meeting 17 January 22, 2024
and as a result many projects coming in below the 8-unit minimum. It was a great time to consider revisiting that and applying best practices to get the best outcome for our community in such an ordinance update.
Councilmember Boles stated, as they go from here to goal setting, she thought there was so much on the plate in the Planning Department and hiring consultants with work that they are all going to be doing and she hopes that it will be brought to Council in detail in terms of whether they need other staff support, etc., to help but also to talk about some of the priorities because she thinks they will be getting some bigger projects and what is critical to make sure we are getting the right kind of housing. She stated HE-G-2 talks about supporting preservation and affordability in mobile home communities and she wanted to clarify that is just Pacific Skies Estates property on Palmetto.
Planning Director Murdock stated it is just the Cottages at Seaside, the last name of the mobile homes.
Councilmember Boles thought Pacific Skies is the new one.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought Cottages is the new name.
Councilmember Boles stated no, they changed it again recently. She thought maybe they preserve that community but it is not affordable housing anymore. She is not sure this is a good example of protection from displacement and preserving affordable housing. She referred to page 50 on the redlined document where it talks about developing an inventory of extremely low-income owned and rented units, and she wanted to confirm that was for the whole city, not just the coastal zone. She asked how we are planning to do that, and if it is possible to expand it beyond extremely low-income to very low-income and low-income.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the program, HE-I-7, is referring to the city’s obligation to keep track of these units and try to prevent their conversion or loss to non-lower income housing units. He thinks they are trying to specifically beef up the information they have on extremely low-income units by making contact to those properties where they believe they may be present, like Casa Pacifica or some of the other senior affordable housing they have.
Otherwise, new extremely low-income units will be coming on line potentially through new policies and programs in the Housing Element, and they will have the opportunity at that time to also track their creation on a city maintained list.
Councilmember Boles stated that we are assuming that we know through deed restrictions or something which units are extremely low-income.
Planning Director Murdock is suggesting that they may not know all of them, and that is part of the outreach process to these operators. They know they are, in general, lower income units, primarily in our community serving seniors for example, all of the particular income levels we may not know in every case. This is committing to building up that information through inquiry to those operators.
Councilmember Boles referred to Section HE-I-8 which talks about rehabilitation of homes in lower resource and coastal zone areas, and number 6 has coastal housing preservation program. She wondered why that was only for the coast and not other lower resource areas.
She wondered what other lower resources areas are defined as.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 January 22, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated that the lower resource areas are mapped and the map packet is part of the Housing Element.
Councilmember Boles stated the north end of town mostly.
Planning Director Murdock agreed. He stated that the coastal housing rehabilitation program or preservation program reflects the analysis of impacts to our housing, reflecting the coastal environment and recognizing that those properties closest to the coast are most impacted by the severe weather and the deleterious effects of the salt air; they tend to have more of those maintenance needs than properties further inland in our community. That is where it is coming from, i.e., identified impact and trying to put something in place to address it to preserve those housing units for the long term.
Councilmember Boles stated that this was also about helping seniors age in place and making sure people can stay in their homes longer. She knows that is specifically an issue in Westview where there are more affordable homes now and people do not have those resources. She wondered if they can expand that policy beyond the coastal zone to lower resource areas since that is the category that this discussion is.
Planning Director Murdock thought, within that program, looking at items 3 and 5, they essentially address that. One target group are lower income individuals, those that may not have the means to proactively maintain their property, and trying to connect them with resources, in addition to targeting the coastal areas that are subject to the most severe property maintenance challenges, given their proximity to the shoreline.
Councilmember Boles stated she had a few questions about ADUs. She asked if we currently have a minimum square footage requirement.
Planning Director Murdock stated state law requires the city to allow efficiency units as small as 150 square feet, and that is functionally the minimum that the city must allow.
Councilmember Boles thought that was about the size of a tiny home so that is permissible as an ADU.
Planning Director Murdock states, regarding a unit meeting the criteria square footage-wise, you might equate it to what it is like to operate in a tiny home.
Councilmember Boles referred to page 46 on the redlined document where it talks about monitoring the affordability of ADUs, and she asked how we do that.
Planning Director Murdock stated it was quite challenging. They are contemplating to partner regionally with 21 Elements and others to put a regional system in place to come up with a common methodology to do that, but ultimately it is going to be less than 100% perfect, given the challenges. There is no obligation for a private property owner who has an ADU to even respond to our request for that kind of information and it is the best attempt to learn more about the income levels of the individuals occupying those units.
Councilmember Boles stated it was troubling because we are counting a lot of our housing and assuming ADUs are more affordable because they are smaller but we have no way of knowing how many of those are rented.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 January 22, 2024
Planning Director Murdock stated that the assumptions of the income levels contained in the Housing Element are based on data of regional surveys of actual income levels from those survey responses received. He questioned if Pacifica’s experience will be exactly the same.
He stated that we have available data on ADU income levels in our region and that was used to inform the income breakdowns assumed for our RHNA in the ADU strategy.
Councilmember Boles thought there might be a typo on the back up action item, page 46 of the redline, page 36 of the Housing Element, and thought it should say “less than”.
Consultant Aknin agreed and stated that the intention is that it is “less than”.
Councilmember Boles referred to Councilmember Bigstyck mentioned increasing from 15% to 20%, but if they did that, she asked if it would mean that is required for all of our projects and everything would be in the ministerial review.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was possibly correct. He stated that it is a little more qualified than that, but many more sites would be subject to ministerial approval on that characteristic alone. It would not necessarily be every project on every site but they have a lot of rezoning sites and those would be subject to that in most cases. Thinking about the objective of policies is that you create affordable housing, that is a strong incentive to create affordable housing when there is a ministerial approval process that is more certain faster and less costly and a lot of what the Housing Element is intended to do.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy added that the program, where there is a discussion of requiring a minimum of 20%, that is going to be analyzed in the study and the program is to prepare a study making recommendations on that and will come back when this program is implemented.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that cities do not build housing, but that other people do.
Councilmember Bier stated it will be important for them to figure out inventorying residences.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if there was additional updated language to incorporate into the motion not reflected in the staff report.
Planning Director Murdock restated that it was renaming program HE-I-3 to say “public” instead of “school”.
Councilmember Bier moved to adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, revise the Draft Housing Element to rename Program HE-I-3 to “Master Planning and Implementation for Public Sites”; Approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan, and incorporate all documents and testimony into the record by reference; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
Councilmember Bigstyck wanted to take one more opportunity to thank Consultants Carol Johnson, Sabina Mora, Sandy Council, Aaron Aknin, and Nick Hamilton; Sr. Planner Brianne Harkousha, Asst. City Attorney Karen Murphy, Planning Director Christian Murdock and Commissioner Greg Wright; as well as City Manager Woodhouse, City Clerk Sarah Coffey, and Dep. City Clerk Emily La for over two years of work.
Mayor Vaterlaus and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 January 22, 2024
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
CONSIDERATION - NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 9:41 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 2/12/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor