CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer
Mayor pro Tem Mary Bier
Councilmember Christine Boles
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
Councilmember Greg Wright
City Council Regular Meeting 1 January 13, 2025
January 13, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on January 13, 2025 at 7:05 PM CLOSED SESSION - NONE.
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor Present
Mary Bier Mayor pro Tem Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
Greg Wright Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; John Mullins, PW Interim Director; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director; Bill Glasgo, Police Captain; Vicente Romero, Police Captain; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Beckmeyer
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Special Presentation - HIP Housing Annual Calendar
City Council Regular Meeting 2 January 13, 2025
Sabrina Wilson, HIP Housing representative, presented the HIP Housing calendar with pictures drawn by 13 students in San Mateo County. Julia Meltzer, award recipient from Pacifica, was introduced.
Ms. Meltzer’s father read the comment she included with her picture.
Ms. Wilson thanked them and hoped Council enjoyed the calendar as a beautiful reminder of how important it is to have a house.
Mayor Beckmeyer thanked Julia for coming with her family to the meeting and was proud and happy for her picture being in the calendar.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated Julia's picture was so beautiful and she was happy for her.
Councilmember Wright thanked her and he was impressed with the drawing and especially her comments.
Councilmember Boles thanked her for showing what it means her and to those who do not have a home. She thanked HIP Housing for their work, mentioning an example of how they help them and those homeowners who rent a room to them. She asked about their new Home Readiness Program.
Ms. Wilson stated they launched this program more than a year ago and helped everybody find what they can do to get the help they need to find a house, etc.
Councilmember Espinosa thanked Julia for attending and HIP Housing for all they do.
There were no public comments.
B. Proclamation - Police Captain Chris Clements - Retirement Mayor Beckmeyer read a proclamation honoring the retirement of Police Captain Chris Clements.
Police Captain Clements thanked the Mayor and Councilmembers for their support. He mentioned he had family present and thanked them all, especially his wife and children, for supporting him for all those years. He shared his experience in Pacifica since childhood and complimented the various dedicated groups in the City that helped the Police Department do their jobs. He specifically honored several people he worked with who came to this meeting.
Police Chief Sarasua shared her appreciation for all Captain Clements has done over the years and she stated that he has promised to serve as a reserve police officer when needed after retiring. She thanked him for all his accomplishments over his 28 years of service.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, shared his appreciation for Captain Clements’ accomplishments, his respect, kindness, sincerity, etc. He appreciated getting to know him and being able to work with him.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 January 13, 2025
Horace Hinshaw, Pacifica, thanked Captain Clements for all he did and wished him luck.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated that she appreciated all he did, and she felt the community owes him thanks.
Sue Vaterlaus, Pacifica, thanked him for all he has done for his many years and she looked forward to seeing him in Pacifica.
Mayor pro Tem Bier thanked Captain Clements for his trust which he built with everyone in the community. She stated he helped her better serve the community.
Councilmember Boles stated she learned a lot about him from the proclamation. She stated that it has been a pleasure to serve with him on the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission, seeing his leadership and how calm he has been, as well as his efforts at building connections with the community and making us one of the safest communities. She thanked his wife for sharing him with Pacifica.
Councilmember Wright thanked Captain Clements for his experience and stated the culture he built in Pacifica is a part of the reason he wanted to come to Pacifica and safely raise his family.
He acknowledged the presence of many officers because they respect his leadership.
Councilmember Espinosa was proud that he went to school in her neighborhood and knows the community and she thanked him for his service. She hoped she will be able to talk to him in the future.
Mayor Beckmeyer thanked Captain Clements for his example of a quiet and strong leadership, and the calmness he exudes in tense moments. When she worked with him on events, she always felt confident knowing they were in good hands. She thanked him for wanting to continue to be part of our family.
C. Special Presentation - Introduction of New Department Directors / New City Staff City Manager Woodhouse introduced new city staff since January 2024. He invited all the new employees in attendance to step up.
Asst. City Manager Carter introduced Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; France Enriquez, Human Resources Analyst; Jeanette Ruspil, Acting Human Resource Analyst; Spencer Tseng, Senior Accountant; and Stephanie Coy, Financial Analyst.
City Manager Woodhouse introduced Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director, who was available on Zoom; Jordan Townsend, Code Enforcement Officer; Anna Correa, Police Officer; Michael Trevizo, Police Officer; and Danielle Joost, Police Records Clerk.
PB&R Director Leslie introduced Stephanie Douglas, Recreation Manager; Mitchell Klassen, Recreation Coordinator; Nicole Hernandez, Child Care Teacher; and Angelica Diaz, Child Care Teacher.
PW Interim Director Mullins introduced Zebediah Martin, Administrative Clerk II; Kaleb Bourne, Maintenance Worker; Oscar Rangel-Cruz, Mechanic; Eduardo Villegas, Maintenance Worker I; Desmond Barca, Plant Manager; Andrew Buckman, Electrical Instrumentation Technician; Nick City Council Regular Meeting 4 January 13, 2025
Rubio, Collections Operator; Wade Monsen, Asst. Civil Engineer; Naomi Fuson, Asst. Civil Engineer; Orlando Manez, Operator; and Glaysa Ruiz, Laboratory Analyst.
City Manager Woodhouse appreciated the opportunity to welcome all their new employees.
Mayor Beckmeyer welcomed the new employees and stated it was a thrill to have them, and many live here, grew up here, or played here.
Mayor pro Tem Bier welcomed them and appreciated the opportunity to meet the new staff and introduce them to the community.
Councilmember Wright welcomed all of them and thanked them for joining our family.
Councilmember Boles welcomed all of them and thanked them for their time after work hours to be here so Council can meet them. She added that none of the work in the City can happen without them, including the City Manager, and she hopes they will get to know them personally.
Councilmember Espinosa thanked them, adding that she met some of them already.
There were no public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if any Councilmembers wished to pull any items from Consent.
Councilmembers Wright and Boles stated they had some questions.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, referred to Consent Item #6, stating she is a member of Pacifica Housing for All, and expressed that they are pleased that Pacifica has received the grant from Partnership for the Bay’s Future to better advance housing equity.
Delia McGrath, Pacifica, referred to Item #4, stating she was concerned about curtailing the City Council’s ability to make Proclamations that somebody determines do not deal directly with city matters, and felt she did not think Council should go forward with that item.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Councilmember Wright had a similar concern on Item 4, and asked staff, in the event that, through the staff process, someone was not able to reach staff to recognize the contribution of an individual, if they have recourse to bring it to anyone on Council. He asked how that process would work.
Councilmember Boles asked for additional background information on Item 4 and why we think it is necessary.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, like many administrative procedures, one of the best practices for efficiency of an organization is to establish policies that provide clear guidelines about many aspects of governments and city operation. He stated this relates to the multitude of requests cities can receive for proclamations, recognitions, etc. He stated that the goal of this City Council Regular Meeting 5 January 13, 2025
policy is to establish clear and consistent guidelines for when staff time and Council meeting time is going to be spent on these types of proclamations and honorary documents. He stated that it is not specifically on the work plan but it is in working towards best practices for efficient conduct of local government on how they spend staff and Council time. He referred to Councilmember Wright’s question, i.e., this provides guidelines and flexibility for cases that are not clear and the City Manager can consult with the Mayor regarding if the request is in the interest of Pacifica’s community and make a determination about whether a proclamation should be scheduled. If a request is received that is not specifically related to Pacifica business or the community, any person in the community or outside the community can appeal to individual councilmembers and Council has the ability to agendize items. He stated that it happens often, as cities get requests from around the country about issuing a proclamation; it helps to have a policy adopted by Council that staff can point to and say the City’s standard practice is to not issue proclamations for that type of request.
Mayor pro Tem Bier asked if Council will be able to bring forward proclamations.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Councilmember Boles also asked that question in advance, i.e., over the last few years, would any proclamations Council issued not be allowed under this policy. His assessment was that they would be allowed and this draft policy is consistent with the way the City already evaluates proclamations, but just putting it in writing.
Councilmember Boles referred to the City Manager’s comment that Council can bring something to the Mayor and stated, while that might not be the intent, the language reads like it takes the voice away from Council.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked Council about pulling the item for further discussion or is there a brief amendment we can make at this time.
Councilmember Wright stated it sounded to him that any member of the public could feel free to reach out to anyone on Council and then make a decision together.
City Attorney Kenyon added that this policy is not intended to stifle Council’s opportunity to submit requests for proclamations. She stated that it is for the purpose of giving the City written guidelines when these requests come in and there is no apparent relationship to anything that would be of import to Pacifica. Referring to Councilmember Boles’ question about what happens if a Councilmember disagrees, there are different options, such as any councilmember can request that an item be put on the agenda to discuss and whether or not that proclamation should be passed by Council. The other way is, if there is public comment about the proclamation asking that it is placed on the agenda and at that point a Councilmember could take that request, send it to the City Manager, and ask to put it on the agenda; or the Mayor could have a conversation with the City Manager and discuss if it is within the subject matter or jurisdiction of the City. She thinks the language in the policy that presents the most concern is the limitation that a proclamation needs to be within the subject matter or jurisdiction of the City.
She stated that what is within the subject matter or jurisdiction of the City is up to the City and Councilmembers. She agrees with the City Manager and did not see it as changing the current unwritten policy but implementing it. She did not see any language that said specifically that Councilmembers could make this request unilaterally and the issue would be if the Councilmembers would have to fit within the same deadline and obligations created in the policy and there is an exception in the policy that would allow exceptions to the deadline upon consultation with the City Manager and the Mayor. She agrees that the policy is not intended to change how we treat proclamations currently.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 January 13, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Bier asked if there could be a sentence added that states Council is allowed so people understand that we are able to do that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated the City Manager suggested pulling the item, and if there is a consensus on Council that we would like to add some additional language to make clear what Council’s role will be in requesting proclamations, staff could do that.
Councilmember Wright thought the intent of this was to try to make things more efficient and he understands and appreciates that. He thought a better practice would be that, if one of them was aware of a potential commendation that they want to advocate for, nothing would stop them from going straight to the City Manager and saying that they think it is a priority and he could talk to the Mayor and have that discussion. He thought a sentence that would clarify it like that, in the event that somebody from the public attempted to do it and it did not work and talked to a Councilmember, they could advocate for that and go straight to the City Manager with that concern expressed.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed we can make that clearer in the policy.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that it is akin to the flag policy that Council adopted a couple of years ago which is to have guidelines to be able to point to a policy when they get a request that is clearly not aligned with Pacifica’s or community’s values. If we do not have a written policy that staff can point to and say that it does not meet reasons for a proclamation, then we are in a value judgment situation that can get messy very fast. He stated that is the value of policy with guidelines to point to.
Councilmember Wright stated that, with the understanding that Council can go to the City Manager, he would be okay with leaving it alone.
Councilmember Espinosa thought it was better to have the language properly and clarify that.
There was Council consensus to pull Item #4 and bring it back at a future meeting.
Councilmember Boles referred to Item #7 and stated she was excited to see it going through after having been revetted twice. She wanted to be sure we were notifying the PRC as it will be affecting some of the people sleeping in their cars and oversized vehicles and that enough notice is given so they are able to move. She stated a lot of parking will be lost, especially by the apartment up on Palmetto, and asked whether we are notifying some of the apartment complexes so they can let people know that they will need to find alternate parking.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we have a practice of notifying PRC for parking that is affected in the area and we do it for the annual paving project and will be doing it for the Esplanade area as well for the RVs in that area ahead of the work. In terms of traffic impact in the area, the most significant work that will close down the streets and one way direction will be the slurry seal and there are other striping and programs and those are minor.
Councilmember Boles stated, from what she remembers from reviewing the plans before, a lot of the parking on Palmetto north of Manor will be lost because of the bike lanes on the right side heading north and asked whether we are notifying the apartment building owners so they can notify the tenants that they will have to find parking elsewhere.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 January 13, 2025
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we can do additional outreach. He shared that a study was conducted prior to the project and parking losses were brought forth in front of the Planning Commission to evaluate as well. He stated that we can do some additional outreach to the apartment complexes to let them know about the parking losses are occurring and they will be made more aware and have alternative options. He stated that there appears to be sufficient parking in the area for the apartment complexes.
Councilmember Boles then referred to Item #8 and asked if staff can explain the process for the trees that were being removed and replanted, i.e. how the trees are selected and if the owners will have some input to live along those streets and whether they are doing 2-1 replanting. She asked how many trees they are replanting and how is the community being involved.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that we are removing a total of three trees on the project and this was coordinated with an arborist to determine the condition of the trees and why they need to be removed. He stated that we are doing a 2-1 replacement in following the Tree Ordinance in the City. He stated that on the plan, there is a separate document with potential locations and we are only required to do a 2-1 replacement of six trees with nine potential locations. He stated that it will depend on utilities and complexes as to whether we can plant the trees and we have a contract with an arborist to come back out and help determine where those locations are feasible. He stated that we can meet with residents but, ultimately, we can plant nine; if we can plant more we will, but if there is water main that is in the complex, we cannot relocate a water main. He stated that there may be a utility complex which may limit our ability to replant the trees but we can plant three in the place of where we were going to move them; if we cannot plant more than 2-1, we will pull from the project fund to put in to the City’s funds to replant the trees at a separate location.
Councilmember Wright stated that, if we are removing protected trees and replacing it with two trees, and two years later somebody cuts down those two trees, will those two replacement trees enjoy the same protection that the heritage tree did.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that these are the City’s trees and, in terms of evaluating that, we would issue an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division. If someone were to try to cut these trees down, we would evaluate that at the time of the request. Staff would likely implement the Tree Ordinance for a 2-1 replacement, but it is in the City’s right of way.
Councilmember Boles stated the Planning Commission was asking for a landscape plan and she asked if that is something that will be available for the public to review.
PW Dep. Director Yip stated that this project has a lot of elements in the plans and it is primarily an ADA project; there are not a lot of landscape features and much of the landscaping are within notes in the civil plans. This was brought forth to the Planning Commission where he highlighted it. He stated that the tree removal and replacement locations were highlighted and there would be a fair amount of highlights all over the sheets for someone to be able to interpret it. If someone is interested in that, staff can provide a separate set and highlight it for them.
Councilmember Boles saw that they added the highlights that show the trees that are being removed and the proposed locations on the Public Works website and people can look at that and follow up with him if they have questions.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed that they can.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 January 13, 2025
Councilmember Wright recalled that there were some budgetary considerations with doing a whole landscape plan and we are trying to fit it into a grant and there were complicating factors and staff has done their best to address the concern in a more cost-effective manner.
Councilmember Boles saw there was some extra money being added for the Planning Commission request.
PW Dep. Director Yip agreed, stating that when we originally brought forth to Planning Commission and told them we could not do a separate set because the estimate was $2.4 million, but because of the timing and number of bidders, they were around 30% less than the engineer’s estimate. Because of that, staff will be able to implement most of the comments that Planning Commission has requested.
Mayor Beckmeyer suggested an edit on packet page 56, Item #2b. She believes the fourth paragraph where Councilmember Boles was referring to the “offshore reef” proposal, not “offshore lease”. She asked to correct “offshore lease” to “offshore reef”.
Mayor pro Tem Bier moved to approve the consent calendar, minus Item 4, and Item #2 as amended by Mayor Beckmeyer; seconded by Councilmember Boles.
CONSENT ITEMS #1, #2 AS AMENDED, #3, #5-9 (EXCLUDING CONSENT ITEM #4) CONSENT ITEM #4 TABLED TO FUTURE MEETING
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles, Espinosa, Wright
1. Approval of Disbursements for 12/01/24 through 12/31/24.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of December 2024.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the December 5, 2024 City Council Special Meeting and the December 9, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Adopt a Resolution Adopting a New Administrative Policy No. 84, "Guidelines for Issuing Proclamations, Commendations and Ceremonial Documents" to Establish Criteria and Procedures for Official City Council Recognition in the form of Proclamations and Ceremonial Documents
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Adopting Administrative Policy No. 84 ‘Guidelines for Issuing Proclamations, Commendations and Ceremonial Documents’”.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 January 13, 2025
5. Eighth Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for On-Call Planning Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm Good City Company PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve the Eighth Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Good City Company, by increasing the contract amount by $32,500 with a total not to exceed amount of $672,500 and, to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.
6. Resolution Accepting Grant Award from the Partnership for the Bay’s Future Policy Fund PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution accepting a grant award from the Partnership for the Bay’s Future Policy Fund and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents, including the Memorandum of Understanding.
7. Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Construction Contract between the City of Pacifica and Dryco Construction Inc. for the Esplanade and Palmetto Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Project in an amount of $1,171,750.60; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $1,288,758.00 which includes contingencies in an amount of approximately ten percent (10%) of the Construction Contract amounts; Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders and Task Orders within the contingency amount;
2. Authorize City Manager to Execute an amendment to the City’s existing project design contract with Fehr and Peers (F&P), on a time and materials basis in an amount not to exceed $15,000 for construction engineering support, bringing the total contract cost ceiling to $117,500;
3. Authorize the City Manager to Sign Contract Documents for the Project; and
4. Execute Budget Amendment Appropriating $465,354.50 from Available Fund Balance In Fund 13 - Street Improvement Fund”
8. Sharp Park PDA Pedestrian Improvements Project
PROPOSED ACTION: Approve the following actions for the Sharp Park PDA Pedestrian Improvements Project
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving the Construction Contract between the City of Pacifica and JJR Construction Inc. for the Sharp Park PDA Pedestrian Improvement Project in an amount of $1,639,478.21; Authorize a budget authority in the amount of $2,049,347.76 which includes contingencies in an amount of twenty five percent (25%) of the Construction Contract amounts; and Authorize staff to Execute Future Change Orders and Task Orders within the contingency amount;
2. Authorize City Manager to Execute an amendment to the City’s existing arborist contract with Tree Management Experts Inc., on a time and materials basis in an amount not to exceed $20,000 for arborist services during construction, bringing the total contract cost to $40,000;
3. Authorize City Manager to Execute an amendment to the City’s existing design services contract with Nichols Consulting Engineers, on a time and materials basis in an amount not to exceed $9,700 for construction engineering support, bringing the total contract cost ceiling to $218,100;
4. Authorize the City Manager to Sign Contract Documents to the Project; and City Council Regular Meeting 10 January 13, 2025
5. Execute Budget Amendment Appropriating $188,737.05 from Available Fund Balance In Fund 11 Measure W”.
9. Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report 2023-2024 Mitigation Fee Act Development Fee Review
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Approving 2023-2024 Annual and Five-Year Impact Fee Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2024.”
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Tokuko Hirano, Pacifica, referred to the fires in the Los Angeles area and shared her concerns about fires in Pacifica, in addition to traffic congestion on the highway. She asked how evacuations would work in Pacifica due to only being able to leave north or south on Highway 1.
Aren Clark, Pacifica, shared his concerns on maintenance in many areas of the City, such as the pier, the promenade lights, the k-rails on the beach, sandbags and other obstacles on Sharp Park Rd., maintenance obligations on Vallemar, debris on Fassler Ave., etc.
Robin Brun, Pacifica, stated she is the creator of the Pacifica Whalespotting group, and she expressed her disappointment with what transpired on December 9 in passing over Councilmember Boles for Mayor pro Tem.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated the December 9 meeting was a shock to him and the audience.
He expressed support in redoing the Mayor pro Tem selection and stated leaving a stain on something would take longer to remove it.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, agreed with the concerns expressed on the processes on December 9 meeting. She emphasized the importance of empowering the public, especially in light of state mandates, as well as fighting for affordable and inclusionary housing.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on three important tasks to public service:
educate the public to assure we are informed; engage the public to garner ideas, correct misinformation, and mitigate concerns; and empower the public to participate in the work of our community.
Nancy Tierney, Pacifica, opposed the treatment of Councilmember Boles during the December 9 meeting and felt District 2 residents were being denied the opportunity for their representative to lead the Council.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, referred to the Council Rules and Code of Ethics and stated the standards of conduct were not adhered to in the December 9 meeting. She shared her concerns about the process and referred to the Pacifica Tribune’s article which illustrated the community’s disappointment.
Marsha Murphy, Pacifica, highlighted the definition and value of trust and asked how Council would be able to serve the City without trust.
Cata Gomes, Pacifica, stated she has felt disrespect regarding the issues of the Rockaway Quarry and witnessed disrespect during the December 9 meeting. She hoped that we would do better in this year because the community deserves better treatment.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 January 13, 2025
Maylin Merino, Pacifica, stated that she is happy for Mary Bier for being elected. She proceeded to speak out against bullying, especially for the next generation, and stated we should stop bullying.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, commended Councilmember Boles’ work as a part of Council and performs her duties exceptionally despite what has happened. He asked them to consider their first actions as elected officials that would be memorialized.
Debra Etienne, Pacifica, stated she was surprised and disappointed regarding actions on Councilmember Boles at the December 9 meeting. She shared her thoughts on the divisiveness and emphasized working towards collaboration.
Delia McGrath, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on the disturbing actions at the December 9 meeting and stated they did not align with her expectations of Council speaking and acting respectfully. She preferred speech and actions from elected officials that uplift the wellbeing of all the people in the City and wished for reparations to Councilmember Boles.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, stated the December 9 meeting was uncomfortable and unpleasant and echoed the idea of redoing the Mayor pro Tem selection.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, described issues with the process of the December 9 meeting and treatment of new Councilmembers at the meeting. She urged for this to be fixed.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, stated there were procedural errors at the December 9 meeting and suggested a redo of the Mayor pro Tem selection, including a separate public comment period.
Betty Duran, Pacifica, expressed her concerns with the December 9 meeting and stated something needed to be done to correct the situation which was deeply troubling.
Cassie Leonardi, Pacifica, expressed her concerns with the conduct at the December 9 meeting and asked for Council to reevaluate its selection for Mayor pro Tem.
Denise Leonardi, Pacifica, stated she was present to support Councilmember Boles and urged Councilmember Bier to step down as Mayor pro Tem.
Lueni Masina, San Bruno, understood how people can be frustrated or hurt with decisions made that are not in our control and added her concerns on hurtful things people are saying and doing to those elected, adding that it is important to separate the process from the person and not direct negativity toward someone who has stepped up to serve the community. She encouraged a productive dialogue for when we disagree to improve the systems that govern us.
Annya Shapiro, Pacifica, spoke out against bullying and was present to support Mayor pro Tem Bier. She commended Mayor pro Tem Bier’s work as a part of Council and the community. She thanked the Council for all of the hard work that they do.
Joanne Gold, Pacifica, shared her shock towards the Mayor pro Tem selection at the December 9 meeting. She urged Council to redo the Mayor pro Tem selection.
David Goodwin, Pacifica, stated the aftermath of the December 9 meeting resulted in intense bullying that should not be endured by Council or the community.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 January 13, 2025
Sue Vaterlaus, Pacifica, stated people have been bullying others in the aftermath of the December 9 meeting. She also shared her concerns about fire safety and City evacuation routes.
Mark Macias, Pacifica, stated he is a retired SF Fire Department Lieutenant and has been deployed to almost every major wildland fire. He spoke on the recent fires in the Los Angeles area and previous fire efforts in Pacifica. He stated that plant life has increased in Pacifica and asked for proactive abatement and code enforcement.
Gloria Stofan, Pacifica, echoed what the two previous speakers stated on the fires. She also stated she was disappointed at the Mayor pro Tem selection and emphasized the need for transparency and respect for each other.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, referred to women’s suffrage and expressed concerns on the actions on the Mayor pro Tem selection at the December 9 meeting. She also echoed the concerns regarding the fire issue and stressed the need for more code enforcement.
Irene Lee, Pacifica, referred to the December 9 meeting, urged for the Mayor pro Tem to step down from the title, and suggested a redo of the Mayor pro Tem selection.
Lou Salas Sian, Pacifica, shared her positive experiences with Councilmember Boles and had trust that Council would do the right thing. She stressed to Council to do the right thing, asked the Mayor pro Tem to step down from the role, and emphasized reestablishing trust within the community.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Wright suggested moving Council Communications to the end.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she is okay with moving Council Communications to the end and she has items to update Council on regarding the vote taken this afternoon on the City Selection Committee.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that Council should take a motion to amend the agenda.
Mayor pro Tem Bier so moved; seconded by Councilmember Boles.
AMEND THE AGENDA (MOVE COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS TO THE END OF THE
MEETING)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles, Espinosa, Wright
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse reminded the public that on January 14 there is a Zoom public meeting at 6:00 p.m. for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rezoning Program for the Housing Element, which is available on the Plan Pacifica website.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 January 13, 2025
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
10. Potential extension of public comment period for Draft Environmental Impact Report for Targeted General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Objective Development Standards Program for the Housing Element.
PROPOSED ACTION: Discuss and consider whether to extend the Draft Environmental Impact Report public comment period to longer than 45-days.
City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.
Councilmember Boles emphasized how important this EIR is to Pacifica and the Housing Element we have been working on for years. She stated that what she hears and reads statewide is that, once you have an EIR adopted, it is easier for projects to come through and be approved, and they do not necessarily need to do their own EIR because they are relying on the general EIR that the City did for the whole city, even though it is not specific to the particular sites. She stated that, while it was posted on the City’s website, notice had not been given to the public that it was available. She stated that Plan Pacifica website has a sign-up list and she has been telling the public to sign up there as they were getting notifications when new documents were released for the public to review, but that was missed and she wanted to bring it forward to give them an opportunity to address if they feel they need more time. She referred to issues such as traffic, fire, flooding, etc., that should be analyzed and she felt it should be a comprehensive document. She is interested in knowing how long it is. She stated that typically, with an EIR, the questions are asked, and the consultant compiles the questions and provides answers, and are Planning Commission and Council also expected to provide questions before the deadline, as that might impact the time needed to review the process.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he does not know how long it is due to the different components and attachments.
City Attorney Kenyon added that it is hundreds and hundreds of pages.
Councilmember Boles stated it is a lengthy document.
City Manager Woodhouse stated her other question was about Planning Commission or City Council review of the document. He stated that the documents come forward to Council for certification in the future and they do not have to provide comments at this point.
Councilmember Boles understands Council does not have to, but if the public is providing comment now before the deadline or asking questions, she asked if those typically get answered by the consultant.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that usually there is a response to comments in the process that they also provide to housing and community developers.
Councilmember Boles stated that sometimes revisions are done to the document, based on the comments.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, what will happen is that the response to comments will be City Council Regular Meeting 14 January 13, 2025
responded to in the final EIR that will be prepared and adopted and certified along with the EIR; the consultants will take those response to comments and it usually takes at least a month or two months before the final EIR is prepared and ready for public review.
Councilmember Boles asked if it would be better if Council wanted to take the time to review it to give comments ahead of time so they are not bringing up changes that might need to be made after the document has been revised and is ready for certification.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that normally Council comments do not come in through response to comments but when they are reviewing the EIR to determine whether or not it is appropriate to certify and, if they do not, they do not certify it and then send it back to the consultant.
Councilmember Boles stated that will delay the process.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it is not normal to see Councilmember comments in response to comments. She stated that the response to comments portion of the certification is for the purpose of allowing the public, not Council, to make comments and have the consultant respond to those comments so Councilmembers have all of that documentation in front of them when reviewing the final EIR for certification.
Councilmember Boles appreciated that. She hopes to get public comment. She would like to see the City communicating to people by email to give a notification of when something is done.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comment and, seeing none, closed public comment.
Councilmember Boles asked if the deadline was January 26 or January 28.
City Manager Woodhouse stated as the public comment period closes on January 26 and the comment from the state closes on January 29.
Councilmember Boles stated that there are less than two weeks left for people to review hundreds of pages if they want to.
Mayor pro Tem Bier was happy to extend some time and she would like to hear how much time they think is helpful.
Mayor Beckmeyer understands there are legal constraint guidelines. She stated that there were elements to it that Council has been talking about for a long time, such as builders’ remedy potentials, as well as the City’s negotiations and engagement with Housing and Community Development Department that are also factors in this decision that Council will need to make.
She thought the many of the EIRs and draft documents and deadlines in their work fall toward the end of a calendar year. They have had feedback before about not wanting to take holiday time away from family to review documents and her impression was that not a lot of people knew the documents were available.
Councilmember Boles stated, in light of no public comment tonight as well as the several builders’ remedy projects, and the longer Council waits to certify this, the more risk there is, she did not want to delay it longer than needed. However, it upsets her that no email notification was done and posting in the San Mateo Daily Journal may not generate as much readership.
She would like to suggest extending the deadline by a week.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 January 13, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer understood.
Councilmember Wright agreed. He wondered about such as things like the builders’ remedy, calendar issues, sufficient time to review and adjust the document accordingly, etc. He wondered about staff’s perspective, if we do extend the deadline, is there any potential unintended consequence and what would it do to any other future timelines.
City Manager Woodhouse stated extending the comment period on the draft EIR carries two risks. First, the City’s Housing Element will not be complete until the EIR is certified and, until the City’s Housing Element is certified, there is the risk of builders’ remedy applications that could come in that time period. If we extend the public comment period by 2 or 3 weeks, then at the end of the process, that extends Housing Element certification and final EIR certification by 2 or 3 weeks and, in that extended time period, it is a risk we do not know; there could be applications that come in and the City would not have its local control over those applications.
Second, which staff can try to manage with HCD, is to explain to them why we think it is essential to go beyond the 45-day EIR public comment period as HCD can be focused on any undue delays in the process. Neither has specific or known outcomes, but just risks.
Councilmember Wright concluded that it would not be staff’s opinion that the delay would cause enough concern and staff would be comfortable if Council did it.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he cannot say that as, if a builders’ remedy application came in during that time, Council and the public would ask why we do not have local control over this development application as we lost that because it came in during that time period.
Thus, he cannot make that statement.
Councilmember Boles stated that we are already two years late and we have three applications.
Councilmember Wright stated that makes it hard on Council.
Councilmember Boles asked if City Manager Woodhouse can share when the last builders’ remedy application was filed. She did not think it was recent.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he does not have that information in front of him, but he thinks she is correct that it has not been recent. He stated that it is an unknown and there are potential consequences to the extension of the public comment period.
Councilmember Wright stated that Council has to decide how much risk they can stomach in making this decision.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that it is important for the public to read that report and, if important, we have to take risks but not extend it too long. She stated we need to take some risk if we want the public to read that document. She stated we do not have to take the whole time, but enough to make it happen and hope we do not get any builders’ remedy applications.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that it sounds like three possibilities brought forward in the staff report, and Councilmember Boles is suggesting a week. She was suggesting three weeks, so the present deadline is January 29 because of the state review period.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, but the public comment period can be January 26, and the state deadline for state agencies is January 29. If Council wants to put them together, we can City Council Regular Meeting 16 January 13, 2025
have them both be January 29 and go to the timelines from there.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked Councilmember Boles what date she would propose.
Councilmember Boles stated she would say a week from January 26 and then we have overlapped with the state deadline. She stated January 26 is a Sunday.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated it says February 5 in the staff report.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that it provides an extra week of comment.
Councilmember Boles stated that that is seven days from January 29 and she was okay with seven days from January 26 and say February 2 or 3 if they want to keep it shorter.
Mayor pro Tem Bier is fine with that.
City Manager Woodhouse asked, for clarification, if we are saying seven days from January 26, that would be Sunday, February 2.
Councilmember Boles stated we can say Monday, February 3.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked Councilmember Wright how he feels about that.
Councilmember Wright stated he was okay with that as it is a good compromise. He likes the approach and hopes it is indicative of things to come.
Councilmember Boles moved to extend the public comment period for the EIR for the Housing Element to Monday, February 3, by 5:00 p.m. (close of business); seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
Mayor Beckmeyer called a break then reconvened the meeting.
EXTEND THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE EIR FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, BY 5:00 PM (CLOSE OF BUSINESS)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles, Espinosa, Wright
11. Process for Annual Mayor and Mayor pro Tem selection and Section 7, Deliberations and Voting, and Section 8, Motions, of City Council Rules and Code of Ethics.
PROPOSED ACTION: Discuss the process for annual Mayor and Mayor pro Tem selection and the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics Sections 7 and 8 pertaining to Deliberations, Motions, and Voting and provide direction to the City Manager regarding next steps on this matter.
Mayor pro Tem Bier made a statement at the beginning of Item #11. She is not ashamed to process her emotions in any way she needs to. She thanked the public for showing up and voicing their opinion as that is what makes Pacifica what it is. She thanked those who know her best and love her and are here in person and in Zoom. She first addressed Councilmember City Council Regular Meeting 17 January 13, 2025
Boles about how much she respects and cares about her, and they have been able to talk about it together. She appreciated that and she loves that the community is coming out and supporting her. She stated that, in her experience on Council and as stated in the staff report, the selection of Mayor and Mayor pro Tem was lightly based on the number of votes. In her first election, she had more total votes than former Councilmember Mike O’Neill and he did not serve as mayor during his final term on Council. Then, a year ago, at the reorganization meeting, Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, by his calculation, she would be the next in line for Mayor pro Tem. She stated that, strategically, Sue Beckmeyer, because of her work on statewide coastal issues, would be better situated for the role that year and she put then Councilmember Beckmeyer ahead of herself. She did not feel she was giving up her place in line and this is where her thoughts resided for the entire year leading up to the December 9 meeting. She was nervous all day leading up to the December 9 meeting because she was not sure what was going to happen that day. She stated that there are things that should have been done differently and she was looking forward to the conversations that we are going to have to talk about that, including having a discussion with Councilmember Boles beforehand.
She stated that people were quick to shame her and accuse her of collusion, but if they were in the room that night, they would have seen and felt the emotional and physical response she had after she realized how uncomfortable she was with her decision to accept the appointment.
With absence of clear policy, she was acting on her assumption from the last year and she realized that she had made a decision that is not aligned with her values. She retreated and chose to refrain from responding to the comments in the emails. She spoke to Councilmember Boles before leaving to be with her family during the holidays. She would never do anything with the intention to humiliate her colleagues as she loves and respects her colleagues. She is thankful for the few people who chose to approach her with concern and curiosity and kindness.
She is by no means discounting her qualifications and feels she brings years of experience, resources, and relationships to the table. She is honored that a Council of her peers all voted for her to fill the seat, and she is honored to serve her community in any way that is laid out before her. She is also open to what is going to happen next. She does not need a title to do the work and, whatever comes from the conversation, she will do the work to the best of her ability and continue to serve her community in any way that is laid out before her. She stated that it is clear that we need an in-depth policy about the process of appointing people while working within districts. She thanked them for giving her the opportunity to speak and she looks forward to the conversation that follows with her colleagues.
Mayor Beckmeyer thanked her. She would like to make an apology to Councilmember Boles and everyone who is watching. She stated that it was not her intent to hurt her, humiliate her, or in any way cause her pain. That was not the intent of the night. She stated that we have a lot of ground to cover and we addressed some of the issues that exist between Councilmembers and the origins of those and she looks forward to the opportunity to keep doing that. She is committed to working with Councilmember Boles as she has been all along if she will meet her halfway. She stated that we have the opportunity to look at our processes and procedures.
She stated that included in the staff report was the listing of the Council Rules and Code of Ethics, revised January 2023. She asked if the City Manager could address the issues of procedures not followed in terms of rotation. She wants to clarify if we have a clear rotation policy in our Code of Ethics.
City Manager Woodhouse presented the staff report.
Councilmember Boles stated that she asked for this to be put on the agenda and she has a statement prepared with a couple of questions for the City Attorney. She stated that this subject has been hard for her, as has been December 9. She appreciated their apologies. She stated City Council Regular Meeting 18 January 13, 2025
that even this meeting is hard for her as she did not expect to have all these comments during public comment period. She appreciated those who came and all of them seeing what happened was wrong and holding all of them accountable to that. She appreciated all those who reached out to her afterwards including people who were not just her friends and supporters but people from all over Pacifica whom she does not know. She stated that the outpouring of support and knowing that something happened was wrong was universal in Pacifica. She asked for this to be put on the agenda so we can deal with it because what kept going through her mind as Mayor Beckmeyer was giving her speech that night was what it means for the next year if this is how we are going to work together and we are not able to listen to each other and that is not what any of us want. She thinks it is important to address this so we can get on to the work that we need to do. She stated that it is obvious that the public needed an outlet, too, and it was important for it to be on the agenda and give them their voice.
She asked the City Manager to keep the subject broad for today as there are important related items to discuss, such as the public comment process and the timing of public comment during the reorganization, as well as our Council Rules and Code of Ethics. She stated that the City Manager mentioned that these relate to other committee appointments as last year a similar process of a quick second and call for a vote occurred for Planning Commission appointments and, at that time, she felt like her voice was not heard either. She has spoken to a lot of people since December 9 to try to understand what cities do Council leadership transitions well with transparent, fair, and collaborative processes. She stated that we know firsthand in the county examples of cities that have not done it well and that has caused ongoing tension on those Councils for years and impacts their ability to work together. She stated that Councilmember Wright and she partnered on this item because they share the goal of finding a more collaborative process that allows for all their voices and opinions. She stated that they found some cities have clear policies. According to former Mayor James Coleman, SSF recently rewrote their policy after establishing district elections to ensure fair representation of all the districts. She stated that it was a matter of equity, especially for traditionally marginalized communities of color and renters who tend not to be as active voters. The past tradition of allowing the person with the most votes to be mayor was no longer fair. She stated that, in our community, that is true in the northern part of town, where she and Councilmember Espinosa represent more people of color and renters. She stated that other cities, like Hillsborough and Half Moon Bay, do not have written policies but their Council handbook and meeting rules allow different processes by way of referencing Robert’s Rules of Order or Rosenberg’s Rules. She stated that her first question for the City Attorney is that, in the Council handbook, she does not see any reference to Robert’s Rules or Rosenberg’s Rules.
City Attorney Kenyon was not aware of what the protocols were prior to her tenure but we have not incorporated Robert’s Rules of Order or Rosenberg’s Rules in this Code of Ethics and that means is that our rules are governed solely by what is in our Code of Ethics. She said our Code of Ethics is more akin to Robert’s Rules of Order, although what a lot of cities do, because we cannot contemplate all the potential parliamentary issues that could come up in voting, is incorporate by reference Robert’s Rules of Order. She stated that we could do that in cases where it is not listed in our code of conduct so we would have something to refer to. In our case, we do not, so if there is an issue that comes up that is not addressed, it would fall back to the Mayor, presumably, to follow whatever procedural process the Mayor had determined was appropriate in that instance, and if a Councilmember disagreed with that process, there is always the ability to make a motion to appeal that procedural determination by the Mayor to the majority of Council and the majority would rule on the correct process. She stated the implications of that are that we must rely on what is solely contained in our Code of Ethics or what may be determined by the Mayor if it is not covered and potentially appealed to the Council for consideration by the full Council.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 January 13, 2025
Councilmember Boles stated that, in her conversations with other elected leaders, she learned that some City Councils regularly review their handbook, either yearly or when new Councilmembers are elected so everyone understands the ground rules and the meetings run more efficiently. She stated that we have not done that in Pacifica for a while. She stated that, on reading the handbook, she realized that she does not understand some of the rules. She added that Councilmember Espinosa did not know the rules on her first meeting when she asked to make a different motion for Mayor pro Tem nomination. She stated that, when Councilmember Espinosa wanted to make an alternative motion at the December 9 meeting, City Attorney Kenyon told her she cannot make the nomination now because Council has to vote on the motion and see the results of that vote and the only option given to her was that she could vote no on the motion. She stated that she and Councilmember Wright read the handbook together with City Attorney Kenyon and page 274, Item H, defines the motion to amend or substitute: “A motion to amend a motion or substitute one motion for another requires a second, is amenable and is debatable only if the motion to which it applies is debatable.” She stated that it is confusing to her, but it does seem to say that a motion can be substituted if it has a second.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, and she thanked her for the question to clear it up for Council and the community. She stated that, what occurred on December 9 was that Councilmember Espinosa made it clear that she wanted to do a different motion. At that moment, a motion to amend would not be available because that could not be a motion totally unrelated or independent; to change the name of the nominee, in her view, would be a separate independent question, but what would have been available was a motion to substitute another motion for that motion. She stated, when dealing with parliamentary procedures, it happens in an instant and, at the time, City Clerk had already begun the vote. Once the City Clerk has begun the vote, the ability to amend or substitute no longer technically exists. To her point of other policies, what some cities do is provide specific policies and procedures for Mayor and Mayor pro Tem selections only because our motion procedure is also different and the motions generally do not involve nominations or appointments. Those tend to be different procedural processes for the reasons stated earlier tonight, as nominations generally can be treated differently in Robert’s Rules of Order and Rosenberg’s Rules. Since we have not incorporated those, we could not turn to those rules, but we could insert them into our rules and refer to them. She rewatched the tape of December 9, and her opinion then was that she believed her legal opinion at that time was correct as the voting had already occurred since the City Clerk had started the vote.
Policies are complicated and there may not be the opportunity to use all of these parliamentary procedures; because of the issues that tend to come up with selection of Mayor and Mayor pro Tem especially, sometimes with other committee appointments, that is why Councils developed specific policies and procedures for their community and their particular Councils. As she discussed with Councilmembers Boles and Wright, these Code of Ethics and protocols for every Council are unique to that Council and that community and they are changed regularly because it all depends on the makeup of the Council and their community at the time that they are reviewing the Code of Ethics. There may be review, and many times it happens after a Mayor and Mayor pro Tem selection because the Council realized that perhaps there are better processes that we could create to make sure that these kinds of issues do not rise again. She stated that having this discussion is not unusual and is something that many Councils do, but she says it applies for as long as Council wants it to apply and whenever they want to change it.
They are Council’s policies, and they should be used to help avoid situations where we have processes that create problematic discussions.
Councilmember Wright moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 a.m.; seconded by City Council Regular Meeting 20 January 13, 2025
Councilmember Boles.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Boles appreciated what City Attorney Kenyon said, and she mentioned one other thing about calling for a vote. She stated that sometimes we make a motion and a second but we can have deliberation before a vote and usually the Mayor asks if we want to discuss anything before the vote but that did not happen that night and it was City Clerk Coffey who called for the vote, not the Mayor.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that her recollection was that there was deliberation after the motion and the second.
Councilmember Boles stated not until Councilmember Espinosa spoke up. She stated that the vote was called for, Councilmember Wright voted, and then Councilmember Espinosa spoke up, and then is when Council started deliberations.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there is usually deliberation before the vote is taken. She added that sometimes there is not deliberation. She stated that is the issue presented when we have nominations with Mayor and Mayor pro Tem selections as that is why some Councils have mandated in their protocol that there be a specific nomination and then a period to discuss the nomination and then the vote. They are specifically laid out in that fashion because sometimes there may be deliberations but sometimes there may not be. That is why there is also the procedure in most protocols, sometimes called point of order or appeal to full Council, and it is a tool that the whole Council has to monitor the parliamentary procedures. She stated that parliamentary procedures are process-oriented and detailed and something Council can use to help assist with the decision but, even with these rules in place, at the end of the day, no matter what decision the Mayor makes in terms of parliamentary procedure, it can all be undone or revisited if there is a request by Councilmember to appeal that decision in our protocols so that the full Council can determine it. While the Mayor as the presiding officer does have the authority in the first instance to determine what that parliamentary procedure should be, the rest of Council still has the ability to overrule whatever that decision may be.
Councilmember Boles wanted to make a comment to the public that, as the City Attorney alluded to, being on Council is a difficult job. They are all human, they make mistakes, and she also makes mistakes, and the question is what they do afterwards when a mistake is made.
She hopes that we are bringing the community closer by rebuilding that trust and respect for each other and for a better collaborative process as we move forward. She stated, as we move to public comment, she wanted to ask them to bring their ideas and help Council see what would be helpful and what might be better processes.
Councilmember Wright thought it would be good to let the public have a chance to weigh in and he thought it was important for the other councilmembers Boles to have a chance to speak.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that she has an opinion as well.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 January 13, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, wished for this year to be a new beginning to establish a fresh foundation of skillful conduct between Council and the community. He shared his experience of Palo Alto’s reorganization and encouraged Council to review their nominating procedure.
Victor Carmichael, Pacifica, stated that he supported a revision of the process, shared his concerns about the barriers to Councilmember Espinosa’s nomination of Councilmember Boles as Mayor pro Tem, and believed the process to have been unfair for Councilmember Boles. He strongly urged to redo the selection of Mayor pro Tem.
Lois Marshall-Ward, Pacifica, reiterated that the process was flawed and unfair and that there was no discussion of nominations. She urged Council to redo the Mayor pro Tem selection.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, shared her recollection of the Mayor pro Tem selection, expressed the significance of adopting a revised procedure for the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem selection, described a separate public comment period for incoming and outgoing councilmembers, and stated that the vote needed to be redone.
Sue Vaterlaus, Pacifica, stated previous Mayor selections were based on votes and that district elections changed the process. She responded to public sentiment believing coercion to have been involved and stated that Council follows strict Brown Act laws that disallows that.
David Goodwin, Pacifica, stated Council had a year to handle the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem selection. He added that district elections were supposed to help with representation. He expressed that we need to come together to fix the process.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, encouraged Council to include a reference to Robert’s Rules in the Council Rules and emphasized the need for public comment as part of the process.
Nancy Murphy, Pacifica, spoke against the harsh criticisms and bullying mentality online against Councilmember Bier. She offered solutions through adjusting term limits and lengths.
Cata Gomes, Pacifica, thanked Council for the clarification of the December 9 meeting and hoped we would learn from the mistakes made in the form of more voices and communication.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, felt Council needs to find a way to redo the December 9 vote and supported the Half Moon Bay approach. He stated a problem will become a stain if not fixed.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, shared training resources regarding Robert’s Rules, explained her disagreements with the December 9 vote, and stated Council should redo the December 9 vote.
Irene Lee, Pacifica, stated that she wants to see a fair process so all councilmembers have a chance to become Mayor pro Tem and Mayor and all districts get fair representation.
Lou Salas Sian, Pacifica, thanked Mayor Beckmeyer for her apology and trying to reestablish trust. She supported a longstanding Council rotation for the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem roles.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, felt the Council response has not met what the community feeling was and stated the community would be healed if something was fixed and redone.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 January 13, 2025
Betty Duran, Pacifica, stated there was concern within the community and emphasized that when a mistake is acknowledged it also needs to be fixed by Council. She encouraged Council to follow Half Moon Bay’s reorganization model.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Councilmember Espinosa thinks Council needs to redo the point of order. She suggested following a rotation for the selection of the Mayor pro Tem. She stated that, if we have 2 or more Councilmembers selected, we go by percentage to select the next person to be Mayor pro Tem. If someone has been a mayor before, they go to the back of the line and wait until others have become Mayor pro Tem. She stated that we need to take away the guessing part of the process and focus on doing what we are supposed to do: working for the City and our citizens.
Councilmember Wright stated that, when he reached out to Councilmember Boles, it was brave of her to be willing to talk to him about this, especially with the proximity to the meeting that happened. He felt she was genuine and cooperative about a process that was problematic, not just for Council but also for the public. He stated that the goal in their discussion seems to be to work towards clear, collaborative, congenial consensus-building. He agreed that the process is broken and did not serve them and we need to come together on a process that works better.
He thinks district elections played into causing part of that and this is their opportunity to adjust to the new system. He appreciates coming out with a suggestion and not just a restatement of the problem. He looks forward to further discussion.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that there are two items on the agenda that Council will not get to at this meeting. She wanted to figure out how to address that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Item #12 could be pushed to a future meeting but Item #13 has a time urgency because regional meetings are starting and want to know liaisons for quorum reasons, etc. He stated that, if it helps, we can push Item #12 and Council can do a short version for #13.
Councilmember Wright thinks it is important that all voices be heard, and he would like to see multiple nominations so we can have a collaboration and try to build consensus. He stated that having public comment is important, and he thinks having choices to look at for a more structured conversation about rule changes would be appropriate.
Councilmember Espinosa believes rotation works for districts and it is fair because the community members want their leaders to have the opportunity to learn. She stated that voting and nominating will be as problematic as it is now, and we have to take the voting situation out so we can work collaboratively. She asked that Council focus on doing what they are supposed to do, as they already went through running for Council and now their job is to serve the community. Council needs to a process that is simple and clear.
Councilmember Boles thought it was important to look at the number of votes as they were not adequate or fair anymore with the way the districts are. She stated that, during the December 9 meeting, she was expecting to have a voice and a chance at that role and thinking it was her turn. She stated that Councilmember Bier also thought it was her turn and, as Councilmember Espinosa was saying, having rules might be a good way to resolve hurt feelings or expectations.
She thought Councilmember Bier wanted that position and she did a good job before, and it was not as important to her to serve in that role. She stated that everyone was equal on Council and she was okay letting Councilmember Bier take that role. What surprised her were all the City Council Regular Meeting 23 January 13, 2025
comments she received from people in her district who felt passed over and that they were missing this opportunity to have that representation. She thinks all the districts deserve it. She stated that her neighbor is the Public Works Director of South San Francisco and he sent her their policy which is a strict and simple rotation of Council, which required majority votes. As public comments said, Council was elected because the community trusts them and put them in the position and they are all equal. She mentioned that Los Altos has complicated rules, including a certain minimum time on Council, such as 11 months for Mayor pro Tem and 23 months for Mayor, and if someone has not had a turn, then they are first in line, and other cities do that as well. She thought Half Moon Bay went well and several public comments were in favor of that process, but she agrees that it could still cause some division and posturing which did happen at their meeting.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that is what she wants to avoid. She questioned why Council needs to go through the process when they could be working and paying attention to what they are supposed to do. She stated Council is here to work with each other and be collaborative.
She stated that they do not need voting or nominations and supported rotations.
Councilmember Boles thinks it is important to have a clear process that is transparent to the public. She stated that the public comment period was handled poorly at that meeting, as it included comments for both outgoing councilmembers and incoming councilmembers. She stated that, after the meeting, her constituent told her that they did not get a chance to say what they felt about the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem process, and she asked the City Attorney who stated that there was one public comment period for all three things but it was not explained.
She thought it was simple to have a public comment period for each of those things.
Councilmember Espinosa stated a member from her district came to see the inauguration and he told her that the meeting was unprofessional and handled improperly. She stated that some people came to see the new Councilmembers who were left at the end. She was nervous because it was her first time but she did not expect to sit for so long before being sworn in.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that is how it was done in Half Moon Bay for the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem vote, as the City Clerk ran it.
Mayor pro Tem Bier moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:30 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor pro Tem Bier agrees with so many things that have been said. She thinks, in order to move forward, Council may need a study session to review what other cities are doing and then Council can make decisions together with the public about the process. She was clear in her statement that she does not need the title to do the work. She is happy to go along with the majority of Council if they want to redo the vote.
Councilmember Wright agrees with a lot of what he has heard but not all of it. What he is concerned about is what is coming because we are about to talk about nominations for other City Council Regular Meeting 24 January 13, 2025
people and he would like to see everybody have a chance to be heard and nominate someone and have a more collaborative consensus-building process.
Councilmember Boles stated staff is burdened with the work plan already and she feels it is Council’s job to figure it out. She thought Council could do an ad hoc committee. She would like to resolve this and move on until it comes up again. She wanted to tie it into committee and commission appointments as, for that, she agrees with Councilmember Wright that Council should all be able to make nominations and be able to talk about who is the best candidate before they make a motion and a second. She wants to see Council working in a collaborative way where each has a voice. In terms of a redo, she does not want to ask for that as she does not think that is for her, but many community members have asked for that.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated it is up to a majority of Council.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked City Attorney Kenyon how to redo the vote if Council chose to do so.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if the majority of Council would like to have an agenda item to revisit the selection of Mayor pro Tem, that direction can be given at this meeting and the City Manager would place that on the agenda.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if the actual vote that was taken would be set aside or nullified.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it would be to revisit the selection of Mayor pro Tem and Council would have the ability of either retaining the selection as is or nominating someone else.
She stated that it does not necessarily require the current Mayor pro Tem to resign to have that agenda item. If you get a majority of Council that wants to have that agenda item, the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem serve at the pleasure of the majority of Council; the selection of Mayor and Mayor pro Tem can be altered at any point of the year.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked what the will of the Council is.
Councilmember Wright asked, as there are five people who serve four-year terms, is it possible that the Mayor and Mayor pro Tem term could coincide so that everyone has an opportunity.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if Council wants to theoretically make a term less than a year, that is how Council can make that happen. She stated that decisions regarding the terms, length of the terms, and who should sit in that role are at the discretion of Council at the time that the vote is taken. She stated whatever the will of the majority of Council is can be put into place with regard to selection of Mayor and Mayor pro Tem. She stated that, if we are creating a process that they anticipate to last for four years, we may have a different Council in two years when there is a new election and new Councilmembers who feel differently. What happens when Councilmembers make the decision to revise or put into place a process, the process can be changed by any Council at any time. She stated that this is what the five of them would be agreeing to at this time, but it can be changed by a majority of Council at any time.
Councilmember Wright thinks he needs a lot more time to think about this.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if he is not prepared to direct staff to put this on the next agenda.
Councilmember Wright stated he needs at least that much time to figure out what we can collaboratively figure out and what he feels comfortable with.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 January 13, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that Councilmember Boles brought up the idea of having an ad hoc subcommittee to discuss and make a recommendation back to Council.
Councilmember Boles agreed and added that we may first need some governance training.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed and thanked her for bringing that up.
Councilmember Boles thinks Council needs to have a study session with the City Clerk and City Attorney and go over the Council Handbook and Code of Ethics and see what is missing so they understand the rules and can run meetings better. She stated that will factor into the decision when we see what may be missing.
Mayor pro Tem Bier thought we should take a full day of goal setting and bring a facilitator in and do some governance training.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that this is not the item on the agenda.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that one of the concepts for Strategic Planning this year was to spend a day on governance training before the actual Strategic Planning session. Typically, we have the Friday for governance training/team building, but this is a good year with two new Councilmembers to focus on going through the Council Rules and Code of Ethics and other best practices for high-functioning Councils and facilitate it on governance training day followed by the next day that would be their facilitated Strategic Planning session Councilmember Boles does not want that to take away from team building either.
Mayor Beckmeyer thinks we need that later.
Mayor pro Tem Bier asked if there are any thoughts about going forward.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated one of the messages from the community was that this needs to be taken care of quickly. She is asking Council what their tolerance is for addressing that.
Councilmember Espinosa stated as soon as possible.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated the sooner that we get through this together, the better. She stated that we are either going to put it on the agenda or not.
Councilmember Boles thinks the public deserves for it to be on the agenda.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that her next question is do we need to establish a subset of rules for the revote and she asked if the intent would be to figure out what those top important things are, put them in place, and then redo the vote.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated that was her first thought. She felt we have two choices: 1) move forward with how things are now, do some governance training, and then create a new policy; or 2) create a new policy, come back, and talk about the appointment of Mayor pro Tem with the policy in place that we all agree on.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we need to fix it and move forward.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 January 13, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated she is not the only one to make the decision and she is looking at all of them. She stated that Councilmember Boles said what she thought.
Councilmember Boles stated, if we redo it, what are our rules.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that is why she raised that.
Councilmember Boles stated she was okay waiting, doing some governance training, and looking at our rules, and the public can come back and speak during open public comments.
Council can always change their mind and bring it up any time.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if the consensus of Council’s intention is to create rules and then come back and revisit the issue of Mayor pro Tem through a revote.
Councilmember Boles asked how we are creating the rules and is it happening in the governance training and when can it happen. She did not think we can wait long.
City Manager Woodhouse thought we should not take time during a facilitated governance training to talk about new rules that are being created; we want to focus governance training on learning our existing governance and other best practices. He suggested that there is a separate process for developing rules for the Mayor pro Tem selection process. It raises the question of where the guidance is coming from on what direction we are developing and the possible idea of an ad hoc committee. He recommended the idea of the ad hoc committee of two councilmembers appointed to work with staff on that and then we can figure out how long it will take before we can agendize a study session. He stated that we may need a study session to get some preliminary input from full Council about those rules or maybe it can be a decision session. He thinks some representation from Council through an ad hoc committee would be valuable.
Mayor pro Tem Bier agreed.
Councilmember Wright hoped that he and Councilmember Boles can continue to work together on this in some form or fashion.
Councilmember Boles stated they could or not, as two other people could be on the ad hoc committee and they could work separately. She stated that all of it sounds like it is going to take a lot of time and that is her only concern. She stated that, if we felt having another vote was important, we could set the ground rules, i.e. take multiple nominations and public comment and talk with each other, and we can still work out the rules later.
Councilmember Espinosa thought we have to eliminate the nomination period. She stated that it took her a lot of work to get here and she does not want to deal with any controversial things if they can avoid it so they can focus on what they are on Council for.
Councilmember Wright is afraid of the division without figuring out what the rules are before we talk about whether Council is going to have another vote.
Councilmember Espinosa stated the community is waiting to get this done and she wants to get it fixed and we can move forward after that.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 January 13, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if it was reasonable to ask for volunteers for who would want to work on an ad hoc subcommittee.
Councilmember Wright stated that he can only work with Councilmember Boles.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, for the record, we cannot create the ad hoc committee tonight, as that is not on the agenda, but Council can provide direction to staff to bring that item back for discussion.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought the discussion on January 27 was to form an ad hoc subcommittee and the earliest potential revote would be February 10. She asked for Council’s thoughts on that timeline and when to take up this workload.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has spent a lot of time on this already and she wants to get this done and move on to the work we have to do.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we know we need to get it done and we know what we want to get done for now and then move forward with the policy.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated to put the discussion of the ad hoc committee on the next agenda.
Councilmember Boles stated that we can table a motion to a future meeting.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated as long as staff has the understanding to bring it back.
City Manager Woodhouse stated formation of an ad hoc can be on the agenda for January 27 and it is a limited time period and the scope is to work on rule options. The ad hoc subcommittee can delve into it and may need a study session with more input from Council.
Councilmember Boles thought it would be helpful for the ad hoc subcommittee to have direction from Council.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, on January 27, we could agendize formation of an ad hoc committee and some guiding parameters for the work.
Councilmember Boles stated that the public will have another opportunity to speak.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated that we are still not talking about a revote and she still does not know what direction we are going with that. She asked what is next.
Councilmember Boles stated that, as she said on December 9, she does not want there to be anything between the two of them.
Mayor pro Tem Bier does not feel like it is and she felt they were able to talk things through.
Councilmember Boles stated that she does not want there to become one either.
Mayor pro Tem Bier wants the community to understand that there were mistakes made that night but she did feel horrible and it does not mean she does not want to serve. She was clear about what happened and how she felt about it.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 January 13, 2025
Councilmember Boles thinks a revote is necessary for the public, for her and Councilmember Espinosa to say what they think, and the outcome might not be any different.
Councilmember Espinosa needs Council’s support to make sure they do the best they can for the City, especially regarding rebuilding the City and getting more resources.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated we are going to have the ad hoc committee discussion and decision at the next Council meeting and we should make a goal of revisiting this at the next meeting.
Councilmember Boles suggested we discuss it at the next meeting and look at the timeline.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she can live with that.
Councilmember Wright does not know what to do. He feels that he needs a lot more time and information and a chance to talk to Councilmember Boles. He is concerned about possible division or other potential unintended consequences.
Councilmember Boles asked if we can put off the decision about a revote.
Councilmember Espinosa thinks we need to do this ASAP based on public comment.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated redoing the vote would be at earliest in two weeks at the next meeting.
She stated that we do not have that on the agenda.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he is not seeing a majority support for revote on the January 27 agenda. That would be a separate item or a separate part of the same item regarding the ad hoc committee formation to talk about rules and he asked if there was majority support to immediately do that or does Council want to continue the discussion about whether to do a revote or not as part of the same item when the talk about assigning and ad hoc committee. He stated that could be a combined agenda item on January 27.
Councilmember Boles moved to extend the meeting to 1:00 a.m.; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 1:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that we need to make a decision about what we are doing so we can accept that and move on. She is hearing an interest in establishing clear rules with a rotation and possibly removing nominations. She has a hard time imagining a parliamentary process without nominations.
Councilmember Wright disagrees with removing nominations.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we do not need to do a nomination if there are three people, as we can go by the percentage of votes they won in the election.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 January 13, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer stated the challenge is a percentage split certain ways will always mathematically be lower than if splitting it in fewer ways.
Councilmember Wright added if they run unopposed.
Councilmember Boles thought we were going to put it on the agenda, talk about it more, and give direction to the ad hoc committee in two weeks.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated not necessarily but she wanted to address that she disagrees with the idea that it is simple.
Councilmember Boles shared another example of drawing straws as a fair process.
Councilmember Espinosa stated she is not going to fight when it is her turn.
Councilmember Wright asked about valuing experience, relationships, and the ability to bring in funding into the selection.
Councilmember Espinosa emphasized rotations and that is why we need to avoid having a minority on Council so everyone has the opportunity.
Councilmember Wright stated, under a rotation, someone could get elected and immediately be mayor.
Councilmember Espinosa disagreed, stating that we have to have a rule, such as now, there is a Mayor and Mayor pro Tem.
Councilmember Boles stated that other cities say a maximum amount of months on Council before they can be Mayor pro Tem or Mayor.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, if she is going to be the next Mayor pro Tem, it will be three years by the time she is a Mayor.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated Councilmember Espinosa could be Mayor pro Tem next.
Councilmember Wright stated he would like to move to table this discussion to a date certain.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed, and we are tabling this discussion until the next Council meeting.
There was Council consensus.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he has direction to bring back the ad hoc subcommittee appointment on January 27. He asked, as part of that, if Council will pick up this conversation or is picking up this conversation separate or do we only want to do the ad hoc appointment.
Councilmember Boles thinks the ad hoc appointment also needs to go with some direction to the ad hoc committee and that is the conversation we have not finished.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed and asked if it was possible that we could have the item be with a possible establishment of an ad hoc committee.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 January 13, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we can combine both. He is not hearing a majority direction at this point for a redo of the vote so that is not on the agenda for January 27. It is to focus on the ad hoc with direction about what the ad hoc subcommittee’s goals are.
Mayor Beckmeyer agrees with his statement, and while she believes there is urgency, she is also hearing that there needs to be a clear process.
Councilmember Wright stated that we do not want to do it wrong.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed, and tabling this discussion to complete it would clarify the direction we would be giving to the ad hoc. She thinks she heard a clear interest in a set rotation, for every elected councilmember to have an opportunity to serve as Mayor and Mayor pro Tem, and that every district has an opportunity to be represented in that way.
Councilmember Wright added concerns about limiting the Mayor’s powers.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that the five people on Council have equal power.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that there is a workload to the Mayor’s role. She thinks the power in Pacifica lies with Council as a body and the public informing them what they want. The work of deciding is the five of them.
Councilmember Boles stated that they represent the people, not about their own voice.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that the public is telling Council that they want these things, i.e., a rotation, every district to be represented, clear roles, etc.
Councilmember Boles stated that we can all think about the specifics around that in the next two weeks to give direction to the ad hoc committee.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if they agree, and she concluded that we can close that item.
Mayor Beckmeyer allowed an additional public comment regarding Item #11 at a subsequent point in the meeting as follows.
JoAnn Arnos, Pacifica, supported putting the discussion on the next meeting, updating the voting process for Mayor and Mayor pro Tem appointments, and shared concerns on an equitable process.
There was Council consensus to table Item #12 to a date certain (January 27, 2025).
12. Receive Update on City Council Workplan Item for Review of City Committee / Commission Charters and Provide Direction to Staff to Confirm this Workplan Item and Provide Updated Timeline; Establish Ad-Hoc City Council Subcommittee to Provide Input for Charter Reviews; Adopt Resolution to Amend the Charter for the Library Advisory Committee to Designated Two Positions for Youth Members PROPOSED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
. Provide Direction to Staff to Confirm the City Council Workplan Item to Complete the Review and Update to Council Advisory Committee / Commission Charters and Updated Timeline; and
City Council Regular Meeting 31 January 13, 2025
. Establish Ad-Hoc City Council Subcommittee Consisting of Two Councilmembers to Provide Input to Staff for Questions to Pose to the Members of Specific Committees / Commissions to Facilitate Review and Staff Recommendations Regarding Charter Reviews for the Remaining Bodies: Beautification Advisory Committee; Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission; and Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission; and
3. Move to adopt the attached resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Rescinding Resolution No. 67-2023 and Amending the Charter of the Library Advisory Committee”.
13. 2025 City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments PROPOSED ACTION: Review the list of City Council Liaison and Committee Assignments, make any modifications for the calendar year 2025, and approve the final list.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comment and seeing none, closed public comment for Item #13.
The City Council made the following changes: ABAG primary changed from Bigstyck to Wright; Airport Community Roundtable alternate removed; C/CAG primary changed from Vaterlaus to Beckmeyer and alternate from Bigstyck to Wright; Colma Creek Flood Control Citizens Advisory Committee primary and alternate removed; Emergency Services Council primary changed from Vaterlaus to Boles and alternate from Boles to Wright; Fog Fest Committee Liaison primary and alternate removed; HEART primary changed from Vaterlaus to Bier and alternate changed from Bier to Boles; HOPE alternate changed from Vaterlaus to Boles; North County Fire Authority JPA primary changed from Bigstyck and Boles to Espinosa and Wright; North Coast County Water District primary changed from Bier to Beckmeyer and alternate removed; Pacifica Community Television primary changed from Bier to Espinosa and alternate changed from Vaterlaus to Bier; Pacific Beach Coalition alternate changed from Bier to Espinosa; Pacifica Resource Center primary changed from Bigstyck to Wright and alternate changed from Bier to Boles; Peninsula Clean Energy JPA primary changed from Bigstyck to Boles and alternate changed from Boles to Wright; and SMC Library JPA primary changed from Bigstyck to Bier.
Councilmember Boles moved to extend the meeting to 1:05 a.m.; seconded by Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 1:05 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles, Espinosa, Wright
The following changes were also made by the City Council: Commute.org primary changed from Boles to Bier and alternate changed from Vaterlaus to Beckmeyer; and SMC JPA Advanced Life Support / Pre-Hospital Emergency primary changed from Beckmeyer to Wright.
The following changes were made by the listed agency: LAFCO primary changed from Bigstyck to Wright as alternate; C/CAG Legislative Committee primary removed; and San Mateo County Recovery Council primary removed.
The City Council made the following changes to Council Liaisons to City committees and City Council Regular Meeting 32 January 13, 2025
commissions: Beautification Advisory Committee primary changed from Beckmeyer to Espinosa and alternate changed from Bigstyck to Beckmeyer; Economic Development Committee primary changed from Beckmeyer and Bier to Espinosa and Bier; Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission alternate removed; and Open Space Parkland Advisory Committee primary changed from Bigstyck to Wright and alternate removed.
AGENCY Council
Representative(s)
Council Alternate
ABAG General Assembly Delegate WRIGHT BECKMEYER
Airport Community Roundtable BOLES
C/CAG Representative BECKMEYER WRIGHT
Colma Creek Flood Control Citizens Advisory
Committee
TBD TBD
Emergency Services Council SMC BOLES WRIGHT
Fog Fest Committee Liaison TBD TBD
Housing Endowment and Regional Trust
(HEART) - Member Agency Committee (MAC)
BIER BOLES
Housing Our People Effectively (HOPE) - Inter
Agency Council (IAC)
BIER BOLES
North County Fire Authority JPA ESPINOSA &
WRIGHT
n/a
North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) BECKMEYER TBD Pacifica Community Television ESPINOSA BIER
Pacific Beach Coalition BOLES ESPINOSA
Pacifica Resource Center WRIGHT BOLES
Pacifica School Volunteers BIER BECKMEYER
Peninsula Clean Energy JPA BOLES WRIGHT
Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance
(Commute.org)
BIER BECKMEYER
SMC JPA Advanced Life Support / PreHospital EmergencyWRIGHT BOLES SMC Library JPA BIER BECKMEYER
* Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO)
WRIGHT n/a
* C/CAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee
BIER n/a
* C/CAG Legislative Committee n/a n/a
* C/CAG Resource Management & Climate
Protection Committee (RMCP)
BECKMEYER n/a
* Housing Endowment and Regional Trust
(HEART) - Regular Member Board of
Directors
BIER n/a
*LCC Coastal Cities Group (CCG) Leadership
Committee, North Central Representative &
Chair (through mm/dd/yyyy)
BECKMEYER n/a
* San Mateo County Shared Prosperity
Council (formerly San Mateo County Recovery
Council)
TBD n/a
CITY OF PACIFICA COMMITTEES /
City Council Regular Meeting 33 January 13, 2025
COMMISSIONS:
Beautification Advisory Committee ESPINOSA BECKMEYER
Economic Development Committee ESPINOSA & BIER n/a
Emergency Preparedness & Safety Comm. BOLES TBD
Library Advisory Committee BECKMEYER BOLES
Open Space Parkland Advisory Committee WRIGHT TBD
* Representative selected by listed Agency not City Council
ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 1:05 a.m. in honor of Marian Hinshaw and held LA County in our hearts.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 2/10/2025
__________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor