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 June 24, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
June 24, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus called the meeting to order on June 24, 2024 at 5:08 PM 5:00 PM - STUDY SESSION
Mayor Vaterlaus called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present, and announced that the Council would meet in Study Session.
Short Term Rental Study Session
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive updates on the Short-term Rental Program and provide input on Short-term Rental provisions.
City Manager Woodhouse introduced the other team members on this study session: Yulia Carter (Asst. City Mgr.), Kavitha Kumar (Interim Community Dev. Dir.), Stefanie Cervantes (Acting Comm. Dev. Dep. Dir.), Brianne Harkousha (Sr. Planner), and Gwen White (Sr. Code Enforcement Officer), Alan Cohen (Asst. City Atty.), Maria Sarasua (Police Chief) and consultant Bret Harmon (HdL).
City Manager Woodhouse gave a brief introduction and then turned it over to staff.
Asst. City Manager Carter and Sr. Planner Harkousha completed the presentation.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he understood, prior to the Coastal Commission hearing on our ordinance, a permit could be issued for more than one unit, but during the Coastal Commission hearing staff said it was one unit per permit. He asked for clarification.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that staff researched the initial policy closely with HDL to clarify it and the data we are reporting today is one permit for one unit, which is how it has been from the start of the STR program.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded that a cap of 150 permits means a cap of 150 units.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated he was correct. She clarified that, if you have a building of six units, each one of the units will have to have an STR permit.
City Manager Woodhouse added that part of the complexity is the three-fold aspect to the permit. He stated that you have to have a business license and those licenses are different; a multi-unit operator has one business license but multiple units, and thus, if operating STRs, they City Council Regular Meeting 2 June 24, 2024
have to have an STR permit for every unit which was a complicating factor in our early discovery phase.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that was why we revamped this whole workflow for the process and why the STR permit is the last step in the process; the unit must comply with all the requirements and then the STR permit is issued per unit.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we have a sense of the amount of transit occupancy tax for the coastal zone short-term rentals versus how much for the non-coastal short-term rentals.
Consultant Harmon stated that he will come back with that number.
Councilmember Boles referred to the slides that showed the economic and revenue being generated. She asked for an explanation of the 73% vacancy rate.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that this is an estimate of what average spending may be.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that what is meant is occupancy rate (not 37% occupancy, 73% vacancy). He stated that the hotels have performed through COVID-19 well and recovered very quickly after COVID-19 compared to other jurisdictions and that is a high occupancy rate for hotel systems.
Councilmember Boles asked if it is something HdL tracks as we know how many nights a particular unit is renting. She asked because there was an analysis done for San Francisco about vacancies mid-week vs. a person residing at the address and the associated tax revenue portion. She also asked if the sales tax amount on the slide was a real number.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is an assumption that we can project for the STR’s.
She stated this means people spend money here locally which contributes to the sales tax.
Consultant Harmon stated that, going back to the first question of the TOT difference between coastal and non-coastal, from the coastal side, we are estimating for this fiscal year about $781,000 and from the non-coastal, about $668,000, about $1.4 million in total. As far as whether or not tracking occupancy, HdL is able to drill down and look at a specific location and search prior history to see occupancy; however, it is something HdL gathers and tracks on a day-to-day basis by individual location, thus, not an aggregated summary, but one that can be accessed for specific locations as needed.
Councilmember Boles understood the transit occupancy tax and the business license tax. She understood that we raised the STR permit fees primarily to counter the cost of enforcement and she believed, in the budget, we are saying that this does not cover our cost of enforcement with an extra $40,000 or so extra to pay.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, when we adopted the budget, we had an estimate based on 150 units and our enforcement takes more depending on activity level; when we started covering all the costs of responses to gatherings, etc., and it was very likely that the cost is higher. She wanted to clarify that we put $240,000 in the budget and we collected more. The reason for that is back to the 60 properties that we closed; sometimes we issue the permit and then close the permit, hence a fluid process.
Councilmember Boles noted that, if the permit fees are mostly covering enforcement and the City Council Regular Meeting 3 June 24, 2024
sales tax, we would be earning sales tax from people who live here and those may not be a fair addition to the revenue that we ae generating, if we look at what we are losing by potentially restricting them.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed. She also highlighted that, if we did not have this program in place and all the STRs were banned, that would not eliminate having STRs and having to enforce them anyway. She stated if all of them are illegal tomorrow, we still need to ensure that they are not there and that takes time and effort to do.
Councilmember Boles thought the enforcement process if someone does not have a permit is easier than that of trying to bring someone into compliance. She thought she read in the report that Airbnb collects TOTs directly but what happens with the other vendors.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we do get remittances on TOT from Airbnb directly and HdL helps us to track TOT liability for all the other platforms, like VRBO; when HdL quoted these numbers, we have a breakdown between what we get from Airbnb which is a majority of the revenues and additional revenues that HdL helped collect that we were missing before we engaged with HdL.
Councilmember Boles concluded people were not paying voluntarily through other platforms.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated no for other platforms. There was only a voluntary agreement with Airbnb.
Councilmember Bier asked if the units from the other platforms were included in this unit count.
Asst. City Manager Carter responded affirmatively, adding that it is comprehensive.
Councilmember Bier wanted to clarify that it was one unit per STR permit, but one person can have more than one permit, such as apartment buildings.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated yes, under the current stipulations.
Councilmember Boles asked how long is the oldest non-compliant one. She stated that the chart said more than 4 months and she has heard from some members of the public that there have been issues for over a year on certain units.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we issued 17 Notices of Violations in December and we are still working on some of them. For how long they were non-compliant before issuing the Notice of Violation, she would have to check with HdL. She clarified that we did not have a very strong process before but we do now; those notices went out in December and now we are doing them in batches. With those notices, we have 12 remaining properties we still need to address from legal perspective and then a new batch will come in and the process time resets itself. There is the notice of violation and some do comply and some do not comply and we go from this point.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if non-compliant means no license or STR permit or if the STR causing issues in the neighborhood.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated, for the purpose of this presentation, it is non-compliant from the tax perspective. That is why they are separated into different buckets, as code enforcement City Council Regular Meeting 4 June 24, 2024
is a separate process.
Councilmember Boles asked about the process of revoking a permit.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the way we would handle that for any revocation of a permit, because it implicates vested rights and due process rights, we have to make sure our processes and due process procedures are handled correctly; staff would highlight the issue to the City Attorney’s Office, if the STR has violated a condition of approval or permit for any reason. If they have, we would go through a process of determining what is the violation and we would initially send them a Notice of Violation and warn them in the same manner we are warning them now but telling them that the implications are that we will revoke their permit. We would have to hold a formal hearing in order to determine whether or not a revocation proceeding has happened. It requires a formal discretionary hearing for the body to make that determination as to whether or not they have violated and it requires findings and hearings which is a detailed process that we need to follow if, in fact, it is proven that they have violated a term of the permit.
Councilmember Boles stated that it sounds complicated, lengthy, and expensive.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought that 60 have been revoked.
Councilmember Boles did not think we had revoked any.
City Manager Woodhouse stated what often happens in code enforcement proceedings in those violations is that they either leave the program voluntarily or they come into compliance, and that is a more cost-effective approach and typically how the philosophy of Pacifica has been regarding code enforcement matters that they seek compliance.
City Attorney Kenyon added to the question of how long have we been doing this enforcement.
She stated that we did not get into active enforcement until recently which is why Asst. City Attorney Alan Cohen is present because that is what he has been focusing on. The City Manager and staff requested the City Attorney’s Office to put together an enforcement program, and that has never been undertaken. She stated that we have found a lot of success in our active enforcement.
Asst. City Attorney Cohen stated that we started actively enforcing closer to the end of January 2024. The city issued Notices of Violation back in December 2023 and he was brought on towards the end of January to work together to come up with a more comprehensive enforcement scheme designed to persuade, through fines and penalties, etc., those not complying with the Short-Term Rental Ordinance to comply and there are additional options beyond that which could include litigation to mandate enforcement. He stated that we have seen over the course of the last few months some real success in getting a number of the shortterm rental properties who have not taken out permits to shut down.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that we have always enforced complaints and noise violations for the program and he thought it was before COVID-19 when we had a Notice of Violation and administrative hearing regarding an STR in Pedro Point and then it was appealed and they came into compliance, which was a long process. He stated that we have a more aggressive enforcement program and all the tax compliance. On the safety and public nuisance aspects, Police have been doing calls to noise complaints since the program began.
Asst. City Manager Carter added to the permit revocation question that the legal side of it is City Council Regular Meeting 5 June 24, 2024
complex but, since we have a cap now, this process is annual. Once the cap is reached, any non-compliant property or problematic property will not get the permit next year. Once someone has the permit, it can be easily lost without going through revocation of the permit.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she will open public comments.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if anyone does not raise their hand now, they will not get to speak.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed, clarifying that we will give them five minutes to raise their hand and, after those 5 minutes, no additional raised hands will be permitted.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, in five minutes, if we have already given a time restriction, we will not be able to limit that time. She suggested telling people to raise their hands now if they intend to speak, and after they are raised, she can make a determination as to how many minutes they have.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, based on the amount of public comment, to limit it to two minutes, and received a consensus from Council. She opened public comments.
Russell Jones, Pacifica, explained his personal flexibility situation which allows him and his husband to open their home for rentals when they are not home and it adds positive value to their property.
Connie Menefee, Pacifica, shared her negative experience with investors in a home in her culde-sac and her thoughts on this issue.
Leo Leon, Pacifica, shared his negative experience in his neighborhood and his concerns on our city going forward with this issue.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns on the status of our city because of this issue.
Michael Kahn, Pacifica, shared his positive support of the recommendations of organization called “Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels” and his thoughts on ADUs.
Gary Furlong, Pacifica, shared his thoughts and concerns on this issue regarding status of neighborhoods with many STRs.
Greg Gahagan, Pacifica, shared his thoughts and concerns on STRs in our city.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, shared that he is associated with an STR and shared data on STRs.
Bob O’Donnell, Pacifica, shared his concerns on this issue because of the problem for neighbors.
Gary Chinca, Pacifica, stated he is against short-term rentals and shared his concerns and suggestions regarding this issue to help residents living near STRs.
Don Creasman, Pacifica, stated he is an Airbnb host and shared his thoughts on hosted and non-hosted issues.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 June 24, 2024
Jen Hansen, Pacifica, stated she has been collecting data and shared her information regarding STRs processes with hosted and unhosted homes.
Elda King, Pacifica, stated being an unhosted short term rental home and shared her thoughts on being connected with her neighbors in a positive way.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, shared her thoughts and concerns for the STR issue suggesting stronger ordinances, etc.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, echoed all comments in favor of a robust STR ordinance amendment, and shared her thoughts and suggestions on this issue.
Michael Vernazza, Pacifica, thought he would say no to this issue, and shared a different approach on his thoughts on this issue.
Peter Garenani, Pacifica, requested Council not to limit their time in light of large attendance.
He then shared his thoughts and concerns on the cost of getting data on this issue.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, supported all the former commenters, and then shared his concerns on this issue and suggestion of looking at Half Moon Bay’s project.
Brian O’Flynn, Pacifica, stated he was in favor of the proposed STR program, and shared his thoughts and suggestions on this issue.
Carlos Carbajal, Pacifica, stated he helps with STRs, and shared his thoughts on this program and suggestions going forward.
Jeff Jones, Pacifica, stated he has an Airbnb next door to him, and he shared his concerns regarding safety issues.
Cheryl Greene, Pacifica, shared her concerns about the report stressing financial benefits instead of a working session to get things done.
Noah Suarez-Sikes, Los Angeles, stated he is an organizer of Better Neighbors LA and shared his thoughts on strengthening STRs in Pacifica.
Janeen Marquardt, Pacifica, shared her personal involvement of STRs to help her family financially and shared her thoughts on hosted homes going forward.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, supported all the comments, and shared his thoughts on the importance of determining hosted STRs and unhosted STRs and supports the Half Moon Bay ordinance.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on the commenters’ suggestions being a reasonable balance.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated there were two additional in-person commenters.
Kathleen McGuire, Pacifica, stated she supports those hosting the BnBs but not unhosted, and shared her thoughts on the issue.
Alex Vardalcostas, San Francisco, stated he feels for what residents have been going City Council Regular Meeting 7 June 24, 2024
through and he shared that he has some Airbnbs and he shared his efforts to make it safe for close residents to their facility.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wanted clarification on what the Coastal Commission was asking for regarding stating Pacifica should have a moratorium.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that a moratorium would be a total ban while the city is in the process of considering a zoning change. She stated, regarding Council asking if we can impose a moratorium on STRs, we had not looked into it at that time and she could not give a definitive opinion other than, in general, there are a lot of findings that must be made in order to impose a moratorium. She did not do that research as it was determined that we would move forward with a cap, not a moratorium. She stated, if Council wants to research the ability to impose a moratorium, we would need to do more research in terms of legality and efficacy and then bring it back to Council.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought that would be helpful. She also asked for a reference from staff on the issue of ADUs versus junior ADUs and what our ordinance states.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the city ordinance currently prohibits STRs from operating from an ADU or a junior ADU which was done in an effort to preserve that type of housing for long-term housing.
Councilmember Bigstyck wanted to talk about what we want to implement. He stated, in response to one of the speakers, he finds it unconscionable when an outside operator owns a 6- unit apartment complex and is operating it as STRs. He has interest in housing stock being housing stock and, if one wishes to run a hotel, we have a Planning Department to facilitate them finding the land and building a hotel. He has substantial interest in defining what hosted versus unhosted means and he was in full support of hosted STRs with someone on site and watching over their property. He could agree to the 60-day cap on unhosted STRs. He stated, when he listened to the Coastal Commission deliberate on our 150-cap that the term one STR per natural person was recommended by the Coastal Commission and he has interest in following up on that term. He added having a primary residence a requirement. He stated that there have been suggestions coming in from the public about limitations on the number of guests per room, occupancy limit, number of vehicles, etc. and he did not know what increased fines and penalties could be but he was willing to explore it. He stated city staff recommended allowing the city to issue an administrative subpoena and recommended increased fines and penalties. He also mentioned a unique comment that said “all advertising must have a cityissued short-term rental registration number attached to it before they are capable of advertising in any fashion”. Those are what he thought were good ideas.
Councilmember Bier agreed with everything he said. She stated that she appreciates getting information on Pacifica broken up into different neighborhoods and it matters when we look at the data to see how many permits we have in each neighborhood, especially where there are multi-unit apartment buildings. She stated that the apartment she lived in for a long time is now an STR, as is the whole building. She does not think that is right or fair and multi-unit buildings should not be included in the STR ordinance. She stated that naturally affordable housing is going away and that bothers her. She completely supports hosted STRs with property owners.
She appreciates the person who spoke about going away with his partner and being able to rent his own property and she thinks we should limit guests per room and the amount of vehicles.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 June 24, 2024
She stated that “one STR per natural person” is important. She did not know if it was possible do retroactive work on any of this, but she was interested in learning more about that as well.
Councilmember Bigstyck has a question on that concern and asked if his understanding of the report that they re-up permits on an annual basis in October is correct.
Asst. City Manager Carter answered affirmatively, adding permits are reviewed every October together with a business license renewal process.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it occurred to him that in October everything takes effect and gives those who are operating something in lieu of a grace period to find their way on how they would like to dispense of their operations in accordance with our new ordinance and there is no grandfathering of anything except renewing applicable permits.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked for definitions from City Attorney on vested rights and due process. She thought vested rights and due process have extreme legal implications for the city and she needs to understand that better when the time is right.
Councilmember Boles agreed with what everyone said, and she read Half Moon Bay’s definition of hosted versus unhosted. She first read, “A short-term rental is a residential or mixed use property that contains a dwelling unit or habitable portion thereof that is offered to be rented for periods of 30 consecutive days or less. What is an unhosted STR? An unhosted STR is a shortterm rental where no resident is present in the rental. An unhosted short-term rental in Half Moon Bay shall be operated no more than 60 nights per calendar year within residential zoning districts. What is a hosted short-term rental? A hosted STR is a short-term rental where a resident, who is the operator and acting as a host, occupies one or more bedrooms in the dwelling unit while other areas of the unit are being rented for the purpose of transient overnight lodging. There are no limitations on the number of nights a hosted STR may be rented.” She agreed with that for the most part. She would love to rent her house out when she goes on vacation to make a little money to offset costs. She stated that, whether that counts as hosted or unhosted or a certain number of nights that can be unhosted, it is important to keep that in the ordinance. She wanted to talk about ADUs. She knows the city’s intention of not having ADUs is to keep those as rentals that are less expensive housing and she thinks that is a good intention, but she stated that we have no information about the number of ADUs being used that way. She would like staff to come back with some analysis of that.
Councilmember Bigstyck clarified that he wanted them retained as housing stock, not specifically as rentals, and many people with ADUs use it in order to have more family on premises than otherwise possible.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they used to be called in-law or granny units.
Councilmember Boles stated that every ADU she designed for her residential clients have been for extra space for their family and not a single one has been rented. She thought that is what we mostly find. She stated that we need inspection by a building official before we grant any permit to go to the place. She thought we have no idea now and are trusting what they put in their application.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer supports that.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has been in short-term rentals that are not code City Council Regular Meeting 9 June 24, 2024
compliant, illegal, and dangerous for exiting, fire safety, etc. She stated that is protection for the people staying there. She has some comments about San Francisco. She sent some information on a lawsuit that she learned about, i.e., San Francisco was sued by Airbnb, partly because they wanted to put the numbers of the permit records on the website Airbnb was arguing privacy and not wanting to get the data; what changed midway is that San Francisco changed their ordinance a bit. She stated that the loophole they ended up getting them on was that Airbnb and others cannot collect their own fees on rentals that are illegal. She recalled that, if San Francisco caught them on collecting fees on an illegal STR, they could be fined $10,000. She stated that Airbnb cleaned up all the illegal STRs themselves. She stated that, if we can get the companies to do it themselves, that would be good.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she also had a question that centers around the issue of fees in general, and she does not know where Pacifica has authority to extend fees and what the limits are. She knows we have covered this point in the past with regard to fireworks, etc., and she does not know how much of the fees we can charge and levy against people and where the limitations are. She agreed with the principle of having the registration number included and whatever legal means we need to explore to make that happen.
Councilmember Boles stated that Half Moon Bay prohibits STRs in multi-unit buildings and that is something we should consider. She stated they also have a prohibition against STRs and low-income deed-restricted units. She stated that she would like to consider limiting the number of people in a house if in a residential zone and we could limit the cars, etc. She suggested limiting the time of visitors or a certain number of visitors, which some cities do. She thinks we are trying to ban parties and asked how we do that. She stated that there were emails sent that we have units rented by the hour in Pacifica.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated one staff suggestion was making it a 2-3 day minimum that someone is in the STR. He thought we could make it a one-day minimum at least.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought 2-3 days as a minimum as that prevents people from renting just to have parties.
Councilmember Boles asked the City Attorney about stopping hourly rentals now.
Asst. City Attorney Cohen stated that we would have to have a regular public meeting and go through the process of amending the ordinance.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested to the Mayor that, before we wrap up, we go through and list all the things.
Councilmember Boles stated there were comments about the permit fees and she knows we raised those fees to cover the enforcement, but she thought it was not fair that we are charging the same fee for people who are doing the right thing and those with violations. She wanted to be sure we are charging the people with violations separately for more money. She asked about process with noise complaints. If it is the same problem at the same Airbnb repeatedly, she asks if it starts over each time or is there some way we are contacting the owner with the problem and fining them; when she goes to Airbnb, there are strict rules and we do not know what the owners are telling the people who are renting and they can be very strict about communicating quiet hours, etc., as part of their rental contract. If we are not telling them that there has been a violation, because it is only going to the people staying there, that is being lost.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 June 24, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated one option in the staff report was as follows: “Due to a recent change in state law, cities can now establish increased fines and penalties for violations of the city’s STR ordinance where the infraction poses a threat to public health or safety at $1,500 for a first violation, $3,000 for a second violation, and $5,000 for each violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.”
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we can add quiet enjoyment to that.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought the attorneys can figure out well-being and peace of mind.
Councilmember Bier added, if we do not allow unhosted anymore, that might get rid of all that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that one other option could be to charge higher permit fees for unhosted versus hosted, and that addresses, to some extent, Councilmember Bole’s issue with regard to people who do not reside there and are using it as an STR, that they should pay more.
She stated that we have heard tonight that the enforcement aspect of the unhosted STRs seems to be more burdensome than those when they are hosted, and that is also an option.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to the Half Moon Bay model, and stated what is largely suggested is a 60-night cap for unhosted, but he wondered if, in a definition of hosted, it can be somebody who occupies residency for 305 days of the year or more. He stated that could define unhosted out of the equation.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, for the people who do not have quiet enjoyment of their own properties, they are entitled to their quiet enjoyment and she is sorry for everyone who lives near non-compliant STRs. She thought that, if a person has been reported to the police several times for noise, parties, trespassing, etc., she believed we need to remove their licenses. She stated that there are many that are good and do not cause these problems, and a few causing lots of problems, which is not fair. She added that 60 days is too short and she thought we should limit the number of cars and number of people per bedroom. She stated that people can get around the number of cars by going to the airport and renting a 32-passenger van and bringing 32 people in one car. She stated that has happened. She thought there are many individual circumstances not being taken into consideration by saying unhosted and hosted.
She referred to comments on the cost, such as $2 million, and stated that $2 million is huge to Pacifica and asked where we will find that $2 million. She stated that there are ordinances that say that Airbnbs can only be in non-residential areas and that is all we have here. She thinks 60 days is too short, and she thinks we should be allowed to have people who are nonoccupied. She asked who will monitor all this. She stated that there is so much involved in this and, on the real estate side, she stated that she still has personal property rights on a property she owns, to rent out her property, but not to disturb neighbors. She stated that there is so much involved in this and she does not think it can be taken lightly or done overnight. She stated that the fact it took them two years to get this far is a short time because we had to do a General Plan, Sharp Park Specific Plan, etc., that affects every person in this town. She stated that it is all important and we will get there and we care.
Councilmember Bier thanked her for speaking up as the mayor, and she asked if it was possible to require STR operators to enter data into a database to collect the data.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we can collect data but it is self-reported data.
Mayor Vaterlaus added that she owned an Airbnb in Arizona and her daughter managed the City Council Regular Meeting 11 June 24, 2024
property. If anyone had a problem, they called her, and she asked if that was hosted or nonhosted. She described the benefits from the Airbnb that was unhosted.
Councilmember Bier stated that it was important to her that we are limiting the corporate entities coming in and having a whole bunch of different permits. If they can only have one permit for a person, that is going to eliminate a lot of those issues.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we can go through a process of reiterating the requirements we would like staff to bring back information about so we can make decisions on how the ordinance will be updated. She was hearing one permit per natural person as opposed to an unnatural corporation. She asked hosted or unhosted, and she asked about a limit on the number of days. She asked if we were okay for now at least unhosted with limits on the number of days and hosted with no limits on the number of days, as that is what is in the Half Moon Bay ordinance.
Councilmember Bier stated that it is also going to come down to the definition of how we are defining hosted and unhosted.
Mayor pro Beckmeyer stated she is hearing a limit on the number of people per bedroom which she thinks there are realty definitions.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated two people per bedroom plus one person is the minimum amount.
Councilmember Boles stated per legal bedroom and asked about people sleeping in family rooms and living rooms.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer confirmed the number of people per legal bedrooms. She added that we were talking about defining the number of vehicles and where they can be parked, as in garage or driveway.
Councilmember Bier referred to multi-unit buildings and stated she would like to eliminate multiunit buildings from being STRs.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he agrees with her but his one question is condominiums.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that those are individually owned so they are not multi-units.
Councilmember Bier clarified 3 or more units.
Councilmember Boles asked if a multiple unit building includes a 2-unit building.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated a duplex is a multi-unit building.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we are limiting it to one unit per owner, adding that a multifamily unit would only be able to use one.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there are many multi-unit buildings on the list.
Councilmember Boles stated that can be problematic.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it can or cannot be as some of them may never had any complaints City Council Regular Meeting 12 June 24, 2024
against them.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated there are complaints and there is housing stock being bought up and flipped around for profit where a family could live there.
Councilmember Bier mentioned that if a single mother with her child wants to rent a house so her child can go to school in Pacifica, and that is an STR, they cannot do that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what we want to specifically say about multi-unit buildings.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she still has thoughts on the multi-unit buildings.
Councilmember Boles stated she has seen an option where someone limited it to one-unit in a multi-unit building.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, if a multi-unit building, but not talking about condos, he thought there should be a restriction of STRs there. He has issues if there are STRs in what would otherwise be a multi-family rental complex.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we do bit have to make the prescriptive policy direction at this time; identifying the question about multi-unit or not is good and we can research the permutations of that for a future Council discussion.
Councilmember Boles stated that someone mentioned that there were STR permits that were in process for buildings that are not built and are vacant lots and stated we should not be accepting those applications. She thought they should have to have something built before they can apply.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed with her. She referred to enforcement and permitting requirements. She does not understand how, if we know that we have four problem properties in town that account for half of the problems of the founded complaints to our PD, why they are still in business. She asked what is in our ordinance that lets them still be in business. She added she understands the process that HdL laid out, and she would like to know how to reduce that cycle time.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is 4 plus as it is four months to give us the information and how long does city staff take.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed it was too much and added that it gets into legal questions about due process and Notice of Violation, etc. She stated that there is something about giving people a chance to correct the error they have but she wants to understand if there is some way to limit in the ordinance itself. She stated that we can lay out very specific parameters that nullify their permit.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that staff can look into that and bring that back to Council.
Councilmember Boles stated that there was one good thing in their ordinance that was brought up at the Coastal Commission meeting which was that the property owner has to give permission; sometimes the tenant would apply for a short-term rental but they have to have the property owner’s permission.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 June 24, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, as renters do not own the property and are not taking responsibility for what happens in the property if they plan to rent out the property as Airbnb. She stated that renters are fine if they live there.
Councilmember Boles referenced the number of houses per neighborhood. She asked is it a percentage, and she stated that Beach Boulevard has so many just on one street.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought the biggest pass we made, identified around jurisdictional boundaries, is coastal zone versus not coastal zone. She asked if we need to bifurcate our ordinance so we can impose not coastal zone changes to our ordinance immediately even though whatever we propose and approve will need to be accepted by Coastal Commission.
City Attorney Kenyon believed what we would do, depending upon the amendment, is amend the ordinance and have a section that applied only in the non-coastal zone and as soon as that ordinance was effective, even if the coastal zone implications had not been certified, the provisions only related to non-coastal areas would go into effect as soon as we do it. She stated that the City Manager mentioned that generally Council does not need to state the specific policy language as her expectation is that, with Council’s general comments, if there is a consensus on Council to pursue that, staff will go back; if there is research that needs to be done, policy language that needs to be drafted, etc. staff can do it and give Council options.
She stated that Council should raise the issue and then tell staff what to explore and ask to bring it back with an amended ordinance.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added that we want the community to understand that we are hearing them and these are the things Council wants to bring forward in changing and tightening up the ordinance. She asked if we talked about primary residence requirements. She is trying to understand it, but she thinks it means they cannot live out of the area and country and own the property that is being rented as an STR.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, when people mention primary residence, she assumes that they are wanting the person to reside in the unit for a certain period of time. She stated that we could put a requirement that they live full time so it would be hosted or impose a regulation that had temporary residential requirements, such as if you live there 300 days of the year, you could rent it out for 60 days. She stated that it depends on how we want to define “hosted”.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it include, before applying for an STR permit, the person has to be a resident in the property.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is required in order to apply for the permit.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively. She asked if we specified limiting the number of units operated per host.
Councilmember Boles stated one per natural person.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we can remove corporations. She stated that we cannot limit to whom the property is sold.
Asst. City Attorney Cohen stated we would need to research and come back to Council about whether we can make that legitimate constitutional distinction between a “natural person and a legal corporate entity”. He stated that he is dubious about whether we can make a distinction or City Council Regular Meeting 14 June 24, 2024
not that decides a corporate entity has some rights versus a natural person.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she could be a single person and be incorporated.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought that is the reason why residency requirements come into play.
Councilmember Boles stated that maybe we do not need to say that. She stated that Half Moon Bay just says primary residence.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought it was a good opportunity to ask staff if all direction has been provided. He stated that he went to what specific policy direction Council is interested in exploring. He stated that there are two other questions.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there is also the grandfathering, such as are the people who have existing licenses allowed to remain.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought we have given direction to staff to look into that.
Councilmember Boles stated that, what staff was saying is that the permits are reviewed every year so, as the laws are changing, they would have to renew and comply with the law. She did not think we would be grandfathering if they did not meet any of these new restrictions.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, when they initially got their license, the laws were the laws.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed we could look into that. He thought an interesting thing we need to look into is the concept of a buffer or a certain number per neighborhood, and that would be complicated. He thinks staff has enough information to look into and put together to bring back to Council.
Councilmember Boles asked about timeline.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would tentatively put out that maybe we can return late August or early September with all of these fleshed out.
Councilmember Bier stated before October.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that raises an interesting point because, even if we make an ordinance revision, it does not go into effect for 60 days after and he does not know if the October renewal date is feasible for that. He added that we keep in mind that none of this goes into effect in the coastal zone until the Coastal Commission certifies it.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he wanted to take a moment to thank staff as it is extraordinary the amount of work that went into this and he thanked them for being detailed about what we have and for giving them options to contemplate; he thanked the community as we saw how many emails we got and we have been hearing them for the last two years, and if they were not continuing to give them every viable option, we probably would not have this fruitful conversation at this session.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked everyone and stated that we are going to close the study session.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 June 24, 2024
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Vaterlaus reconvened the regular meeting to order at 8:18 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; Alan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Kavitha Kumar, Interim Director of Community Development; Stefanie Cervantes, Acting Deputy Director of Community Development; Brianne Harkousha, Senior Planner; Gwen White, Senior Code Enforcement Officer; Tara Schiff, Economic Development Manager; Louis Sun, PW Deputy Director (Wastewater); Roland Yip, PW Deputy Director (Field Services/Engineering); Chris Clements, Police Captain; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Deputy City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Vaterlaus read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation: Parks Make Life Better Month - July 2024 Mayor Vaterlaus read a proclamation in honor of Parks Make Life Better Month for July 2024.
She then stated that Acting PB&R Director Scott Leslie will come forward.
Acting PB&R Dir. Leslie stated, on behalf of PB&R, PW Parks Division and PB&R Commission, he asked that Pacificans join them in July for many summer programs, activities, and events with many recreational opportunities, such as the 4th of July event. He thanked the hardworking and dedicated recreation staff for all their efforts in planning and preparing for the summer and applauded the PW employees who maintain their parks, fields, and facilities. He hopes everyone has a chance to come out and enjoy our many recreation opportunities.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked him for the summer programs that are happening. She thanked him for the mentorship he provides for the youth who work in those programs.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 June 24, 2024
Councilmember Bier thanked him for stepping up and keeping momentum going as it has been a pleasure to attend meetings with him and work alongside him on projects.
Councilmember Boles liked the motto, "Parks Make Life Better." She appreciated the physical health as well as the mental health because physical activities help clear their minds better.
She thanked him for all he does for everyone of all ages in our community.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked him for making sure there are opportunities for healthy ways to recreate in our community of all ages. He thanked him for the important work done and the resources we have.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated her family has been heavily involved in PB&R and thanked him.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that when he had the pleasure to travel to Europe, the thing that struck him was seeing people in parks and shared his thoughts on the pleasure of enjoying nature.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if anyone wants to pull an item from Consent Calendar.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she had a question on item #5. She stated she was confused because of a timing issue about when the roof replacement project was first brought forward. She stated that it originally talked about Old Wastewater Treatment Plant Garage Roof Project and now it is talking about Annex Garage Project. She appreciated having clarification.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that it was originally budgeted as the Old Wastewater Treatment Plant Garage Roof Project and what is seen in the CIP report that is going to Council today. He stated that it was previously called that when it was budgeted and the Field Services staff has always called it the Annex Garage Project. He clarified that, as it was bid and presented it to Council, Field Services wanted to change it as that is what we called the project.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the physical location of the project is adjacent to the Council Chambers.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, stating the building was the same, just the name that Field Services staff has called it when it went out to bid.
Councilmember Boles thought it was a building off of Palmetto but behind the fence on the southern side of the old wastewater treatment plant. She asked what that building is used for and the approximate square footage.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that the building is used by our Field Services staff to store equipment and vehicles and the square footage is not readily available.
Councilmember Boles stated that her concern was that it seemed like a lot of money for a small building that was used for storage and she knows our long-term plan is to redevelop the site.
She stated that was equipment that needs to be out of the weather.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 June 24, 2024
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed that we need to get our equipment out of the weather because of being by the ocean and salt air which deteriorates metal faster. He stated that the reason that the more expensive cost is because the manufacturer, Garland Roofing System, typically comes with a 30-year warranty; their roofing systems cost more but they have a renowned reputation of coming back and doing any necessary repairs. They have a good product along with a good warranty which is why a lot of cities choose to use the Garland Roofing Systems.
Councilmember Boles thought it was a lot if we are not going to use it for 30 years, but she trusts staff to decide what is best.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to elaborate a bit. He stated that this falls in that category of when we do not maintain a piece of property for a long time, then it could cost more for it to be effective. Indoor storage space for our PW equipment is at a high premium in Pacifica so it is an essential space for that storage. He stated that we would like to have seen the bids come in lower on it and spend less money, but roofs on facilities like that are very expensive.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the May 28, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
2. Termination of Local Emergency related to the December 28, 2023, High Tide/Large Wave Event
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt Resolution Terminating Proclamation of Local Emergency related to the December 28, 2023, High Tide/Large Wave Event
3. Ratification of Proclamation Confirming Existence of a Local Emergency at Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution ratifying the Proclamation Confirming Existence of Local Emergency at Carmel Avenue from Vallejo Terrace to Canyon Drive.
4. Notice of Completion for the Frontierland Park ADA Improvement Project.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file the Notice of Completion for the Frontierland Park ADA Improvement Project; and Authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
5. Fire Station 71 & Annex Garage Project Award
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Construction Contract with I & A Contractor Inc. in an amount of$541,706.00; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $622,961.90, which includes contingencies in an amount of fifteen percent (15%) of the Construction Contract amounts; Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the City Council Regular Meeting 18 June 24, 2024
contingency amount; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the Fire Station 71 & Annex Garage Project.”
6. Sharp Park Priority Development Area Pedestrian Improvement Project California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) One Bay Area Grant 2 (OBAG 2) Funding Agreement
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution entitled “Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Funding Agreements for the One Bay Area Grant 2 (OBAG 2) with the California Department of Transportation for the Sharp Park Priority Development Area Pedestrian Improvement Project.”
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments on items not on the posted agenda.
Fallon Flynt, Pacifica, referred to the ceasefire proposal, and shared his concerns and thoughts on the issue, plus a personal request to Councilmember Bigstyck.
James MacLeod, Pacifica, referred to the Calera Creek situation, and shared his concerns regarding notification that the city would no longer maintain Calera Creek.
Jeff Moroso, Pacifica, stated he also is addressing the Calera Creek situation, and shared his concerns and suggestions regarding the city’s letter to the adjacent residents informing them that the city will no longer maintain Calera Creek.
Jane A’Hearn, Pacifica, stated she is talking about the Calera Creek issue and shared her concerns about the letter the residents received informing them the city is not responsible for the Calera Creek Park.
Aren Clark, Pacifica, stated that he has seen the subdivision maps for Vallemar and knows the reason the city is using to justify their position, and shared his concerns and thoughts on the process leading up to this decision.
Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, shared her concerns and thoughts on the issue of the city’s responsibility for Calera Creek Park.
Paul Totah, Pacifica, shared his concerns and thoughts on the issue of the city’s decision to stop the Calera Creek Park maintenance.
Shirley Gibbs, Pacifica, shared her concerns about banners along Highway One and suggestions that they be managed properly. She also shared her concerns about the Pacifica Historical Society’s situation regarding the building of the Pacifica Civic Center and conflicts they have with the RVs parked near their facility.
Kathleen McGuire, Pacifica, shared her concerns and suggestions about the large over-sized vehicles that park on Salada Ave. near their museum and cause complications for their events.
Sarah Gates, Pacifica, referred to the Calera Creek issue, and shared her concerns when the creek backs up with storm debris with no city maintenance.
Sandy Ayers, Pacifica, shared his history of working with the city at Calera Creek, and shared City Council Regular Meeting 19 June 24, 2024
his concerns with the letter regarding the city’s decision, asking for clarification and making suggestions.
Errol Hunter, Pacifica, expressed support for comments made by fellow neighbors regarding Calera Creek, and he shared his thoughts and asked for clarification on the issue.
Janeen Marquardt, Pacifica, stated that she lives at the top of Talbot Avenue, and shared her thoughts on the ownerships of adjacent lands, and concerns on various issues regarding a problem with the Overlook and suggested possible solutions.
Carlos Davidson, Pacifica, seconded the comments of his Vallemar neighbors, and shared his concerns on the decision by the city regarding Calera Creek.
Amy Hoffman, Pacifica, shared her concerns about the city’s decision regarding their responsibility for Calera Creek, after she won against them in a lawsuit in the past.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he is stunned regarding Calera Creek, and shared his concerns and thoughts on the city’s decision.
Joshua Sha, Pacifica, shared his concerns and thoughts on the Calera Creek issue and suggested that they work together with the city, appreciating all the city does.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, after hearing the comments about Calera Creek, he hopes staff will respond during staff communication. He added that it was helpful that the document referred to by a speaker was sent to Council and we had the opportunity to review it. He knows staff is trying to figure out a best approach and he hopes staff can speak to this issue during staff comments. He responded to one of the public comments, provided context to his feelings of conflict, and commended Councilmember Bier for her bravery. He attended former Planning Director Murdock’s farewell; he will be sorely missed and it was nice to send him off the right way. He attended the webinar around the Center for Creativity which would be in lieu of an Art Center in San Mateo County. He attended the CCAG Legislative Session. He stated that we have gotten a lot of comments around ACA 1 and stated that it will be on the ballot; legislature passed ACA 10 which informs ACA 1 insofar as now what will be on the ballot is limited to not affect taxes but it will affect bonds. For example, if we were to pass the library bond measure, that would be influenced by ACA 1 and that would bring the threshold down to 55%. He stated that SB 1031 was summarily concluded for the year but will presumably be brought up next year. SB 915 has to do with autonomous vehicles and affects large cities and then smaller cities next to large cities. CCAG decided to oppose that bill unless amended. The other bill brought up was SB 1037 which is a Housing Element bill on bad actors. However, the Legislative Committee, feeling the feasibility was subjective, decided to oppose at this time. He then filled in for Mayor Vaterlaus, and they passed budget for the City and County Association of Governments and began talking about the Local Roadway Safety Plan for the number of cities who have not adopted their own. He attended the Library Joint Powers Authority meeting and they passed the budget. He stated that there is also talk about our library outpost over at Sanchez Library. He stated that outposts will be able to be extended to areas that do not have libraries. He took a Civic Center tour later that day with Councilmember Boles and he was very excited to see the new location. He was excited for the grand unveiling. He attended the OSPAC meeting on June 19, which revolved around what they are wanting to work on and how they are going to arrange subcommittees. He is happy to report that the County will be City Council Regular Meeting 20 June 24, 2024
supplying a sign for the trail head of Ahni Trail at the top of Fassler. He attended the farewell to city staff working in the Community Center. He took a Zoom call with the Peninsula Division of CalCities over an event around climate change and sea level rise that will be happening in September. He went to the program about the signage at the internment camp in Sharp Park around where the archery range is, where Italian, German, and Japanese people were interned during World War II. He learned that many of them were sent to Utah and was a first stop on the way to their journey. He thought it was good to hear that history and thanked the Historical Society for hosting them. He stated on Friday was the yearly Association of Bay Area Governments meeting. It was held this year at the Museum of California in Oakland. He stated, as far as ABAG business, it was the meeting to pass the yearly budget which was the primary function of that meeting. There was mention about the Bay Area Financial Authority (BAFA) bond measure that will be on the ballot in November which is a $20 billion bond measure for our area to get affordable housing up and running. He stated that many of the members had comments about HCD and that process in future cycles. He stated that there were several presentations after lunch around resilience. He stated their colleague from East Palo Alto, Councilmember Lisa Gauthier, serves on the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority and he thought it was good to see her give one of the presentations. He stated that the PRE Collective Executive Director Shalini Vajjhala gave an amazing presentation about collaboration to make resiliency happen. He found interesting is that coastal needs were not addressed in the SB 272 presentation put on by Larry Goldzband, Executive Director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) which is the Commission we do not work with because we work with the California Coastal Commission of which they do not have a member.
Councilmember Bier stated she was on vacation for the last couple of weeks. She stated she attended half of the North Coast County Water District meeting and it was always a pleasure for her to be there. She stated that the farewell to the Community Center was a fun event. She addressed one of the public comments and recounted their experience with the peace resolution. She stated, regarding her Vallemar neighbors, if someone does not live in Vallemar, it is hard to understand what a letter like that would do. She knows from living there most of her life that the one thing that always scared her was seeing the trees going back and forth when she was growing up and to know that some of that could be put on the neighbors bothers her a lot. She thanked them for coming out and continuing to come.
Councilmember Boles referred to Councilmember Bigstyck’s comments about SB 272 and the Coastal Commission and stated the Coastal Commission has the job of putting forth the policy guidance to distribute to cities on the coast by the end of this year. She stated that she met with Anita Rees and the Unhoused on the Coast group. She stated that the numbers from the homeless count have been issued and we had 161 last year and now have 180. She stated that we have the distinction of the second highest number in the whole county and the highest per capita. She stated that we are behind Redwood City which is a much larger city and they have done a lot in the last years to reduce their homeless counts. She stated that we have ten encampments in Pacifica, with the biggest being in Linda Mar and Manor on Esplanade. She stated that the County’s encampment grant was funded but unfortunately not ours. She stated that they have specifically excluded Pacifica as we had our own. She stated that she has reached out to County Supervisor Ray Mueller to see if there might somehow be some extra money we can tap into. She met with the Beach Coalition and she understands they are working on bringing a celebration of their Non-Profit of the Year status; they were celebrating all their graduating teams and they do so much work mentoring and bringing teams into leadership.
She stated that they are recruiting now. She stated, with the 4th of July coming up, the Beach Coalition is organizing beach cleanup of Linda Mar, Sharp Park, and Esplanade beaches. She City Council Regular Meeting 21 June 24, 2024
is hoping the City Manager or police officers can talk a bit more about enforcement, the rules, etc., on fireworks just to remind people. She watched the Coastal Commission meeting about our STR ordinance and it was heartening to hear their comments about the importance of preserving housing and understanding what that does to communities and encouraging us to work on a stronger ordinance. She had meetings with Congressional Candidates Sam Liccardo and Evan Low. The STR meeting at the fire house was terrific and she thanked all the community members who have been doing all that research. At the Emergency Preparedness meeting, one of the commissioners shared that the County Sheriff’s office uses drones to deliver life-preservers. She stated that Commute.org is taking applications for free yearly Caltrain passes to income qualified people and they were also talking about working with cities for TDM monitoring, i.e., Transportation Demand Management. She got to meet with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) with Cindy Abbott and Nancy Tierney on the Climate Action and Adaptation Task Force did. She stated that there are so many free resources available, educational resources, and technical resources for staff that are free in the division that NOAA provides. She thanked San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Aaron Peskin because he got the approval from San Francisco to put that panel up about the detention centers. She stated that it is so important for us to learn from our history. She met with the Partnership for the Bay Future on a session for financing for affordable housing. She mentioned her concern about AB 2560 that is going through the state now. It has gone through the Assembly and is going before the Committee on Natural Resources and this is for density bonus law in the coastal zone bypassing the Coastal Commission altogether. She was concerned about that as there is a lot that the Coastal Commission looks out for, in terms of environmental and hazards, etc., but also parking; if we start to lose the ability to review some of these things it could really impact our city and our Coastal Act. She stated that she wrote a letter tand Council might want to discuss it together to see if Council might want to comment as a city.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, after their last Council meeting, she was not able to attend Christian Murdock’s farewell as it conflicted with the Economic Development Committee meeting. They had a subcommittee analysis of data related to the Shop Pacifica Program and recommendations from the subcommittee about areas that the Economic Development department might want to explore and Council will hear more about all of that in the future. She stated that, on the next day, it was the Library Advisory Committee and we heard an update on the library kiosk at Sanchez Library. It was a very exciting time and there will be a ribboncutting and celebration taking place in late July. She stated that the committee members are working to update information about the Pacifica Library project in Pacifica. She thanked Cindy Abbott for doing great work in this area over time with the Library Advisory Committee and it is such a great and terrific resource for the new members of the Library Advisory Committee in terms of helping everyone understand what came before, how we got to where we are, etc. She stated she attended former NCCWD President Jack Burgett’s funeral, and it was a very fitting tribute to him with people of all ages, those who had been mentored by him as a coach, a big turnout of Water District folks, and a fitting processional or exiting parade. On June 15, Mayor Vaterlaus and Asst. City Manager Carter did a fantastic update to the Pacifica Democrats about the State of the City. She stated that the rest of her time has been about Local Government Working Group and a number of calls because we are doing listening sessions for updating our approach to the neighborhood scale adaptation approach which has been an ongoing effort.
She stated that she had an opportunity with the Mayor and City Manager and our Acting Deputy Director Stefanie Cervantes and others on a call with Senator Becker and Assemblymember Berman’s staff last week updating our coastal projects and coastal issues.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she met with Congressional Candidate Sam Liccardo twice and she City Council Regular Meeting 22 June 24, 2024
will meet with him again soon. She met with the Colma Creek Committee on the amount of work they have to do on that creek. She went to former Planning Director Christian Murdock’s going away party. She attended a Pacifica Legislative Group which is not related to Council but talks about all the things legislative in Pacifica. She attended former NCCWD President Jack Burgett’s funeral. She missed the City and County Association of Governments meeting due to transportation issues and thanked Councilmember Bigstyck for handling the beginning of the regular meeting. She attended the regular meeting where they had a bike pedestrian presentation and safe routes to schools and they voted to keep the executive officer. She did the State of the City at Democrats meeting, which included a presentation and Q&A. She did the Civic Center tour meeting and it was amazing. She mentioned the Fog Fest Board and Fog Fest will take place on September 28 and 29. She met with Assemblymember Berman’s and Senator Becker’s aides about the local coastal update. She went to farewell to the Community Center event. She did a Rockaway Beach cleanup the previous Friday. She worked at the Pacificans Care fundraiser. She stated that prior to the meeting she went to Redwood City for a press conference on reproductive care bills and the fact that the County passed an ordinance saying that we are a county that believes in reproductive care for women at all cost, which was led by Assemblymember Diane Papan and there were many elected officials standing.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned the SB 272 update. She stated that, at the time that the agenda comes out for the August meeting of the Coastal Commission, a draft of the sea level rise guidance update, according to SB 272 requirements, is going to be released and will be announced at that Coastal Commission meeting in August and will commence the probable 45- day public comment period. She states it will incorporate the 2024 OPC science update and lay out a process for us, as a coastal city, where we will work with Coastal Commission; under SB 272, all of our coastal cities need to have Local Coastal Plan Update completed by 2034 and that will lay out expectations and proposed cycle for that.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse began by providing information on the Calera Creek comments made. He stated that one thing he learned about land ownership issues on the coast and particularly in Pacifica is that they are very complex, particularly if related to pre-formation of the city, county ownership, and that transition. He stated his expectation of the city organization in the Public Works Department is that, when we get maintenance requests for land, we verify ownership of the land. He stated that is the basic function of the city organization. He stated that, in this case, Public Works did that work and with this complex issue he thought the letter was sent prematurely but that is hindsight. He stated that upon sending the letter, Mr. Clark who used to work for the city came and spoke with Director Petersen and brought to our attention the existence of this letter that he referred to. He stated that he will clarify the facts regarding that. He stated that is not a letter that proves ownership of the land. What Mr. Clark referred to is a letter that was written to the City Attorney, was not signed, and did not have any attachments to it, and the prudent thing for city staff to do is do further research to find the attachments. City Clerk Coffey and City Engineer Yip who went to the county recorder’s office to dig up the historical quit claim deed that was signed and Director Petersen told Mr. Clark in an email that we have done that research and submitted the documents to the City Attorney’s office for them to make a final determination on the facts in the case. He stated that a lot of the speakers who showed up at this meeting were not aware that staff had advised Mr. Clark that the City Attorney’s Office was researching this and a decision has not been made about the ownership and maintenance responsibility related to that. He stated that the City Attorney’s Office will finish the analysis and staff will openly share all that information with the residents.
He is happy everyone came out and happy Mr. Clark brought that to staff’s attention as this City Council Regular Meeting 23 June 24, 2024
historical knowledge in Pacifica is how one gets to the root of information and facts about complicated land ownership situations. He stated that he will see them the upcoming Wednesday night for the LCLUP follow-up meeting to go through the final comments from Coastal staff and consider the amended LCLUP to submit to the Coastal Commission. He stated that on Thursday we have the ribbon cutting at the Civic Center site open to the public.
Regarding the 4th of July, the Police Department has been doing social media and other education and outreach. He did not have more details to prove regarding the 4th of July but Police will be coming out with more details in the future.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. Conduct Public Hearing and adopt a Resolution Confirming the Annual Report from the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District and Assessing the Levy for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 at the same rates as in the Fiscal Year 2023-24.
PROPOSED ACTION:
1) Conduct the Public Hearing;
2) Rule on Oral and Written protests, if any; and
3) Adopt a resolution approving the annual report of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Board, and continuing the assessments without change in Fiscal Year 2024-25.
Economic Dev. Manager Schiff presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she has a question on the staff report on packet page 110 that talks about the possible formation of the Pacifica Tourism Marketing District, which is an alternative to the BID being explored that would be under a different law and they would get a full report on it soon, as she understands. Her question is what is the timeline because it states “if the new district is not formed in time, the renewal of this existing Pacifica hotel BID will occur in parallel”.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the original plan was to do two processes in parallel and few had to change the timeline. She stated that the agenda before Council now is the Business Improvement District as it exists today. She stated it is the same assessment rate of $1 per night per stay and, if Council approves this resolution, it will be in effect on July 1. The new conversion of a district will be a new process and we will essentially have to go through the same process of Resolution of Intent and subsequent adoption of the conversion. The process takes about three months to give notice and requirements, etc. and if we resume this process fairly quickly, over the next few months, we can potentially form the new district by the end of September or October.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we would not start collecting against that new district until fiscal year 2025-26.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the process will be, if the new district is formed, the current district that we are about to renew will disband, thereby no double collections.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer assumed we do not need to wait until the end of fiscal year to start a new one and can just slide into a new one as soon as it is ready.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 June 24, 2024
Asst. City Manager Carter answered affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened the public hearing and, seeing no one, closed the public hearing. She asked if we received any protests.
City Clerk Coffey stated that no protests have been received as of this meeting and there were none lodged during the public comment period.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to adopt a resolution approving the annual report of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Board, and continuing the assessments without a change in Fiscal Year 2024-25; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
8. Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget.
PROPOSED ACTION: Hold a public hearing, review, and move to adopt the following resolutions:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the FY 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget;
2. Adopt the FY 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program appropriation from the Roy Davies Trust Fund by a 4/5 vote;
3. Adopt the resolution establishing the GANN Appropriation Limit for FY 2024-25;
4. Adopt the resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule;
5. Adopt the resolution approving the City's annual review of the Investment Policy included as Exhibit A to the resolution, with minor changes for FY 2024-25.
City Manager Woodhouse introduced the staff report and turned to Asst. City Manager Carter.
Asst. City Manager Carter presented the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse thanked Asst. City Manager Carter for all of her work on this as there were many late nights and early mornings that went into budget this year. This process begins with the mid-year budget update that essentially involves strategic planning so there are six or so meetings about budget that occurred over the last several months. He thanked her for her attention and diligence to that. He stated that, when we move the resolution for the master fee schedule, we need to cite the specific packet page number for the childcare registration fees that are in the schedule (packet pages 128 and 129).
City Attorney Kenyon added that, for any other edits to make to any of the documents the Council is approving, we need to recite the changes and recite the packet page for the record.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she has a question on packet page 118: The resolution states at the end of the paragraph starting in Section 2, “The CIP Budget also includes expenditures from the Roy Davies Trust Fund of…”
Asst. City Manager Carter stated $100,300. She stated that on page 117, and in the budget resolution itself, Fund 27 includes the actual allocation of $100,300. She stated that the budget City Council Regular Meeting 25 June 24, 2024
resolution is correct, but the number was cut out.
City Attorney Kenyon recommended that on page 118 that Council amend that to include that number for the record.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated the number is $100,300.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, at the time of the motion, Asst. City Manager will then relay these edits so the motion will be as amended by staff.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked Asst. City Manager Carter and the finance team. He stated on packet 137 regarding the cannabis operation, employee background, life scan plus DOJ and FBI fee, it was $31 last year but does not seem to be present this year. He asked if that was because we do not anticipate there being any need this year or was it left out unintentionally.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he presumes it is another typo and should be the same.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if that amount would go up.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it would be escalated by the escalator we apply, so we can calculate that currently and fill that in unless we hear differently from Chief Sarasua.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the rest of the fees not being escalated.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the escalator only applied to certain fees.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that another simple one is that the state between governor and legislator decided to keep the VLF and ERAF and asked if he was correct that they decided to pay the city what they owed the city.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively, stating that, for the VLF in-lieu backfill, which is from two years ago, that is suggested by both houses to be in the governor’s budget, but we will need verification. He stated that the recommendation in the budget was to budget it and adjust mid-year if, for any reason, that got stricken out of the state budget.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked everyone involved for the work of advocating. He knows that comments have been raised around the coastal trail improvements near Taco Bell and his understanding from answers to questions received is that staff has had the opportunity to understand what that looks like; if a staff member could come and let them know what that looks like and whether or not it can be put in the CIP budget at this meeting or if it has to be brought back separately, it would be appreciated.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he can begin and then PW Dep. Director Yip can speak to that. Since that came up, PW Dep. Director Yip did meet with Taco Bell and talked to them.
Taco Bell is willing to look at putting those improvements into their current project, and if they do not put them into their current project, it is likely a fix the city can do on our property and, if Taco Bell gave them permission on theirs, do it on theirs. He stated that it is not a costly project and we do not need to revise the CIP at this meeting regarding that.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that there are two gaps and we discussed this with the owner and he deferred them to their architect who is working on their use permit who said that they should City Council Regular Meeting 26 June 24, 2024
be able to accommodate at least the southern portion with their project. The city put in the request and asked them if they can complete the northern gap as well so it will be a complete connection to both the southern parking lot as well as the northern one. He stated that we did not have any confirmations from them but regardless if they should not be able to accommodate them, as the City Manager said, the city can add it to our annual concrete and sidewalk project but we do need their permission to enter onto their property in order to come to work on their property. He stated that a portion is on private property and the other portion is on city property.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought at least one of them is definitely done and the other one there may be done as well and he asked if there was further direction needed.
PW Dep. Director Yip did not think there was any needed. He will follow up and make sure that this is carried through or have some response for Commissioner Berman or City Council.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked the City Manager if the discussion around tree fees is scheduled on the work plan in the not too distant future, and if so, when.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we were anticipating sometime in the fall, with specific date to be determined, but after a year of collecting information about the ordinance, putting it together, coming back to Council, sometime in the fall for considering revisions as well as at that time they will have the administrative cost information that drives the suggested fee.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we have a robust discussion around the tree ordinance on the books, sometime around September.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively, sometime in the fall.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Boles asked, as a follow-up to the answer of the tree fees coming back in the fall, if it is possible for Council to revise this document for that particular fee in the fall or would it have to wait until we do the budget again.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Council can make revisions and additions to the fee schedule anytime during the year and they go into effect then and we reflect them in the update the following budget year. He stated that, if they are going to be increased, there will be certain notification and hearing requirements, etc., but that is an action Council can take any time through the year.
Councilmember Boles stated she wanted to thank Asst. City Manager Carter and congratulations on all the wonderful kudos she has been getting in appreciation for her work and teamwork, as well as the creativity she and staff are bringing to try to balance the budget and find money where we did not think we have. She referred to packet page 117, library fund, City Council Regular Meeting 27 June 24, 2024
stating she knows we just approved a certain amount of money for public outreach and she asked if that money should be in the library fund or go somewhere else.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we allocated those funds in the General Fund for now since it is not specifically related to the library.
Councilmember Boles referred to the Fire Equipment Fund and that we are paying for a new truck over a certain amount of time. She asked if we are paying revenues out to paying installments on that truck.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that this is not related to the truck, but related to the fire equipment of 60 years that we have to replace on a certain cycle. She stated that the idea behind this $133,000 was that every year we will contribute as this equipment is expensive and allocating this fund will build up some reserves for the future.
Councilmember Boles asked if the fire truck money was from the General Fund.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the fire truck fund should be in the motor pool fund.
Mayor Vaterlaus opened public comments.
Paul Totah, Pacifica, stated he is present as a Tree City Pacifica member and shared his concerns about several issues regarding trees and results of a survey.
Gail Benton Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated she is speaking as a member of Tree City Pacifica and shared her concerns about the high tree permit and appeal fees and requested changes on these fees in the fee schedule tonight.
Lauren Berman, Pacifica, resident of Linda Mar and Planning Commissioner, shared her thoughts on the trail issue along Taco Bell.
Marcy Milby, Pacifica, shared her concerns on the tree trimming situation issues and exorbitant fees and suggestions.
Sandy Ayers, Pacifica, stated he is a member of Tree City Pacifica and seconded what previous speakers about the tree permit and appeal fees as well as his thoughts on the issue.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared her concerns on the tree fee schedule and suggestions for fairness.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated the tree permit fee is important to her and she shared her concerns on this issue in alignment with Tree City Pacifica speakers.
Mayor Vaterlaus closed public comments.
Councilmember Boles asked what the fine is for an illegal tree removal and where is that codified.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the fee for illegal tree removal is based on the replacement value of the tree and is referenced in our Municipal Code in Chapter 12. She stated that there is a guide book that determines values of trees and that is used.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 June 24, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked if any trees are valued at more than $1000.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that some of the values climb to $10,000 or $20,000.
Councilmember Boles asked about trees were cut down illegally in the last year or year and a half. She asked if there has been follow-up, violations, and fines.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we are in process of issuing the notice of violations and fines.
Councilmember Boles asked approximately how many tree permits the city has processed in the last year.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that we do not have that information to date yet. She stated that there are different types of tree permits and issued for different reasons and it is not easy to get that information. Staff have to look at different data basis, as we have tree permits associated with building permits, stand-alone tree permits as well as tree permits issued as part of planning applications, and it takes time to collect the full picture.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that is part of the staff work that goes into preparing the information that comes back to Council for tree ordinance revisions as well as related to what the status of removals is and the cost.
Councilmember Boles stated, if we are considering reducing the fee and whether that needs a subsidization, it would be nice to know how much money we are talking about.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that staff was not recommending a change to the tree permit fee at this meeting so we do not have that information and Council could make a change without the data to support. He stated that is the whole intent of bringing the package and information back to Council.
Councilmember Boles stated she was trying to get a little information to know roughly the order of magnitude. She asked if we can explain regarding the comment made about the hourly rate.
City Manager Woodhouse stated what he understands now, and can clarify in the future to make it more precise, is that is not an hourly rate. The hourly rate written in the description is an indicator of the basis for that calculation. When this fee was set, staff did an estimate of the staff time involved in processing permits and there is a standard hourly rate that is applied to that staff time. He stated that, on some of the items, it says, hourly rate, and that is the basis for the calculation to arrive at the fee. He stated that, in the fee column, adopted 2024-25, if it says per hour, that is an hourly rate.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if someone submits a tree pruning permit and it only takes staff an hour or two, they do not get a credit on that either but still paying the full fee.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it is unlikely to take an hour or two to process a tree permit.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is hard for him to summarily reassess what the fee should be without the data that Councilmember Boles is asking for and then some. He would be delighted if we had that information in front of them at this meeting to deliberate accordingly, but he appreciates that the end result of the direction Council gave, there will be a time to have a City Council Regular Meeting 29 June 24, 2024
proper conversation around the fees at which point we can reassess and lower as appropriate.
He was reading through the fee schedule expecting to see the $1,000, and he sees the updated number of $1,026. He is very comfortable from not raising the rates from what they were last year while we figure out what we are doing with them going forward sometime in the fall. He will vote with consensus but he would like to make the motion with not raising the rates for the tree permit, with building permit, without building permit, and the appeal fee from last year.
Councilmember Bier stated that was her initial thought also. She was interested in discussing the tree fee, but she does not feel comfortable raising it at this meeting if we are not going to have that conversation. She wants to talk about it and is looking forward to that conversation.
Mayor Vaterlaus wants to know what the tree fees were prior. She does not see lowering it below what it was in the past.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, in conjunction with this, he thought there was a matter of what goes into making that fee and the steps it takes and what is involved with the community, and that is what we are talking about when we asked for this to be brought back. It isn’t just the fees themselves, but it is also where is our ordinance working and where is it not working and that extends beyond the fee.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she is concerned with Tree City’s item where there were 12 trees, to that effect, cut down in one weekend due to misinformation. She is sure some people had their trees cut because someone told them they do not have to get a permit and other ones thought $1000 was too high for a permit. She does think it is too high.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer also agreed. She asked when Council approved the $1000 fee.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated last year.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it has been a year and we collected data. She remembers that meeting and the premise on which that was brought forward had to do with it being an inclusive fee for all the trees being cut. She asked how many people cut down more than one tree. She stated, if we are talking about logging or taking out six trees to build a new development on property, that is an entirely different situation. She does not know how to make this something that the community can live with or something staff can live with. She stated that, as decision makers, Council needs to make a decision.
Councilmember Bier agreed to lower it tonight and see what the numbers are in four months.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated from the 2022-23 budget the permit fee was $238.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, given inflation, he proposes $250 for good measure.
Councilmember Bier agreed with $250.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked about the appeal fee.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that the challenge about the appeal fee is how much staff time does it take to prepare all the documents and staff report and all the stuff to conduct the City Council Regular Meeting 30 June 24, 2024
appeal. She thinks that is what she remembers and we were trying to recoup costs. She knows that the community is asking that we make it the same as the permit fee.
Councilmember Boles stated that the appeal fee is the same for a huge project too. She thought certainly the staff time varies and that does not necessarily cover all that. She is okay reducing that too. She stated that $1000 was what staff said took the time, which was a convoluted process and going to consultants back and forth and it seems like a lot of extra administration time that is not necessary and hopefully we can simplify that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse recalls that, on the appeal fee calculation, appeals take a huge amount of staff time and there was either a very low or no appeal fee for trees. He stated it was nowhere near what the time taken is. He stated that there was also a conversation that, in addition to the tree permit fee, there was the other perspective about tree removals not being so easy and appeals not being so easy, so the cost factor might have been a disincentive to that, although based on what the cost is to process it. He stated that was a policy conversation that Council had. He stated that there was also another factor here with is not research we have done but we did do some preliminary looking into it a year or so ago, i.e., trying to arrive at an apples-to-apples comparison with what the fees are in other cities because it is very difficult. He stated that it is not a direct comparison as a lot of cities have the actual tree permit fee that might be $250 but also have this other permit or license paid for as well which we do not have so we have to aggregate all that. He stated that is all the research that staff intends to do when we bring it back to inform Council but the Council can reduce the fees as much as Council would like at this meeting and we can do that. Council cannot raise fees as that requires noticing to do that for the fee schedule, but we are able to reduce fees and it just becomes a budgetary issue. He stated that policy-wise and philosophy-wise in their fee schedule, unlike other cities, Pacifica is in a financial position where we do strive for some cost recovery and that has always been the philosophy in Pacifica and part of Council’s policy discussion as well.
Council can choose to subsidize certain fees and identify the subsidy source and pay for it out of the General Fund, which would be part of the discussion as well.
Mayor Vaterlaus remembers that conversation because Council talked about the fact that, if it was $1,000, people wouldn’t be willing to cut down trees, and then we found out that people cheated. Council thought $1,000 would limit the number of people and be a good cost recovery for the city but it did not work.
Councilmember Boles asked Asst. City Manager Carter if she could tell them what the appeal fee was in the last year.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the appeal fee in fiscal year 2022-23 was $426. As City Manager mentioned, staff knew at the time it was a subsidy.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that, at $426, it was a subsidy considering what it takes to produce a staff report and prepare the item to go to the PB&R Commission.
Councilmember Boles stated that others are subsidized also, such as her Vista Mar appeal.
She stated she only paid $500 for it and that took a lot more staff time.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that is a conversation he is familiar with yearly, before he ever got on Council, that we do heavily subsidize appeals and has been the direction of Council City Council Regular Meeting 31 June 24, 2024
largely to keep it low enough that people can still do it, but there is always a conversation around how much we should raise it this year because the amount of staff time is disproportional to the charge.
Mayor Vaterlaus thinks that the tree fee can be higher than $250 as that is not much more than the year before and now we are on the third year and even $350 is one-third of what we are charging now. She suggested $450 for the appeal.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that what was brought forward by the community was to make our rates more consistent with surrounding communities.
Mayor Vaterlaus added also consider what the City Manager indicated about additional fees that we may not have that we have.
Councilmember Boles stated part of why our fees were highest is that we have to go out and verify the replanting and other cities require the applicant to do that themselves and send in the photos, and this is a place where we can save money to put the onus on the applicant to do the labor so neither group is paying extra time.
Councilmember Bier thought it would be good to be a part of the conversation we have next.
She thought we should lower the fee to $250 at this meeting, and she can go either way with the appeal fee, and maybe we can talk about that another time.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by Mayor Vaterlaus.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bier stated that there is another fee she wants to talk about.
Councilmember Boles asked what the appeal fee was for a development project now.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that a part of the conversation around appeal fees for development projects is largely in comparison to other cities and Pacifica is on the low end.
Councilmember Boles thought it was the same and that was the maximum of what we were charging.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, if staff comes back to them in a few months, staff said something about not being able to raise the fees, and she asked if we can raise the fees in four months if we find out different statistical information.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we can. Council cannot raise fees at this meeting as we did not do the advanced noticing about fee increases but, in the future, we would do that advanced noticing.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 June 24, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck did not like the premise of reducing the cost now, coming back in four months, and increasing the cost again.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked next steps.
Councilmember Bier stated lowering it to $250 at this meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about the appeal fee.
Councilmember Bier suggested $450.
Councilmember Bigstyck suggested $592.
Councilmember Boles suggested $350.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that is a lot of work.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is comfortable with $450.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.
Councilmember Bier also agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was going to move to amend the Master Fee Schedule.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if there was one that Councilmember Bier had.
Councilmember Bier wanted to talk about the tobacco retail license and she was part of the advocacy for the tobacco retail license on packet page 134. She stated, when we first advocated for it a long time ago, the fee was $300 and she was surprised when she noticed that it was not that anymore and she does not understand why it was lowered at any point in time.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the answer to the question was that staff traced back the fee amount all the way to FY 2009-2010 and there were a couple of years of not applicable in there but the last year that it was $300 was FY 2012-13 and then FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 were not available and then in FY 2015-16 it was $76 and then FY 2016-17 it was $30 so we would need to do more research for what the policy discussion and decision was back in that time to change that fee.
Councilmember Bier thought we could maybe talk about it next year.
Councilmember Boles asked what that fee was for.
Councilmember Bier stated it was for selling tobacco.
City Manager Woodhouse explained that it was the tobacco retail license.
Councilmember Bier stated that it goes to compliance and Police Department.
Councilmember Boles stated it was a one-time yearly fee that the tobacco retailers pay.
City Council Regular Meeting 33 June 24, 2024
Councilmember Bier stated that, with the uptake in vaping and the flavor ban, there needs to be more compliance, but that is a whole other discussion.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if there was consensus with Council about the change of fees, $450 for appeal fee, $250 for tree fee. She asked if anyone wants to make a total motion.
City Manager Woodhouse asked, before we leave the tree appeal fees, if he can get some clarity. He thought he heard a comment about not wanting to consider changing them in the future and, when we do come back with tree information, he wants direction of whether Council wants all that information and comparative data or not; otherwise, staff will not spend time doing that research.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he wants the comparative data. He stated that it feels like bad governance if the conclusion they come to in four months is to raise it back up to $1000. He stated he needs data in front of him to be able to make that determination, but he is saying it feels bad governance to lower it that far now just to, in five months from now raise it again.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we need a motion with corrections.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the staff can handle the corrections and Council can make the motion as amended by staff.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated she will try to summarize corrections. Staff is asking to make administrative corrections on packet pages 128-129 related to the child care services fees (onetime non-refundable fee for child at the time of entry into full cost program at $80 per child, program for $295 per month, and a summer program at $595 per month). Staff also asked Council to correct the typo on page 137 for cannabis background. The fee was listed at $31/year and was omitted in the submission. With the CPI increase of 2.6, this fee would go up to $31.80.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he would correct that, as his understanding is the Police Chief recommended to keep it at $31.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed that staff recommended to keep it at $31 for the coming year and the tree permit fee will go down from $1,026 to $250 on page 139. With the appeal fee, it is set at $450.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we have to correct the resolution on packet page 117.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed, stating that it is related to the Master Fee Schedule so Council can take an action for the Master Fee Schedule and staff will make corrections to that.
City Manager Woodhouse confirmed the appeal fee Council determined was $400 or $450.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated $450.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated she had said $450.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer moved the amendments to the Master Fee Schedule as outlined by staff; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
City Council Regular Meeting 34 June 24, 2024
Asst. City Manager stated that the budget resolution needs clarification on the Roy Davis Fund.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we are voting on the one item, Master Fee Schedule.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (AS AMENDED) RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mayor Vaterlaus stated #1 is adopt the resolution approving FY 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget; seconded by Councilmember Boles.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FY 2024-25 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to adopt the FY2024-25 Capital Improvement Program appropriation from the Roy Davis Trust Fund by a 4/5 vote.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if this is where we make the notation on the resolution as well.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed and stated that we can highlight the amount allocated from the Roy Davis Trust Fund which is $100,300.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated as stated by staff; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
ADOPT THE FY 2024-25 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM APPROPRIATE FROM THE ROY DAVIS TRUST FUND BY A 4/5 VOTE (AS AMENDED)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to adopt the resolution establishing the GANN Appropriation Limit for FY2024-25; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FY 2024-25
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to adopt the resolution approving the City’s annual review of the Investment Policy included as Exhibit A to the resolution, with minor changes for FY2024- City Council Regular Meeting 35 June 24, 2024
25; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY’S ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE
INVESTMENT POLICY INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT A TO THE RESOLUTION, WITH MINOR CHANGES FOR FY 2024-25
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
CONSIDERATION - NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor Vaterlaus adjourned the meeting at 11:39 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 8/26/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor