CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck
Mayor pro Tem Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 February 13, 2023
SPECIAL and REGULAR MEETING
February 13, 2023 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Tygarjas Bigstyck called the meeting to order on February 13, 2023 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
00a. Conference with Real Property Negotiations (Government Code § 54956.8). Property:
1220 Linda Mar Boulevard, Pacifica California. Agency Negotiation: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager and Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney. Negotiating Parties: North Coast County Water District. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment for Right of Entry Agreement. 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bigstyck called the regular meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Present
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor pro Tem Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Lisa Petersen, PW Director; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Christian Murdock, Planning Director; Chris Clements, Acting Police Chief; Sean Kavanaugh, Dep. Fire Chief; Nelson Schlater, Engr.
Manager-Wastewater; Tommy Yu, IT Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Bigstyck read the Land Acknowledgment.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 13, 2023
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Beckmeyer
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there was nothing to report.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame Week / 2023 Inductees Mayor Bigstyck read the proclamation honoring Pacifica Sports Hall of Fame Week.
On behalf of the Pacifica Sports Club, Mr. Horace Hinshaw thanked him and appreciated Council for their support this year as well for past years. They have been active for almost 40 years and the Hall of Fame has been for the last 32 years. He stated that this year they inducted three excellent people who have been involved. He invited Council to the dinner, where City Manager Woodhouse would be the master of ceremonies.
Mayor Bigstyck opened public comment.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus thanked him, adding that she was inducted in the Sports Hall of Fame last year, and she thought it was an amazing presentation. She stated that, at the Community Center, you can see the Wall of Fame with everyone’s picture and bios. She felt especially privileged to be among them and she thanked him for all he did.
Councilmember Beckmeyer appreciated that he has been doing it as long as he has and she felt he was a gift to our community. She stated that, to read the history, be at the event and see the gathering and hear the stories, it was special. She stated that the young kids are coming up and the long tradition of sports in Pacifica is special.
Councilmember Bier stated that they will soon have to add the wall on the other side. She stated that Mr. Hinshaw is special to our community and she thanked him for that.
Mayor Bigstyck echoed what they all said. He stated that it occurs to him how much sports has had an effect on his life as he is a person who is not a big sports guy but, through his work, he understood the role that his coaches had in influencing him when he was growing up.
Jack Burgett, Pacifica, stated he just got off the phone with Coach Gray who played for him at San Francisco State, and he reiterated everything they all said about how special Mr. Hinshaw is in all the club’s activities.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they had new staff members to introduce before they move on to Consent.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to take the opportunity to introduce several new and returning employees. He stated that Director Petersen will provide the details.
PW Director Petersen first introduced Eddie Pastrano, the new collection system manager, a returning employee who came on from Manteca in January with 27 years of experience in the wastewater industry and immediately helped following the storms. The next employee who City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 13, 2023
came at the end of January, new city engineer, Deputy Director of Public Works, Roland Yip, who comes from Daly City after working there for 7.5 years as a senior engineer and previously worked for 11 years in a private engineering consulting industry. Another returning employee is Louis Sun, who is coming from Foster City, and is an expert on things in the wastewater treatment plant. She is so thankful to have these individuals as part of the PW team.
Mayor Bigstyck welcomed all of them and looked forward to getting to know them better as they progress.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Bigstyck asked if any Councilmembers wanted to pull an item from Consent. Seeing no one, he opened public comments. Seeing no one, he closed public comments. He then asked if any Councilmembers had any questions on any item and, if not, he was open to a motion.
Councilmember Boles stated that there was a question from the public about the fire compliance report and suggested that they may need more inspections of short-term rentals in the future, and she wondered if they had the capacity for taking on something like that. Referring to the vegetation management grant, she knows past grants were for fuel reduction to allow neighborhoods to take down trees and put the vegetation on the street but only done for the Vallemar and Linda Mar areas, and she asked if they were considering continued grants. She knew there was interest on the north side of the city that didn’t have those opportunities.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he had a similar question on No. 8 after he read the email. He asked if she had a specific question on No. 9.
Councilmember Boles asked if they can continue to look for vegetation management grants for the north end of the city for fuel reduction.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, on No. 8, he asked a question and got an answer but, as it has been brought up, he asked if there is an augmented inspection that needs to happen if residence is acting as a short-term rental.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh is present and can augment what he has to say. He stated that, for the mandated fire and life safety inspections, that addresses a number of statutorily driven dwellings, including multi-family dwellings, and are not dependent on whether a building is used as a short-term rental or long-term rental, as they do inspect all multi-dwellings from 3 units and up. There is no statute requiring inspection of other single family homes, but Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh can expand as necessary Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh referred to the inspection, and every year in the report, what is stated is what they do for mandated occupancies. Regarding the short-term, he believed there would have to be ordinances looked at as well as fire codes before looking at how that would work but do inspections on those. He thought there would be a lot of conversations to explore to look at what type of ordinance there would be moving forward.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified the question and asked if the question was expanding the fire inspections to single family or duplexes, as that would be a very different conversation.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, when he initially read it, he was confused as to whether or not inspections were required for short-term rentals, and through email, he has come to understand City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 13, 2023
that it doesn’t matter what the usage is for a three-unit or larger development, as at that number it will be inspected.
Dep. Fire Chief Kavanaugh referred to the grant issue and stated that this year what they applied for and what they have to get as part of the process is a resolution from Council on the CCI grant that they are putting through CalFire. He stated that, in Pacifica, they are trying to look at $100,000 for public education funds and $200,000 for roadway clearance. He stated that, through the past years, through the Coastal Conservancy, they got the grant for the chipping program. If they get this grant, it will open up some broader avenues for them to utilize field reduction with those monies if they get it approved. He stated that the one with Coastal Conservancy was specifically for a chipping program. He hoped that, if they get this one, they will have a broader spectrum to utilize those funds with roadway field clearance. He stated that the $100,000 for public education can be used in many different ways, such as materials, messaging, public signs, etc. They appreciated Council backing them with this resolution as it is part of the process.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
1. Approval of Disbursements for Dated 12/01/22 through 12/31/22.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve attached lists of disbursements for 1/01/23 through 1/31/23.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes of the City Council Special and Regular Meeting held on January 23, 2023.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency related to December 2022/January 2023 Winter Storm Events
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist related to the December 2022 / January 2023 Winter Storm Events.
4. 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.
5. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
6. Continuation of Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency Regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19”).
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make determination that conditions of local City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 13, 2023
emergency continue to exist regarding Novel (new) Coronavirus ("COVID-19").
7. Consideration of a Resolution Making Findings as Required by AB 361 to Continue to Permit the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to Conduct Teleconferenced Meetings Due to Health and Safety Concerns Relating to COVID-19 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a Resolution making findings pursuant to AB 361 to authorize the City Council and City Commissions and Committees to conduct teleconferenced meetings due to health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19.
8. 2022 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report PROPOSED ACTION: Receive 2022 mandated fire and life safety inspections compliance report and move to adoptresolution acknowledging receipt of the North County Fire Authority’s mandated fire and life safety inspections performed within the City of Pacifica pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
9. Vegetation Management and Wildfire Preparedness Grant Funding Opportunities Through CalFire
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the Resolution to submit for state sponsored grant funding for community vegetation fuel reduction and community education within the City of Pacifica.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Colleen Golden, Pacifica, stated that she lives in a quiet West Sharp Park neighborhood, and expressed her concerns following the response to a theft at the Bloom Room.
Lynn Adams, Pacifica, stated that she thanked Council and staff for their support, and wanted to give a PBC report. She stated that, in 2022, they engaged 12,323 volunteers and mentioned the details of their accomplishments for that year. She stated that they had a big year, including bringing in 100 teams to Pacifica to clean the beaches, mostly corporations, which also brought in commercial commerce. She stated that they initiated an education fund to fund naturalists to lead school groups at the beaches to learn and become future earth heroes.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, referred to the December 31 floods, and then corrected some statements on the city’s website, such as the Anza pump station, pipes, etc., and he suggested the city do an audit on all the purchased equipment at the pump stations that have never been installed.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, referred to articles regarding sea level damage in Half Moon Bay which he considered a clear message for Pacifica. He mentioned San Francisco passing their Housing Element on February 1. He asked about our compliance with the California Surplus Land Act, i.e., providing a list and reporting annually, and asked about getting access to the list and report.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Boles stated that she attended her first Peninsula Clean Energy meeting, taking over as a voting member in place of the mayor for that meeting, and she stated that they have City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 13, 2023
committed to 100% clean energy by 2025, including buying more batteries, etc. She stated that we are also looking at some additional solar projects in Pacifica in various locations, beginning with the Community Center. She volunteered to serve on their citizens advisory committee with public communication to bring more electrification. She listened to the Coastal Commission and Sea Level Rise working group meeting and one thing that struck her was that we should remember our beaches are a public resource; people in Central Valley come here on hot days, described as climate refugees, which made her realize we need to protect our beaches. They mentioned the very short window of opportunity regarding climate change and need to plan for sea level rise adaptation in larger areas. She encouraged us to look at a longer vision regarding our coastline. They mentioned that future funding for adaptation will depend on our LCP updates and only communities that have adapted sea level rise strategies will be eligible and she didn’t think Pacifica was there yet and she thinks we need to follow up on our LCP as it goes through the Coastal Commission. She attended the Half Moon Bay memorial with fellow councilmembers which was a moving event and is getting started on the Airport Roundtable and Commute.org. She stated that the Pacifica Beach Coalition movie night was fun and crowded.
She stated that the Pirates of Manor had a fundraiser for the PRC.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus attended the San Mateo County Emergency Services Council and they talked a lot about the new system of SMC Alerts. She urged everyone to sign up for SMC Alerts. She stated that there were a lot of questions about evacuation and Zone Haven will give the latest information on where you should evacuate. She attended the Council of Cities and they had a legislative update. She went to Sanchez Art Center where they made soul boxes.
She attended the San Mateo County Flood Sea Level, known as One Shoreline, where there was a presentation by PW Director Petersen, talking about what happened in the flooding and storm issues we had. She thought it was good to have someone from the coast as a lot of what they do is based on the bay side. She met with someone to talk about businesses in Rockaway and they are interested in doing some development there. She thanked Councilmember Beckmeyer for attending the City and County Association of Government meetings while she was gone for a week attending other meetings.
Councilmember Beckmeyer had an opportunity to meet with the Anza Arguello neighborhood and they heard someone at the podium about flooding and sanitary sewer overflows around new year’s. She stated that there is a process in place and staff is working with representatives from the neighborhood to get questions answered and provide information to the neighborhood so they know what is going on and understand how our current storm water and wastewater systems are configured and what is planned and hope to be funded to do some significant overhauls. They are working on the things they can work on, such as communication and getting resources to people. She thought it was a productive meeting and thinks there definitely needs to be more, as one outcome will be a weekly or bi-weekly update of what will happen, etc. She was in Santa Barbara for the local government workshop and discussed the possibility of agendizing some time to talk about all these issues she is encountering in the workshop and Coastal Cities group, as they touch on a lot of topics and getting a quick blur of it; she wants to give a picture so everyone understands how we move from one accomplishment to the next and she thought it was a good meeting. She stated that there were representatives from SurfRider and Smart Coast, a group that started by realtors and is now a stand-alone advocacy group. She stated that it was useful to hear the collaborative tone with which everyone approached the issues. She wasn’t part of the Coastal Cities group when it was formed seven years ago, but she understands that it was a bit contentious in the beginning and over time they have had the opportunity to share and look at issues to focus on, not the polarization. She was pleased to have an opportunity to spend time to get to know Dr. Charles Lester who has done work in Pacifica. She referred to defining what a neighborhood approach City Council Regular Meeting 7 February 13, 2023
is, as they discussed whether that was even a good word. The intention is to look at areas that are adjacent to each other instead of looking at individual properties to see immediate needs and long-term visions, such as an approach to coastal erosion. She sees the work underway and she is pleased to be there. She had her regular committee meetings of Beatification Advisory Committee and there will be upcoming news on the Beautification awards, possible at her next report. She met with BID as a member of the Economic Development Committee, and noted a lot of interaction among the hotel members of BID and city staff. She met with Robine Runneals and worked on the Pride Parade which will be on Palmetto which is June 3. She attended a small portion of the Library JPA meeting at the mayor’s request as he is the primary liaison and she is the alternate. She wanted to be sure everyone understands that we will be having toll lanes north of Whipple Avenue in the early part of March, which was mentioned in the CCAG meeting. She stated that they will be doing a public awareness campaign to be open and operational in early March. She stated that CCAG chair and vice chair are continuing in their roles. She stated that something they are working on is a study to look at all county processes and policy decision-making and how they incorporate equity into that and there will be more information coming.
Councilmember Bier acknowledged what happened at the Bloom Room and was sorry that kind of crime has been brought into our neighborhoods and there is fear. She thanked the speaker for the information and the police department for getting the job done. She referred to what happened in Half Moon Bay, specifically the response from our county, and she wanted everyone to be proud of being in San Mateo County as people across the county got together fast and got resources down to Half Moon Bay quickly and they collaborated. She stated it was beautiful to watch them work. She stated that her heart is with them, adding that she sits on the board of Coast Pride and at the board meeting they talked about safety at the center as there were young people there when there was lockdown and they learned what they need to do during emergencies. She attended the Mayors Mental Health Initiative which they are continuing and discussed funding opportunities for training for this fiscal year for mental health first aid training and continued collaboration with the county. She was sworn into the HEART board and she looks forward to doing some work there. She attended the Council of Cities meeting which the Peninsula division executive committee for CalCities put together and was a great turnout with Santa Clara County colleagues and legislators. She stated that part of her commitment for CalCities Peninsula Division is talking about the different water projects going on in the region, she is on the Environmental Quality Policy committee; at the joint articulation meeting, they talked about the water projects going on here and she will take information about what is going here and take it to the regional board and talk about it. She thinks it is wonderful to have a seat at the table and represent the coast and talk about what is happening there. She attended the CCAG Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and one thing they talked about was a One Bay Area Grant cycle 3 and the grant funding Pacifica applied for and she was disappointed that the MTC hadn’t accepted our proposal but she thought there was some update about that, and maybe the City Manager could update them during staff communications. She attended the HOPE IAC meeting and got updates on the Navigation Center on the El Camino house and update on what happened in Half Moon Bay. She made a soul box at Sanchez Art Center and thanked them for quickly getting an event for our community to come together after what happened in Half Moon Bay which is another example of people coming together and collaborating and working so quickly to address things in our community. She stated that the Surf Movie was great and an awesome showing of support from the city.
Mayor Bigstyck thanked all the Councilmembers for the work they are doing on their various committee assignments. He thought each of them would like to think they all have answers to City Council Regular Meeting 8 February 13, 2023
address the myriad issues affecting Pacifica and the county, but they break it apart and they hopefully have the knowledge base to make well-informed decisions. He thought Councilmember Bier’s point was well-taken about the Bloom Room and the atmosphere of fear that maintains despite our best efforts and translates from as far away as Ukraine where his heart has been for over a year and as close as our neighbors in Half Moon Bay where he attended the memorial. He stated that we are together and need to support each other to make something better. He attended the Arguello-Anza meeting with Councilmember Beckmeyer, a first step toward figuring out how to work with the neighborhood to communicate effectively and figure out what interim solutions are so flooding that is historical can be minimized, if not gotten rid of; we don’t want to see any more of the sanitary sewer overflows as we saw New Year’s Eve. He stated that he will be bringing that up at goal setting on March 4 that, the sooner they get to the $6 million project in that neighborhood identified in the master plan, the easier he will be able to rest that our neighbors will hopefully not have to deal with this historical flooding anymore. He attended Assemblymember Mark Berman’s open house in Menlo Park which was an opportunity to get to know him and his staff better, and he looked forward to working with him and his staff going forward. He stated that night was the Peninsula Clean Energy meeting which Councilmember Boles attended in his place. When he was done with his interaction with the assemblyman, he got on the call and listen and be grateful that Councilmember Boles has his back when he isn’t able to attend. He stated that they all attended the Council of Cities dinner that was put together by CalCities, a wonderful bringing together of state Senator Josh Becker and Assemblymembers Diane Papan and Mark Berman and Hayward state Senator Aisha Wahab who, while not representing us, was impressive and it was good to get to know her. He had a lot of constituent meetings over the last three weeks, i.e., he and Councilmember Beckmeyer attended Brews and Views at the Maverick’s house at Princeton with a lot of people, such as Supervisor Ray Mueller, who was discussing the coastal resilience infrastructure strategic plan which will include Pacifica and he looks forward to discussing that with him. His understanding is that it will address infrastructure needs along the entire coastline, Senator Becker was there, and mentioned many other reps from various organizations and cities; he mentioned the forum for discussion in the aftermath of storms, and thought some stories from the other side of the tunnel were heartbreaking and realized it could have been worse under other circumstances. He shared what he discussed with other community attendees to work toward out communities growing closer. He toured the Cattle Hill Trail and a week later enjoyed their service to learn how to create a water bar, and the community will be engaging with our trails to make them more user friendly. He referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer mentioning the Library JPA meeting and he asked her to be in attendance with him as he will for every meeting; this is because, while he is interested in learning what they need to know for our library to be a reality, Councilmember Beckmeyer, as a librarian, has a knowledge base that will better inform him and he wants to be on the same page, as they will be working together to figure out what needs to get done. He is learning how strong of a supplemental educational resource libraries are. He stated that there are so many resources that make a modern library a focus for community building and our resources are so antiquated in Pacifica so he looks forward to learning more and working on bringing that resource to Pacifica. He met with staff members from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s office at the pier and it was good to deepen his relationship with her office, and during that time, he saw Engineer Marquez leading a tour of consultants regarding work needed at the pier. Mayor Bigstyck introduced her staff to our staff and he then enjoyed part of the tour to understand our needs as well. He attended the Beach Coalition fundraising movie about surfing in Ireland and was fun and educational and thanked Lynn Adams for putting on the event. Lastly, he attended a Local Agency Formation Commission Budget Committee meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 February 13, 2023
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he attended the CalCities Peninsula Division Meeting with our legislator representatives and was one of two city managers there. It was very informative and it was great to hear their perspective. He attended the League of CalCities City Managers’ Department Annual Conference which is a great convening and professional development session for city managers around the state covering sessions on mental health crisis intervention response, succession planning, ethics, infrastructure, diversity/equity/inclusion, first amendment rights as applies to City Council meetings, sales tax and strategic public communications. He recently had an introductory productive meeting with the incoming executive director for the California Coastal Commission, along with the outgoing executive director. He will remain in close contact with the new incoming executive director to represent Pacifica’s issues. He described some great work PW Field services is doing on Palmetto related to our street light bulb replacement: There are numerous bulbs that are out and, because of proprietary technologies specific to those street lights, and supply chain issues, it has been difficult to replace those bulbs. He stated that staff got innovative and figured out a solution that will replace bulbs in the lights, and the proprietary bulbs cost about $800 each and the new fix will be about $75 each. He stated that there will be great money savings to replace them and they have started to install the lights and are in the process of replacing 30 out of the 82 bulbs and it is anticipated, factoring in light fixture corrosion, and additional repairs, that work will be completed by the end of April. He expressed appreciation to our two-person building maintenance team which services over 2000 street lights in the city. He stated the City also redistributed hundreds of beach safety brochures to Pacifica hotels and two surf shops in town following another tragic drowning in the Pacific; the information is available to anyone and everyone and discusses beach safety tips as well as how to deal with rip current. He thanked PB&R staff who did the distribution. He referred to the Council Chambers wall and stated there were several frames photos that have not been unveiled yet; those were the first three photos they will be getting from Steve Johnson Photography to help decorate the Council Chambers.
He stated that PW will be installing those soon, probably before the next Council meeting. He referred to Councilmember Bier asking him to provide further information about our OBAG 3 grant application and it is a project they applied for and the City County Association of Governments had approved and recommended to the MTC for funding: a $1.3 million project for East-West ADA access in West Sharp Park on three roadways, including replacement of uneven sidewalks and non ADA compliant driveways approaches and ADA ramps. Upon hearing that the MTC did not award our project, PW Director Petersen proactively reached out to CCAG to discuss why and prepare better for the next iteration of application but they don’t know any details yet or anything confirmed. They are hoping to be working with them in the interim to actually come up with an approach that will be funded, sooner than later, for that project. He stated that, when you don’t get what you asked for, you ask why and push hard on it and maybe there can be an alternative solution. It is not guaranteed but that is what they are hoping to bring that project to fruition. He appreciated PW for aggressively pursuing our grant pursuits.
Mayor Bigstyck called a break then reconvened the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. Introduction of an Ordinance to amend Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals” of the City of Pacifica Zoning Regulations (Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code [“PMC”]) to establish a cap of 150 short-term rental permits issued citywide and various other conforming amendments (File No. 2022-036 – Text Amendment TA-123-22).
City Council Regular Meeting 10 February 13, 2023
Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)).
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Article 49 (Short Term Rentals) of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (Text Amendment TA123-22) and Finding adoption of the text amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
City Manager Woodhouse introduced the staff report and then turned it over to Planning Director Murdock to make the presentation.
Planning Director Murdock presented the staff report.
Mayor Bigstyck asked why 150 permits and not 150 units. He added that, when it was before Council previously, he imagined that the cap would be 150 units and there was a lot of comment during the Planning Commission.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the direction understood by staff was to impose a cap on the number of permits that were issued through the short-term rental ordinance and program, but not to change other mechanics or operation of the short-term rental ordinance and program.
He stated that as City Manager Woodhouse mentioned earlier, other changes to standards or mechanics of the program requires a more complex analysis. As they considered Council’s direction with respect to the cap, and recognizing that the city’s practice since enactment of the 2018 short-term rental ordinance was to issue a single permit for a property regardless of the number of individual units operating, to change from that practice while imposing this cap would be a more complex amendment to the ordinance and the city’s operation and administration of that ordinance. That is why this has been prepared consistent with past practice since 2018.
Mayor Bigstyck verified they were trying to put something quickly in place to put a lid on it before it got worse. He asked if they currently have over 150 units, given the number of permits they currently have out.
Planning Director Murdock stated that they do.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that it means they already passed the 150-unit mark. He asked how many permits they currently have.
Planning Director Murdock confirmed that they have 136 permits.
Mayor Bigstyck asked, if they put this cap on at this meeting, coastal zone notwithstanding, presumably that means there are 14 more permits it would be possible to issue and that would be the extent of the growth of the STRs for the time being.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified, in case there is late breaking data, that he believed that there are more in-process units pending already; through bringing them into compliance, or having applied and being already in the process to be approved, the number is up to 144.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is still the same count. They have 136 active permits currently, and they have about 10 properties that are currently in the process of obtaining the permit, but they are working with the property owners to bring them into compliance.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 February 13, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck asked if those 10 were already running as STRs now.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they are, and they are bringing them into compliance.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, practically speaking, it might as well be 146 permits.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed, unless some of them decide to close, which happened in the past.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he was trying to clarify is that, currently, that housing stock is not on the market.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, to their best knowledge, they have additional ten properties that are operating without a permit.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, practically, there are four permits, assuming those 10 go through, that could be issued.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed.
Mayor Bigstyck thought it sounds clearly like a cap. He thought, if this goes through, his concern is after the coastal zone, the worst case scenario is the following: this goes through, not in the coastal zone, it is capped but how do they cap it in the coastal zone or can they cap it in the coastal zone or is it possible to delay processing those permits in the coastal zone while the Coastal Commission rules on it or while they are waiting for the Coastal Commission to rule on it, could 20 more show up in the coastal zone and they have to live with them even though they surpass our cap after the Coastal Commission rules.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, explaining that the ordinance will not be able to take effect to impose a cap applicable to short-term rental permits in the coastal zone until the ordinance, if adopted, is certified by the Coastal Commission. The potential exists that, between City Council enactment of this ordinance, if that occurs, and Coastal Commission certification, the cap could be reached such that no new short-term rental permits outside the coastal zone would be issued but we would be compelled to continue to issue short-term rental permits within the coastal zone, provided they meet all the other applicable non-cap criteria of the short-term rental ordinance. If that occurs, which is speculative but the potential exists, they do have some options they can discuss with Council at this meeting to potentially make some additional changes to the draft ordinance before them to allow some staff flexibility through the adoption of regulations that would enable some sort of prioritization process related to the annual renewals to over time bring that number of permits back down to the cap. He stated that the process will depend, in part, on how far over the cap the city could end up and it would be a tool in the toolbox to help potentially through the annual renewal process or through other prioritization mechanisms by regulation to bring the total number of permits in alignment with the cap.
Mayor Bigstyck stated, as he thinks about the next steps in the process, assuming they vote on the cap at this time, there is a nightmare scenario regarding the coastal zone that is playing out in his head, and he would like to have some understanding on how they can mitigate that. He would love to hear that nuance later. He then opened to questions by Council.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 February 13, 2023
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if it is per property, and you have six units in your building and you apply right now for each one of your units, if it is just rejected since it is per building.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they will have to verify with HDL how they would handle specific situations. She also outlined that they have nine permits that operate on multiple units.
If any operators apply for multiple permits, whether it would be denied or some kind of screening would be in place so they would have to check the specific situation, she is hoping that HDL will still be consistent, i.e. if it is the same physical location, they would treat it as such.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he was told that there is one permit holder that has a four-unit complex of which three of those units are being rented out as STRs. He stated, under their permit, if that fourth person were to move out, would that permit cover converting that fourth unit to an STR or is that permit only allowing the three.
Asst. City Manager Carter didn’t want to speculate for how HDL treats this kind of situation, but she would guess when an STR operator applies for the permit, the lease wouldn’t be included in the permit, only the physical location.
Planning Director Murdock stated that there are two questions: What does the ordinance say and what would this amendment do about that in relation to the issue, and what are some of the administrative procedures and decisions made by the city’s consultant that helps implement the permitting process? He stated that they don’t have full insight at this moment to all the different permutations of what a technician at one point in time might do for a particular application. He can offer that there is nothing in the ordinance that would prohibit or limit that fourth unit from being turned into an STR. There may need to be an administrative function amending the permit application, perhaps applying for a new permit, but there is no limitation in the ordinance currently or proposed on that fourth unit becoming a short-term rental.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that it is very quick to jump from the cap to things that aren’t specifically limited to the cap. He appreciated that they are going to try and keep this conversation as capspecific as possible. For the sake of trying to understand what the playing field is, he thought it might be helpful for him to understand that the permit runs with the address, whatever the permutation of units happened to be at that address.
Planning Director Murdock thinks that is the best working understanding of that situation. He also added on to what Asst. City Manager Carter mentioned about the nine permits that they have identified that have multiple units or short-term rentals associated with that permit. He stated that the total number is 34 operating under those nine permits. Regarding his question of how that would relate to the cap if they go to a unit basis, it appears, from the data they have, that when you take the 34 minus the 9 permits they already have, it will be 25 more, approximately 171 or 175 total permits.
Councilmember Bier asked if an HDL consultant is present.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they are not.
Councilmember Bier confirmed, if she has a question for them, to give it to the city manager.
Councilmember Boles stated that she knows they are only to discuss the cap, and she appreciated the Planning Commission having delved a little deeper and put a wish list together of what a real ordinance might be. She hoped they could dig into that a little bit more so they City Council Regular Meeting 13 February 13, 2023
have a better understanding of where we want to go. She thought it tied into the housing element. She is concerned that they are losing so much housing. In terms of rental housing, she knows three ladies over 70 who have been evicted from long-term apartments for Airbnb conversions. She stated that we have only built 159 units in the last seven years and we are here with 129 plus the extra 25 for these multiple permits and are already at 154 and then 10 more. In these few years, they have already washed out everything we built. She believes it is becoming a problem and she thinks it needs to be addressed in our housing element, and she hopes they can have a robust discussion at this meeting. Councilmember Boles asked about the range of 6-16 people being accommodated at each STR.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was characterizing is the average size of the accommodation and the largest accommodation that was identified in the data. He stated part of that analysis is to help frame the assortment of visitor accommodations for the Coastal Commission, anticipating the request for that data in the certification process for the ordinance, if adopted.
Councilmember Boles was trying to understand that these can hold so many people, i.e., 16 people. Reading our municipal code definition of hotels in Section 9-4-.245, she thought that some of these STRs could fall under our hotel definition; she was curious on staff’s thought on that, as there are then different requirements such as fire department inspections, building code requirements, etc.
Planning Director Murdock stated his initial thought regarding if it was in a commercial district it might be a hotel. It may have hotel-like characteristics, but this is a use authorized as a shortterm rental pursuant to the zoning; upon obtaining a permit, such a use can operate under the current short-term rental ordinance in a residential zone without being a hotel for purposes of zoning.
Councilmember Boles stated, for life safety issues and exiting, the rules are very different.
Planning Director Murdock thought there was more than one issue here. He thought her first question was asking about land use and zoning classifications and that is what his response addressed. It could be the case, independent of zoning, that the size of a particular short-term rental could trigger a change in occupancy for purposes of the building code and thus trigger required alterations to exiting, etc. Those are particular technical aspects that he isn’t prepared to speak in detail about at this time, but it is something that they should be looking out for and is some feedback they took previously to begin to incorporate into revisions to the administration of the process.
Councilmember Boles reviewed the application, which did not ask the number bedrooms or number of people, which can have a very different impact on the community, including traffic.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that maybe they can come back to the question about hotels or not after public comment, but she would like to go back over what he said in his opening about how the number of permitted STRs in the coastal zone is disproportional to the number of housing units in the coastal zone, as compared to the number of STRs not in the coastal zone.
Planning Director Murdock stated that Pacifica has along the order of 14,600 dwelling units citywide; within the coastal zone there are approximately 2,500. A relatively small share of the city’s housing stock is located within the coastal zone in terms of dwelling units. He stated, while the numbers vary, they have a particular snapshot in time in the Planning Commission City Council Regular Meeting 14 February 13, 2023
staff report and they have a more up-to-date figure that has increased somewhat. Regardless of which figure you use from either report, relatively more short-term rentals are located in the coastal zone than outside of the coastal zone when you compare the number of dwelling units in the coastal zone against the number of dwelling units outside; it is something along the order of at least twice as intensive in terms of short-term rentals per dwelling unit if they are to use that ratio. He stated that, what their data has demonstrated is that, for whatever reason, more operations of short-term rentals are occurring in the coastal zone and that housing units are being disproportionately converted to short-term rentals in the coastal zone as compared to outside the coastal zone.
Councilmember Beckmeyer added that, in the data they are preparing for the Coastal Commission, is this fact among those, did they address that in their questions, or are they going to provide that context for them.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively. The Coastal Commission believes that bans on short-term rentals are inconsistent with the Coastal Act, but reasonable regulations, Including limits on the number and location and certain other characteristics, are permissible, if there is a demonstrated adverse impact to housing availability or other Coastal Act considerations. He stated that the Local Coastal Program does provide policy support and emphasis for housing opportunities for people with low and moderate incomes: The more housing units that are converted, the fewer housing opportunities there are in the coastal zone for persons with low or moderate income. That is a key point they intend to make and transmit to the Coastal Commission if Council were to adopt this ordinance.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the list of questions the City Manager sent to Council and highlighted whether it is possible to cap the number of units per permit, somewhat along the lines of what the mayor was asking. She realized this is a bigger question than at this meeting, but it goes to the issue of proliferation. She doesn’t understand it well enough to understand why it can’t be done or what the constraints are. She felt it would be helpful if someone can address that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there are already nine permittees in the program that have permits for multiple units. If Council were to direct a cap on units, instead of permits, they would be in a situation tonight that they can’t speak to all of the analysis, enforcement, and legalities about how they address those that already have permits for multiple units under one permit. He stated that it was a complexity they weren’t directed to look at and did not analyze that and wouldn’t be prepared to speak to that at this time; they would have to go back and spend time and work on that as directed by Council. In the larger reevaluation of the STR program, there are going to be a lot of ideas that generate questions about administration and enforcement of the program, and one relates to when does a multi-unit dwelling STR now become a hotel and what applies in that situation. He stated that there will be a whole host and it will be complicated to figure out how to administer and enforce that program as revamped.
This is an example of that complexity.
Councilmember Beckmeyer understood and wanted to echo what the mayor said in his opening comments: Ut was her thought when they talked about this in October that 150 is 150 units, not permits that have 9 or 15 or more than one unit attached to them. She takes responsibility for not understanding that, and her question to the city attorney is how quickly that could be fixed.
She knows they talked about having a larger discussion at goal setting so staff can look at what they want and be able to give them an answer about what it will take legally to review that administratively. She has to put it out as it is in the front of her mind that they get that done as City Council Regular Meeting 15 February 13, 2023
soon as they can which is not at this meeting.
Councilmember Bier echoed everything she said.
Councilmember Boles added that the explanation they got today was really that was done for tax purposes but it seems tax purposes and business license purposes aren’t necessarily the same thing. She stated that they could report once for taxes on all their units.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that those are good questions. He thinks the point relating to tax purposes is that this ordinance is implemented on the foundation of how our business taxes operate and that is how originally the ordinance was created. It is not for tax purposes, but that is the structure upon which that is based. He stated that there are other examples of businesses that have different operations, but they have one business license. He referred to Councilmember Beckmeyer’s question as well as others, concerning if they are going to be directed to do another iteration or permutation of this ordinance, then they need to consider Planning staff workload impacts and what is not going to get done while they do that. He stated that, even this simple cap approach has been a large impact to staff, i.e., attorney’s office, city manager’s office and planning, just to get to this point. He stated that it is a very complex program and he wants to be transparent about further work on the ordinance before doing a holistic review of the ordinance in the future is very impactful to what they are trying to get accomplished in Council’s priorities.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that the point is well-taken that when staff brought this approach to Council in October it was the understanding that this is the simple way to try and get a handle on it as we put it off to a time when we can invest staff time and resources needed to give it a true visit which the community has shown they would like to see and he believes Council would support. He thought this was the easy approach, but he was hearing that it was an approach that would require more work than they thought would be required. He concluded that they then led with the notion that this is very complex and they are hearing a lot of feedback from the community, and other communities have come up with an ordinance that they thought would be a good fit, and he thought they should just be able to cut and paste and not “reinvent the wheel”.
He asked, if that is not the case, whether they can give Council some insight as to why.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he thought it was because Pacifica was an early adopter in regulating STRs, so other communities have learned from what other cities have done along the way. He stated that another point is that each community is different, and the Coastal Commission views it that way in reviewing permits; they will ask very community-specific questions applying to the coastal zone in Pacifica, meaning what works in places such as Marin County or Half Moon Bay, in their interpretation, may not be appropriate for Pacifica. While we don’t know, he thinks it is a very community-specific program, and the dynamics, decision and data for the Planning Commission and Council should also be very community-specific. He thought the good thing is that there are a lot of examples and ideas that have been implemented on the California coast that Pacifica can borrow from (the Planning Commission brought up many of them, and staff has a variety ideas as well as Council) and he believes all those ideas will go into the hopper to see what is appropriate for Pacifica community-wide as well as the coastal zone. He concluded that they can’t say there is a perfect fit ordinance from another city that they can apply in Pacifica; if there is, he thought it would save a lot of staff time and they will evaluate that, referring to the City Attorney. He stated that, just as other communities learned from Pacifica’s experience, we want to learn from them in a future holistic revisitation of the program.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 February 13, 2023
City Attorney Kenyon agreed with everything City Manager Woodhouse said and wanted to add that, when drafting the original ordinance, they look at other ordinances but they do not use a cookie cutter approach. They used other ordinances for ideas and concepts. She referred to the concept that they want units, not permits for buildings, and the cap on units, not permits.
She stated that idea will have to be tailored based on what our current ordinance says, look at the implications of modifying the current ordinance and the permittees who already hold permits for multiple units with one permit, and look at the taxing implications as this is based as a taxing ordinance. She stated that there are a lot of factors, not just taking an ordinance from another community. She stated that, for every community, it isn’t simply to say that they did it in a specific community and let us do it, as every community is different. They can take those ideas to give them new creative ways to approach issues, but she didn’t think it was fair to say that they saw it in another community and just apply it here, as it wasn’t that simple.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that she is saying that they can’t lift portions of an ordinance from a different community and paste it into ours.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is very difficult to do and, while she isn’t saying it never happens, it is generally better for the community to tailor an ordinance specifically for their unique community with different issues. They have to look at the specifics for that community’s needs as there are a lot of different factors going into the analysis. She stated that, while the idea is simple, implementation of the idea through an ordinance is never simple.
Councilmember Boles referred to enforcement and stated what concerned her in the staff report was an increased number of unpermitted STRs noted in the coastal zone with 48 permitted and 34 unpermitted which is higher than in October. She asked what the total number of unpermitted STRs are in the city and what they actively do now when they find an unpermitted STR. She asked if there are fines or back taxes for the ones now applying for permits.
Planning Director Murdock asked if she could point out where she is seeing an increase in the number of unpermitted short-term rentals.
Councilmember Boles stated that it was in several different documents and referred to the packet that said 24 STRs were identified as unregistered and now there are 34 just in the coastal zone.
Planning Director Murdock stated that, generally, depending on the characteristics which vary throughout the year, such as nightly rental rates, number of permitted and unpermitted STRs, there is a lot of seasonality to that data and they change over time. He stated that Asst. City Manager Carter might be able to speak to what HDL’s process is, but they routinely audit through their third party service the number of STRs that are currently active on various platforms and compare that against the permitted operations the city has and, for those unpermitted, they issue letters to notify them that in Pacifica a permit is required to operate and they take steps to try to bring them into compliance. He stated that they have a relatively good success rate of doing that. He thought their efforts have only resulted in three persistent noncompliant short-term rental operators in Pacifica. The others either closed their operation or registered in response to those contact efforts from HDL.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that, in October, when they reported to Council, there were 24 non-compliant STRs and this number is now down to 3 that did not respond to any compliance letters sent to them. She stated that HDL completed the compliance process and sent it to Pacifica to direct them on what to do next. She stated that the other properties either were City Council Regular Meeting 17 February 13, 2023
brought into compliance and why you see the increase in the total STR permits, reporting 124 in October and now they report 136; or they close their operations, pay their TOT taxes, and do whatever they needed to do legally to close operations and terminate the ads. Now, they have ten new properties that are in the discovery process. Every day it changes, with new ones, some brought to compliance, some closed, an ongoing process.
Councilmember Boles stated that the number of 34 is just in the coastal zone and she concluded that it isn’t a true number at this point.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they received updated numbers from HDL today and they have 60 permitted STRs in the coastal zone now. She doesn’t know if the three noncompliant are in the coastal zone or not, but she thought they can double check on that.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was 60 permits or 60 units.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that it is permits.
Planning Director Murdock confirmed the figure they have as of this day is 62 in the coastal zone.
Councilmember Boles thought, while HDL is trying to bring them into compliance, they haven’t covered all the fire and safety necessities, and she asked if they are still allowed to operate or are they fined for non-compliance with our ordinances.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the process is very complex, as they have to comply with the permits, the requirements with the TOT taxes, and the business license. Typically it requires several steps and several stages of compliance letters. She stated that the first compliance letter is rather general, implying that they may not know about the compliance factors they need to comply with and all the provisions of the municipal code. Then when that letter is not addressed properly within the timeframe, the next letter is sent. If they don’t comply, the municipal code accounts for some penalties and additional tax implications.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was important to set the expectation. He stated that, generally, in terms of code enforcement, it is for all zoning violations, and with short-term rentals being in the zoning code, the same structure applies: The city goes out of its way to have a voluntary compliance approach to code enforcement. He stated that some cities are very confrontational, direct and abrupt with violators, and go straight to putative measures. That is not Pacifica’s current code enforcement, as we contact property owners through our code enforcement officer or HDL contact letters or other means to let them know they are violating the city’s municipal code and, if they don’t stop, there could be consequences. He stated that they have very high rates of voluntary compliance. He stated that, in this case, they have gone from several dozen non-compliant operations to three as of this specific day, and they have had very good success with the voluntary compliance approach. He stated that they are evaluating those 3 persistent violators internally as to what the appropriate next enforcement step is, such as notice a violation, citations, civil actions through the City Attorney’s office to stop them with a court order, but none of them are immediately going to cease the operation. That needs to be the expectation for zoning related violations in nearly every instance.
Councilmember Boles stated that her concern is not just about enforcement and permitting, but also about life safety issues for the people who are staying there, as they haven’t committed to doing the requirements for the permit.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 February 13, 2023
Planning Director Murdock understands, as it is a very relevant concern. He thinks the reality is that they don’t have a good mechanism as a city to go out and kick the door in, etc. There are realistic and reasonable limits to the ability and means the city has to keep tight control and very time-sensitive control over these types of violations. They have issued the notices, worked toward voluntary compliance, and then evaluate what the appropriate next steps are in the event of non-compliance.
City Manager Woodhouse was going to add to the analogy regarding the enforcement process that that is exactly what they are doing related to business license enforcements. They have been auditing business licenses, and there are a lot of businesses in town that don’t have business licenses. He stated that it is an iterative process with letters stating that their records show they don’t have a business license and they would like them to come into compliance. He stated that one nuance of an enforcement approach is that, if you go in and shut down the business, you will have a very difficult time gaining any back taxes already owed. A cooperative process that brings them into compliance over time has proven to be the best approach.
Councilmember Bier asked if that enforcement was through our code enforcement officer or HDL.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the enforcement is done by HDL.
Councilmember Bier thought it would have been helpful to have them present at this time, as she thought they could have provided them with some information. She stated that they are getting a lot from our community and she asked if it was possible for them to put a moratorium on the short-term rental permits between the time of this evening and when they look at it through goal setting.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is not a possibility for this agenda.
Councilmember Bier agreed not tonight but she asked if it is possible.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there is research and data gathering and more evidence that they would need to put together to make a determination as to whether or not a moratorium would be legally defensible. She stated that there are certain findings that requires certain evidence and findings to establish them. She stated that they have not researched that or worked with staff, and as mentioned by the city manager, that would take additional time for the City Attorney’s office to do research and for Planning staff to gather the data and evidence needed to support any moratorium.
Planning Director Murdock stated that he wanted to follow up on her question about enforcement. He stated that there are two tracks regarding enforcement. The enforcement activity for this ordinance is undertaken by HDL, the contract provider administering the shortterm rental registration process by sending those letters to achieve voluntary compliance. He stated that the other component of enforcement is through the code enforcement officer and police department, which takes two flavors, one is that the persistent violator can be referred to code enforcement for citation, etc. There are also quality-of-life type complaints that trigger investigation and code enforcement action, similar to responses to noise and other unruly type of neighborhood quality-of-life impacts that the police department may respond to as well. He stated that, for the last two years, our code enforcement officer since January 2021 has received 19 complaints related to short-term rentals which is a relatively small number in City Council Regular Meeting 19 February 13, 2023
relation to the total number of short-term rentals but those are important complaints if you are the neighbors living around them. He didn’t want to trivialize them but he wanted to provide specific data, and reiterated that it was 19 in the last two years, and the police department has similar figures as well.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if the companies of Airbnb and Vrbo cooperate and give the information to HDL so we have exact numbers.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that is part of the scope of work that HDL is doing for the city, and she didn’t believe they get the information directly from Airbnb or VRBO. They use their own system that allows multiple listings and they cross-reference and verify each specific listing.
If you go on the Airbnb website, you will probably see a bigger number than 136; that is what HDL is tasked to do, to go in each lease, verify and eliminate all the duplicate postings, ads, and long-term occupancy, and limit it to the short-term. They return this data to us and issue compliance letters to those who need to comply with our municipal code.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if Council had any other questions before he opened the public hearing.
He stated that they have gotten a lot of letters and public feedback and why he wants to take a moment to draw out some of the complexities for something as seemingly simple as this cap and what looks to be a much more extensive process so those who are about to comment and those who are listening have some idea why they will only be discussing the cap after public comment and why, on March 4, when they are discussing what to put on next year’s work agenda, that is the time when they will be able to have a more robust discussion around whether or not they want to put this on their work plan because of the complexities and amount of work involved. He is looking forward to that conversation on March 4 and thought fellow councilmembers are also but is not meant to dissuade the public from making whatever comment but understand that any feedback they receive that does not have to do with the cap specifically will not be something they are considering at this meeting but they will be listening and will further inform ideas they will be able to deliberate on at a later date, specifically March
4. He then opened up the public hearing.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that, as the sole successful appellant to the Pacific Skies Estate eviction that removed every single unit of very low income and low-income housing and as a Planning Commissioner who broke a 6-month deadlock on the ADU legislation, he believes Council has an unfunded mandate, and explained his concerns and thoughts what the city can and cannot do on this issue.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, shared her concerns on this issue, acknowledged that it is a complicated issue, and urged Council to consider an emergency moratorium on any new permits while following the suggestions from Planning.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, appreciated Council for addressing his email’s question regarding the safety aspects, and shared his concerns on this issue.
Pam Raymond, Pacifica, stated that she is a resident with her house surrounded by Airbnb homes and shared her concerns on this issue.
Cheryl Greene, Pacifica, shared her concerns on this issue and suggestions on plans going forward to get this job done.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, referred to live-stream problems and questioned HDL being absent.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 February 13, 2023
She then shared her concerns and thoughts on this issue as well as housing problems specifically.
Jen Hansen, Pacifica, appreciated that Council discussed concerns she shared in an email, and she then shared her thoughts on data on this issue.
Clifford Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he had questions to share with Council and asked that they count based on units not permits and shared his thoughts on the issue.
Mayor Bigstyck closed the public hearing. He stated that, before going to discussion, he referred to Commissioner Ferguson and asked him if he wanted to respond to any of the comments or point out some specifics from the Commission meeting.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that most of their questions were repeated by Councilmembers and he would share the general consensus of the Commission. They thought the cap does not go far enough to address the issue and they urged Council to take on a holistic overhaul of Pacifica’s short-term rental program. He stated that some of the priorities they wanted Council to consider for next year were listed in the notes from staff: They would like Council to approve the cap at this time and agendize it for next year to put effort into an overhaul of the program.
Mayor Bigstyck thanked him for that, and he appreciated his presence to share their perspective as needed. He then referred to speakers who talked about ADUs, and he understood that it doesn’t inform their decision on the cap, but their understanding is that ADUs are not allowed to be used as STRs under our ordinance. He asked if they are aware of any ADUs being used or, if aware, what the city is doing as they are not allowed to be used under the ordinance.
Planning Director Murdock stated that the issue takes a number of different forms. He thought it was easy to look at the exterior of a space and assume it is an accessory dwelling unit but there are particular zoning standards and a permit process entailed to establish and accessory dwelling unit. He stated that, once an ADU has been permitted and created, the current shortterm rental ordinance will continue to prohibit short-term rentals within ADUs. He stated that they have a list from HDL of what they believe to be up to 36 potential ADUs that may be operating as short-term rentals. He has cross referenced the permit history for ADUs for the past ten years and has only confirmed four of them, and potentially a fifth, that is a permitted ADU. He stated that they are following up on those particular instances with code enforcement investigations and contact if the complaint is substantiated. If the short-term rental use is not discontinued they will take the appropriate enforcement action in that instance. In other cases, they may be functioning as un-permitted living spaces that are operating as short-term rentals, may be mobile units that are not intended for long term habitation, and may be guest houses that are technically part of the primary unit but are detached in nature. He stated that there are different types of formulations that are very staff- and time- intensive to investigate and follow up and validate the circumstances. He stated that the short-term rental ordinance does require that, in order to operate as a short-term rental, the space in question needs to be permitted as a permanent dwelling unit. Things like trailers, sheds, and other types of spaces that are not intended or permitted as permanent dwelling units are not eligible to operate as short-term rentals.
Mayor Bigstyck asked where a guest house falls on that list, and what distinguishes a guest house from an ADU.
Planning Director Murdock stated that it is detached from the main building but it doesn’t have City Council Regular Meeting 21 February 13, 2023
all the features to constitute a separate dwelling unit, as it may not have a toilet, restroom, or a kitchen and an ADU has to have all of the necessary amenities to function as an independent dwelling unit, and sleeping space, hygiene space (bathroom with a shower and sink), as well as a space to cook and store food in a refrigerator.
Mayor Bigstyck asked Planning Director Murdock to further explain.
Planning Director Murdock stated guest hosts are not required to have a bathroom, so they may or may not, but they cannot have all of those elements and not meet the criteria to be approved as an ADU. He stated that you need to choose the characteristics you would like for your guest house, and if it has all of them, it would meet the requirements to be an ADU.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that HDL is going through and figuring out what they can enforce.
Planning Director Murdock admitted that it was an area that needs improvement and refinement. As mentioned earlier, the Council’s 2018 ordinance was a very low intensity, low regulatory type of ADU ordinance and the process to administer and implement it has not been on the more rigorous end to have a very thorough screening and vetting process or ruling out all types of different ineligible spaces to operate - it was ensuring permitting to ensure TOT collection. They have learned about these particular vagaries and undesirable outcomes through administration of the process. He has been working with Asst. City Manager Carter and she has been engaging with HDL and it is an ongoing process to try to tighten up those and to screen for the appropriate types of instances that they don’t want to occur, such as ADUs.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded that, while they have been developing the program since 2018, they are figuring out the proper approaches along the way, and this is a major learning moment for Council.
Planning Director Murdock thought that was a fair assessment.
Councilmember Bier asked if the proposed text amendment, including the junior ADUs, covers tiny homes.
Planning Director Murdock thought not necessarily as tiny homes need to be considered somewhat uniquely as they don’t fit anywhere under the definition of tiny home in the zoning.
He stated that, commonly, tiny homes are constructed and desired to be occupied on wheels and that is not something permissible under the building code or short-term rental ordinance because it isn’t a type of unit intended for a permanent dwelling unit occupancy. He stated that a tiny home that meets the minimum dimensions, bathroom, kitchen, and sleeping area requirements to be an ADU and could be placed to meet the setback requirements and installed on a permanent foundation with a building permit may be able to be an ADU but then it could not be a short-term rental. He stated this is another variation that adds complexity to their administration and enforcement process.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that there was a question from a community member to clarify the transit occupancy tax revenues and what the actual number is.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, for the current fiscal year, they projected about $1.2 million generated from STRs, and the total number in the budget for TOT is about $2.1 million.
They are currently going through the mid-year budget projections so they will have more granular projections when they bring it back and they will make sure to separate this between City Council Regular Meeting 22 February 13, 2023
the hotel TOT, regular TOT, and the STR, but that is best assessment she can make now.
Mayor Bigstyck concluded our best assessment is $1.2 million.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated $2.1 million is the adopted budget for TOT and about $1.2 million is projected from the STRs.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to respond to a comment made related to this, i.e., the thought of increasing fees on STRs or the TOT. The STR permit is a business tax and the TOT is a separate transient occupancy tax. He stated that, to change both of those, would require a ballot measure with a vote of the people, and, when they brought back different ballot measure options, one was restructuring the business tax, as we have a very antiquated business tax system and, in future years, Council may want to consider that type of restructuring and that would be when you could restructure a business license tax related to STR operation and a transient occupancy tax change or increase or different structure would be on a measure as well.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was thinking about something like a BID but a BID for STRs. She stated that we currently have a BID but it is only charged to hotels, not to STRs.
She asked what the legal mechanism is, i.e., the same as what he just said which is that it would have to be a ballot measure.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the BID is able to be charged through state highway code and they would have to research whether that could be applied to STRs.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it takes Council action to enact one of those or does it take a vote of the people.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, for the current BID under the State Highway Code, it was not a vote of the people but a Council action. He stated that they would have to research that more unless Asst. City Manager Carter knows.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed that they will have to do additional research, but she reminded them that the BID, by the definition, is a self-assessment so that might complicate the issue on applying it to the STRs.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what self-assessment means.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that all the hotels agreed to be assessed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that they can’t require it as, if they want to have an STR, this is what they have to do.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they will have to do additional research.
Mayor Bigstyck stated the same commenter made a statement of not suggesting a moratorium but a pause which didn’t strike him as a legal term at the time, and he asked if the city attorney has another perspective.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is another form of moratorium.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 February 13, 2023
Mayor Bigstyck referred to mention of the Coastal Commission, and they were talking about various mechanisms and worst-case scenarios in which they pass this, and they are waiting for the Coastal Commission to say yes to us, but in the meantime 50 short-term rentals pop up in the coastal zone. He asked, in such a nightmare scenario, what options are available to the city such to preempt such a nightmare scenario if they are heading in that direction. He asked for more detailed and nuanced versions.
Planning Director Murdock thought they should be aware of the potential for a nightmare scenario, but that potential may not materialize. He stated the best-case scenario is that it could be that they do not exceed the cap if the Council enacts this ordinance by the time the Coastal Commission certifies it, and the worst-case scenario is where they far exceed the cap. If that is the case, staff would need to evaluate where they are in terms of STR permits issued on the date of the Coastal Commission’s certification and strategize what the most appropriate approach or options might be for Council. He had mentioned earlier as a suggestion from staff is that, if the Council is concerned about the potential to exceed the cap by the time the Coastal Commission certifies the ordinance, they can add a tool to the toolbox to allow the short-term rental program administrator which, by ordinance, is the Asst. City Manager or designee, to express permission to adopt regulations to implement the ordinance, including explicitly the STR cap. What that could mean is that, given that the STR permits are subject to annual renewal and there is no vested right to the ongoing possession or operation of an STR permit, one option could be that the Council introduces the amendments, which he will read shortly, it is possible through regulation that the STR administrator could put a framework in place to say, “here’s the priority order for the STR renewals because we are over the cap and we cannot, by law, operate in excess of the cap”. He stated that the STR program administrator is going to bring the renewals back into alignment with the cap. He stated that the mechanics of that have not been developed yet, but they would like Council to consider introducing the ordinance with some additional language at this time so at least there is expressed authorization for the development of those types of regulations and they are potentially the regulations that will come up to help facilitate administration of the ordinance. He referred to Section 9-4.4905, Permit Term and Renewal, stating that there are subsections (a) and (b), and staff would propose that subsection (b) be amended to read, “Renewal. The permittee may renew the permit annually, subject to the short-term rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902 by submitting a renewal application and fee between October 1 and October 31 of each year regardless of when the short-term rental permit was issued. If a renewal application and fee are not filed prior to the October 31 deadline, the short-term rental permit may be deemed revoked by the Administrator”. He stated that the new language is that, subject to the short-term rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902, it gives some extra weight and specific reference to the cap when considering the renewal process. He stated that the other amendment they would recommend is in Section 9-4.4907, entitled permit revocation and enforcement. They would propose adding a new subsection (e) that reads, “The administrator or his/her designee is authorized to promulgate any policies or procedures necessary to implement and enforce this article, including but not limited to a process for accepting and prioritizing applications received after the short-term rental permit cap set forth in 9-4.4902 is reached”.
Mayor Bigstyck asked if it would be appropriate to simply write “their” or “he/her/they”.
Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles asked him to read that last part one more time.
Planning Director Murdock stated he is not familiar with all the pronoun usages, but the City Council Regular Meeting 24 February 13, 2023
“administrator or they/their designee is authorized to promulgate any policies or procedures necessary to implement and enforce this article, including but not limited to a process for accepting and prioritizing applications received after the short-term rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902 is reached”. He thought the nuance of that is that, while they cannot impose the cap until the ordinance is certified by the Coastal Commission within the coastal zone, there is a point at which the cap will be reached and they can document when that is and the regulations would apply to applications submitted after the cap has been reached and it allows for a process to address those during future renewal process as stated in whatever those future regulations would be.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified that Council would be delegating to the short-term rental administrator the authority to develop and implement these regulations, so it is a delegation of authority - it would not be brought back to Council.
Planning Director Murdock stated, in addition to those recommended amendments, there is also an administrative correction renumbering some of the subsections in Section 9-4.4901 and those could be made ordinarily between introduction and adoption as minor administrative clarifications but he will save them for the record at this meeting, and Council should consider any other clarifying edits related to pronouns as he thinks there is perhaps one other instance where there is a his/her, and he wants to be sure they can address those.
Mayor Bigstyck asked Council if they were okay with those amendments.
All Councilmembers agreed.
Councilmember Boles wanted to go back to the moratorium question again, as she is hearing that it will be taking a lot of staff time. She understands the findings for a moratorium are difficult, but she is concerned in the coastal zone particularly as she hears from the Coastal Commission is that their process is 100 days minimum and we need another 30 days and that is quite a few months and they could be getting a lot more permits in the coastal zone, especially given that there are 38 or 39 now that are unpermitted and could be seeking those permits to continue to operate. She asked if they could consider a moratorium that is for a time specific to say until the Coastal Commission reviews the cap and say the moratorium is just in the coastal zone as they don’t need it for the whole city because the cap will be able to be put into effect.
She understood he may not have answers now, but she asked if that would help them to make that case to protect Pedro Point and Sharp Park that are most effected.
Planning Director Murdock wanted to clarify for the record that the data staff has today indicates three unpermitted operating short-term rentals and there were previously more as expressed earlier and they had good success in bringing them into compliance and they are discontinuing operation. He stated that they don’t have data at this time to confirm whether any of those are in the coastal zone.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, regarding the question of whether those types of factors make it easier to make the moratorium findings, it is hard to say. They would put them in there, but that alone would not be enough. They would need more data and analysis to explain why short-term rentals in the coastal zone are problematic and injurious to public health and safety. She stated that is the foundational evidence they need and it hasn’t been gathered to substantiate the moratorium findings, not that they can’t. She stated that, if they limit it to the coastal zone, that would focus the analysis but there are still additional research and analyses that would be needed to make findings.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 February 13, 2023
Councilmember Boles asked if Council wants to consider a moratorium, if staff could come back to the next meeting with a better estimate and a better idea of what attorney and staff time might be so Council can decide if that is something they might want to pursue.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed that they can come back at the next meeting and give them a better estimate of time and cost associated with doing that analysis.
City Manager Woodhouse emphasized that performing the analysis itself is difficult to estimate.
They could start the process, with field investigations, code enforcement, planning, city attorney’s office, just to get an idea of how complex that analysis is going to be. He stated that it is going to be difficult to predict until they get into how much time it is going to take. He would prefer, if Council wants them to evaluate the potential for the grounds of a moratorium, for them to understand that it is going to sidetrack staff for weeks to do that, and they will do that and bring it back; they can start the process and say that there isn’t anything there and they can go back to Council to confirm that or say it is way more complex and come back to Council. He stated that they don’t know what evidence exists on the public health and safety impacts.
Mayor Bigstyck stated, if he understands Councilmember Boles, drawing an analogy, it is the equivalent of walking into the water and seeing if it gets up to our knees before deciding if we want to go for a swim.
Councilmember Boles agreed, adding that she sent the city attorney some examples of a moratorium from Marin County and their coastal town up north. There might be some language that is there that may not match exactly to our circumstances but can give us an idea of what is required through the Coastal Commission to be able to enact it.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if the moratorium could put us in violation of what the Coastal Commission is looking for. If we put a moratorium and they want more units available in the coastal zone, that may cause us additional problems.
Councilmember Boles thought it was clear from some of Ms. Abbott’s letters where she documented what other cities have done and the comments from the Coastal Commission that they understand that there is a problem with a loss of housing on the coast and she was sure they could have a preliminary discussion with the Coastal Commission before they got too far along to feel them out.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to the legal definition and requirement. She stated that she had asked for a moratorium for short-term rentals in October and the answer was no, it can’t happen because it has to be injurious to public health and safety, they have to make findings, and they have to readopt it every 45 days. She stated that the same outcome could be had by placing a cap on the number of units, not permits, and once you hit that you stop. She stated that, with a moratorium, you stop as soon as it is adopted. She stated that they want to stop the pain and they are hearing from our community and a ton of them they aren’t hearing from. She asked, in respecting those they are hearing from, what can they do now, if not a moratorium, or perhaps a moratorium is the right thing to do, and requested input from City Attorney Kenyon.
City Attorney Kenyon concluded that the problem, as was the case in October, was they are unable to answer if they have the evidence to support a moratorium as they weren’t given the direction to do it. She stated that the problem, as expressed by the City Manager, is that Council is in a difficult position because it is going to take staff time and resources from both the City Council Regular Meeting 26 February 13, 2023
attorney’s office and Planning to even determine whether there is enough evidence to adopt a moratorium. She thinks the question is whether Council wants to take staff time and cost for the potential of finding out that they can’t adopt a moratorium. She stated that analysis has not been done and the question for Council is do they think the need for a moratorium, even with the adoption of this cap, although only on permits and not units, would be as necessary as it would be if they hadn’t introduced the ordinance at this time related to the cap. She stated that was the approach taken in October, i.e., to see if the cap will do some good and perhaps a moratorium will not be necessary, and they would revisit the whole issue in a more holistic way at goal setting and take a deeper dive as mentioned at this meeting. That is a deliberation topic for Council to take because they will do whatever Council directs them to do but what they are hearing are competing interests with staff resources and time and cost. She stated that she could come up with a cost in a few days for what the City Attorney’s office would spend in researching preparing a moratorium and going through the whole process, but in terms of staff time and resources and pushing aside other projects, that is another issue that she doesn’t know if Council will be able to get a grasp on until staff work with the attorney’s office to justify the moratorium.
Planning Director Murdock added that, as Council is weighing where to prioritize the city’s efforts and resources with the advice of the City Manager and City Attorney, he indicates that they have a relatively small planning department and many of the same staff that would focus on the work to prepare a moratorium would be the same staff prioritizing work to prepare and submit an ordinance to the Coastal Commission for certification. He stated that preparation to transmit to the Coastal Commission would not be able to occur during the period that staff is also working on preparing the analysis of a potential moratorium. He would offer them the thought to weigh the relative durability of whatever approach Council wants to take. He stated that Council could commit a significant amount of staff time and financial resources through the City Attorney’s office and perhaps other outlets to prepare a moratorium that is good for perhaps 45 days and, if renewed, another 45 days, but moratoriums are not permanent solutions - they are intended to give enough time for Council to analyze and legislate a permanent solution. He stated that they are some way towards a permanent solution with the cap, not all that Council would desire, but an important first step and the only reasonable first step that City Manager has explained that staff can provide without significantly modifying other priority work plan items and that discussion should occur during the goal setting process. He thought the durability and the reward versus resources expended is going to be one or the other but not both in terms of a moratorium or going full steam toward certification with the Coastal Commission.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that his curiosity around the moratorium had something to do with holding off on new permits in the coastal zone until the cap was certified by the Coastal Commission and what he is hearing him telling him is that is not the way it will happen - they would have a moratorium, not a cap.
Planning Director Murdock thought it was a high probability that the efforts to obtain Coastal Commission certification of the ordinance would be significantly delayed by pursuing a moratorium.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if he can comment on the impact of those two activities he outlined would have on finishing the housing element.
Planning Director Murdock thought it could have very important impacts. He stated that City Manager Woodhouse indicated that he could probably dedicate one mid-level planning staff member and would necessarily need to commit our code enforcement officer to investigation City Council Regular Meeting 27 February 13, 2023
and exploration of a moratorium; he would ultimately need to supervise the work of both of those staff, and he is currently the only staff primarily dedicated to working on the housing element process. He stated that they are currently short one senior level planner and won’t replace that position for a month or two in the best-case scenario. He stated that they are talking about trading resources from one important activity to another and Council has to determine what is most important. He understands there are strong arguments to be made for committing the continued significant amount of resources towards completion of the housing element, but Council can ultimately figure out what is most important for the community.
Councilmember Bier wanted to be clear that if they have the evidence needed to do a moratorium, they need to protect our community; however, moving forward, they are going to be able to talk at goal setting about all of the items that have been presented to them by Planning Commission and all the things coming from our community, i.e., tax, enforcement, hosted versus un-hosted, et al. She wants to have the opportunity to change it all at once but her fear is that, in the interim, what will happen: If they are talking about it at goal setting, that timeline after goal setting, with the fiscal year starting in July, she thinks there needs to be some kind of protection between now and after July when they will be able to get to the short-term rental ordinance. She is open to other ideas, suggestions, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus understands that there are “bad actors” in the short-term rental community and she thinks, opposite of what she said earlier, the cap is a natural moratorium.
She stated that we are very close to it now, and if they put the cap on it, they have basically done a moratorium without calling it a moratorium or going through the research involved in calling it a moratorium. She also wondered if they are eliminating people who need to do shortterm rentals and are not allowed to do it because they capped it, but she is in favor of the cap.
She can see many future regulations for the short-term rentals as some people are way out of hand and we need more regulations. She hopes that will eliminate some of the “bad actors” and allow for people who need to do the short-term rentals.
Councilmember Bier stated that bad actors are everywhere and that she also experienced issues with short-term rentals. She wants to make sure that what they do moving forward is the right thing to do and get these in place, and she thought the most important thing to her is to get on the entire ordinance as soon as possible.
Councilmember Boles suggested that they table the moratorium for a little bit and brainstorm methods to address some of the “bad actors”. She thinks they do need to tackle this ordinance next year. She stated that the one thing she doesn’t like about the cap is that it caps hosted short-term rentals so someone trying to rent a bedroom in their house to help pay their mortgage and there are no more permits. She didn’t think they should be capping that at all as they are not the ‘bad actors”. They are there making sure that the rules are followed and that also limits the city’s ability to make more money on short-term rentals. She stated that one thing suggested in one of the letters was reaching out to Airbnb and asking them to put license numbers on the website and that is something they often did for other cities like San Francisco so Airbnb can become an enforcer and take down a site that does not have a license. She wondered if the city has pursued that or have they had any conversations with Airbnb about increasing some of their rules and communication about neighborhood regulations regarding noise, etc. She stated that they appear to be somewhat concerned about their overall reputation within communities that complain.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, one intention is to follow up soon with Airbnb about what they are doing regarding their “bad actors” as they also have rules and they have a voluntary City Council Regular Meeting 28 February 13, 2023
reporting agreement with them and they submit the TOT. Typically as a corporate sponsor, they are not that proactive regarding enforcement issues. When they first started the agreement, they had those conversations back when Airbnb, as a corporation, was pushing back pretty hard on this stuff. He stated that they want to see what they can do and if they have implemented license numbers, and they can explore that. He stated that they haven’t been able to make a lot of headway with that corporation on this function.
City Attorney Kenyon was also involved the preliminary discussions with Airbnb, and she happens to be in discussion with Airbnb for another much larger jurisdiction, and those discussions were much smoother than the discussions they had with Pacifica. She asked them why and they said it was because we don’t have as big of an Airbnb market. The reason they are much more amenable to negotiating and even doing enforcement for a community like San Francisco is because their Airbnb market is much larger there. She stated that they were very upfront about it, and that was many years ago so she has not had communications since then, but that was their attitude when negotiating with Pacifica and why the negotiations she was involved in with the other community was 180 degrees different.
City Manager Woodhouse added that his point is that, in working with HDL, we have some ongoing enforcement matters we want to work on with this program and they want to bring Airbnb back into that, and perhaps VRBO as well, so they can learn more and see what improvements we can make.
Councilmember Boles thought putting that license number on there would be something very easy to do. She stated that some things mentioned briefly in the staff report were fines, and she asked if that was something Council could look at again. She asked if they are only charging $100 if someone is operating illegally as a first fine. She stated that, in trying to recapture the staff time and consultant time, maybe they can also establish a fund for redoing proper legal documents as they move forward.
Councilmember Bier stated that would involve enforcement and she asked if that would be part of the larger discussion they would have moving forward or is she talking about in the short term.
Councilmember Boles referred to Section 9-4-4907 which states Council may establish fines for violations, and she asked if they can revisit that to help stem the tide of illegal operations.
Planning Director Murdock stated that violations of the Pacifica Municipal Code can be enforced three different ways, adding that the City Attorney can clarify if necessary. He stated that there is a criminal approach which is extremely rare, a misdemeanor citation approach which allows up to $1000 but has particular requirements to implement, and the administrative citation process, which is by far the most common approach to address zoning violations when voluntary compliance cannot be reached. He stated, by general state law, cities are limited to $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second, and $500 for third and subsequent administration citation violations. He agreed that they have the opportunity to pursue fines when they take code enforcement action but that is not the city’s traditional or first response to most code enforcement situations.
Councilmember Boles asked if the fine levels would make an impact when short-term rentals could be charging up to $2000 a night.
Planning Director Murdock agreed, potentially, but they are typically applied per 12-month City Council Regular Meeting 29 February 13, 2023
period: The first violation that escalates to a second and third, etc., within that year would be at the $500 level. He stated that most operators are probably not going to laugh at a $500 citation, but if they are charging $2000 a night, perhaps that is a cost of doing business, and that is why citations are one of the tools in the enforcement toolbox. There are more severe sanctions if the City Attorney’s office can assist with by going to court seeking remedies in that fashion.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it occurred to her that the Coastal Cities group is meeting on the 16th and one of the things they will do is approve their work plan which includes developing understanding and position on evolving short-term rental issues in the coastal zone. She thinks they should be bringing this forward in all of our state and regional committees.
Mayor Bigstyck appreciated the comment earlier that the cap, in a sense, acts like a natural moratorium, except against the cap except coastal zone, depending on how long it takes the Coastal Commission to express their response on our cap. He is trying to figure out how hard he might want to push for a moratorium, and they have been discussing what it means to have a moratorium. He thought to have a moratorium in place without a clear next step is hard. He thought that clear next step may be goal setting and we figure out what direction staff takes and then the moratorium is there until they get it together. He thought it was helpful in hearing the amendments where we give our administrator the leverage to create those rules that, in a worstcase scenario, if the permits are issued in the coastal zone in a way that he wouldn’t prefer, they would be able to walk them back quickly such as within a year time frame based on what he heard described and what the amendments before them would enable them. He stated that it helps him to be more comfortable putting the cap in place with the understanding that those permits could be issued in the coastal zone before the Coastal Commission has the opportunity to weigh in on our cap but then it is relatively simple vis a vis the amendment to then walk them back shortly thereafter. Given our lack of staff resources, he is currently leaning in that direction, wanting to have a robust discussion about putting this on the work plan in March. He stated the consideration around a moratorium is bearing in mind that, if they have the appetite to divert staff resources and develop it, they will also need to have a four Council appetite when it comes to them to pass it, which he thought they might have, and is a consideration. He asked, before further deliberation, to have a motion to extend the meeting.
Councilmember Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Councilmember Boles asked if they can change their application to ask a few more questions.
Asst. City Manager Carter responded that they can work to add some additional points.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like to give some suggestions. She would like to have the application to ask how many units per one application or they can change the application moving forward so that it is one application per actual unit.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that they can modify the application and collect additional data City Council Regular Meeting 30 February 13, 2023
points, as long as those points don’t trigger the decision.
Councilmember Boles concluded that they couldn’t deny a permit based on multiple units, but they can ask for that information.
Mayor Bigstyck thought that was a simple change and asked if they need Council consensus to get that direction.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought she had several other things for the application.
Councilmember Boles confirmed. She stated that it was raised in several letters if they could ask for a name and contact person of a responsible local person that could respond within an hour or two if there is a complaint and maybe that is a number that could be given to the police department for enforcement. She wanted to ask how the property was used prior to an STR so they can get some information if they are losing rental property versus something that is owned.
She asked about checking to make sure that there aren’t active violations or open permits, as she has heard that happen a couple of times on some units on Esplanade, so they don’t give a business license if there is an ongoing complaint or unpermitted work being done.
Asst. City Manager Carter asked if she was asking if the operator self-reports that information.
Councilmember Boles clarified it was a question of whether we check that if an application comes in.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the business license tax is for a tax, not regulatory, and they cannot deny a business license tax because there are code enforcement violations or other violations with the business. She stated that they are entitled to receive the business license tax so long as they meet all the requirements in our business license tax ordinance which is adopted by the voters. To change the requirements in order to receive a business license tax would not be possible without modifying the ordinance which requires a vote of the people, assuming the tax is being modified in any way. She reiterated that the business license tax is a revenue generator, not a regulatory fee.
City Manager Woodhouse added that, in a future revision to the ordinance, there are other things they could require as part of the application, similar to what they do for the cannabis business program. If they wanted to have a provision that said, if there are certain violations on the property, they aren’t going to get permitted, then they could require that.
Planning Director Murdock thought any of them are possible, but they don’t have a sophisticated information system that allows them to automate those cross-checks for code enforcement violation status or work without a permit. He stated that any level of control that Council wants to impose on the review process will require assigning a short-term rental permit and business license applications to a planner to conduct a manual search of code enforcement records, building permit records, etc. which is particularly time-intensive. One short-term rental permit application here or there would be able to be absorbed in our workload, but to do it every year for potentially 150 STR permits with some of those having multiple units could have an adverse workload impact on the Planning Department. He stated that the general rule is the more control, the more regulation, the more bureaucracy, and the more staff and time and resources to administer it; Council should understand that, when asking for more, it will divert resources away from some other activity.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 February 13, 2023
Councilmember Boles understands it is more staff time, and maybe it is more for the longer term ordinance than just the application, but she thought they could ask if there are outstanding violations and do they have a permit for that use.
Planning Director Murdock wanted to raise one point for City Attorney’s opinion. He referred to Councilmember Boles’ mention of name and contact of a local contact person, and that is a question that imports a regulatory requirement that is not in the ordinance currently with respect to a local, and that could discourage someone from making an STR permit application. He stated that, regarding the other questions about general descriptive information about the unit, he didn’t know how that would dissuade someone from making application or not, but a local contact person is not currently a requirement in the STR ordinance, so he thought they should be careful about suggesting that it is a registration requirement.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is a good point. In order for the permittee to be required to have a contact person, it would have to be in the ordinance, but in terms of asking for that information, she didn’t see a problem with asking for it in the application. To the Planning Director’s point, in terms of enforcement, they would need it to be in the ordinance in order for it to have any teeth.
Councilmember Boles understood, but if some of them provide that information, it would be helpful as she thinks that is some of the frustration when they can’t get ahold of someone.
City Manager Woodhouse thought, in the application, they could probably say name and contact of local person if applicable.
Councilmember Boles asked if they can charge more for the applications to cover some of this additional research time and support.
Asst. City Manager Carter asked if she means the permit application.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively, asking about the fees they charge in order to process a short-term rental permit.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the permit application is $150.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, when they review the budget in the coming months, the fee schedule will come before them and they can have a discussion on that at that time. He asked if staff needed a consensus from Council in order to take that direction on the changes to the forms.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they would need consensus from the majority of Council, not a formal motion, but they need to know that there are a majority of Council that agreed with changes recommended by Councilmember Boles.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that he heard the number of units and contact information and he asked if everyone was in agreement with that.
Councilmember Bier agreed, adding that it is frustrating that they can’t do a lot and she feels Councilmember Boles’ frustration.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that they need to keep their eyes on March 4 and suggested to City Council Regular Meeting 32 February 13, 2023
Pacificans that they show up on March 4 and send them comments as they are hearing them and at least some of them are looking forward to getting that on the work plan and having that discussion.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified for the audience that, at goal setting on March 4, the objective is to identify this as a future work item if Council agrees, rather than delve into and discuss the substance of the ordinance.
Mayor Bigstyck appreciated that, adding that he thought the community would still like to give feedback on what they think approaches will be and they will take a moment discussing some of the items and why they want it on the work plan, if they do decide to add it to the work plan.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it seems there is enough meat and questions that this might be something they need to think about appointing an ad hoc committee of Councilmembers to work on it. There are so many details and there are a lot of ideas and other ordinances to look at and a lot of things that need to occur outside the scope of Council meetings and outside the scope of goal setting. She then stated that at this meeting, they are being asked to approve or not approve the cap; she would like to propose, with the time now at 10:55 PM, that they focus on deciding if they are approving it or not.
Mayor Bigstyck agreed and stated that he is in favor of the cap with the amendments that were indicated by Planning Director Murdock.
Planning Director Murdock clarified that the Council would be introducing the ordinance at this time for a potential adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, if no further deliberation, he will entertain a motion or a second.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved introduction of an ordinance to amend Article 49 (Short-Term Rentals) of the City of Pacifica zoning regulations, Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to establish a cap of 150 short-term rental permits issued citywide and various other conforming amendments, including the changes brought forward by Planning Director Murdock, File No. 2022-36, Text Amendment TA-123-22, recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) status exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3).
Planning Director Murdock asked City Attorney Kenyon to confirm that was a sufficient reading by title only, as that was the agenda subjected, not the recommended action.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to waive the first reading and introduce by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Amending Article 49 (Short-Term Rentals) of Chapter 4 as amended.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that as amended and clarifying her motion included introduction.
Mayor Bigstyck stated that, if the City Attorney understands the motion, they are all good.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked if there was a second.
Seconded by Councilmember Boles.
City Council Regular Meeting 33 February 13, 2023
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
CONSIDERATION
11. Anza Pump Station Repair Project–Additional Budget Authorization for Construction and Construction Services Management
PROPOSED ACTION:
A. Adopt a Resolution Increasing the Anza Station Project Project’s construction contingency budget by $232,600 (10%) to the total contingency of $697,800 (30%), bringing the total construction authority to $3,023,800; and authorizing the City Manager to extend the term of the contract with DW Nicholson Corporation, and execute any additional construction change orders within the amended construction budget.
B. Adopt a Resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a Task Order No. 2 (Attachment “B”) to the Consultant Master Services Agreement with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services in an amount not to exceed $88,435 which includes a contingency of fifteen percent (15%); and add this amount to the overall Project budget.
PW Director Petersen introduced the staff report and then passed it over to Wastewater Engineering Manager Nelson Schlater to present the report.
WW Engr. Manager Schlater presented the staff report.
Councilmember Boles appreciated all the information and pictures. She was thinking about the timing and making sure we are operational before next year’s rains. She understood they have to apply for a Coastal Development permit with the Coastal Commission as they are not allowing the city to continue on the emergency permits and she wondered if we applied for that and, if so, is there a rough time estimate of what they would need.
PW Director Petersen stated that the Coastal Commission is saying regarding the two elements of the station they applied for (the emergency coastal development permit) that they want the city to submit a standard coastal development permit because of the amount of time that the project has taken. They are in the process of putting it together and will submit it, but they will continue to move forward on the project and it will not stop.
Mayor Bigstyck referred to the extra money and asked if the insurance will ultimately cover that.
PW Director Petersen stated that, everything they have done at the pump station is needed and should be covered by insurance. They have continued having conversations with the insurance company related to all the elements they are putting in the Anza pump station and the city believes they will be reimbursed for them all, but they are still in those conversations.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus asked for clarification on a comment from one member of the public who stated that, in 2014, we purchased two pumps that were never installed.
WW Engr. Schlater stated that he was unaware of that. He stated that, when he came into the project, they researched what was there and what they needed to replace, and those older pumps have been operational since the 70s. They have been maintained, and they are the City Council Regular Meeting 34 February 13, 2023
smaller pumps on the side. The larger pump has a nameplate of 1947. He stated that those are just the pumping facilities, and there are also the larger gas engines that drive the pumps.
He reiterated that, even though they can only run the one large pump since March 16, 2020, that is 70,000 gallons per minute. They have never had an overflow associated with the Anza storm water pump station.
Mayor Bigstyck opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus moved to a) Adopt a Resolution increasing the Anza Station Project’s construction contingency budget by $232,600 (10%) to the total contingency of $697,800 (30%), bringing the total construction authority to $3,023,800; and authorizing the City Manager to extend the term of the contract with DW Nicholson Corporation, and execute any additional construction change orders within the amended construction budget; b) Adopt a Resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a Task Order No. 2 (Attachment “B”) to the Consultant Master Services Agreement with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. For Professional Engineering Services in an amount not to exceed $88,435 which includes a contingency of fifteen percent (15%); and add this amount to the overall Project budget; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
ADJOURN
Mayor Bigstyck adjourned the meeting at 11:23 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 2/27/2023
__________________________
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Mayor