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 March 11, 2024
March 11, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on March 11, 2024 at 7:03 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus called 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
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Gino Assereto, Field Services Manager; Michael Pham, Parks & Building Maintenance Supt.; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Pacifica Resource Center Annual Report
Pacifica Resource Center (PRC) Exec. Director Anita Rees and PRC Board President Marj Davis gave the annual report.
PRC President Davis provided an update on the PRC Strategic Plan, stressing their goals of being inclusive, respectful, compassion and kindness. They are coming up on their 50-year anniversary of providing economic security services and supporting families in Pacifica.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 March 11, 2024
Director Rees stated that this annual report was meant to show the breadth of their works. She gave statistics on what PRC provided for the community, such as groceries, tax services, backto-school programs, holiday joy programs, housing assistance, financial assistance, etc., to help the community stay housed, and the number of families and people serviced has increased from the past year.
Councilmember Boles asked about the demand for their services for the last five years.
Director Rees stated that demand centers mostly on groceries and food and emergency financial assistance to stay housed. She mentioned that almost everything in terms of their work is about helping people stay housed.
Councilmember Bier thought it was incredible that PRC housed 17 people out of the Unhoused on the Coast program as it can take months to years and more to get someone housed. She felt it was important that they emphasize hope and optimism. She also commended Director Rees and her staff. She understood the coordinated entry system was complicated and she thought it would be great to work with the County to track data. She stated that people coming through the system need transitional care.
Director Rees stated that, when they get somebody into housing, they do provide support for at least three months as they know that that period is more challenging. It is easier when they are local, but they still try to connect with them if they are not local.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked them what kind of advocacy or assistance they need from Council, and how can they help bring resources or attention to programs. She also asked about their expanding programs along the coast.
Director Rees stated that their core services are only Pacifica and the only service that is beyond Pacifica along the coast is their Unhoused on the Coast outreach work; they connect with their sister agencies in other cities and acknowledged work happening elsewhere. They are not trying to duplicate services, just supplement.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if there was a need for practical support.
Director Rees stated that they do not have a lot of room to store things, but when they have a specific need, they try to do better at reaching out to community members. She stated that ongoing needs includes diapers of different sizes, baby wipes, socks, underwear, etc. and they are always key things that cycle on and off. They are trying to tap into those community groups better when they have a specific need.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she was thinking about the immediate call. Then, she asked about the pantry replenishment process.
Director Rees stated that they are running low with regard to groceries in general by Wednesdays. One thing they are trying to explore is doing a call-out for Thursday/Friday. Once they are able to move into another space, they will have much more room to store and will be able to replenish more often.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanks them for everything they do and thanked Pacificans for their support.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 March 11, 2024
Director Rees stated that they feel like they are not alone as community members are supporting them. When someone is unhoused, they often feel invisible and when they are housed and get the support from the community, they are seen which makes a huge difference.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he thought half of the Pacifica population could qualify for services. He asked if that is accurate.
Director Rees stated that is still accurate. Nearly half would be eligible for their services as they use 80% of median income.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he is grateful that PRC exists and he gets to spend time or contribute in any manner. He thought it was good to see the updated strategic plan. He appreciated all PRC has done to destigmatize the notion of getting help. He encouraged anyone who thinks they need assistance to connect with PRC.
Councilmember Boles thanked them for all they do, especially in such small space. She was excited that they will be able to expand the food program. She stated that it is an amazing opportunity for community members and kids to help our community, and she was pleased to talk with them about their dreams. She congratulated them on 50 years.
Director Rees stated that they will celebrate their 50th anniversary on September 21 at Palm-aPalooza! at Skyline. She thanked Council and the city for all the support they provided over the years as they could not be where they are without their support.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if any councilmembers wish to pull any items from consent. She asked if there were any public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
1. Approval of Disbursements for 02/01/24 through 02/29/24.
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) February 12, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting and (2) February 26, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting.
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.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 March 11, 2024
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. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency related to December 28, 2023, High Tide/Large Wave Events
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist related to the December 2023 High Tide/Large Wave Events
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Tokuko Hirano, Pacifica, thanked the city for removing debris in a yard when she had informed them in a previous meeting. She then shared a story during a traffic stop wherein she and the police officer shared their appreciation of Pacifica’s Taco Bell cantina.
Lynn Adams, Pacifica, thanked the city for sponsoring Earth Day on April 20 and was excited to say they are honoring whales this year and having a whale fest in the Linda Mar lot. She shared specifics with government officials attending that day and cleanup prior to the event.
Flo Chang, Pacifica, stated she was speaking on behalf of Pacifica Peace People and urging support of the ceasefire in Palestine.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that, on March 4, several Pacifica groups sponsored a slide presentation, “Pacifica Against the Sea?” by the Pacifica Climate Committee, Pacifica’s Environmental Family and Pacifica Historical Society, which focused on impacts of erosion and flooding in Pacifica and shared some of the details and thoughts on the opportunity to see it again through PCTV.
Rick Nahass, Pacifica, read a poem from a Palestinian poet and shared his personal concerns and thoughts on this subject, urging support of a resolution calling for ceasefire in Gaza.
Delia McGrath, Pacifica, stated she is a member of Pacifica Peace People and she shared their goal to cultivate a culture of peace in Pacifica, sharing her thoughts and details of personal losses from what is happening in Gaza, urging support of a resolution calling for ceasefire in Gaza.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to all the meetings that Council, staff and members of the public attended. She estimated 12-15 hours for the LCLUP meeting in terms of preparations, actual meeting, and action items. She reminded the public that all the Councilmembers have jobs and, if the public does not get a response by email, she asked that they understand why that might be the case. She attended the Rosanna Xia and Gary Griggs event, which will be available on PCT. She attended a Rotary Club dinner meeting with the District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, who spoke on the solving of cold cases. She then went to Palo Alto to meet with congressional candidate Joe Simitian. She stated the Beautification Advisory Committee met the next day and there will be a work day coming up soon. She met with constituents about the LCLUP, the tree ordinance, and the quarry.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 March 11, 2024
Councilmember Bier shared her thoughts in response to the call-in speakers and the Pacifica Peace People. She completed 20 scoring sheets for our Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC) Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funding, which provides funding annually for bicycle and pedestrian projects. She attended the Housing Endowment Regional Trust Heart (HEART) of San Mateo County meeting, where they accepted a grant from San Mateo County for $2 million to establish a mobile home loan program which will allow people living in mobile homes that have been severely damaged by storms to get a fixed rate loan for a brand new mobile home. They spent all day on March 2 on the LCLUP and March 9 on their strategic plan, as well as hours put in by staff. She attended the Coast Pride meeting, and unfortunately the building at Coast Pride was vandalized. She was happy being on the board to help repair the building and morale, as Coast Pride brings a lot of services to our young people and families in Pacifica including with the school district. She referred to the sing along and thanked Bill Michaelis in Pacificans Care and Cindy Abbott from Sanchez Art Center for hosting and supporting that event. She attended the San Mateo County Women’s Hall of Fame. She thanked Delia McGrath and the Pacifica Peace People for their contributions at the Pacifica Collaborative. She attended the PRC staff meeting to talk about the “Art for a More Peaceful and Just Community” project to see how they could participate. They will be bringing a Narcan training to the outreach workers at the Pacifica Resource Center.
Councilmember Boles stated the last two weeks involved getting ready for the long meetings, meeting with many constituents, and studying the issues. She met with the Pacifica Climate Committee who was helping to organize the Rosanna Xia event and is planning another building electrification event in May as a follow up to last year. She stated that the sing along was so much fun with so much energy in the room and she thought it was fun in the LCLUP meeting when they started singing. She stated there is so much that unites us in this town. She attended the Rosanna Xia event and encouraged people to watch it. She had a meeting with Supervisor Dave Pine and Len Materman from OneShoreline and is trying to learn about the Sharp Park Golf Course. She had a San Mateo County Leadership training with the focus on healthy communities and received a presentation by Get Healthy San Mateo County. Lastly, she congratulated the 19 new CERT numbers as that was the first training offered since COVID19.
Councilmember Bigstyck shared his thoughts in response to the call-in speakers and the Pacifica Peace People as well. He stated the past week has involved many preparations, meetings with constituents and staff, and reading about insurance for the LCLUP. He understands that Mayor Vaterlaus taped an episode of The Mayor’s Office and he thought she will tell them more about that. He listened in on Council on Foreign Relations regarding responses to immigration influx in the United States. He attended the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office spring reception held at the Academy of Sciences. He took constituent meetings regarding goal setting and a ceasefire. He talked with Seth Miller, staffer for CalCities, about the logistics for the upcoming leader summit in April. He watched the Planning Commission meeting and attended the Rotary Club meeting. There was a Freemason event, and he thought it was nice to see interaction between our police department and a community organization. He referred to goal setting on March 9. He stated there was a LAFCO budget committee meeting before this Council meeting as well as an RNA Foundation celebration. He noticed additionally that our “Pacifica Stands United Against Hate” and “Pacifica Stands United In Love” posters were framed on the dias.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she met Rosanna Xia and Gary Griggs by Zoom before their event and discussed Pacifica’s sea level rise and coastal erosion problem. She taped an episode of The Mayor’s Office featuring City Manager Woodhouse and it will be available on March 22.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 March 11, 2024
She loved the sing along, and she read to children at Vallemar. She was at the all-day LCLUP and strategic planning meetings. She attended the Pacifica Against the Sea event. She is on the Shared Prosperity Council (formerly COVID Recovery Council) and met with business owners. She also responded to previous comments regarding councilmember follow-up and asked the public to understand councilmembers’ schedules with jobs.
Councilmember Bier added that there is a Youth Summit this weekend at IBL.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse referred to the Youth Summit and noted that Police Chief Sarasua will be speaking at the summit. He stated that they found out that our application last year for federal funding for Community Project Funding through Congresswoman Eshoo’s office was signed by the president as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act and we will be receiving $963,000 towards pier repair. He stated that application was made last year before they completed the overall assessment and they know now the funding challenges are estimated to be $19 million. He stated that every cent helps and they are and thankful for to Congresswoman Eshoo’s commitment to seeing that through. He then referred to Councilmembers who mentioned that last two Saturdays with the LCLUP and annual Strategic Planning meetings. He stated that both of those meetings were facilitated by different moderators, i.e., at the LCLUP meeting, Ryder Todd Smith from Tripepi Smith, who was blown away at the level of public engagement at the meeting the city is doing on this as well the extent of Council engagement and staff work. He stated that continued over to our facilitator for the strategic planning session, Greg Larson, who worked with Council last year and emphasized the level of work that the Council is engaged in with strategic planning and staff is engaged in with the “AchieveIt” software platform tool to report out on progress on the strategic plan. He thought it was great to hear from experts outside our normal circles about the success of this type of engagement that the city is doing and Council is directing be done.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
6. Add Minerva Avenue Tree Removal and Maintenance Project to CIP and Award Project PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution to:
1) Add the Minerva Avenue Tree Removal and Maintenance Project (Project) to the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP);
2) Find the Project categorically exempt pursuant to Sections 15304 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Class 4) applicable to Minor Alterations to the Condition of Land; 3) Approve Construction Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and Bay Area Tree Specialists in the amount of $144,900 and authorize a budget authority for construction in the amount of $159,390, which includes a 10% contingency of $14,490; 4) Authorize the City Manager to execute future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount;
5) Approve a budget transfer into the Project for $159,390 from Fund 38 (Disaster Accounting Fund) to fund the project.
PW Director Petersen began the staff report by introducing her team, Field Services Manager Gino Assereto, Supt. for Parks Michael Pham, and Tree Management Experts Consultants Roy Leggitt and Aaron Wang. She then completed the presentation.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 March 11, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he asked in advance how much it would cost to remove all the trees and the response was about $160,000 to remove 8 and an extra $65,000 to remove all
16. He added that these reports indicate that the trees do not look to be in good condition and seem to be in sensitive areas where they can do substantial damage. He asked about their conclusions for the trees that should be removed and those that could be postponed.
PW Director Petersen stated that the report recommends to remove all of the trees in the alternative recommendation. They felt that, from their perspective, they had to remove those trees that were imminent and the two trees that were root bound with those other trees. She agreed it would be more cost-effective to remove all the trees at one time, but they came down the middle on the recommendation. The arborist report also said there was a possibility that there could be some mitigation through substantial pruning.
Councilmember Bier thanked her for the attention they paid in her neighborhood and meeting with the neighbors on Minerva. She stated that she was concerned about the replanting plan, which was important to her.
PE Director Petersen thought their ultimate goal was to try to plant as many trees as possible on the street. She stated that there are some requirements related to how far apart you need to plant trees. They use the arborist team to point them in the right direction of what is appropriate for replanting. Their goal is always to try to put them on the street.
Councilmember Boles asked, in conversations with the neighbors, if there was a preference to take out all the trees or try to keep some of them.
PW Director Petersen she believes somebody may have expressed interest in having all the trees out and some of them are present at this meeting and they can let them know.
Councilmember Boles stated that the staff report stated the cost of the contract included replanting eight trees and there would be a subsequent change order for eight more. She asked if there was a rough idea of how much that would be.
PW Director Petersen thought for eight trees they were looking at $6,000.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked her to explain the general concept of cabling and how that process relates to the eight trees that would be sustained under the current proposal.
PW Director Petersen stated that there was one tree recommended for cabling out of the remaining eight trees and the recommendation for cabling came from the arborist team with the tree removal company and referred to their consultant.
Consultant Roy Leggitt stated that both he and Aaron Wang are tree risk assessment qualified and certified arborists. They recommend mitigation options on each one of those tree risk assessments forms whenever possible. He explained cabling as a mitigation option which uses trees with solid integrity to provide support.
PW Director Petersen noted the cabling work would cost $900 and they can discuss that more with their arborist.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked, for clarification for the public, what is the purpose of cabling.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 March 11, 2024
Consultant Leggitt stated that the purpose of cabling is to hold different parts of a tree together so they move together in the wind and are reinforced during storm conditions.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Steve Manis, Pacifica, stated he was at Dir. Petersen’s meeting last week and he spoke in 2020 when they turned in that petition signed by residents, and he shared his concerns and problems caused because of these trees and suggested options.
Dave Premenko, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on this being a great plan and he thought all of the trees being removed was probably the best issue for safety in the future.
Don Hurter, Pacifica, stated he loved the canopy of the trees, and he shared his concerns on this issue, and his personal preference for more trees and asked what the process was for replacement trees and options for homeowners’ input.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to the possibility of homeowners wanting to augment with additional trees and could that work.
PW Director Petersen stated that they are talking about putting in a lot of trees and they need to be spaced appropriately, and there could be an issue of getting any additional trees. She thought, the way it works out, even if they take out all the trees, they could be using up all the space as they are planting 2-1 (32 trees). She is thinking there may not be space related to that, but they can entertain it if there happens to be.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that there are questions around carbon sequestration and, as they choose the trees, asked if carbon sequestration is taken into account. He mentioned the speaker who would like additional trees on top of the 32 being replanted, and he asked if there would be a process for reaching out to the community to coordinate with them and help them understand where the additional trees will be planted, if not in the neighborhood.
PW Director Petersen stated that they generally get recommendations from the city’s arborist team, including trees that are likely to be the most successful, most appropriate street trees that will help from a maintenance perspective. She reiterated that they look to the arborist team to provide 3 or 4 tree species for diversity along the street.
Consultant Roy Leggitt stated, as far as the additional considerations they are putting into municipal tree plantings presently, one is water-conscious landscape and trees that are droughttolerant so they are climate ready. They have a statewide resource, i-Trees, that can get a metric on things like carbon sequestration and mitigation of heat. He thinks, going forward, they will need different kinds of trees for a number of reasons, and they will probably want to have a canopy which is a little lower and closer to the streets and houses. He stated that changing their species composition and diversifying it is a good idea and making it climate ready in a lot of new ways will be very important.
Councilmember Bigstyck emphasized that carbon is a big consideration for him and would love it if that is one of the criteria considered when choosing the new trees.
Councilmember Bier referred to the history of Pacifica and the trees at Vallemar. She stated City Council Regular Meeting 9 March 11, 2024
that having a plan in place is important and she appreciated that the city is caring about our community by having that kind of a plan. She is in favor of removing the 16 trees and understanding the replanting and being a part of it. She stated that Tree City Pacifica has been talking about an Adopt-a-Tree program for a long time, and it is good to start with residents who care about the trees. She suggested they reach out to Tree City Pacifica to have those conversations.
Councilmember Boles stated that she reached out to Tree City Pacifica, who is aware that the trees slated for removal on Minerva have been determined to be high risk trees on the ISA basic tree assessment forms and they are not questioning the removal of those trees. She thanked Mr. Hurter for his comments regarding the community building they did around planting trees and giving residents a choice in San Francisco. She would love the idea of giving the residents a choice. She asked, if people wanted to plant some in their front yards as opposed to just on the street, whether that was an option they could consider. At that point, those people would be responsible for the maintenance of the tree and it could be a win-win for the city not having to maintain so many in perpetuity.
PW Director Petersen agreed that people should plant trees in their yard and encouraged them to do so.
Councilmember Boles stated that she was asking specifically if some of these replacement trees could be located in their yards instead of in the public right-of-way.
PW Director Petersen stated that these would need to be in the public right-of-way. Ultimately she has not seen it be done as that would be the city gifting public funds to private property owners. She thought there would be some concerns about that. She stated that typically, if it is in the right-of-way and it’s a city tree, it should stay in the city property area.
Councilmember Boles thought this would come up more where there is not enough room in the particular neighborhood and she is thinking about what is happening in Sharp Park. She thought it would be great for them to get a sense or a plan of where else trees might go and have a voice in prioritizing some of that.
PW Director Petersen stated that they have already been developing that in Public Works and will be happy to share that and where they have been planting some trees.
Councilmember Boles asked if there were any native trees.
Consultant Roy Leggitt stated that there are a few native to Pacifica, including coast live oak, golden chinkapin, manzanitas, alders, and willows.
Councilmember Boles thought it would be great to think about those wherever they can so we are supporting the native habitat of other insects, birds, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer would like to know what they anticipate the useful remaining life of the eight trees that were recommended to stay and have substantial framing, and if there is a way to give them some guideline or understanding of the cost of maintaining those trees over that useful life.
PW Director Petersen stated that the trees in the report were all recommended for removal and they all have high risk but there were some that were imminent. From the arborist perspective, City Council Regular Meeting 10 March 11, 2024
she thought they should take out all the trees. The question is more do we take out all the trees now or do we take them out over a period of years. She thought it gets back to Councilmember Bigstyck’s comment regarding the cost, as it is obviously more cost-effective to do them all at one time.
Consultant Leggitt thought it was a bit of an unknown as to how long these trees will be able to remain without having a catastrophic failure. He stated that the cost for emergency work is a lot higher, and doing it piecemeal, one by one, during storms can become more expensive. He did not think the trees are dying anytime soon but they are falling apart soon. It is the risk they are incurring and the potential for significant property damage or harm to people that concerns them the most.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked what the size is of the new trees that are being planted.
Councilmember Boles stated 15 gallons.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if they have the available amount in their disaster accounting fund for the removal of all 16 trees.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively, stating that the current balance of the Fund 38 disaster accounting fund is in the $8 million range. He added that there is a lot of burden on that fund for potential big emergencies, but the additional $65,000 that would be required for all 16 trees is affordable out of that fund.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought it would change the character of that street tremendously to have all 16 trees down but they were dangerous. She thinks that the 16 trees coming down at one time was the best option.
Councilmember Boles asked if the city was liable for city trees falling on people’s houses.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the city would be liable and that is one of risk analyses that Council should take into account. In the event there is a branch that falls or especially a tree that falls, that does create liability for the city.
Councilmember Boles asked the arborist if the trees are all Monterey Cypresses, and do they ever recommend the Monterey Cypress as a street tree.
Consultant Leggitt thought it has limited use as a street tree with the current urban density on most properties. Where there are larger multiple acre parcels, they work well, and they are suited to the extreme coastal environment.
Councilmember Boles concluded not next to a sidewalk.
Consultant Leggitt stated that, if a tree were to fall on Minerva, it would have nowhere to go except onto something and it would do a lot of harm.
Councilmember Bier asked if the cypress need branches that are lower to keep it holding up.
Consultant Leggitt thinks what has happened with the street trees is that branches have broken and the stub that was broken was taken off to look cleaner and tidier but they lose all those low branches and look more like a stock of broccoli.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 March 11, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what impact removing the trees has on the neighborhood immediately and how long does that take and what is the process to access homes.
PW Director Petersen stated that there is a lot of coordination that needs to happen with PG&E and another reason that it can be beneficial from that perspective to remove all the trees at the same time as that coordination happens at the same time instead of constantly over a period of time. It does require the electricity to be turned off. Sometimes they can turn that off at the property line and then turn it back on after the day’s work is done, but it depends on that particular situation. She stated that it is a lot of coordination with the PG&E to figure out when we can do this. She would think it will be a few months in trying to coordinate with PG&E and getting everything organized so it goes smoothly.
Consultant Leggitt thought that the day-to-day logistics of removing trees is going to shut the street down for access during the middle part of the day. That will be for the safety of the site and it will limit the ability for people to get in and out of their garages and homes without having some special accommodation for them. He stated that workers doing tree service are used to accommodating access, but there may be a waiting period of a few minutes before that can happen. He stated that it will be inconvenient until it is complete, but there is no other effective way to deal with big trees like this.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how long does he anticipate it will take besides the PG&E coordination piece.
Consultant Leggitt asked Dir. Petersen if they have had a conversation with the bidder about how long this will take them.
Supt. Mike Pham stated that it will be about 11 days for eight trees.
Consultant Leggitt concluded it would be about a month’s worth of work.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is in favor of 16 trees.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if someone would like to make a motion.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they need to figure out what the motion is going to be.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if they want a 15-minute break and come back.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if they have consensus for removal of 16 trees.
Councilmembers acknowledged support for this option.
Mayor Vaterlaus called a break. She then reconvened the meeting.
PW Director Petersen stated that they bid it for both removal of 8 trees and 16 trees and subsequent replanting. She stated that the numbers that would change in the resolution: the contract amount for Bay Area Tree Specialist would change to $203,800; the 10% contingency would change to $20,380; and the total budget authority for construction would change to $224,180.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that Council would just have to make a motion to approve the City Council Regular Meeting 12 March 11, 2024
resolution as amended by staff.
Councilmember Bier moved to adopt the resolution as amended by staff; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
7. Annual Process for City Council Consideration of Non-Governmental Organization Grant Funding
PROPOSED ACTION: Provide direction to the City Manager on draft guidelines for an annual process for City Council consideration of City grant funding to non-governmental organizations.
City Manager Woodhouse began the staff report, and Asst. City Manager Carter completed the staff report.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to City Manager Woodhouse’s remark that one of the potential outcomes of passing a policy of this nature is that we could wind up having more applications from NGOs yearly than we are currently getting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that is what he would anticipate because the city would be officially signaling that there is this process that any nonprofit serving Pacifica can apply for which, in the past, has not been the signal the city has given.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought it was a noteworthy bookmark that a part of our considerations might be whether or not this will cause more applications. He stated that they had an opportunity over the past year, CORA specifically, in which through Council of Cities put forward this training program for our community. He advocated strongly for adopting it and there was a lot of community buy-in which contributed to the $10,000 associated with CORA ($4,000 from the City). He asked how this would affect those instances in which opportunities arise outside of the April window that they might wish to consider as Council.
City Manager Woodhouse thought one of the goals of this process is to discourage off-cycle applications. Even if it is a service that is being provided, such as various annual services funded through the Police Department budget for StarVista, as well as for CORA, we know, in any given budget process, that is a service that they are wanting us to continue funding for. The goal of this process would be to encourage that to all happen within the context of budget development and discourage off-cycle applications. If there was some program that came up that could not wait for the following year’s budget cycle, Council could always consider that on a one-off, but then it would be taken out of context of considering all the nonprofits that could be funded and they have to consider that as a policy matter.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, around the score sheet premise, specifically it seems like, when Councilmembers used to deliberate around potential committee and commission assignments, they would have a straw poll system where the City Clerk would, without naming names, give them the result of that. He asked what the difference is.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it is the same process. The concept and the intent is that the City Council Regular Meeting 13 March 11, 2024
process would follow the same process that previously used for committee appointments, i.e., Council would be getting sheets where they will put their scoring. After Council fills them out on the dais, they will be handed down to the City Clerk as they do with appointments; the City Clerk would then collate and calculate the scoring and would provide the results of that scoring to Council solely for the purpose of expediting the deliberations, as the effect of the scoring sheets is nothing. What comes out of the scoring sheets will be just an analysis from the City Clerk on what the initial sheet said, but it will go back to Council for a final determination on what action they want to take for purposes of funding. She stated that there are no conclusions rendered from scoring sheets, and they do not have any legal significance after the City Clerk reports out what the sheets say.
Councilmember Bigstyck further asked how the previous process for committee appointments applied to this process differently.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it was a different process that they changed. The process before was essentially a secret vote: the analysis and determinations on the sheets were read out by the City Clerk and that was the determination of Council. That is not what is happening here.
She stated that the purpose of this scoring is simply to help Council winnow down deliberations.
She stated that Council does not have to do it that way and they can change the process.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if the information for the scoring itself would come strictly from the applications or is there additional information that would come through the staff report aside from the application itself for any given NGO.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that whatever information Council wants to use for scoring will not be limited by the policy. They will be able to make their determinations on the dais regardless of what scoring sheets say.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought the nature of his concern is that, when he is scoring for something such as how well an NGO uses the money they are given, he is concerned about the amount of research he might need to do personally in order to make that decision, apart from the application itself or information staff is providing.
City Attorney Kenyon concluded that he was asking what information does staff intend to provide to Council to assist them in determining how to score the application.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, when they discussed the eligibility requirements or criteria, the application will ask the same questions consistently from every entry. The information they have in their packets, the application and supporting information, will be consistent for each organization. If Council wants to ask additional questions, that is the policy direction they are looking for now, and it will include this information on the application form when they bring it back to Council for a formal adoption.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if this would create more work for organizations that the city has been long time partners with, such as the Resource Center and Beach Coalition.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that each organization will be required to submit an application and provide the annual report of how the funds were used. That is the difference from the current process, where neither one is required.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that there will be additional steps for our long-term partners.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 March 11, 2024
Asst. City Manager Carter confirmed for all organizations that receive finances.
City Manager Woodhouse added that it will vary depending on the organization because some of the organizations probably have all that information at their fingertips and provide it anyway.
He thought, if it helps, the perspective they have to take is the city is becoming a granting agency and organizations are applying for funding; like when applying for a grant, you do your best to fill out the most complete and competitive application, and that is the information that the grantor processes and makes decisions based on and awards some and not others. He stated that is the role the city is putting itself in with this process.
City Attorney Kenyon added, from a legal perspective, what staff is trying to input into this process is equity and transparency so the scoring or determination of which groups get funded is on a level playing field for all so they know what information they need to provide and Council knows what information they generally want to consider when making these determinations.
She stated that the idea is to create a level playing field so everyone at least understands what is the information that Council is going to use when making this determination. She stated it is fair to the potential grantees to know what Council is going to be basing their decision on.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he will be speaking later on about the history of the city as a granting organization towards other long-term partners. He was in agreement with the aspect of equity but felt they may take on too much work whereas right now they have a non-process involved for circumstances in which it rises to the level of an asset to our community. He stated that, as mentioned before, it is rare that organizations with budget constraints issue out funds.
He referred to our long-term partners and the history behind the current funds and stated we would want to see the draft of the forms that they are required to fill out so we understand that, for long-term partners, if it is an added step, it is not a particularly onerous one.
Councilmember Bier asked if this is suggesting that Pacifica opens up a competitive grant application process where there is going to be groups that we are all very familiar with and are going to apply and we will have to score them. She specifically asked if they are talking about a competitive grant process that we are going to offer to our community and then we have to score to decide on the funding.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that she is correct as that is essentially what the process amounts to in order to create the equitable and transparent playing field on Council making nonprofit funding decisions.
Councilmember Bier asked how much money would be part of this.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the staff report speaks to this: in any given year, the amount of money in the budget process that may or may not be available for funding of nonprofits could vary widely. Part of the budget process is that we go through funding all the essential services. In this proposed process, during April, applications come in, and in May, Council identifies the top five they would like to donate money to this year. During that process, staff will be able to provide some information about the potential funds, and when they come back with a proposed budget, Council will need to decide on what that allocation is for NGO funding and how much is going to each of the top five they ranked in the process. He stated that some years it might be very little and some years it could be more, but the reality of the giving has been that it ranged in that $150,000-$200,000 and it depends on which nonprofits they are counting as a general grant.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 March 11, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated she would like to understand their relationship with the Pacifica Resource Center (PRC) and the Pacific Beach Coalition (PBC). She asked how long they have been giving money and why are we giving them money. She asked if they count on our money in their budgeting. She referred to Asst. City Manager Carter mentioning that these were not funds for services.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the current amounts given to the PRC and PBC are grant funds and not in return for services.
Councilmember Boles confirmed that the Beach Coalition cleans our beaches and receives $5,000 from the city.
City Manager Woodhouse thought one distinction would be if there is a contract for service delivery that the city is engaged in with that nonprofit. He stated that, with general granting to the organization, like $5,000 to the Beach Coalition or the $83,000 or $100,000 to the Resource Center, we do not have a contract saying specifically that the money is being used for a specific item. He stated to contrast that with the $120,000 that we are giving to the PRC for three years for the service for the Temporary Safe Parking Program, as that is a contractual arrangement with that organization for a very specific service being provided. Therefore, it is General Fund granting generally to the organization and we are not mandating or telling them how they should use that funding, which is the distinction they have to draw as the same holds for StarVista Mental Health Services. He stated that the Police Department is obligated through a JPA to provide a certain amount of services per year and most of the cities in the county do that to help that system.
Councilmember Boles stated she is trying to understand the history behind those two key organizations.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened the public comments.
Lynn Adams, Pacifica, stated that she has never considered it a grant to the Pacific Beach Coalition but a sponsorship for the Earth Day event, which is support from the city. Without it, they could not be doing what they do. She shared details on their accomplishments and their concerns on this issue.
Marj Davis, Pacifica, stated she is trying to understand this and shared her thoughts and concerns on this issue in possibly taking the PRC and PBC historic contexts away.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thought this item was put forward with good intentions, but she then shared her concerns on this issue and personal thoughts on working with nonprofits.
John Beckmeyer, Pacifica, stated he misconstrued the purpose when reading the agenda, and shared his thoughts and concerns on allocating funds in our community, including a question of the need and timing of audited financial statements, as well as his suggestions on the process.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, regarding Mr. Beckmeyer’s comment, the intent is that after a year of funding, the NGOs are reporting back on how the funding was used.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed, stating the applications that will be due in this current fiscal City Council Regular Meeting 16 March 11, 2024
year and the reports will be due in the following year on the funds spent.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed the public comments.
Councilmember Bier understands the reason for this, but she is very concerned about having the city open up an application process to all the nonprofits in our city and seeing the influx of applications for people who are going to expect to be funded and have Council have to score their applications. She stated that, in her experience, all her work is grant funded for 20 years and filling out an application takes at least six weeks. She is seeing that it is a smaller application, but she thought the expectation to be funded is going to outweigh anything else and they will not have enough money to fund people. She appreciates the conversation, but she did not think PRC or the Beach Coalition should be included in this and that the PRC especially should be a line item in our budget. She referred to the Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC) grants, where CCAG has BPAC score the grants, then they go to CCAG scored to be ranked. She asked how can she not be biased and how can it not affect her personally when she goes into the community and they ask why the city did not fund them. She questioned the idea of open a competitive grant application process for the city. She stated, if this process opens up, they will be getting a lot of people expecting to be funded and she thinks that is a lot for Council to put on their shoulders as well as staff.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, when he first came to Council Chambers, he did not know what PRC was. Executive Director Rees and members of public advocated for PRC to remain in the General Fund. He then served on the board of PRC and at every budget cycle, the questions came up as to whether PRC was to remain in the General Fund until direction was given that, of the four NGOs that were regularly funded (Beach Coalition, PRC, Chamber of Commerce, and the Library at the time), the Chamber of Commerce and Library were no longer going to be funded because the direction from that Council was so strong that then Assistant City Manager Lorenzo Hines figured out how to keep PRC and Beach Coalition funded through the ERAF program. When that might go away, because of the strength of recommendations of Council, it was presumed a different avenue for funding would occur. He stated that there was a concern on the part of the board that, while PRC was kept in the budget through ERAF, it would have been preferred to be reinstated in the General Fund as it originally had been, as it originally started as a part of the city through PB&R. He thought it was assumed at that time that they were not interested in seeking out more organizations to grant funds. He thought their finances are precarious enough that he is still reticent to invite more organizations to come seeking money from the city no matter how many good organizations are in town. He stated that his personal feelings around process being another matter entirely, he thought the idea of the city opening up to more application requests scares him. When something like CORA came around, and the opportunity was presented to all cities simultaneously as a low-cost service, he thought it was amazing. He had a conversation at CORA saying he was concerned that we do not have a policy to address bringing this on to the budget this late and at that point it was suggested that other community partners could help facilitate that. He ran with that ball to the tune of $6,000 out of $10,000 and this was as high as it was because of recent events in the community that would benefit from the service.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer did some outside research to look at the issue of local government making grants and giving away funds, and she ran into a newsletter from the Institute for Local Government from 2013; there were a few points made in the article to keep in mind, i.e., pointing out every public dollar is the community’s money. She thought we have a very diverse community in terms of interest and she imagines many possible concerns from the community.
As further mentioned in the article, there are a few reasons suggested as being appropriate or City Council Regular Meeting 17 March 11, 2024
beneficial, describing them as “complementary service,” “a demonstrable benefit,” or “a service that the agency could provide but does not”. The article gave some examples of a complementary service, like a tree foundation that will enable the planting of more street trees, which our city does; a demonstrable benefit, like an afterschool program that could theoretically reduce police calls; and a service that the agency could provide but does not or does not on an extensive basis, like litter reduction or beach cleaning. She thinks about the relationships we have had with PRC and Beach Coalition for a long time and thought there was rationale for how those are good investments of public funds. She appreciates the need and desire to put something like this in place to enhance transparency; she would like to enhance transparency and see what else can be done besides opening up a competitive grant process. She stated that they have brought up other things they have wanted to fund, like CORA, Coast Pride, and Fog Fest. She recognizes that the list produced as part of the packet is not complete or exhaustive, and there have been many instances where there has been in-kind service and reduction of fees, and she thinks they need to think more on this. She wanted to figure out what they do as she wants there to be room for other groups and have the ability for Council to direct the allocation of funds for reasons that we judge to be appropriate. She stated that the written responses they got for public comment was that the whole process skirts Council’s discretionary powers and that those discretionary powers should be defined. She wants to have the opportunity for another instance like CORA and she recognizes that is not good timing for a budget process. She wondered if there was a way to allocate funds and they debate later when something comes up that they have not seen. She stated that the issues of transparency and equity are important for her. She was reminded as they talked about their situation with the surf camps. Regarding equity, it is in terms of access, such as can a person apply for funds, and another layer of equity is the diversity of the clients being served or benefitting from what the organization does. She wants to think about that when items come before them. She is questioning the use of staff time to make this process. She would defer to the City Manager addressing his sense of urgency on this, as there is a lot of other work that needs to get done.
She knows he is probably thinking about the budget cycle and she asks is there a way to keep doing what they have been doing and are justifiable in all the reasons mentioned.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Boles.
MOVE TO EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Boles agreed with all of them as they expressed their thoughts eloquently and thoughtfully. She agreed that she does not want to open up for applications and she does not think their core agencies, Beach Coalition and PRC, should be part of this process. She thinks there should be a way that they can look at other groups and a way to review funding to those organizations every year as part of the budget process. She expressed concern about the amount of work involved in the potential application process for the nonprofit organizations. She would like to have it open so CORA and other things that come up and that may be part of the budget process and see how much money the city has every year and maybe they have a meeting to invite certain nonprofits that they are considering to come and give a presentation as some cities do. She thinks they need to be clear about how much extra money there is, as it is a lot of work to put this application together and make an organization go through those hurdles City Council Regular Meeting 18 March 11, 2024
for $500 or similar amount.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed that opening this up where major numbers of people would apply and she thought many nonprofit organizations were important. When they get into the list of people who could ask for money, she thought it could be overwhelming. She thought possibly receiving a rundown and report from the nonprofits would work, but no audit. She thinks the transparency is important and to do it in a public meeting is important. She thinks this proposed process is too extreme.
Councilmember Boles stated she asked about best practices from other cities and she found online that Half Moon Bay and Foster City and San Mateo County had processes and forms for their grants. She added that none of them asked for an audit, some asked to be in good standing with the IRS, some asked for an IRS forms, i.e. an end of the year financial record.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if staff has come up with an answer.
City Manager Woodhouse thought he would attempt to synthesize some aspects of the conversation. He stated that the Council discussion hit on all the complexities of this policy decision. He stated, if there was a process in the future, he agrees regarding the audited financial statements as that may be too much. He stated that there are other means to verify that an agency is in good financial status or good bookkeeping. He stated that the question was asked as whether there is a problem here that they are trying to fix. He reminded Council that the reason this came up is because of the off-cycle mid-year request for funding. He stated that the assorted history of funding that the city currently provides does not include any transparency behind this process. Regarding whether it saves staff time, he thought a process could save staff time depending on the alternative, which is that any councilmember can request to agendize an item for Council to discuss at any time of the year; any nonprofit can go to a councilmember and ask if Pacifica can give them money and can they talk about it. Then the city goes through the process and it becomes an ad hoc conversation about city funding for all kinds of good causes that may be requested for Council to approve that the city fund. He stated that it does not happen frequently and came up when they were talking about Coast Pride, and he was concerned because it was an off-cycle process. Then it came up in the CORA conversation and with Sustainable San Mateo County which they historically give $1,000.
These ad hoc conversations raise concerns in terms of transparency and equity and using the public funds, and that is what gives rise to this. If a lot of ad hoc requests come in and become agendized, those add up to a lot of staff time and a lot of Council deliberation that is not in the context of the city’s budget and what the city can afford, and every agency that wants funding has a good cause for why they want the funding. He stated that Council then gets backed into a very difficult decision from the dais. He stated that the alternative in the report is that now is not the right time to consider this and push it off and continue status quo. He referred to the question of competitive funding, and he stated Council is already doing that as they are deciding every budget year on where the city’s funds are going to go and there are a handful of nonprofits that are recipients of that. He reiterated that there is definite concern about inviting applications because they are announcing that there is this process. He referred to Councilmember Boles mentioning that they could invite some nonprofits in, and he thought that it is doing the same thing without a transparent process. There is no process established on paper or a policy when they talk to nonprofits about whether to fund them or not for this fiscal year and that is where they have concerns. He stated that it is a complex issue and why he keyed this up to have an initial conversation and it is okay to not move forward with the process at this time. He has questions that they could bring up during budget about funding organizations outside of PRC and PBC. He thought the Council should be deciding that rather City Council Regular Meeting 19 March 11, 2024
than City Manager, so he thought they could clarify that during budget as to what they will or will not fund next year of those agencies but not inviting new ones to apply. He then asked Asst.
City Manager Carter if she had additional thoughts about all that.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated everything had been covered.
Councilmember Bigstyck wanted to give appreciation to staff for calling up this question to have this conversation. He thinks, among those who spoke, he heard more ideas about what to deliberate on from Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and he asked if she could restate some of them.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that one area she was going to ask about was under the category of sponsorship, such as the request when there are events in Pacifica and groups sponsoring the events or a group coming into town that is doing an event wants the city to bring assistance like extra trash cans. She thought big events available for the community that need support, rather than money, would consider the city to be a logical place to ask for that support.
She wants to hear more about that as she recognizes that it is not free with staff time, etc., generating a cost for city staff which is a draw on the budget. She would want to hear more about them at budget time or when it is appropriate. She reiterated that the article was from Institute for Local Government from 2013. There was a lot of comments on use of public funds, mentioning the example of adding trees in private yards is a gift of public funds. She mentioned the article was pointing out these are agencies or organizations providing services or doing some kind of benefit or service that the agency could do but does not. She stated that other points that she thinks are important are transparency around it and that some of these are things that Council should make a decision about and not the City Manager. She questioned how they make sure they have an equitable process and are serving all parts of our community.
Councilmember Bier appreciated the difference between a sponsorship of an event and a grant application as they do very different things. She thought, if they have a process for sponsorship, that is a place to start. She still thinks PRC and the Beach Coalition should not be a part of these conversations.
Councilmember Boles asked, when talking about events, are they also talking about permit fees that the city would be reviewing and approving. She is thinking of the parade and the Historical Society and their permit for their train car, etc., which might be a benefit to the city. She assumed the standard cost basis includes more overhead, etc., that may not be total costs.
She thought, if there was a way to reduce things and not losing money and not making a big profit. She asked if that is something that can be considered.
Mayor Vaterlaus mentioned that there are a lot of events, Dog Surfing, Tree Lighting, etc., that happen all year long. She asked what is happening with those, assuming they are not giving them money directly.
Councilmember Boles thought some of them also are not paying enough as they do not tell us how many people are coming.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer would like to propose that they continue status quo and she wants there to be some allocation of funds or earmarked or set aside, etc., so if there are off-cycle requests that they have a place they can go. She thought it would take some analysis to figure out how much they are doing. She does not know if it is a Council agenda item, an ad hoc group, or whatever they think would be best. She does not want them all to spend a ton of time on this or make an extra job function for an already stretched staff.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 March 11, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck liked that idea. He stated that something that came out of CORA that was unexpected for him was community partners collaborating with the city to be able to fund this service. He wondered, if a part of the process going forward when unexpected things come up, if the question is intentionally added, could some of our community partners be contacted in terms of aiding what they are trying to accomplish. He thought that, instead of taking it all on Council’s shoulders, if they were to reach out in certain instances, some of their partners might want to pair up with the city in covering costs. He thought that might be an interesting element to add into future discussions.
Mayor Vaterlaus added that the PRC and Beach Coalition were always based on whether or not there was excess ERAF money because that could go away at any time. She thinks they decided at one point that they would continue regardless but they would have to find a place where the money would come from, such as the General Fund, as ERAF could go away.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he is not hearing specific direction to bring something back in the near term. He heard the concept of developing a sponsorship policy that would be a different undertaking, and with the Council during the budget, he thought they could call out where we are providing funding for NGOs and be transparent in the budget recommendation.
He stated that he is getting the sense that they are putting this on hold for now and not doing anything immediately.
Mayor Vaterlaus got a consensus that their answer is yes.
City Manager Woodhouse thought that was sufficient direction.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:07 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 3/25/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor