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 25, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
March 25, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on March 25, 2024 at 6:05 PM 6:00 PM - JOINT STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
Mayor Vaterlaus called the joint study session to order at 6:05 p.m.
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Tara Schiff, Economic Development Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
EDC members: Sean Thompson, Chair; Robert Foster, Vice Chair; Brendan Berman; Matthew Dougherty; L. J. Jones; Ed Ochi; Greta Sieglock; Lauren Claire Smith.
Absent: Archie Judan.
Joint Study Session of City Council and the Economic Development Committee (EDC) regarding survey input and potential EDC charter revisions.
PROPOSED ACTION: Provide direction to the City Manager for the Economic Development Committee charter revisions.
Economic Development Manager Tara Schiff presented the staff report.
Councilmember Boles stated the Commission and Committee handbook left open the possibility of people serving who were not residents of the city if they had particular skills or expertise, such as business owners.
Chair Thompson stated that their understanding was that membership required residence in Pacifica. He asked if they could change that.
Committee Member Greta Sieglock stated that she thought it was something they could change in a vacuum for their committee specifically, as she thought, if they open it up generally to business owners in Pacifica, that leaves it open for other committees to have that option; keeping it tied to residents makes sense unless there is an overall change to the way committees for the city are formed.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 March 25, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus thought the exception was included in the city Municipal Code.
Councilmember Bier thought there was some conversation where business owners could be invited to attend the meetings if not residents for opportunities of input.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, on the topic of criteria for selection regarding the EDC, he wondered if there was flexibility in the membership to allow for consumers rather than business owners to apply.
Committee Member L. J. Jones thought, when they originally structured this, there was no hard test of what knowledge of business needs to be, as everyone has some idea of businesses operating in the area and local economic development ideas, but they want to leave it to the committee’s discretion to weigh the factors in determining the ideal candidate.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, as Councilmember appointee to this committee, she is always looking at who is a business owner, and she thought 3 of the 9 presently on the committee are Pacifica business owners.
Councilmember Boles stated that they have been talking about youth positions on some of the other committees and wondered if they would consider or want a high school student to serve (possibly a one-year term) if they have an interest in business or skills to offer.
Committee Member Matthew Dougherty thought that was interesting. He would be in favor of looking into that, but he asked if they were a voting member on those other committees.
Councilmember Boles stated that they are.
Committee Member Dougherty stated that it was something they can look at as a committee.
He stated that, the reason they have in the second section regarding the Chamber of Commerce as an ex officio member, they opened it up for accepting other ex officio members as well and that might be in line with a great resource and committed to coming but not have to be at every meeting to meet a quorum. He stated that is one reason why there are nine community members appointed is so they can get more accomplished as that was one of the problems they have been facing. He agreed that, if there is a business owner outside of Pacifica or other groups in town that key stakeholders, they might be a great resource for them and be designated as ex officio member. Regarding a youth position, he thought it was something they could talk about.
City Clerk Coffey referred to the Pacifica Municipal Code regarding eligibility for committee and commission members, stating if there is something they move forward with that is not within the context of the Municipal Code section as currently stated it may require an ordinance to amend that section, which now states that eligibility for committee and commissions is stated to represent a broad cross section of the entire community to be eligible for appointment to any committee or commission and be a qualified elector of the city except for 1) members who are under the age of 18 years at the time of appointment but are residents of the city and 2) members of committees who are not qualified electors or residents of the city but who may be appointed by the Council where they are deemed to be able to provide expertise or where they may be representative of a section of the community, for example, commercial. She then stated that there was allowance in the Municipal Code currently for youth members under 18 and for non-residents.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 March 25, 2024
Councilmember Bier stated, if we are going to be talking about that, maybe we should talk about it across the board for every committee and commission. She stated that, if we are going to be talking about youth, we should be making sure to include our Director of PB&R in those conversations. She thought there could be liaisons from the Youth Advisory Board to give those leaders an opportunity. She thought there was a lot to talk about but she preferred that we talk about it as a whole instead of which committee or commission.
Councilmember Boles wondered if some committees may have reasons for no youth seats or limited youth seats.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought part of the issue was quorum and that is why the terms for the youth seats were shorter. She stated that this committee has experienced some challenges where quorum is concerned. She thought the big adjustment that Economic Development Manager Schiff was explaining about having the Chamber of Commerce seat not be voting but ex officio is a good place to start with their work on a quorum. She thought there were opportunities to bring youth in through the means Councilmember Bier brought forward because those means exist all the time for the city, especially the Youth Advisory Board.
Committee Member Brendan Berman added that they have many volunteering opportunities through the work that EDC does for youth or anyone to participate. He stated that, as mentioned, people who are under 18 are already allowed to join. He thought that the longer terms are nice because it takes some time to get your feet under you and figure out what are the valuable opportunities to go after. He stated that a lot of the things they are trying to do now are long-term plans, i.e., a multi-year vision for how they change Blues and Brews or how do they make Pride bigger or changes to Shop Pacifica. He stated that there is value in longer terms, but he was lightly opposed to shortening the term life.
Committee Member Lauren Claire Smith added they have a lot of programming for volunteer opportunities for youth already. She referred to Councilmember Bier’s intern last year who was really involved in Pride. She thought doing it more with the de facto opportunities we have is effective for everyone. She thought it would be great if they could get more kids involved in these events and finite activities.
Councilmember Bier referred to talking about the Library Advisory Committee regarding the voting seat. She thought it would be nice to have young people voting on all our committees and commissions, but she thought it will take time to structure that.
Councilmember Boles stated that the commission and committee handbook will need updating after review of all committees and commissions and that might be part of that process.
Committee Member Berman added that youth having equal impact of changes, such as the beautification of the city, as they experience the city the same way as adults do, and they experience going to the library the same way, whereas they are not as involved in business ownership or patronizing businesses, and he thinks there are a few committees or commissions which makes more sense where it would line up with the goals of the commissions and people benefitting from the work those committees do.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought about that too, as she could see it on certain committees and not on others because most youth have not had much experience in running businesses, but they might be interested in expressing interest in a specific business to be in Pacifica and the rest of the youth would like to see something like this. She knows it is hard to recruit businesses but it City Council Regular Meeting 4 March 25, 2024
might give a different perspective that other people haven’t thought of.
Councilmember Boles added that there is no stopping a youth from starting a business. She had a question for Economic Development Manager Schiff about the committee opining on economic input on development.
Economic Development Manager Schiff stated that one of the requests was more input on economic development that could include projects and businesses.
Councilmember Boles asked, if a developer is coming and building a mixed use building with some retail, how did we see our committee being involved.
Economic Development Manager Schiff saw EDC being involved on a whole, as they would like to be more knowledgeable about what we’re doing and have more input on what we’re doing and they can certainly include them and be very transparent on all the projects they are doing.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that they discussed that EDC is an advisory board to the Council, and in the staff report, there is specific language which was “as requested by the Council. If Council refers any specific projects for economic impact back to EDC, they will weigh in on specific projects with specific initiatives for economic impacts. It will be coming from the Council when you ask specific input from the Committee.
Councilmember Boles asked how that works in practice.
City Manager Woodhouse thought the concept would be that, when the city is confronted with significant development project or a specific plan, during the public engagement process that Council usually undertakes and discusses to guide that project or whatever milestone a specific project comes to the Council, the Council could say it has significant economic development aspects to it and we would like the expertise of the Economic Development Committee to review and weigh in on that. Like Council can do for any commission or committee, Council can direct a piece of work to that commission or committee at a point in time. It would be on a case-bycase basis if Council wants the committee to review the economic portion of a project.
Councilmember Boles concluded that they would agendize something for discussion among Council to make sure there are three of them that agree.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that it may be something already agendized.
Councilmember Boles asked if the Council could request EDC to provide input with city projects, such as the quarry specific plan.
Committee Member Berman stated that this committee could provide their input on what they think would be more or less economically beneficial to the city and the city could use that knowledge however it chooses or on large projects going through the Commission and Council.
If Council would like a view of this committee on what the economic impact might be, they can help provide that and, beyond just development, while less frequently, but in some cases there are code changes or language changes that would lead to an easier environment for people to develop in the city and attracting businesses.
Committee Member Dougherty added that the intent to have this in here was was a reminder that they have this wide skill set sitting regarding businesses. He stated that they are here and City Council Regular Meeting 5 March 25, 2024
would love to provide some more additional feedback, and they have relationships with students or community members on a regular basis and are conveying new projects to, so it might be worthwhile to tap EDC as a resource.
Councilmember Boles appreciated their talent and resources and thought perhaps the liaison may educate them on what the city is working on and they can opine in their meetings that they might be able to help with that. She stated that it isn’t just Council to EDC but EDC to Council.
Councilmember Bigstyck mentioned opening public comments.
City Manager Woodhouse added that one nuance to this is that, as during the discussion of the OSPAC charter, when talking about review or input on private development projects, that is a very legally nuanced topic limitations on the amount of public meetings that the city can require due process issues that need to be concerned. He pointed out that it is a very different and more complex realm of discussion when it comes to referring private development projects to a committee or commission. He thought the intent here is more the general awareness about the Economic Development input, particularly related to city projects and city activities where there is not the same private development process limitation.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated she feels committee and commission members have to be a resident and someone who can vote. She referred to getting the word out and teens, commenting on the process and past history, stating teens want to be heard and she cautioned all committees that we are very careful about hearing residents more than anybody.
Councilmember Bier wanted to thank all of the them for being present. She stated that this group is extremely engaged and will do so much good for our city.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and Mayor Vaterlaus concurred.
Councilmember Boles stated that in light of their budget that this committee’s work is the most important in the city and they are grateful for their service to build our tax base and provide services to residents and attract more visitors.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked everyone as well. He appreciated the conversation about the possibility of a youth ex officio member and he deferred to Councilmember Bier as she has the leading expertise followed by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer. He wondered if City Manager has direction or does he need further direction.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he is hearing support for the recommended changes to the charter and there is no change regarding youth membership at this time, and they will bring back a resolution that memorializes what is in the presentation at a future Council meeting for adoption.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
ADJOURN JOINT STUDY SESSION
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the study session at 6:45 p.m.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 March 25, 2024
7:00 PM OPEN REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus reconvened the regular meeting at 7:02 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; Denise Bazzano, Asst. 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; Harun Kiziltug, IT Manager; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Roland Yip, PW. Dep Director (Field Services/Engineering); Daniel Patten, Wastewater Engineering Manager; Matt Kelly, Project Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgement.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if Council would like to pull an item from the consent calendar.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like to pull Item #2.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if there were any who wanted to pull any item and, seeing no one, asked if there were any questions.
Councilmember Boles stated that they received a comment about a potential date error in the minutes.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought it was the staff meeting about the Minerva trees and asked if we can have it corrected later because we do not know the actual date.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that Chris Redfield is on Zoom so he might be able to offer clarification.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 March 25, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comment.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated that the date the meeting with Minerva residents was held was in the future and it was a simple clarification of the date, and he thought the date was supposed to be 2023 or February and added that he could be mistaken on the packet page.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comment.
Councilmember Bier moved to approve the consent calendar, excluding Item #2; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
(No correction was necessary to the minutes as drafted. The date was included in the agenda staff report and not referenced in the minutes.)
CONSENT CALENDAR (EXCLUDING ITEM #2)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the March 11, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting.
2. Update to authorizing resolution for Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC).
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution to update the authorizing resolution for the Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC) and to rescind the prior authorizing resolution (City Council Resolution No. 44-2015).
Agenda Item #2 Discussion
Councilmember Boles stated she wanted to start with a process question. From the joint study session with OSPAC, she remembered giving clear direction that we wanted to come back and continue a study session after OSPAC had time to think about Council comments and how they wanted to moved forward. The City Manager also suggested that OSPAC choose whether they wanted to come back or not but instead of a study session it could come back under consideration, making sure they had a representative from OSPAC or inviting the whole group if they all wanted to come and have a robust discussion. She stated that the item is now on consent instead of under consideration and she has talked to a few OSPAC members over the weekend and some were specifically told not to come to this meeting. She said that, before them, is to approve or deny and keep the old charter, but there might be some changes that they want to talk about and discuss and she had some questions. She did not think the process as it is on the agenda at this meeting allows that.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if she was asking to look at this at a later date, not to make it item No. 5 on the agenda.
Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively, as she wanted to be sure OSPAC was invited to be part of that discussion. She talked to two members this afternoon and they were okay with that delay. They have waited a long time to get their charter updated but they thought a short City Council Regular Meeting 8 March 25, 2024
delay if they can get it on the agenda worked.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that his understanding was that OSPAC considered the charter amendments and voted on them unanimously with the expectation they would be brought to this Council meeting for consideration by Council, as they did not feel that a follow up joint study session was necessary. He was not aware of anything about OSPAC members being told to not come to this meeting; it is a public meeting, and if a consent item is pulled off the agenda, it gets discussed with public input, etc. He then stated Planning Director Murdock may have more insight into the direction that OSPAC did.
Planning Director Murdock stated that OSPAC considered this item at two meetings and at the first meeting indicated they needed more time. Their subcommittee met, went through the proposed resolution staff prepared, came back with some further revisions that staff incorporated for the most part; after further discussion at the second meeting, OSPAC voted unanimously to request Council’s adoption of the resolution as put forth for their consideration in the agenda packet. Regarding coming back or the need to come back, that question was posed to OSPAC specifically, and the consensus was there was not a need to come back as a body to Council; they were ready to move on with the resolution that has been prepared. He added that individual members may have their own opinions, but those were not expressed in the OSPAC meetings that he attended on the subject matter. Regarding them being told not to come, that is not his recollection; as a procedural matter, this would be a consent calendar item and while there was no need for them to come, they were welcome to come and there would not be a Brown Act issue with them attending this noticed meeting of Council.
Councilmember Boles thought that might be true, but as she was reading the agenda item, she had further questions. She spoke with Chair Arlene Patton, Vice Chair JoAnne Arnos, and Committee Member Ellen Natesan, who thought she had good questions and might want to discuss the minor changes to their charter, but that is not given as an option in what is presented to them today.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, procedurally, there would be an issue. If OSPAC voted and a majority is recommending approval of these changes, that is what we are bringing forward for Council consideration. If there are individual members of OSPAC that had a different opinion and expressed that to Councilmember Boles, the Council can decide to continue the item if they would like, but the recommendation would be the same because OSPAC has taken action on that. Thus, he would not recommend changing or sending it back as that is not what OSPAC directed.
Councilmember Boles asked, if Council wants to make changes, how do they do that and make sure it is okay with OSPAC.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Council can make any changes they want for any charter for commissions and committees because it is their prerogative to do that and the committees and commissions work at Council’s direction.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that would have to be brought back at a later meeting for changes.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, if Councilmember Boles has recommended edits to the resolution, she can propose those as she would any other resolution before Council and Council can discuss those proposed changes and, if they agree, a majority can support those changes.
She added that, as City Manager Woodhouse said, the charter for OSPAC is within the City Council Regular Meeting 9 March 25, 2024
discretion of City Council, as they decide what the contents are of that charter.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is the Council’s prerogative to send it back to OSPAC and they could say that they want them to reconsider these changes. He stated that the point he would make is that they will be extending the committee/commission charter review process.
It has been a long process with OSPAC and they voted for recommendation which is what is before them at this meeting.
Planning Director Murdock stated that another factor for Council consideration related to sending it back to OSPAC is that Chair Patton, before the next OSPAC meeting, will be unavailable for a period of several OSPAC meetings. She has been central to this update process and, to the extent it is a factor, she may not be able to participate up to potentially June.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated his understanding of the process was that the subcommittee came to the conclusions they did, brought it back to the full committee, and deliberated to the point of transmittal of this consent item without need of further discussion. His understanding was that the body’s consensus was that what is before them after a great deal of deliberation.
He stated that Vice Chair Arnos reached out to him earlier today with some of the same concerns that Councilmember Boles is expressing, but he has mostly been working with the Chair of OSPAC around any issues that might pertain to the item. He stated that his understanding from the Chair is that their deliberation was thorough and there was satisfaction of what was being transmitted. He stated that the same observation pointed out by City Manager and Asst. City Attorney occurred to him which was this was Council’s opportunity to do whatever they want with the charter. He does not know what recommendations were made to the members, but as this was a publicly held meeting, he hoped that, if any member wished to come out and speak on behalf of the board or as a private citizen, as was their right, this was their opportunity. The Council could ask whatever questions they might have and he encouraged Council to take the opportunity to ask questions and, if they come to the conclusion as a body that there are alterations they would like to make, they can.
Councilmember Boles stated that they could decide if they want to have that conversation.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it was agendized now so that, if they feel the need to pull the item, they can discuss it as they wish.
Councilmember Boles stated that she can go over her questions and she wanted to know if anyone from OSPAC or anyone in the audience wants to comment about the process.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she can bring it back for public comment if anyone in the audience or phone who would like to make a comment.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano clarified that, if there are any members of OSPAC on the line, she would ask Planning Director Murdock whether or not OSPAC designated a liaison for this meeting or if they would be speaking as a private citizen rather than on behalf of OSPAC.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they did not designate a liaison to Council on this item.
Councilmember Boles asked if they were asked to.
Planning Director Murdock responded that they were not.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 March 25, 2024
Summer Lee, Pacifica, stated that as a member of the public who has wanted OSPAC to have more review of certain projects in our city as was in their original charter and shared her thoughts on the process and having more open discussion about what the new charter is.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated Ms. Patton was speaking as an individual, not as a member of OSPAC.
Arlene Patton, Pacifica, discussed the process they went through and everyone can read the notes from their last meeting regarding the back and forth which was a good discussion of where they wanted to go with this.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked Asst. City Attorney, when something is put on consent, if that was an opportunity for anyone to speak on the subject.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano for a quick definition of consent and how it works in relation to it being an agendized item which gives the public the opportunity to comment.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that an item on the consent calendar is like any other item on the agenda in terms of the public’s or Council’s opportunity to comment upon that item and any member of the public can comment on this consent item in the same way they could with any other agenda item. She stated that it is posted with all the other agenda items 72 hours prior to the meeting so the public is aware of the item and it gets the same treatment as other items in terms of staff report and accompanying documentation so the public can see what the item is about. She stated that items may be placed in a different portion of the agenda based on legal constraints or the complexity of the item but the consent agenda items are just as important as other agenda items.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked Planning Director Murdock about the notion of OSPAC becoming more involved in reviewing or considering development. He asked him if he could remind them of this discussion.
Planning Director Murdock thought it made a lot of sense and may be an appealing idea to have an open dialogue with everyone present at OSPAC to various open space considerations related to development projects. He stated that the reality is that the development review process, in which that discussion would be a part, is a very structured process; there is a record being built with due process rights for applicants and legal liability of the process where due process is not followed appropriately. As outlined previously, there is a number of practical and legal considerations associated with incorporating OSPAC into the formal development review process. Some key points were concern about projects coming early in the process, which makes sense logically to get input early so it can be fully considered, but figuring out later, once the project is deemed complete, that it may be a project subject to some potential processing limitations in terms of number of required meetings. He stated that there are various viewpoints about whether that is before or after the project is complete and when the limitations apply, but there are potential risks associated with that for the city. He stated that there are practical timing considerations to get to a public hearing and review, etc., and there are training and knowledge challenges to get nine OSPAC members up to speed on the very complex development review process and it often takes Planning Commissioners, who meet twice a City Council Regular Meeting 11 March 25, 2024
month and consider multiple projects regularly, a considerable amount of time to gain sufficient expertise. He stated that a lot of practical and legal challenges are associated with that change of process and something to be considered very carefully to what extent, limited or extensive, that OSPAC should be incorporated into that development review process.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the state has regulated the way they must handle development to a point where the extent that the city is able to leverage OSPAC to help in that review process has become rather time prohibitive.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, generally speaking, the process has become much more restrictive now as compared to 10-20 years ago.
Councilmember Bier reminded the public that it was OSPAC’s request that jump-started their whole process to look at all the charters for all the committees and commissions and that conversation was happening when she was a liaison on OSPAC and she was happy to see that they came to a conclusion with a 6-0 vote. She thanked Ms. Patton for calling in.
Councilmember Bigstyck also thanked Ms. Patton for helping them as they deliberate.
Councilmember Boles stated that she was asking some of these questions to the three people she talked to this weekend, and they felt she had questions that led to other questions from them. She is concerned that, if they are finalizing it, there might be a few words that they want to tweak, and it may be worth taking that time to have joint input. She stated that one thing that is not in the document is about their review of city documents. She stated that there is nothing about them commenting on the General Plan and there was nothing in this document that talks about their participation in city documents. She referred to the specific plan for the quarry and it is in their purview, as a lot of that includes trails and habitat, etc. She would want OSPAC to be involved in creating that plan but there is nothing in the document that says they would be asked to do that. She stated all three members thought those were good points, and Ms.
Natesan gave her some specific language about “documents generated by Pacifica, including other plans and policies relevant to open space and not part of a specific development project review”.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that the resolution includes review and implementation of the General Plan, which covers most of the city.
Councilmember Boles understood and stated they can take out the General Plan and talk about the quarry specific plan or any other specific plans.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that the specific plans relate to the General Plan.
Councilmember Boles stated that they do not, as they are separate plans.
Planning Director Murdock stated, to clarify his understanding of the meaning of the paragraph in question about the annual review implementation, that was meant to be at a subsequent annual review of the General Plan conducted by the Council to consider whether it is relevant and important to direct an amendment to the General Plan to formally incorporate the Open Space Task Force Report or other specific open space issues so there is a connection to the development review process through the city’s policy documents that is more direct. He stated that they have a lot in the General Plan about open space but something more specific to the Open Space Task Force Report was intended with bolstering the voluntary presentation City Council Regular Meeting 12 March 25, 2024
opportunity, formalizing the invitation process, and trying to formally connect all the review projects through the Planning Commission process with an amendment to the General Plan to memorialize the Open Space Task Force Report. He thought it was seeking to accomplish something slightly different than what he is understanding from Councilmember Boles’ outlining.
He thought it would seem a reasonable activity for OSPAC to potentially advise on open space issues that are pertinent in the General Plan or other specific plans related to Open Space Task Force Report parcels.
Councilmember Boles asked how he would suggest adding that language.
City Manager Woodhouse pointed out that, in any plan, study or city project coming to Council, the Council has multiple touch points to direct work of that to include committees and commissions; if they take a significant plan update like the General Plan in the future, or a specific plan in the city, Council could say it touches every committee/commission in the City, i.e., Emergency Preparedness and Safety, youth, Economic Development, and PB&R. Council has the prerogative during the process to say they want all the committees and commissions to weigh in. He stated, if Council decided to specifically include plan review in OSPAC’s charter, they are setting it up to include that in every committee and commission’s charter as directed by Council because there will be significant components that relate to every committee and commission. He stated it is not in charters because Council always has the prerogative to direct that in a particular study when Council is deliberating how to go about that process.
Councilmember Boles can understand not being specific about a particular project. She stated that they just reviewed Economic Development and they had a sentence at the end about other work directed by Council and she thought that could be added to the OSPAC resolution.
Councilmember Bier reiterated “as directed by Council” or “other specific plans as directed”.
Councilmember Boles stated that they talked about a lot of things in the study session, but there are things they may want to add later and she wants to understand what the process is to do that. She mentioned that they asked for other sites to be added to the list of sites in the manual, such as all of HPD, certain parcels that were adjacent to existing open space parcels, or particular HPD parcels. She thought they were still interested in that, and she wanted to understand what the process is by which they can add something. She stated she asked before the meeting about the general process for future changes to charters and asked staff to clarify whether this would have another yearly committee report to Council or another process and staff’s answer was that Council must adopt a resolution to amend the authorizing resolutions for commissions and committees and the annual report and work plan approval process is one mechanism they would use to request Council to direct work on a specific topic, but any such work must be consistent with the authorizing resolution. She asked if they can ask for something but it cannot conflict with the resolution we are adopting now and they cannot change the resolution later if they want to add something else.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated her impression is that, when there is change brought forward by any body, whether by Council or proposed by the committee itself, if it results in something different than the original resolution says, then it needs to come back to Council with an updated resolution. She mentioned that we went through this with the Beautification Advisory Committee when they changed the Mayor’s Beautification Awards Program. There are due process considerations we have to be mindful about. She senses that Councilmember Boles is trying to make sure there are things in the document for all future possibilities and she thought there are under the prerogative of Council to amend the charters at any point. She stated that we spent a City Council Regular Meeting 13 March 25, 2024
lot of time on this and she is concerned that they are treading over ground they have already been over. Regarding other parcels, etc., she stated that she was at an OSPAC meeting as an alternate and this issue was discussed specifically regarding to their charter. They talked about whether they want to have an update of the Open Space Task Force Report, and after discussion, they decided they did not want to ask for that. She referred to Council’s review of OSPAC’s original request two years ago and OSPAC’s subsequent reviews and final outcome.
She stated it may be conceivable discussions that may seem to be missing occurred before Councilmember Boles was on Council.
Councilmember Boles stated that she did not know OSPAC had specifically decided on that.
She stated she wants to understand the process, i.e. if a committee wants to make a change later, can they do that without being a part of their yearly meeting or can they come to Council and state they want to add a task and then Council can decide if they should consider that.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the reason why they are having this conversation is because OSPAC took the initiative to say they were interested in doing something and asked Council to listen to them and Council heard. He stated that this is a robust process. He stated he had a question around her mention of the quarry specific plan and whether they need to address when something comes up specifically or if it is understood that OSPAC would have a session regarding the quarry specific plan when that time comes.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, regarding quarry specific plan discussion, that is not what is agendized at this meeting and he recommends that it is only appropriate to bring that up when it is agendized.
Councilmember Bigstyck understood.
Mayor Vaterlaus assumed it is for any specific plan.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed any specific plan or any plan where it does not trigger a state guidelines or restrictions.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would respond with what he said earlier, i.e., is Council interested in inserting that kind of language in every committee and commission’s charter. He stated that option always exists when we specifically come to that discussion.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked what processes are currently in place where we would not need to worry about adding that language. He asked if it was understood that, if it touches OSPAC’s jurisdiction, with the quarry specific plan as an example, it would naturally find its way there without Council needing to think about putting something into the charter.
City Manager Woodhouse stated any big study, specific plan, etc., in recent years, includes a public engagement plan and Council’s engagement, and Council could speak specifically to committees and commissions. He thought that, in the Sharp Park Specific Plan process, Council specifically pointed out three advisory bodies that were to be part of the review process related to that specific planning process. He stated he is recommending that, rather than be specific on any one committee or commission charter, that is a prerogative that always exists to Council. He also wanted to make the point, connected to Councilmember Bole’s question, was that in the Council Rules and Code of Ethics, the process for agendizing an item or Council discussion is laid out in the rules. Any Councilmember can agendize an item and, if a significant item, there is a minimal amount of staff time used to put the item on the agenda and Council City Council Regular Meeting 14 March 25, 2024
discusses what the next step would be on that. He reiterated that, at any given time, if a councilmember wanted to agendize consideration of a charter amendment for a committee or commission, that could be raised. It would be a significant undertaking and would fall under the two-hour rule and be agendized and a majority of Council decides on whether staff resources are going to be spent on revisiting that charter.
Councilmember Bier referred to the 4th “be it further resolved” clause on packet page 36 and asked if they could add “or other specific plan that are appropriate to ensure a mechanism exists” and “as directed by Council”.
Councilmember Bier read, “Be it further resolved during an annual review implementation of the General Plan the City Council will consider whether a General Plan amendment that formally connects the recommendations contained in the OSTF Report to one or more elements in the City’s General Plan, or other Specific Plans, is appropriate to ensure a mechanism exists for formal consideration of the OSTF Report in City decision making including development review.” Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated as Planning Director Murdock mentioned earlier, this resolved language is fairly specific to the annual review of the General Plan and it will only come up once a year around this time when Planning staff prepares the annual Housing Element report and General Plan report. It is not a general directive which she thinks Councilmember Boles is looking for.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if Planning Director Murdock can elaborate on that.
Planning Director Murdock stated that staff brings forward to Council each year in February for Council direction the annual report on Housing Element implementation which is one of the elements of the General Plan with a very specific annual reporting and review process and all other elements of the General Plan. He stated that, during that process, there is public input and Council gets to consider the city’s progress on implementation of the General Plan and use that process as an opportunity to elevate any issues we are having in the community that might warrant further work in the General Plan to help address them. He gave the example of a desire to further promote non-vehicular transportation and direction to look at the circulation element to figure out if there are policies they can revise or add to bolster the city’s support for biking, walking, etc., and deprioritizing automobile transportation. He stated that would be an opportunity where issues could be elevated and work on the General Plan directed if there is a need to address an emergent community priority.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to address the general overall involvement of OSPAC in many things and the second to last “be it resolved” clause on packet page 36 is broad and includes reference to what the City Manager said about Council bringing OSPAC in to “engage and collaborate with city staff, other committees, commissions and Pacifica Land Trust in furtherance of its authorized activities.”
Councilmember Boles thought it seemed that authorized activities may include a list.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it is defined in the charter in the beginning.
Councilmember Boles stated that it does not say specific plans anywhere. She stated that one thing they talked about at the study session was about the purview. She stated that OSPAC’s purview would not be to review the building design or the massing but to look at the site plan, fencing, animal corridors, and connection to trails, and she asked if it would be helpful to have a City Council Regular Meeting 15 March 25, 2024
more specific definition of their purview.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought there was a discussion of a letter of invitation because it was voluntary and perhaps in the body of the letter, it gives some scope to the developer about what they are talking about.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was almost entirely the intent of that item to address what Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer outlined, i.e., explain the benefits of an applicant coming to give feedback on those kinds of issues. The specific content has not been developed yet as it is one of the follow-on implementations steps that would come from this charter update if adopted in its current form, to articulate and outline those within the broader framework of what the authorizing resolution is intended to do and the types of issues identified in the Open Space Task Force Report and not an open ended list of issues but issues related to open space, habitat, hillsides, as described in the Open Space Task Force Report primarily and their resolution indicates it should continue to be the guiding document for OSPAC’s work.
Councilmember Boles asked if he feels that it is enough to have it in the letter.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, stating it could be too limiting to do that now and there is a process set up to allow OSPAC to delve into that and staff to offer feedback and suggestions and to craft the letter that they think expresses what they are appointed to do.
Councilmember Boles stated that sometimes an applicant chooses not to come, such as in the quarry. She asked if there was an opportunity on some limited scope item for the committee to discuss this, including a staff presentation of the project that is coming up in the beginning but not necessarily agendized.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano would defer to Planning Director Murdock on how those things are agendized, as she thought they were agendized.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, on OSPAC’s agenda, there is a staff update on sites within the Open Space Task Force Report. Staff provides a brief informational update, not a deliberation item, and that is why there is limited detail in terms of the extent of that, but a oneway informational update on the status of the projects where they are in the process.
Councilmember Boles concluded that they do not deliberate but they could ask questions and come back and comment as individuals if the project is coming.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the item is not set up to be a deliberative format that directs feedback through staff to applicants but meant to provide a status update on where they are in the process.
Councilmember Boles wanted to make sure there is an opportunity for Planning staff to hear OSPAC feedback if they have a particular concern or question. She stated that, at some point, she sent to them that Woodside has a good Open Space Committee and she thought they required developers to come on particular issues. She stated that the other item they asked about was whether their meetings could be in Zoom again as they have more community members attending. Staff’s answer was allowing hybrid meetings for committees and commissions will need to be determined by Council policy and as allowed by state law. She asked if we saw any reasons not to have OSPAC be available on Zoom if they have the capacity in the meeting room.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 March 25, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, as related to OSPAC in this conversation, the Zoom capability will be set up in the conference rooms. The issue of whether committee and commission meetings that are meeting in that room will be hybrid Zoom / in person meetings and the reason he says it will be a future Council policy decision is because there are staff resource impacts to conducting hybrid meetings and orchestrating that technology. State law pertains to the committee or commission members themselves and their attendance on Zoom, which not allowed except under certain exceptions, but public participation will need to be a future Council discussion and part of that discussion will have to be staff analysis about who is staffing those meetings, how much does it take to man the public comment queue, etc.
Councilmember Boles asked if they need to agendize that discussion.
City Manager Woodhouse anticipates that, at some point, Council will need to engage in that when they have the ability to analyze what the impact is and the pros and cons of doing it.
Councilmember Boles stated that she can talk about it again when they talk about the budget.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if Councilmember Boles was proposing that they bring this back at a different date.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, if Councilmembers are interested in continuing the item, they can make a motion to continue the item, either to a date certain or uncertain, and that motion will need to be seconded and supported by a majority of Council.
Councilmember Bier stated that they have been working on this for a very long time and she wouldn’t like to continue it.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and Councilmember Bigstyck concurred.
Mayor Vaterlaus also concurred, stating that it started in April 2022 and OSPAC voted to approve 6-0. She thought Councilmember Boles had good questions and, in the future, they may consider some of those items and changes.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 2; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
AGENDA ITEM #2
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck
ABSTAIN: Boles
3. Notice of Completion for the Construction of the Anza/Arguello Interim Storm Drain Project in Lower Linda Mar
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 completion of the Anza/Arguello Interim Storm Drain Project.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 March 25, 2024
4. Move to adopt a Resolution to approve Amendments to City Agreements and associated Task Orders adding funding
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution to approve the following Amendments to the City Agreements and associated Task Orders adding funding:
1) First Amendment to Task Order 1 of the Consultant Services Agreement (upon approval of FY 2023/24 mid-year budget adjustment) between the City of Pacifica and Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) to the contract for design services for the Sharp Park Priority Development Area Pedestrian Improvement Project in the amount of $52,600 increasing the overall cost to an amount not to exceed $208,400. 2) Second Amendment to the Construction Services Agreement (upon approval of FY 2023/24 mid-year budget) between the City of Pacifica and Chesterworks to the contract for construction management services for the Civic Center Project in the amount of $40,000 increasing the overall cost to an amount not to exceed $175,960. 3) Second Amendment to Task Order 2 of the Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Pacifica and NCE for On-Call Arborist Services in the amount of $8,830.49 increasing the overall cost to an amount not to exceed $103,830.49. 4) Second Amendment to Task Order 1 of the Consultant Services Agreement (upon approval of FY 2023/24 mid-year budget adjustment) between the City of Pacifica and NCE for design services for the Priority Parks Project in the amount of $20,400 increasing the overall cost to an amount not to exceed $318,355.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments for items not on the posted agenda.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, thanked Councilmember Boles as she thought there should be more transparency and more listening to the public, and she feels Councilmember Boles is the only one advocating for the public.
Irene Lee, Pacifica, thanked Councilmember Boles for bringing up things from the general public and asked that Council keep in mind that they represent the public.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, thanked Councilmember Boles for stepping up on issues regarding the charter and he then shared his thoughts on the quarry reclamation.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, commended Councilmember Boles and shared her thoughts on the issue of outreaching to the public.
Ellen Hage, Pacifica, stated she was speaking as a resident of Pacifica and American and calling on Council to support the peace resolution, sharing her thoughts on many issues.
Delia McGrath, Pacifica, expressed the importance of the situation in Gaza, sharing her concerns on this issue as well as what is happening and seeing our connection.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comment.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 March 25, 2024
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she met with Economic Development Committee on March 12 and she referred to the Blues and Brews event on April 27. She did a read aloud at Sunset Ridge School on March 15 and had a community meeting on March 16 in the morning and then went to the IBL Youth Summit in the afternoon where they focused on wellness and self-care.
She stated that they had the committee and commission interviews and she also attended the Heal Project fundraiser on the previous Wednesday. She stated that there was a Sea Level Rise Local Government Working Group meeting that she did not need to attend as it was a working day for staff working to consolidate plans to bring forward at the next meeting.
Councilmember Boles stated that they both attended the Pacifica Education Foundation Gala Fundraiser with Councilmember Beckmeyer. She stated that most of them were at a fun event with the Police Department honoring their officers for heroic measures and swearing in four new hires. She continued meetings with Solutions for Supportive Homes in the Pacifica Resource Center for affordable housing projects and new facilities for PRC. She had a meeting with the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission. They talked about beach safety and a desire to have a joint session with PB&R. They were talking about working with non-profits and community-based organizations about coordinating some emergency preparedness and they had a Red Cross liaison who told them afterwards about Half Moon Bay and how well their nonprofits are organized so they know what resources they have and how to call upon things in a disaster. She watched the Planning Commission meeting on the quarry and thanked them and residents who attended and had great questions. On Saturday, she attended Council of Cities dinner at the San Mateo County Regional Operations Center, which is the disaster preparation center for the county, and they got a tour from Dr. Shruti Dhapodkar. She stated that in attendance was Warren Slocum, head of Board of Supervisors, and one report he gave was that they had a financial analyst present to the Board of Supervisors and the economic outlook is good for the county in the year ahead. She stated Dave Pine, another county supervisor, was there and he invited the BCDC staff (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) to do a presentation and they were working on sea level rise planning on the bay side which includes all counties and they encouraged agencies to apply for planning grants for sea level rise. She saw the postcard from the San Mateo Leadership Council and the leadership training program she has been doing for the last eight months is now taking applications for next year’s cohort.
Councilmember Bigstyck attended the officer swearing in ceremony on March 12. He attended the Broadmoor Police Protection District meeting. He attended the PRC meeting on March 13 and Councilmember Bier was giving a presentation about “Art for a More Peaceful and Just Community”. They had a clean audit and are looking for more board members. He stated that they have the date of September 21 for the Palm-a-Palooza fundraising event which will celebrate 50 years of PRC. He attended CCAG on March 14 and enjoyed presentations about storm water and about vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emission and mitigation. He stated Mark Simon presented at the Pacifica Democrat Club, adding that he has good insight.
He attended the Youth Summit that Councilmember Bier’s team managed and Chief Sarasua spoke on the topic of “keep kind on your mind.” He watched the Planning Commission meeting and thanked Planning Director Murdock for running that meeting. He urged the community to learn about the due processes we must undergo to facilitate required meetings and appreciated the public participation. He attended commission and committee interviews and went to the LAFCO meeting where the Broadmoor Police Protection District and Municipal Service review was discussed, and will be brought back at the next meeting along with the San Bruno Municipal Service review. He attended the OSPAC meeting last week; they will be doing tabling at WhaleFest on April 20 and they voted to give the 2024 Preservation Award to Julie Lancelle.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 March 25, 2024
He attended the Skyline President’s breakfast and he got to watch The Mayor’s Office with Mayor Vaterlaus interviewing City Manager Woodhouse. He thanked him for what he does for Pacifica while dealing with unkind critiques.
Councilmember Bier attended many of the same events as fellow councilmembers. She thought the police swearing in and honoring the officers was a special event. She attended the EDC meeting where they talked about the Yiftee data and Shop Pacifica and they finalized changes to the charter and discussed the Blues and Brews. Councilmember Bigstyck mentioned the PRC board where she presented about “Art for a More Peaceful and Just Community” and they were looking for anyone who wanted to help with any projects on kindness. She thanked everyone who helped with the Pacifica Youth Summit, especially Chief Sarasua. She thanked PB&R for letting them borrow microphones and thanked her councilmembers for being there and participating with the youth. She thanked PCT for what they did for them, but also for our youth group and livestreaming their podcast that day. She participated in the committee and commission interviews. She attended the President’s breakfast at Skyline. She watched the Planning Commission meeting and thanked them, especially Chair Hauser for running a tight ship. She attended the grand reopening at Asian American Recovery Services in South San Francisco and her colleague, Councilmember James Coman of South San Francisco, was there to give a certificate to Asian American Recovery Services and she spoke with him. She attended Coast Pride’s board meeting where they are doing important anti-racist work and they had a healing circle which made her think back on the Pacifica Peace People’s resolution. She referred to getting feedback at the Planning Commission about our land acknowledgement. She confirmed that they do mean what they are saying about the land acknowledgement. She also thought it was important for staff to reach out to the Ramaytush Ohlone people and representatives coming to their meetings and she will encourage that moving forward as it is an important part of the work they do.
Mayor Vaterlaus also attended many events that other councilmembers did, and she felt the police awards were amazing. She went to Fairmont Homeowners Association and City & County Association of Governments Legislative where they talked about items being brought forward, i.e., on the Brown Act, complete streets, toll upgrades, and banning chemicals in female products. The regular CCAG board meeting was vehicle miles traveled. She met with Sam Liccardo who is running for assembly in our district and walked him around in Rockaway and talked about our issues of sea level rise, sea wall, and Coastal Commission. She went to the community meeting where Matt Larsen did a quarry update, Ray Mueller talk, Sam Liccardo spoke briefly, and Larry Bothan talked about the sea level rise issues of the Local Coastal Update Plan. She stated she was there for a long time answering questions and only went briefly to the Youth Summit. She stated one of her assignments is the Fog Fest board and they were concerned as Fog Fest is basically volunteer-driven and there were not enough people to go forward which was a concern. She attended the President’s breakfast at Skyline and met with a representative from the quarry with his opinions on the project. She met with the Toll Brothers who is working on the purchase of Sea Bowl and she talked to David Szeto who currently owns the Sea Bowl. She also attended the community involvement in planning.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that she was honored to be at the Lion’s Club Police and Fire Awards dinner where Pacifica officers were honored with heroism awards and they were proud of them.
Councilmember Bier thanked all the firefighters who showed up at the Youth Summit as it was impressive that there were so many of them.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 March 25, 2024
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned the award at the Peninsula Council of Lions and he will reiterate that it was mentioned by many councilmembers that the Police Department and Chief Sarasua held an incredible event where our newest police officers were sworn in and several officers received the Medal of Valor locally and the officers were Officer Robert Martinez, Corporal Travis Meyerhoff, and Detective Corporal Brandon Smith who were awarded the Valor Award from the Peninsula Council of Lions. He stated that more information will come out in coming weeks, but they found out last week that Pacifica is one of three grand prize winners from the California Association of Local Economic Development (CALED) for an Economic Development award statewide. He stated there were three grand prize winners and three merit winners in three different categories. Pacifica won in the Programs and Promotions category for the Vision 2025 and Beyond Initiative. He felt that was great recognition of all the hard work by Council and staff in bringing it forward. He thanked Asst. City Manager Carter for her work on that as well as Economic Development Manager Tara Schiff on both working to put the application together. He stated that we will be recognized at the annual conference in Santa Rosa on April 11.
Mayor Vaterlaus called a break then reconvened the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
5. Midyear budget review and adoption of a resolution to adjust the fiscal year 2023-24 Budget.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the midyear FY 2023-24 Operating and Capital Budget adjustments.
Asst. City Manager Carter presented the staff report.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked since the recommendation was that they shift out of the undesignated fund balance would the approach be that they would make it whole in the coming year and it would be accounted for in the base budget when it comes back to them for the coming fiscal year.
Asst. City Manager Carter responded affirmatively, adding that was why they have emergency reserves so any budget fluctuations will be covered, unless it is something catastrophic that is projected to have effect over the next few years, which is not the case.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted to double check about the reserves that the recommendation is two months of operating expenditures which is slightly less than $8 million.
Asst. City Manager Carter responded affirmatively, adding that the recommendation to city governments is to maintain the minimum level of reserves which is two months of operating revenues and operating expenditures. In our case it is slightly under $8 million and what we see even with the adoptions is that $9 million is undesignated fund balance and they still have emergency reserves and all the other reserves they can see. She highlighted that the unassigned fund balance reserve is shy of $9 million, and in addition to that, they have 8% reserved for emergencies and all the other assigned reserves remain untouched so we are City Council Regular Meeting 21 March 25, 2024
meeting and exceeding the minimum reserve requirements.
Councilmember Boles wanted to understand the sales tax on the Measure Y numbers. She thought Asst. City Manager Carter said it was mostly until the end of December but sometimes we project further and she asked if the minus $170,000 and minus $300,000 were Asst. City Manager Carter’s projections for the next six months.
Asst. City Manager Carter responded affirmatively, adding that the HdL Sales Tax Division assisting us with the sales tax projections for the whole year. It is important to note that there is a two-month lag of the data that they received from the state which is why the most available data now is to September 2023. Based on that information, HdL revised the projections for the rest of the year, and we see the most relevant, updated projections through June 30. The number may change once they receive the next quarter.
Councilmember Boles stated they have not included the spending season around Christmas.
Asst. City Manager Carter answered affirmatively. She stated it is fine to reduce the number to have the most accurate information at the time we are making this decision but, for the new year’s projections, we will intend to use a different quarter.
Councilmember Boles stated the sales tax is money people spend in Pacifica and Measure Y includes a tax on purchases from Pacificans but they could be spent elsewhere.
Asst. City Manager Carter responded affirmatively, adding it is transaction use tax.
Councilmember Boles wanted to understand the salaries and benefits. She asked about expenditures and cost savings for many positions not filled now. She asked if that is extra money we have but is not accounted for in these numbers or does it show up somewhere.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated it does not show up in the mid-year report but we do go through this exercise for the projections of the salary statements and what it can cover. She referred to July when they adopted memoranda of understanding with salary increases and with the fiscal impacts identified at that time staff told Council about amending the budget. She stated staff is not asking Council to amend the budget as these increases are fully covered by the salary savings from turnover or understaffing. She stated that is why, when they saw the adjustments and position control, in light of vacancies and recruitment, there will be no fiscal impact this year.
Councilmember Boles stated one of her questions before the meeting was about legal expenses which is currently budgeted at about $1.3 million and is projected to stay on target. She asked where cost-reimbursable legal planning work related to development projects, etc., appears.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the cost-reimbursable expenses are not going to show here. She stated it is part of the $800,000 reduction that they discussed. She stated that a portion of it is a legal expense that they probably are not going to realize for the end of the fiscal year, as it is budgeted for every potential. As far as channel legal expenses, they are budgeted at $1.3 million and we do not anticipate this number to exceed at the end of the year.
Councilmember Bier asked if Asst. City Manager Carter could explain the vehicle license fee, as the city does not expect the state to pay the back bill this year.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 March 25, 2024
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is a very serious issue that San Mateo County primarily is battling with the state and it has to do with local property tax conditions and the funding related to school districts in our county. Napa County is another county that is confronted by this short fall in lieu vehicle license fee. Mono County is another county that is confronted by it. He stated it was not widespread across the state. He stated, as Asst. City Manager Carter mentioned, a vehicle license fee is a significant part of our General Fund at about 11% and all cities across the state always relied on vehicle license fee which used to be tied to registration fees that vehicle owners paid to the state and all cities across the state rely on that significantly. He stated that, in the mid-90s, the state implemented a mechanism called the triple flip to balance their budget deficit and keep school payments whole and borrow property tax revenues from cities in order to do that and, in one of the flips in the triple flip, pay back the cities, so we are obligated the money back. He stated that it has gotten to the point, because of the particular circumstances in San Mateo County, for many years now that it is a year-by-year discussion with the state to have them backfill the short fall amount owed. He stated each year the backfill payment lags by two years and this year we received the backfill payment from the 21-22 or 20-21 fiscal year of $600,000+ and the state is in a budget crisis and the Department of Finance is taking a hard line approach, saying they do not think they owe this backfill money. He stated that it was a $1.95 billion issue over ten years for San Mateo County and if the state continues to take that stance and does not pay what they are obligated to pay the cities, that is the impact it will have on San Mateo County, which is a very significant issue that they are fighting on this week, i.e., the mayor will have a strongly worded letter to sign as we did last year to our legislators and the governor about the importance of this money to Pacifica. He asked if that was the explanation she was seeking.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, when they finish the letter, he will send it to the Councilmembers and they can use the letter in their conversations with anyone and everyone in the state that they interact with. He stated that our local legislators are on board and taking it seriously, but it is a tough one with the Department of Finance. He reiterated what Asst. City Manager Carter previously said: This is why we have our emergency reserve, which is precisely for unexpected state takeaways or other economic impacts, and the reserve is appropriate to use to fill the gap now. Part of it is strategic in their conversations with the state because, at this point in time, they made decisions to save money through various choices, and he felt they need a hard line approach about how impactful this shortfall is to the city, and we have to use reserves and fall below policy level of 10% in order to do this.
Mayor Vaterlaus knows they cannot rely on this, but she asked if they could possibly increase the funds to us at a later time and we would put the money back in reserves.
City Manager Woodhouse stated down the line in a future year, when budget times are better for the state, could they pay us back what they owed us for previous years, yes, it would be great. He stated that we need it every year to rely on, but if there are some years when we have to use some bridge funding but are guaranteed a pay back in future years, that could be a potential solution.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she has a specific question in packet page 214, and it sounds like we need to move $50,000 from tree maintenance to work on lights. She knows that there is a lot of tree maintenance needed so she wants to understand that better.
PW Director Petersen stated that they are requesting $50,000 to go to our street lighting City Council Regular Meeting 23 March 25, 2024
program as we have a deficit in that budget because of what was talked about in these expense amendments, i.e., there is some work now that is considered not appropriate for our staff to be doing as some has to do with more electrical work on street lights such as the conversions on Palmetto. Because of that, she stated that they do need the $50,000, and as far as the recommendation in the budget, the amendment related to taking it from Fund 10, this is just a fund we have that we felt we may have some money and it was a recommendation to tap that because it is needed and we are already in a deficit with that particular street lighting fund.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the work is not going to be done by our staff and asked if it is contracted.
PW Director Petersen stated that their street light contractor they put out with an RFP several years ago is St. Francis Electric and they give us set rates which they provided when they got the contract and we do get good rates from them, but it is additional work we have been giving them in order to make sure that would keep the lights on.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it sounded like it will be an ongoing request next year.
PW Director Petersen agreed that is likely.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we do not have tree work that we need to do with that money this year.
PW Director Petersen stated that we do have tree work, but they felt they would have some additional funds in that budget that they could put towards this as it was a deficit. Because it comes out of the street maintenance fund and are more maintenance types of tree work such as having issues with clearance or things look like they will fall down on cars, it is more of a maintenance type fund they use in regard to streets.
City Manager Woodhouse thought it was important to recognize that Fund 10 is the gas tax maintenance fund and it is not a designated fund just for tree maintenance but used for street and road maintenance and minor improvements and is limited to that to be used for and not intended to be just a tree maintenance fund.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer appreciated the additional clarification. She stated that street maintenance includes trees and lights.
Councilmember Boles stated that the next item was on emergency street repair work for $75,000 and it does not identify where.
PW Director Petersen stated that we have areas of focus in town and we are having another big street maintenance project that is coming up this summer with a couple of million dollars to help some those areas, and they are looking at some areas that get continuous calls for staff. Staff requested to be able to have a one-time contractor come in and fix some areas that are constant and ongoing as it takes a lot of staff time. She stated that there are a few areas on there and they may be more as well, but she does not have the specific locations, but they are small spots, not the whole street.
There were no public comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked staff for the remarkable amount of work on this, going into our City Council Regular Meeting 24 March 25, 2024
finances on a constant yearly basis. He emphasized the job positions they need to reinstitute and elongate for permanent positions, including the Planning Department, the Police Department, and the Finance Department. He has faith that, when they create the budget this coming year, we will be able to make whole the undesignated fund balance. He will be happy to vote to put into place this part of it to keep it funded and make sure we are taking every opportunity to augment our staff who work so hard and listen to people who think it is appropriate to talk that way to others.
Councilmember Boles thanked them for their work and finding ways to bring the city forward despite the loss of revenue. She stated it looks good and she was ready to make a motion.
Councilmember Boles moved to adopt a resolution authorizing the midyear FY2023-24 Operating and Capital Budget adjustments; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked staff for all the constant work on this.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
6. Appointments to the Beautification Advisory Committee; Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee; Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission; and Planning Commission
PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Move to appoint one (1) applicant to the Beautification Advisory Committee for one full term to expire March 2028;
2) Move to appoint two (2) applicants to the Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee for one partial term to expire May 2025 and one partial term to expire May 2026; 3) Move to appoint one (1) applicant to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for one partial term to expire May 2025;
4) Move to appoint two (2) applicants to the Planning Commission each for full terms to expire March 2028.
City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, thanked everyone for their services. Regarding the Planning Commission, he expressed concern that Chair Hauser return to the Planning Commission. He hopes that is their intention as she is so thoroughly involved in all issues and understands it.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer nominated Daniel Wells for Beautification Advisory Committee; seconded by Councilmember Boles.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 March 25, 2024
APPOINTMENT TO THE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Daniel Wells (full term to expire March 2028)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Boles nominated Michael Kahn for the term to expire May 2026 and Sally Treanor for the term to expire May 2025 for Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee.
The motion failed as there was no second.
Councilmember Bigstyck nominated Michael Kahn for the term expiring May 2026 and Aaron Reif for the term expiring May 2025 for Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE OPEN SPACE AND PARKLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Michael Kahn (partial term to expire May 2026)
Aaron Reif (partial term to expire May 2025)
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-1]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
NOES: Vaterlaus
Councilmember Bier moved to appoint Peter Banks to one partial term expiring May 2025 for Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION:
Peter Banks (partial term to expire May 2025)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to reappoint Samantha Hauser to the Planning Commission and appoint Chris Redfield; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 March 25, 2024
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Samantha Hauser (full term to expire March 2028)
Chris Redfield (full term to expire March 2028)
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-1]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck
NOES: Boles
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 4/22/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor