CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Vaterlaus
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Christine Boles
City Council Regular Meeting 1 August 26, 2024
August 26, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on August 26, 2024 at 7:06 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Vaterlaus Mayor Remote
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Councilmember Present
Christine Boles Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Mayor pro Tem Vaterlaus requested participation remotely via Zoom pursuant to AB 2449 Emergency Circumstances clause.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked her to describe for the record the general circumstances related to her need to appear remotely.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she is currently suffering from a medical emergency.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that Mayor Vaterlaus is also required to identify whether any other individual, 18 years of age, is present in the room at her remote location and identify the general nature of the relationship with any individuals physically present in her location.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she is in her home, and her husband is present but in a separate room.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer opened public comments and, seeing no one, closed public comments.
Councilmember Bier moved to approve Mayor Vaterlaus’ remote participation pursuant to the Emergency Circumstances; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck. City Clerk Coffey asked for a roll call vote of Council to approve Mayor Vaterlaus’ participation via Zoom due to emergency City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 26, 2024
circumstances. She then took a vote by verbal roll call.
APPROVE REMOTE PARTICIPATION PURSUANT TO AB2449 - VATERLAUS (EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Stefanie Cervantes, Acting Dep. Director of Community Development; Kavitha Kumar, Interim Director of Community Development (Zoom); John Mullins, Interim PW Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director (Field Services/Engineering); Bill Amable, Dep. Fire Chief; Craig Wittner, Battalion Chief; Brianne Harkousha, Sr. Planner, Daniel Patten, Wastewater Engineering Mgr; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bier
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - National Preparedness Month - September 2024 Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer read the proclamation for National Preparedness Month 2024.
Dep. Fire Chief Amable accepted the proclamation and mentioned studies done that informed the theme this year, “Smoke Alarms: Make Them Work for You!” He shared information on the North County Fire Authority’s program.
Councilmember Bigstyck appreciated the insight on knowing how much work NCFA put into making sure the city is prepared for an emergency. He invited him to speak about Zonehaven or SMC Alerts.
Dep. Fire Chief Amable stated that Zonehaven is now known as Genasys Protect. He also encouraged people to download apps like the FEMA app and San Mateo County Alert System.
He thought it was great to have all those resources, but if you are preparing yourself, what if the site is down or you lost your phone, etc., and you lose access. He stated that is why it is good being prepared ahead of time.
Councilmember Bier stated we appreciate NCFA for keeping us safe all the time. She asked him if NCFA is doing focused outreach to specific communities.
Dep. Fire Chief Amable stated NCFA is trying to reach out with multiple languages on their website.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 26, 2024
Councilmember Bier appreciated that, adding that she is part of the North County Outreach Collaborative who would be happy to help NCFA reach out to more communities.
Councilmember Boles thanked Fire and Police who also run the city’s Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission and work with CERT volunteers as it takes the whole community working together. She encouraged the public to learn about and get involved with the CERT program. She stated that it is important for the public to understand that, when an emergency comes, our police and fire will not be able to be at everyone’s home but at the major event where the most people are affected, and it is important for citizens to be able to take care of themselves and also look out for their neighbors. She added that the Emergency Preparedness meeting on September 18 will have a representative from Thrive Alliance come and discuss ways at the county level to help organize nonprofits.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked the Fire Department for past fires and for her recent medical incident.
She stated we are appreciative of everything they do every day in Pacifica.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, as a Pacifica School District employee, she will be checking in with administration to bring this theme forward this month.
There were no public comments.
B. Commendation - Chris Redfield
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer read a letter of commendation regarding Mr. Chris Redfield’s active public service and lifesaving actions on July 5, 2024 at Brisbane marina in an active drowning incident.
Councilmember Bigstyck shared his thoughts on his endeavors and was pleased to have observed Mr. Redfield’s contributions to the community.
Councilmember Bier thanked Mr. Redfield for his selflessness.
Councilmember Boles stated that he was in the right place at the right time and brave enough to do what needed to be done which takes a rare person. She thanked him on everyone’s behalf and he was an inspiration to others to look out for each other.
Mayor Vaterlaus was thankful that we get to give him this commendation because all the things he does are amazing. She thanked him for being on the Planning Commission and being at all the meetings.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that, to the Dep. Fire Chief’s point earlier about our Preparedness Month, he was prepared and he had the training and equipment he needed and he took decisive action. She stated that this is something any of us can do and we can rise to the occasion when needed and she commends him for that. She opened public comments.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that he has known Mr. Redfield for over ten years and he thanked him for saving a life. He has been a former rescue diver and he appreciates what Mr.
Redfield has done and is sure the victim’s family does also.
Chris Redfield thanked them, stating that it is quite an honor and he appreciated it. He stated that it has been an honor to work for Brisbane and mentioned everyone who was at the location, City Council Regular Meeting 4 August 26, 2024
and he felt it took a village to make this be a wonderful outcome.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if any Councilmembers wished to pull an item from consent, and seeing none, opened public comments.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, thanked Council’s service over the last 4-1/2 years and this is the first City Council meeting in that time when the Anza Pump Station emergency is not on the consent calendar. He thanked them for whatever it took to fix it.
Councilmember Boles stated she had a question about Item #4. She asked what the warranty period was and when it started, and staff told her that the standard warranty was one year from completion of the work. She was curious what the actual date of final completion is so, if residents continue to have any issues, we can make sure to let staff know.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the warranty period is from completion of both construction and punch list items.
Dep. Director Yip stated that the final completion date will be considered as the June date where they complete the Manor Drive resurfacing. It will be one year from June to start the warranty period.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated he wanted to advocate for the expenditure for the centrifuge for wastewater as that is a key piece of equipment which is the final things, and also advocate for the camera work and design engineering work for Item #6, and thanked staff.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer then closed public comments.
Councilmember Boles stated that, regarding the sewer, in Rockaway and Vallemar the city will be working on sewer replacements; if anyone needs their sewer laterals updated, this is a good time as it will cost them a lot less money to do that work. She encouraged people as it helps reduce all the infiltration in rainstorms and helps the overall system performance.
Councilmember Boles moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
1. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the June 24, 2024 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
2. Resolution - Approve Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for Providing a Spare Rotating Assembly
City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 26, 2024
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution that authorizes the City Manager to award and execute a Purchase Agreement with Centrisys CNP for a sole source purchase of one spare rotating assembly in the amount of $180,500 for the centrifuge in connection with the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant biosolids handling process.
3. Resolution Authorizing a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Freyer and Laureta, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $940,300 for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project. Approve budget authority in the amount of $1,081,345 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $141,045.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Approve a Resolution Authorizing a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Freyer and Laureta, Inc. for engineering design services in the amount of $940,300 for the Vallemar and Rockaway Beach Boulevard Areas Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair Project; Approve budget authority in the amount of $1,081,345 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $141,045; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
4. Notice of Completion for the FY 2023-24 Resurfacing Project PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the FY 2023-24 Resurfacing Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
5. Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project PROPOSED ACTION: Reject all bids for the Esplanade & Palmetto Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project.
6. Resolution Authorizing the Support and Submittal of Applications to the SMCTA Cycle 7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the support and submittal of applications to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Cycle 7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding for the Oceana Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, spoke about the quarry and its significance as Native American homeland for thousands of years. He shared some detailed information found on past history and stated that the Planning Commission quarry hearing decision was appealable.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, expressed his frustrations with staff’s communications on the LCLUP updates and shared his thoughts on the planned update of the Pedro Point Field land use designation.
Leo Leon, Pacifica, stated he wanted to give recognition to Public Works as well as Former PW Director Petersen and shared his positive comments on the potholes repair process.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, stated she was disturbed on the city staff’s position on the quarry project at the last meeting and expressed her thoughts on the need to acknowledge the living descendants of indigenous citizens who lived in the quarry.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 26, 2024
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer suggested that Council hold their comments for after the study session. There was consensus among Council.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse introduced John Mullins, the newly appointed Interim Public Works Director. He stated that Interim PW Dir. Mullins has a long and accomplished career in Public Works and local government, and he served Hillsborough for 17 years as Chief Building Official, Interim Public Works Director, Superintendent of Public Works, and Asst. City Manager. His experience in the public and private sector includes managing large multifaceted projects and budgets, team leadership, staff development, and problem-solving and has been working for the Public Works on GIS implementation and other projects, and he is no stranger to the city organization or the city as he has lived here for decades.
Interim PW Director Mullins thanked the City Manager for letting him join the team and he was looking forward to accomplishing several more. He stated that former Dir. Lisa Petersen will be missed, and we will hold true to her visions with the GIS and mapping features.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
7. Short Term Rental Study Session
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive updates on the Short-Term Rental Program and provide direction on potential revisions to the City’s Short-Term Rental regulations.
Asst. City Manager and Senior Planner Harkousha presented the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it was Council’s prerogative to dive in on each item or hear the presentation all the way through.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she would prefer to hear it all the way through.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he has spent more than four years listening to the community and he appreciates Council’s diligence. He referred to the last study session about giving direction and he thinks, for some, it is striking to hear nomenclature such as “confirming that limiting unhosted rentals is not recommended. He wanted to point out that, while staff’s recommendations are not always in alignment with the community’s recommendations or directions that Council had indicated, it is staff’s job to make sure as we get as full an analysis as possible and potential liabilities so we can do their due diligence in deliberating the public’s needs against the city’s resources. He wants to make sure it is clear that Council will be deciding through a conversation with each other and input from the community and we need to know where liabilities lie in analyzing the whole project.
Councilmember Boles wanted to clarify, as staff goes through the report, if we could get more information. She thought it is vague to say it could be problematic and not feasible to enforce without knowing more specifically why and knowing that most of the cities around us have these limits. She asked, as we move forward, if this is staff’s opinion not having tried this before or City Council Regular Meeting 7 August 26, 2024
have we reached out to other communities who do have these regulations that they are trying to enforce and do we know what their challenges are or what they might be doing to solve those challenges.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, on each of these items, are Council’s request from the June 24 meeting and then a brief summary statement about staff’s evaluation and the direction being sought from Council. He stated that each of them is going to be a substantial discussion and he is sure Council will have questions. He stated the question for Council is, rather than staff try to provide detailed information about all those, does Council want to do that back-andforth in Q&A with staff after the whole presentation. He was seeking direction on how Council wants to proceed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought Council indicated that we want to hear staff report, have public comment after that, and then have discussion and deliberation. She stated that, if there is a particularly important point that Councilmembers or Mayor has, we can come back to a question about the way in which this evaluation was made to make this recommendation.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it sounds completely reasonable. He also added that, before public comment and after the staff presentation, he has a couple of comments.
Sr. Planner Harkousha continued with the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it seems that we have in our master fee schedule some level of staggered fees, graduated fees, etc., like the business license. She stated there was a formula structured in the master fee schedule and she stated that was what she had in mind with this question.
Sr. Planner Harkousha continued with the staff report.
Councilmember Boles stated that she feels like we should be educating the public so they can come back and give educated comments to Council but this presentation does not do that.
Councilmember Bier stated she is frustrated looking at it.
City Manager Woodhouse thought we were proceeding with the staff presentation as a summary and Council will ask questions to staff about all of these items and then public comment. He stated that the educational approach is get through the whole presentation, go to Council questions of staff, answer those questions, hear public input, and hold Council discussion. He asked if that is correct.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it is correct but what she asked before is because staff indicated a desire to address these one by one and not have the overview of them all. She thought we were trying to accommodate with what is the highest priority issue and note that about the request when we come back to it for understanding, a level of detail about why it is difficult to do that and why it would require a need to be mainly a self-reporting task.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks they are saying the same thing except Councilmember Boles’ comment now seemed to think differently on that and that was what he was wondering.
Councilmember Bigstyck heard we would get through the slides, go back to the beginning before going to public comment to ask those questions on the slides, and get to the end of City Council Regular Meeting 8 August 26, 2024
slides after asking all the questions, and that way it will accommodate what he is asking for.
Councilmember Boles expressed that Council did not need to go back through and do the presentation twice.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we go back to the first slide and ask questions.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that one point in getting through the whole presentation is so Council and the public can hear all of the scope of the Council requests, staff evaluation, and Council direction.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we are not hearing scope when the terminology is general is what Councilmember Boles is saying and he agrees.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated high level overview is where we are and to move on.
Asst. City Manager Carter and Senior Planner Harkousha completed the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked Council if a break was needed before public comment.
Councilmember Boles was okay to continue now as it would be good to ask some clarifying questions and then take a quick break before public comment.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understands.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that now we will go back and Council will ask some clarifying questions on the policy recommendations and other general questions. He wanted to provide information that will help the context for the conversation and what we are seeing in the staff report and his recommendations regarding some of these policy considerations. He stated that he has seen some public comments suggesting that staff’s analysis about STRs is biased or that he has not responded appropriately to what Council has directed. He stated that, to clarify that for everyone’s sake, he wants to be very clear about a couple of points on how this process works, i.e., staff making recommendations to Council and Council deciding. He stated that it is his obligation as the City Manager to provide professional analysis and recommendations to the City Council. He stated that, at the last study session, Council identified numerous policy considerations about the STR program and directed him to bring back analysis and recommendations for Council’s further consideration. He stated that the report at this meeting does just that, providing the analysis and recommendations for Council to consider before directing development of ordinance provisions or revisions for Council’s consideration and adoption in the future. If Council desires more research and information, it is Council’s prerogative to direct him to return with further information before making a decision. He stated that the STR program assessment is one of numerous high priority Council Strategic Plan items and has taken more time than anticipated due to the ongoing staff time required for the LCLUP update and other high priority items. He stated that the second point is that some have commented that identifying how certain potential ordinance provisions would be difficult to monitor and enforce should not be a basis for a recommendation against such potential provisions and that amounts to a biased recommendation. He stated that implementation feasibility and enforceability, including financial and legal concerns, are important considerations for the Council to make informed decisions about the program. He stated that this report City Council Regular Meeting 9 August 26, 2024
provides that information. He stated that it is his obligation to let Council know if it is staff’s professional opinion that a policy proposal is operationally infeasible or would impact the city’s finances and why, as it is the City Attorney’s obligation to let Council know about legal concerns.
He stated that it is the Council’s prerogative to decide what to do with the information provided in the report and in this meeting’s discussion and whether the operational infeasibility, financial impacts, or legal risks are important to the policy decisions on this matter. He stated that staff has put considerable effort into this work on the STR program and has provided a thorough and professional analysis of the issues and we look forward to receiving Council’s direction. He thanked Council for giving him time as he thought it was important to provide that context about the report.
Councilmember Boles asked what their current ordinance allows. She thought many comments we are hearing and even the acknowledgment of current operators is that there are bad actors and wondered how we bring them into compliance. She also asked about permit extension or revocation in the Municipal Code and at what point does the current ordinance allow us to immediately start the process to revoke or suspend. She referred to an operator with a building code violation and asked if that would be a reason to suspend or revoke the license so we are not putting people at risk who are staying in the property.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she was correct that the section in the Municipal Code that discusses permit revocation and enforcement is in Section 9-4.4907 and it speaks to “suspension or revocation for any violation of the provisions of Article 49 or if a short-term rental is operating in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or constitutes a nuisance or has failed to renew their short-term rental permit”. She stated that typically a suspension may be warranted if there is a violation that can be addressed or easily remedied, such as the example of the building code violation, and that may warrant a suspension until the short-term rental host can address the building code violation. She stated that a revocation may be warranted if there are violations that have been identified and we want to make sure we provide due process to the permit holder about those violations, so identifying the violations in a Notice of Violation and could be a violation of the city’s noise ordinance or other requirements in the city’s Municipal Code or a requirement in Article 49. Once the Notice of Violation is sent to the short-term rental host, they have an opportunity to address or correct the violations and if they do not correct the violations, that could be an ongoing nuisance that would warrant revocation.
Councilmember Boles asked about one-time and ongoing nuisances.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that any violation of the City’s Municipal Code is deemed a public nuisance but they should be afforded the opportunity to correct the violation; that is part of providing due process, allowing short-term rental host/property owner to correct the violations.
Councilmember Boles asked if there is a noise complaint made and the police come out, what are the steps taken to let both the people causing the disturbance as well as the owner of the short-term rental that a violation has occurred on the property.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano understands that the police will identify whether there is or is not a violation of the city’s noise ordinance, founded or unfounded, and identify the people on the property site and explain to them the city’s code requirements and give them an opportunity to come into compliance and determine whether the compliance has been achieved. She does not believe the property owner is notified unless there is a citation that is issued.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 August 26, 2024
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that citations will be issued on the repeat return to the property. First, police give a warning and, if they have to return to the same property during the same nuisance, then the citation is issued and code enforcement gets involved as well.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked, regarding the owner not being notified unless there is a citation, if it could be stated, if it is the will of the Council that the short-term rental ordinance include, if the police are called, the owner is notified in writing, or would that be in conflict with the Municipal Code in some way that creates some difficulty or jeopardy.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought it would be possible to require some type of notification to the actual property owner; for clarity, the Notices of Violation are sent to the property owner and anybody associated with STR permit, property owner, etc. She stated that administrative citations that may be issued by the police at the actual short-term rental site would be issued to the guests, not necessarily the property owner. The property owner may not be notified of that citation issuance as a result. She stated that Council could include something in the policies or the actual codes that state any violations should be sent to the property owner.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that this is why we introduced administrative policies and the three-strike provision. She stated that the current ordinance provides the STR Administrator with authority to implement such policy and that is what staff is working on with legal.
Councilmember Bier asked if it is possible to collect data on calls for service, not just citations.
Asst. City Manager Carter clarified that calls for service would include all calls for service, both found and unfounded violations.
Councilmember Bier understood, adding for that specific address or permit.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that what would trigger the citation is the found violations.
Councilmember Bier understood and asked if it is possible to collect data on calls for service as well.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus referred to founded and unfounded and stated that some of the complaints that are called for service are unfounded complaints.
Councilmember Boles stated if we are telling the owner that there is a problem, there is possibly something they can do to increase their rules and have better communication, and she thinks we are missing an opportunity if that information is not communicated to the owner.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agrees.
Councilmember Boles is concerned about what we can do now, knowing that the business licenses and STR permits are renewing in October. She stated that, in the past, we changed the application to ask more information and, if we go through that application carefully, there might be other questions we want to add. She asked if that is something we can do at this meeting, i.e., we could add to the application things that do not necessarily require an ordinance change.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 August 26, 2024
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if she could give some examples of what she is thinking.
Councilmember Boles stated she does not have it yet but asked if it is possible.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks that is possible to add.
Councilmember Boles asked to share the application to the public later.
Asst. City Manager Carter clarified that we are working on the application with HdL to finalize the application for the renewal and it will be done any day now. Staff can send out notices, and the plan was to notify all the STR permit holders as part of the renewal packages that the Council may modify the regulations. She stated that depending on what those regulations are, implementation of those regulations could go into effect sooner or later.
Councilmember Bier referred to these notices going out any day now, and if we are talking about this at this meeting and giving direction now, and she asked if it is possible to delay the sending out of those letters until Council has given more direction.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to the issue about grandfathering and clarified that from the last meeting that she was not asking for how can we grandfather but are people grandfathered if the renewal process starts before we have full conversation with Council, direction, and then implementation. She asks what constitutes grandfathering, whether we want it or not.
City Manager Woodhouse added, regarding the timeline, staff intends for this permit renewal phase to put all of the STRs applying for permits on notice that ordinance revisions may be forthcoming and, when they become effective, when Council finishes this process, those provisions that can be implemented immediately and permit holders will be required to comply with them. He added that, in the coastal zone, that is longer as the Coastal Commission has to approve this. He stated they have to comply with changes that are implementable mid-year as it is an ordinance Council put into place. He stated that there may be some provisions, such as unhosted STRs not being allowed, that would be more difficult to implement mid-stream and we would have to phase that into the next year’s permit application after that went into effect. He stated that we can address the practicalities of implementing that, but he is mentioning it because there is a concern about rushing this before the new application, and when the ordinance changes, businesses need to come into compliance with the new ordinance provisions when they go into effect.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she has a legal question on that point. She asked about the scenario a change a month or more later after obtaining the permit dramatically affects the ability to do business as planned. She asked if the duration of the permit for which the ordinance in place at that moment count. She heard City Manager say that, if we change the ordinance part way through, they get noticed, and as of 30 days from now or whenever the notice is, this is the new rules of the game. She wanted to understand timing and legal requirements.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, as the City Manager mentioned, there would be differences in the type of regulation that we are trying to implement. Depending on the type of regulations, we may be able to impose it immediately after the ordinance becomes effective.
She gave a simple example of if we are requiring that all units have smoke detectors. That type of regulation could go into effect immediately because, even though they have a short-term City Council Regular Meeting 12 August 26, 2024
rental permit, they do not have a reasonable expectation that the city is not going to impose those types of regulations during the duration of the permit. She stated that the city may not be able to impose something that has to essentially shut down the short-term rental during the duration of the permit. If the city required only hosted STRs and this property was not able to have hosted STRs and would, therefore, be foreclosed from operating during that year where they were issued a permit, we may have to wait for that permit to expire before we can enforce that provision the following year.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if Council has the authority to dictate the term of the permit, as presently it is one year.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Council could change that. She stated we would have to let those people who obtained a year-long permit to get through their year before Council implements that change.
Councilmember Boles asked if we could say that any permit issued now would expire in three or six months.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the ordinance currently requires the permit be issued for a year.
Councilmember Boles assumed that it has to be an ordinance change, not something we can do now.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles understands if we are taking away complete use of the short-term rental, but if we are reducing use by having a maximum number of people instead of number of bedrooms and, is that something that we can enforce mid-year.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thought, for the number of people, we would have to see what Council desires in terms of limiting number of people, but that would not affect any investment expectations that the short-term rental permit holders had in terms of renting out. She did not believe that there are many renters out there that rent based on people.
Councilmember Boles stated that they rent a certain number of bedrooms and they can charge more.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they charge for the unit, not necessarily based on the number of people that stay in the unit.
Councilmember Boles asked if reducing their income potential is acceptable.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she is saying that regulating on the number of people would not necessarily affect their investment back expectations and that probably would be a regulation that could be implemented immediately after the ordinance became effective, but we would need to see what Council wants to include in the ordinance and understand better how that regulation would impact short-term rentals.
Councilmember Boles thought, as we get to the end of this meeting, we can clarify direction.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 August 26, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus thinks people do look at the number of people allowed in the units. She thinks that is one of the regulations we need to have.
Councilmember Boles asked if if our ordinance now restricts parties.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the short-term rental ordinance does not restrict parties but the city has a separate code provision that prohibits loud and unruly gatherings.
Councilmember Boles asked how much money the city is making now in transit occupancy taxes from short-term rentals specifically and how much we are collecting now in permit fees for short-term rentals. She stated that it is in the staff report that the permit fees are not covering our expenses of enforcement now, and she asked clarification on what that difference is.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that staff provided this information in the previous staff report for June 24 study session. She stated that the STRs’ contribution to the local tax base is over $2 million a year. That is combined contribution between the TOT (about $1.8 million), business license tax (about $12,000), STR permit fees (about $290,000), and sales tax (between $150,000 and $200,000 based on assumptions).
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked, specifically regarding sales tax, if there has been any adjustment or comparison with if someone was not staying. If the place was empty, it would be zero, but has there been an economic analysis that we have looked at or recognized on the issue of a residential use of the property and sales tax generation versus a short-term rental use of the property and sales tax generation.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we do not have information for that study but the reason the previous staff report stated that STRs significantly contribute to revenue base is because people do tend to spend money while they are on vacation versus residents who buy in grocery stores that are exempt from sales tax.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understands the discrete nature of how much we collect in fees (i.e. business license fees, short-term rental permit fees, and temporary occupancy) attributable to short-term rentals. She thought those were discrete numbers that would be relatively easy to verify. She stated it seems like we do not have a hard data source for sales tax.
Asst. City Manager Carter said, even if you exclude the sales tax entirely from the equation, it is still close to $2 million a year.
Councilmember Boles stated we increased the fees because the enforcement was costing so much money and previous staff reports said the fees were still not covering the enforcement, short about $40,000 or so, but she asked what is included in what we are counting for that. She stated that we are paying HdL and our staff and those are not necessarily accounted for because they are not being billed to the city and she asked how we know what the enforcement is costing.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we tried to address this question in supplemental questions and answer to Council earlier today. She stated to estimate the full direct and indirect impact of the enforcement, we need to do the full study; typically, what we do is cost allocation plan and the user fee study which we already have on our strategic plan to start the project in the last quarter of the year. She stated that is why we were trying to be careful in estimating; we knew for sure the increased STR fees does not cover 100% cost of enforcement because it City Council Regular Meeting 14 August 26, 2024
does not include legal costs and everybody’s time to go through the process. She stated that is why, when we proposed this fee, we were confident, while it does not include 100%, it is close enough to fund additional code enforcement positions and that is what they asked the council to do. In order to estimate the full cost of enforcement, we have to go for the cost allocation plan and full analysis of the user fee study which is in our work plan.
Councilmember Boles understands but she finds it frustrating when people say STRs are making all this money and they do not have the full information. She wanted to point out that, on the letter from Airbnb, in packet page 120, it says the typical host in Pacifica has guests for a little over three months a year, and staff said that most of the properties are unhosted; if that is true, and if HDL is collecting this information, how do we know how much a particular unit is being rented in a year. If it is only three months of the year versus the resident living there 12 months a year, are we gaining more money.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that what was done over the last year was we modified the STR permit application to include this question. The full information of how many STR permits of properties are hosted and unhosted would be available after the renewal as we do not have the full data. As far as the average occupancy rate, she thought HDL could add a few points.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer called for a break. She then resumed the meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Gary Furlong, Pacifica, stated his thoughts on unhosted STR as for-profit businesses i.e., a hotel where a home used to be, and asked that we reclaim those homes for residences, not hotels.
Kate Chinca, Pacifica, shared her disagreement with Pacifica for Responsible Tourism and asked to know what eight ordinances that were reviewed and the successful cities that managed to make this work under the leadership of which individuals.
Gary Chinca, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the problems with the STR on their street and asked who inspects the buildings regarding requirements for commercial businesses, including handicap access, and suggested that we do something or get them out of Pacifica.
Wolfgang Fernandez, Millbrae, stated that they have been investing in real estate in Pacifica for the last 15 years and they have one STR. He stated that in all those years they only had one complaint of an unauthorized party and they cancelled the reservation. He shared their financial contribution to the city and their support for visitors as well as the community.
Pat Gonzales, Pacifica, stated he has a short-term rental directly across the street from his home and he shared some of the problems they experienced. He asked for a moratorium freeze on permits until they can find out how they want to address these codes.
Jeff Jones, Pacifica, mentioned that for four years, his life and his neighbor’s lives have been invaded by a Canadian-operating an illegal STR to make money. He shared his concerns on this issue and lack of city consequences due to their behaviors.
Randy Maynard, Pacifica, shared his concerns on three STRs that are adjacent to his home.
Bob O’Donnell, Pacifica, shared his concerns on the financial issues with STRs in their City Council Regular Meeting 15 August 26, 2024
neighborhood and felt there needs to be change, adding that other cities have addressed this.
Gina Rosales, San Francisco, stated that her family turned their childhood home into a shortand medium-term rental to keep the house in their family financially for generations and allowing them to return and spend some times enjoying Pacifica and she asked that Council not outright ban the use of short-term rentals.
Lynn Shimamoto, Pacifica, expressed concerns about an STR on Barcelona regarding safety and welfare hazards, and she concluded that we must do a moratorium until we can enforce safety and welfare rules.
Georgia Berry, Pacifica, stated she lives across from the STR on Barcelona and shared her concerns on the safety issues with this STR, especially regarding access for medical emergencies, and asked that Council take care of this STR problem immediately.
Jen Hansen, Pacifica, stated she has been collecting data for about three years and specifically shared her thoughts on Council’s priorities to address, i.e., unhosted definition, fine structure for disturbing the peace calls, and safety checks.
Judy Surmaitis, Pacifica, shared her concerns on how STRs can change a neighborhood such as what has happened in her neighborhood with limited parking and she asked Council to suspend the STRs.
George Surmaitis, Pacifica, stated he is familiar with how STRs operate and shared his concerns on how neighbors on either side of STRs are impacted, especially regarding cars and emergency vehicles, and shared that long-term owners are the ones invested in our community.
Carolyn Harrison, Pacifica, shared her decision to be the owner of a hosted STR and her effort to become proactive on data about the renters and making sure they abide by rules.
Arlene Zhao, Pacifica, stated she has hosted an Airbnb for five years, and they never had a single party disturbing neighbors, sharing the policies she has for their guests as well as the safety standards of the facility. She shared her thoughts on rules needed for bad actors.
Albert Zhang, Pacifica, stated he sometimes rents his house as unhosted Airbnb, and shared his personal positive experiences with Airbnb, and he questioned why Council would want to take this away.
Russell Jones, Pacifica, stated that at a previous meeting he shared his and his husband’s unhosted Airbnb, where they often rent when they are traveling or need extra money for improvements. He shared his concerns about the matter being decided without their input and questioned the kind of community they are trying to build. He then emphasized the financial importance of STRs on the economy.
Alex Vardekostas, San Francisco, stated he is an STR host who lives in the Castro and cares about the neighborhood and the neighbors and has never had a single complaint. He stated that he supports the city staff’s recommendations and a lot of discussion on attacking bad hosts.
Pam Raymond, Pacifica, stated she is confidently urging Council to adopt an ordinance that allows responsible operators of STRs to operate within limitations of a robust revision of the current ordinance as they need a balanced approach and shared all her specific concerns and City Council Regular Meeting 16 August 26, 2024
her willingness to see more who responsibly host short-term rentals.
Maritza Longland, San Francisco, stated she has two houses she rents out, and she travels a lot and cannot afford to spend more money on hotels, and she is concerned about economic discrimination and gentrification and being pushed out as a native of the Bay Area. She feels they need access for all and her host asked her to come on behalf of her and she shared her thoughts on Council considering the morality of pushing out people who cannot afford hotels.
Elda Kong, Pacifica, stated she and her husband have been hosting an unhosted STR in the past with 11 months without any complaints. She shared why they bought a home in Pacifica initially and then they moved across the bay but they want to come back, so STRs is the only way to keep up with the mortgage and property taxes. She stated that visitors love Pacifica and STRs are an affordable option for families. She hopes they can find a balance and get together to get the bad actors out.
Dale Carlson, San Francisco, stated he began working on STR regulations in 2013 and succeeded in San Francisco and now advises cities in Canada and Europe on how to adopt the San Francisco model. He shared his thoughts on Airbnb and STRs, including economic activity and platform accountability.
Anna Tong, Pacifica, stated Mr. Carlson was a paid lobbyist by hotel unions. She is a STR host and she has for the past three years welcomed visitors from around the world. She provided her perspective on why they should continue to allow unhosted STRs and encouraged Council to look into regulations such as fines for those who do not follow the rules.
Wayne Thai, Pacifica, stated he has one unhosted STR in Pacifica. He purchased the home in 2019, remodeled it, then had to move across the bay for family reasons, and they depend on STRs to break even on home costs. He agreed that some STRs are terrible and stated he is a responsible host. He stated the issue is about bad STRs and some ordinance revisions staff is proposing could reduce those bad apples and support the good hosts following the rules.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, asked Council to follow up with staff and City Attorney about noncompliant residences and the imminent dangers which would result from unknowing customers, thereby possibly allowing for a moratorium. He urged the city to eliminate all those negatives and fix the problem before a tragedy happens.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, stated that, in 2019, the house across the street from them was purchased by a corporation that turned it into a full time STR, and they are operating 15 STRs in Pacifica. She shared her concerns living across from this revolving micro-hotel and was skeptical of the three-strike idea. She questioned why the corporation at 400 Belfast has not been red-tagged and shut down.
Wendy Yun, Pacifica, stated she bought her house in Pacifica two years ago, but her job changed and they had to rent out their house to make sure they can come back in the future, and she hires local people for caring for their home. She wants the city to continue supporting unhosted STRs.
Andy Meiman, Pacifica, stated he supports hosted STRs and mentioned what the unhosted STR owners talk about happening also happen in hosted rentals. He then commented on parts of the staff report that need work, i.e., net financial analysis and platform accountability and suggestions for changes.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 August 26, 2024
Joanne Gold, Pacifica, stated she submitted written comment with examples of negative impacts from living across the street from full-time unhosted STR, and she wanted to talk about the owner operators of multiple full-time unhosted STRs running full time as hotels. She encouraged Council to direct staff to put in restrictions on unhosted STRs that other cities have done so far.
Hanna Steinbach, Pacifica, stated she is a host of a STR for more than 13 years, not only in Pacifica, and she is an attorney. She cited examples of bad experiences with unhosted STRs and explained that was why the majority of residents do not support allowing unhosted STRs.
She asked for a balanced approach, such as 90 days for unhosted STRs, and asked about the biased nature of data from Airbnb.
Sophia Chang, Pacifica, stated that they purchased a home in Pacifica two years ago to retire here, and while they are not full-time residents, they have spent a lot of time in Pacifica. They are STR hosts and asked Council to allow short STRs as well as provide enforcement against homeowners and hosts that do not follow rules.
Mike Kahn, Pacifica, stated that more robust regulations and enforcement will go a long way towards weeding out illegal, unpermitted units, as well as nuisance properties. He liked the staff recommendations but questioned why the one issue he raised at a previous study session, i.e., request to allow ADUs, attached or detached, to be eligible as STRs within the permit cap, was not included. He thought fees should be commensurate with the size of the rental.
Stephanie Robbins, Pacifica, shared her concerns regarding full-time unhosted short-term rentals which turn neighborhoods into commercial areas. She encouraged Council to look at neighboring cities for solutions to the problem.
Stacie Parrish, Pacifica, stated she cleans Airbnb homes and that has been her job for living expenses since COVID-19 and she shared her thoughts on the benefits of renters.
Cheryl Greene, Pacifica, stated she was speaking for her husband, Alan Greene, and shared his comments on this issue, adding that he is a fan of STRs managed by locals that neighbors can connect with if there is a problem. She then spoke on her thoughts on Coastal Commission requesting that the city put a moratorium in place until they resolve their issues.
Cate Cavendish, Pacifica, stated she is a STR owner but she has not rented it out for one day.
She shared her thoughts on the financial impacts of STRs and resented lobbyists of hotels that are sending out emails and calls to local residents to act on keeping Pacifica safe by getting rid of STRs. She shared the positive experiences she had with STR renters and asked to work together to get the bad apples out.
Robert Georges, Pacifica, stated that there are three unhosted STRs on his street but they are not on Airbnb. He shared data on Airbnbs, which do not include enough of the active listings in Pacifica. He questioned the value of an Airbnb for three months of a year vs. a local resident for 12 months of a year.
Connie Menefee, Pacifica, shared the negative aspects of an unhosted STR run by Marbella Lane. She respected the city’s effort to try and make the city function, but she felt this staff report makes too many concessions and she encouraged Council to strengthen the ordinance.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 August 26, 2024
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated that balance was always on the mind of the grassroot organizing effort of Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels. She cited the Coastal Commission hearing on Pacifica’s STR ordinance, shared her thoughts on the issue of hosted and unhosted rentals, and mentioned what many local representatives in the county have done to stop the bleeding of housing units to more STRs and suggested that Pacifica get it done as other cities have.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, stated she is a member of Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels and she had a lovely meeting with Mr. Thai and stated it was not true that they are not willing to speak. She then shared her experiences regarding many instances of problems with the STRs. She thus asked the city to place a restriction on unhosted STRs which every other city has done.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
City Clerk took a vote by verbal roll call.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:30 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Dian Emerson, Pacifica, quoted the staff report regarding “the goal of the STR program is to balance it with risk, needs, and quality of life of residents of Pacifica,” which is a strong responsibility for Council. She then shared the obligation of Council for the needs of the residents of Pacifica is critical, not for the tourists. She asked for an increased perspective on the needs of the residents regarding STR rental enforcements.
Igor K., Pacifica, referred to the financial impact of STRs and shared his concerns on the process and obligations of those receiving permits for STRs and the need for enforcement requirements that work, asking that we not become Palm Springs with blocks of STRs.
Haroldo Daltin, Pacifica, stated that around his house are nine units of Airbnb and reminded all the unhosted owners present that Pacificans live here every day and shared his concerns on this issue regarding safety and that STRs do not add anything to the community.
Sharon Cao, Pacifica, stated she has been a STR operator for six years and she cares about the community and ensures a positive relationship with her neighbors to prevent issues. She shared her screening requirements to avoid troublemakers and party guests. She believed STR operators should host a community meeting to discuss challenges and host with compliance and cooperation within the community.
Peter Garenani, Pacifica, compared economics between Pacifica and San Francisco and referred to multiple studies showing unhosted STRs do not bring money into cities vs. long-term residents spending money every day. He questioned the financial numbers in the staff report as well as the noncompliance of STRs.
Noah Suarez-Sikes, Los Angeles, stated he is involved with the organizers of Better Neighbors LA and believed that home sharing and hosted only STRs is the best balance to protections for long-term housing and affordable coastal access for visitors. He suggested that City Council Regular Meeting 19 August 26, 2024
the city’s recommendations are insufficient to properly regulate the growth of STRs.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, wanted to address justification for a moratorium on STRs and shared that Pacifica lacks the data to quantify the impact STRs have on the housing affordability crisis. She stated everyone deserves safe and affordable housing and suggested they create and effectively manage an STR ordinance.
Janeen Marquardt, Pacifica, stated she has lived here for 30 years and her STR helps her to be able to afford to stay in Pacifica. She raised concern on the permit fee for hosted and unhosted and the challenges it brings to their income as a smaller business.
Betty Duran, Pacifica, stated she is befuddled on the STR dilemma but she thinks the problem is caused by bad actors who need consequences and is becoming more complicated every day.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, referred to two of the STR owners who lived in a rent control city and argued against Pacifica’s proposed requirement. She stated Pacifica lacks enforcement and supported a ban on full-time unhosted STRs. She also questioned Council’s vote on allowing Mayor Vaterlaus’ participation via Zoom and the parliamentary issue of the hybrid participation.
Tom Dennison, Pacifica, shared his concerns about cumbersome rules to prevent developers from making a profit in several locations and then referred to suggestions on unhosted STRs being accommodated which he supports as a frequent user of STRs and he asked what the plan was to make up for revenue lost if they stop unhosted STRs.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, questioned the revenue numbers from Airbnb which were unverified.
He shared his concerns and thoughts on out-of-town corporations stealing Pacifica’s culture and neighborhoods.
Cherie Chan, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on the issue, such as the numbers do not make sense and the feedback from the community’s remarks on unscrupulous STR owners. She thanked Council for working to make a better Pacifica for all residents.
Nicole Larson, Pacifica, stated they loved their home and shared that they had to turn their house into an STR for multiple reasons. She then shared her thoughts on the issue of STRs needing to be regulated and added that they are good business for Pacifica.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she wanted to address the comment regarding Mayor Vaterlaus and whether someone was in her location. She stated that, under AB 2449, the member must publicly disclose before any action is taken whether any individual, 18 years of age or older, is present in the room at the remote location with the member and the general nature of the member’s relationship with any such individual. She stated that Mayor Vaterlaus, at the start of the meeting, indicated that her husband was in the house but not in the room at that moment, and Council might want to check in with Mayor Vaterlaus to determine whether her husband is still in the house and with her; ultimately, the Council is not taking any action during this study session so that provision would not apply for the study session portion. She stated that Mayor Vaterlaus can participate in the study session discussion.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated her husband is still in the building in a different room than she is located.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 August 26, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated good policy is born of good analysis and paying attention to what the community needs are. He stated that he has a girlfriend who has spent substantial time living in San Francisco and she would be happy to inform anyone who has interest that it is her impression as somebody who spent years living in San Francisco that the average San Francisco resident does not leave their neighborhood, let alone the city, which might account for some of their economic study. He stated that, unlike San Francisco and Pacifica, if we want services, often we must leave the city to accomplish that. He will concede is that what we do not have in front of us is an economic study to verify one way or the other. Regarding one of the speakers, he has talked to people on both sides of this question and tried to do his due diligence. He agreed with one of not many speakers who are in favor of hosted STR units. He emphasized those who have provided a service through hosting their STRs in an unhosted fashion. He referred to a family house that he may rent out as a long-term rental and that is his basis for comparison. He stated what his perception is as somebody who has actively spent upwards of six years working on some of the planning documents that come before Council. He stated that as a city person working on planning documents, it occurs to him, as a community and decision makers, we get to try and figure out the best way for our town to develop. He hears what the STR operators are saying and believes in good faith that some of them are good at what they do and are providing a good experience for the people utilizing their services. He keeps coming back to the reason why we engaged in all that planning is, in the place where a house has been built, it is because we want it used as a residence. He stated that we engaged in a planning process, not that a hotel unit could be embedded in a residential neighborhood.
Councilmember Bier stated that there were a couple of things she would like to have responses to that came from public comment. One was about ADUs. She asked if we can give some explanation of why ADUs cannot be used as STRs.
Sr. Planner Harkousha stated her understanding is the reason we prohibited STRs in ADUs is because ADUs are used toward our total unit count for residential units in the Housing Element and we would like to reserve them for residential use only.
Councilmember Bier added ADUs are naturally affordable.
Sr. Planner Harkousha responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bier stated that there was another comment about the Coastal Commission meeting and a moratorium request. She knows Asst. City Manager Carter was at that meeting and Acting Dep. Director Cervantes was there as well. She asked if they can let Council know what happened at that meeting.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes was at the meeting on June 13 where the Coastal Commission certified the city’s cap and during the discussion on the city’s cap, there was some questions regarding limiting the application of STR permits. There was never any direction from the Commission itself, but there were a few questions and comments from individual commissioners. She stated that the entire Commission never gave the city any direction to continue with the path of the moratorium.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that, during the discussion, the Coastal Commission confirmed that any specific directions would have to be brought back to Council and staff could not agree to any additional directions like a moratorium or any additional policy directions.
Councilmember Boles asked how late are we going and how much can we realistically City Council Regular Meeting 21 August 26, 2024
accomplish at this meeting. She stated that Council may need some time to go through this whole report and give staff all the direction. She is interested in what can we do now to increase enforcement and if there are things we can do in the application to control some of the bad actors and things like parking requirements. She heard complaints about that and staff is talking about doing a site plan and limiting parking to what is allowed by the Municipal Code and how the house will fill it. She would like to know what kinds of things we can do now that would make a difference to the community immediately.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that a lot of the requirements about the program will need to be ordinance revisions. He stated that the permit application that we are working on with HDL is more of a mechanism to request information from the applicant; if there is input about the information Council wants them to request on the permit application, we could build that into the application. He will turn to staff about any other ideas about what could start now.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the input we requested today was to provide the initial take for the administrative policies. She referenced when Council talked about reducing the timeframe to bringing a property into compliance and defining in the implementation procedures the workflow for violations.
Councilmember Boles thought we could start with those. She has some other questions of things they might be able to add to the application if Council is willing.
Councilmember Bier thought it might not be just the application, but we need to be able to collect data from the platforms that are telling us how many people are in the unit.
Councilmember Boles stated that she wanted clarification on that too as to what HDL can give that will help us with some of these enforcement issues.
Councilmember Bier would imagine that would come from the platforms too. She thinks that is important because a lot of what was said in the staff report was we will not be able to enforce it because the data is self-reporting. She is feeling passionate about it as we need to create a data system so we can collect all the data and there can be enforcement.
Councilmember Boles stated that when she read the staff report, people were suggesting that we look at Half Moon Bay’s ordinance; she read it very carefully and she met with their Asst.
City Manager John Dougherty. She stated that HMB had fewer STRs before their ordinance went into effect (48 before COVID-19 and now up to 70). The TOT before the ordinance was $218,000 and it is now $505,000 and they increased their TOT percentage as we are proposing to do as a ballot measure this year. She stated that they have more hotels so their total TOT is $8.2 million and their TOT from STRs is only $5.05 million. She stated that, proportionately, it is not that different when you look at the number of houses versus the number of TOT. She stated that they do have a primary residency requirement. She stated that their laws are strict and well-written, and they have a two-strike policy, which includes lying or misrepresenting something on your application. She stated that just having those laws where people know that they can be called out and lose it brings them better into compliance. She stated that the other thing HMB does is they notice the public. She stated that is something she would like to add to the application along with a diagram of parking to show where parking is, a diagram of the rooms, etc. She stated that they have only been in operation for a year and they have not yet had to revoke any permits, and now looking at enforcement of two but, in reality, their ordinance is working.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 August 26, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated her original recollection was that there was an unlimited number of nights for a hosted STR and no limitation on the number of nights one could rent out, whereas, with unhosted, the maximum number of nights was 60 days, and she believes that came from a negotiation and a presentation to the Coastal Commissioners themselves. She pointed out the fact that Half Moon Bay’s entire city is in the coastal zone unlike Pacifica and whatever the Coastal Commission decides affects the entire city. She recalls that there were a series of negotiations and discussions between Coastal Commission staff and city staff and they could not come to terms on the number of nights and the Coastal Commission staff was asking for 180 nights and the city did not want that many nights and they had come to terms and adjusted to 120. The Coastal Commission staff did not believe Coastal Commission wanted 120 and they thought they wanted more and they could not come to terms and brought the item forward to the Commissioners with that one decision unmade. She stated that, upon robust discussion, the Commissioners voted to have it be 60 nights. She offered that as Half Moon Bay has come up so many times in reference in our community and because they are so close to us. She had a question about inspections. She understands that, presently, the way our ordinance operates, it is a self-inspection; when you want to have an STR and you fill out your application, there are certain requirements and you attest to them. She asked if you need to submit a drawing with your application to show the layout of the property. She asked if you need to submit any information about square footage, number of bedrooms, etc.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the requirements are that the applicant submit an application and must complete the application on a form provided by the city, accompanied by a fee established by resolution of Council. She stated that the form itself is not described in the code and the application would be up to the city to prepare. The property owner must consent if the applicant is a tenant and he/she must demonstrate written consent to the property owner and there must be some contact information and the applicant must provide current contact information to the city and information regarding advertising platforms to be used. Then, there is guest safety as the STR must have a smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher and the applicant must submit a signed safety declaration in a form prepared by the administrator to be kept in the property file at the city.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated the form also says you need to have a diagram of exit and fire extinguisher location posted on site but you do not have to submit that as part of the package. She stated a diagram under item 8 where it says that the applicant will provide information to get a diagram of exits, fire extinguisher locations, police and fire contact numbers, etc. She stated that the drawing they need to submit that stipulates that they understand and will do that does not need to be submitted to the city as it is part of the application package.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated not that she is aware of. She stated that it just says that the short-term rental permittee must provide the following materials electronically to any guest before arrival and make available printed materials on site for the guests with the following information and it identifies the various requirements for the package: A diagram of exits, fire, extinguisher locations, fire and police contact numbers, permittee’s contact information, city’s noise regulations, and the city’s social host liability ordinance.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we heard from staff that there are suggestions about ways we wanted to update this application form. She would ask staff to point out where it is being improved to address the kinds of issues that we have been hearing about throughout the course of this evening.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that she attached the old application that had only eight City Council Regular Meeting 23 August 26, 2024
questions and the new draft has 13 different questions. She also stated that we do not have the required inspection of each unit and we only go inspect when we see complaints and code enforcement needs to investigate.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer heard many times that there are suggestions that there are a number of homes being operated as unhosted STRs that have bedrooms listed that did not formerly exist when someone lived in the neighborhood before it was sold and she thought it would be pretty straightforward to check building permit to determine if a 4-bedroom house that was formerly a 2-bedroom house has had work done to it. She is not understanding if that is part of their process or not.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it sounds like she is asking if the city could initiate a code enforcement investigation based on an application, i.e. if we have an application for an STR that has the location list five bedrooms, but the city has records indicating the house used to be two bedrooms, could the city initiate a code enforcement investigation to determine if those improvements were appropriately made with the proper building inspections and permits, etc. She thought the answer was yes that the city could initiate a code enforcement investigation; the difference is that an inspection of the home is not currently required in the code for STR permits and we could not require it as part of the STR permit process now at this time. There could be that the city inspects the property as part of the code enforcement process but not as a part of the STR permit.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood. She stated that, with regard to code enforcement, we can conduct an inspection of the basis of a complaint. She stated that the information just now involved an application but she also wondered about complaints.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the city can investigate and respond to complaints of building violations. The city usually would request that the property owner voluntarily grant the city authority to inspect but, on those occasions, where the property owner does not voluntarily grant the city the authority to inspect, we could take other measures to get approval from the court to inspect the property, if necessary and warranted.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought, with the regulations we have regarding bedroom and cars, the majority of people who are renting STRs would abide by those rules. She stated that, even if we may not be able to enforce them all, the fact that we have the rules will have people abide by them. She stated that, regarding the three strikes provision, she agrees that STRs should be out except for certain cases; she gave the example of the property on Belfast that does not abide by code and therefore should have one strike without being allowed to rent or continue to use that property. She thinks that many STR operators generally follow the rules, hence the three strikes. She suggested putting a limit on the number of days for unhosted STRs, such as 120 days. She stated that realtors are not allowed to determine who they sell a property to.
She wonders if it is an issue when we have one corporation that owns 15 different properties, as they appear to be one of the major bad actors. She stated that another item is that we allow for notice with 24/7 that someone respond within 30 minutes of phone calls and or an hour; she asked what if you are a neighbor and the garbage got left out on a Monday when garbage is not picked up until Friday; you want to have access to the person who is either managing it or owning that property so you can call them directly. She stated that there are so many items involved in all of this and it is interesting to listen to all the people on both sides because there are good players and bad players.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed, especially regarding deterrents. He thinks, if we have City Council Regular Meeting 24 August 26, 2024
regulations on the books, we can enforce them and then someone looking to create their business in town will look at what those regulations are. He referred to packet page 110 regarding onsite inspections prior to issuing an STR permit. He believes it is part of Half Moon Bay’s ordinance.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed and thought that the STR owner should pay for that inspection.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how would inspections work on those kinds of permits in the city and who pays for that inspection.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we can differentiate between the fees for hosted STRs and fees for unhosted STRs.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes stated that it is typically not the practice of the city to inspect for business licenses, but we do inspect for home occupation permits and that is included in the fee for that permit.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked for clarification on the home occupation permit and the required inspections for when people apply for it.
Acting Dep. Director Cervantes, stating that for home occupation permits, the home occupation ordinance requires that very limited space in the single family home or residential unit is used for the business and, in order to ensure that, prior to issuance of the home occupation permit, Planning staff conducts an inspection.
Councilmember Bier agreed with much of the conversation, such as two people per room and the three strikes. She believes it should be 60 days for unhosted STRs. She is concerned about differentiating the corporate buyouts from our local property owners. She asked how we can put something in place that differentiates the two. She mentioned “one permit per natural person”. She wanted to honor those who came to this meeting and are doing the right thing and being good neighbors. She also wants to talk about the multi-unit housing that are naturally affordable apartments. She does not think we should allow that as it is not fair. She stated that the staff report says limiting it to one STR per multi-family residential building with five or more units.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought we could make that whatever number of units in a multi-family that we would like, such as two units.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she does not understand what he means.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that the idea is that, if it is five units, only one of them could be an STR. He stated that, instead of a building with five units, you could do that with a building with fewer units, such as with two units, you can limit it to one of them being an STR.
Councilmember Bier stated that she can see that if it is a duplex and you have the property owner living in one and they rent the other one out. She stated the importance is the local property owner piece.
Councilmember Boles asked how we can limit corporations owning multiple units, such as can we limit it to one permit per person. She sees that the application has changed and she thinks changing “applicant’s name” to “owner’s name” is a good first start.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 August 26, 2024
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks the concern is that corporations are identified as persons as well, and she noticed that Half Moon Bay’s ordinance did not seem to define person, so there is a problem of what a person is. She stated that we do not want to adopt ordinances where there is ambiguity or inability to enforce. She stated that the staff report also points out that many individuals hold property now as corporations or as LLCs and it is not uncommon for families to own a property as an LLC because members collectively come together to own a piece of property. She stated that is an issue, but if we are trying to avoid permittees holding multiple properties, which she thinks is the concern with a corporate entity holding multiple properties in Pacifica, we could limit how many STR permits a permittee can hold.
Councilmember Boles questioned if a permittee is a corporation.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano explained that we would include in the definition of person a corporation, as a person can be anybody.
Councilmember Boles understood, but stated that, when developers are building something, they will make an LLC to build that one building and then it is a different LLC for the next building, so it could still be one corporation but with different LLCs.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, and she mentioned that we had a similar problem with the cannabis regulations, as there was concern about how the ownership would be held and whether there would be players coming in through an LLC and shifting ownership without the city realizing that the ownership has been shifted. She stated that Council adopted regulations addressing those specific concerns.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if that single entity has a cap of 60 nights that they can rent it unhosted, that might be the combination that dissuades them from wanting to create multiple LLCs to buy the various properties. He stated that on page 110, it says the city could “condition a STR permit on occupancy of the unit by at least one of the unit’s primary residents for a certain time period”. He thought that would be another element that would play into this, i.e., a number that a single entity could hold and single entity needs to be an occupant with a 60-day cap. He stated that, in the case of a multi-family dwelling, only one of those units is allowed to be STR. He thought that would dissuade whoever is holding the 15 houses from buying it up.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if he is talking about what is in the primary residence recommendation.
Councilmember Bigstyck referred to packet page 110, second paragraph: “restrictions on the number of STR permits held by a single entity could accomplish the same purpose, like San Francisco and Half Moon Bay, and the city could condition a STR permit on occupancy of the unit by at least one of the unit’s primary residents for a certain time period”.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano answered affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles asked about the primary residence requirement, and she asked if that is going to limit corporations.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it could limit corporations but it is not distinguishing between a natural person and a corporation.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 August 26, 2024
Councilmember Boles asked if an entity has a primary residence. She stated that, if you are filing a tax return, you have to give your address and that is your primary residence, and you cannot have two primary residences.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, adding that we will have to find a way to address it for corporations, i.e. an individual from the corporation can be the primary resident. She stated that she understands, as there is not a direct correlation and how do we address that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer would like to address the issue of “natural person”. She stated a statement may have been made at the Coastal Commission meeting about that and they have conditions and approvals with that term being used. She does not understand why we are hesitant or think we cannot do that.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, as explained in the staff report, corporations can be persons and there are various case laws that discuss discrimination against corporations; we want to be cognizant of the fact that regulations can sometimes be characterized in a way that discriminates against corporations and that could open up the city to a potential lawsuit.
Councilmember Boles asked if we can agree we want one permit per person or entity.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated per entity.
Councilmember Boles stated we can have the City Attorney come back on the best policy.
Mayor Vaterlaus thinks people can get around that but it is worth a try.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated from the staff report a STR permit “held by a single entity,” coupled with “condition of a STR permit on occupancy of the unit by at least one of unit’s primary residents,” would work together to act as a deterrent to that concern.
Councilmember Boles asked, regarding the application, if we can require the contact information 20 minutes by phone, 60 minutes, etc.
Mayor Vaterlaus thinks we need to, as those are important facts.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She stated it seems to her that, for maintaining their permit to operate in good standing, if the STR operator knows they are going to be unavailable, they would have someone else that could be a designated person they respond to. She did not know if we put it on the application or would be considered a strike.
Councilmember Boles thought the strikes have to be defined as part of the greater ordinance.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated like the one about lying on the application.
Councilmember Boles asked if we can ask for that on the application.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks you can ask that on the application, but the requirement about being available within 30 minutes is not specified in the ordinance. Council can ask for current contact information and someone who will be available locally but that is not a requirement in the code that somebody be available within 30 or 60 minutes.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 August 26, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we can put it in the code.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Council could decide that is something to include in the revision.
Mayor Vaterlaus thinks it is really important.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding on site within 60 minutes.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that is one of the staff recommendations.
Councilmember Boles stated that Mayor Vaterlaus asked if that number can be made public or is that private information that would not be allowed to be shared.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, if we advise STR applicants the information would be made available to the public, she would not have a problem with making it available to the public.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to 1:00 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
EXTEND MEETING TO 1:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Boles asked if we can ask for a diagram of the plan and the parking as part of this application.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if she was asking if that can be in the application now.
Councilmember Boles agreed.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano assumed something about a diagram of the house.
Councilmember Boles agreed, i.e., diagram of the rooms showing the basic layout and a diagram of the site showing the parking with a notice referencing Pacifica’s Municipal Code.
She stated that is so we at least know what we have and what STRs are going to be problematic to meet our regulations as we define them. She added that it will also help us know if we are looking at permit records, and we see that someone provides a diagram of four bedrooms and the house is only permitted for two and then do a code inspection.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there are a couple of issues with that as a lot of Park Pacifica homes, when they were built, would be considered non-conforming bedrooms at this time because of the height of ingress and egress windows. They were considered bedrooms at the time they were built.
Councilmember Boles understood and stated that she was not asking about windows.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 August 26, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus understood and added that it has to do with legal bedrooms.
Councilmember Boles stated that we would have a permit on record that it was permitted as a four-bedroom house.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that her second comment is that she has sold several homes and she went to the city herself to get the permits and the city said we did not have any permits for that property and go back to the owner has the completed signed-off permits because so many of the houses are so old that we do not have all the records and the house she was going to consider all non-bedrooms, non-family room were permitted four bedrooms and family room.
She stated that is not uncommon.
Councilmember Boles stated that she knows it is not always there but it could help in some cases. She asked if we can ask for it.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, in understanding what she is asking for, it seems it could be incorporated as part of the application. She added that, to the extent that we would want to enforce something as a requirement of the STR permit, that would need to be in the ordinance.
Councilmember Boles understands and gave an example of the house with a code violation.
She stated that a planner looking at the application would know how many bedrooms could be permitted. She is trying to make sure we are keeping people safe. She would like those diagrams and however they are used is up to staff.
Council agreed.
Councilmember Boles referred to Half Moon Bay’s ordinance, i.e., is the unit deed restricted and do we let people rent when they are affordable units.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought the intent in deed restrictions is often for low-income eligibility but there could be other deed restrictions.
Councilmember Boles thought we could say deed-restricted affordable units. She asked if it takes an ordinance amendment to say we cannot have STRs in deed-restricted units.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that generally we do not need to have it in the ordinance because the deed restriction itself may restrict that type of use.
Councilmember Boles asked if we can ask that question on the application to educate a person if they are trying to rent it and do not necessarily know their restrictions.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano does not know how many units, as it seems that there are not that many units that would be subject to a deed restriction such that we should include it in the application, but we can include it in the application. She stated that there is nothing in the code that says anything about deed restrictions. She stated that it is the deed restriction itself that governs the use of the property.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he would love to see an analysis from staff as to whether or not there are units of seven or less in which deed restrictions exist, but generally speaking he goes to their inclusionary ordinance when he thinks what most likely is deed restricted and he City Council Regular Meeting 29 August 26, 2024
would not mind sending that question to staff to come back to Council before including it in the application.
Councilmember Boles stated we need to have something to make sure we do not let something slip through. She asks if we can ask if they know of any existing permit violations on the application.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked what kind of permit violations.
Councilmember Boles stated if there is unwarranted work or a permit violation.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the city would have that information.
Councilmember Boles stated that she is asking the applicant to tell them the truth if they know something. She stated that the city does not necessarily have all the right records.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she believes the premise addressed in the staff report is whether we should allow someone who has some kind of deficiency or violation with the city to be allowed to put forward an STR application.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated they should not be allowed. If you have an unpermitted use, you should not be allowed a STR permit.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed. She stated that, if you have an unpaid debt to the city or something, such as in the cannabis regulations, everything has to be clean before you can do the other thing. She said that is what she thought of when she read it, but the staff report said it is not recommended.
Councilmember Boles stated that the staff report misunderstood Council direction about that. It was saying that we cannot force permits or block permits. She wants to make sure we have a way of finding out if the owners know that there is something unpermitted. She stated that it goes to, if they lied on this and we find something else later, this gives the city a chance to revoke their permit or suspend it until you fix the problem.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is not currently in the ordinance and that is her concern as the city has the ability to check for violations as they are reviewing the application. She added that there is nothing in the code that says we can revoke or deny a permit because they have misstated facts on their application.
Councilmember Boles wanted to give a specific example of what happened on Esplanade. A tenant was being told they were evicted because construction work was happening and they left. Then construction work started happening, including huge remodels, taking off all the drywall replacement, and replacing all the electrical, and they never got permits for the building but somehow they got their STR permit during that same time frame.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that should not be allowed.
Councilmember Boles asked if there are violations or unpermitted work. She stated that just asking the questions and letting them answer truthfully, then we would know whether to investigate or not since we are not doing the inspections now.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 August 26, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks putting those questions on the form gives applicants a heads up that we will likely be adjusting the ordinance that way in the future.
Councilmember Boles stated it is a way that we can hopefully start to weed out some of these bad actors while we are doing the work of finalizing the ordinance.
Councilmember Bigstyck added that we are giving them a heads up that they should start making their adjustments so that they will not be bad actors in the future.
Councilmember Bier stated for clarity that we have one permit per entity and they have to respond in 30 minutes and be onsite in an hour if something is wrong, and that means they are local. She might be okay with saying 90 days instead of 60 days. If they are local and they can only have one permit, that is her thought.
Councilmember Boles is open to considering 90 days also, but she does not think that is necessarily an argument, as you could have a representative for you to be there, not necessarily that the owner has to be there in an hour.
Councilmember Bier stated that the owner does need to be there.
Councilmember Boles stated that the owner might be traveling and she did not think that is a fair requirement, but they have to know somebody who could be there in an hour.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that some of them could have a property manager, even if they live next door.
Councilmember Boles asked if Council majority agreed to ask those questions about any existing permit violations or unsubmitted work and if Council is giving staff direction.
Mayor Vaterlaus and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed,
Councilmember Boles stated that we are asking, if the applicant is the owner and, if not, have a written consent of the landlord. She stated Half Moon Bay has this and it was an issue here about asking about homeowners association rules and asking if the property is part of a homeowners association and, if so, having a letter of approval from them. She stated that it came up with Pacifica View Estates, and their by-laws state that they cannot have rentals under 30 days and the one at Sky Ridge has the same regulation and someone bought it and they got their permit for STR and the HOA was complaining that they cannot do that because of their bylaws and they told the HOA to sue them. She asked what the city’s responsibility is to homeowners associations.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it already says something about current homeowners.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it says “approval of a STR permit does not legalize any use or structure not permitted by law or contract, including, but not limited to restrictions imposed by homeowners association or a lease agreement”. In other words, it is the STR permittee’s responsibility to comply with whatever homeowners association requirements are attached to the property. She stated that is typical. The homeowners association enforces their CC&Rs and any other restrictions against the homeowner and the city does not get involved in enforcement of the CC&Rs.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 August 26, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks where we are going is that it should not be allowed to be an STR there if the HOA says no. She mentioned if we have a limited number of STR permits and we issue one there and referenced the question of whether there is inaccurate or fraudulent information in the application. She asked if the application could ask if the property have an HOA or not. If you say no and it does, then it is falsification of the application and you cannot have the STR there. She stated that, if the HOA complains, the city has grounds to say they cannot have it anymore. She stated that Asst. City Attorney is saying we would not do that.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, adding in making a legal determination on whether they can or cannot have short term rentals in their development. That is part of the complexity of including a requirement that the city confirm that the HOA approves STRs; the city has to figure out what they are providing to us, i.e., appropriate, legal, and if one person says they can and another person says they cannot and then the city becomes embroiled in that argument. She stated that those are the policy considerations. She stated that is likely why that language was included in the ordinance.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it is putting the city in the middle because we are not going to interpret everybody’s HOA documents before we allow permits to be issued if they know it is not allowed. A homeowners document is 350 pages and she asked if everyone reads those when they get them. She stated that HOA’s might come up with a rule but it is not necessarily a real true rule under state law.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what Half Moon Bay’s ordinance say about HOAs. She is willing to leave that aside as she does not think it is frequent.
Councilmember Bier thought it would be good for Council to hear from staff like the list of directions staff heard from Council.
Councilmember Boles had one more question on the application, i.e., can a notice to neighbors be a part of the process now.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she would not recommend that, as it goes above and beyond what is contemplated in the ordinance and we do not have any parameters on what the notice requirements are, such as how far is it noticed, who pays for that, etc.
Councilmember Boles stated that we can talk about it later.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it can be a requirement in the ordinance provisions.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it brings up the other point as a homeowner that you own your house. If you are allowed to rent, as she could rent every bedroom in her house to two people and not be a STR; it could annoy the neighbors equally as much as if it was a STR because everybody could have two cars that rented her house and she could rent to ten people. She stated it does matter.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he feels like we are differentiating between common uses of residences and STRs.
Mayor Vaterlaus did not know if that is a common use but it is allowable.
Councilmember Bigstyck believes Half Moon Bay requires 500 feet and he would recommend City Council Regular Meeting 32 August 26, 2024
that the applicant pay for it. He referred to one commenter mentioning that their top three issues was the unhosted definition, the safety checks, and the fine structure for disturbing the peace calls. For the fine structure, the staff report goes into limits of $1,500; $3,000; and then $5,000 thereafter.
Council agreed with the staff recommendation for the fine structure.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to definition of hosted versus unhosted. She stated that if a person lives in their house as the primary resident and they are away, can they rent it out as an STR, i.e. they are on vacation themselves. She asked if they are allowed to rent it out for some number of days and not physically be there. She asked if they have to get someone else to physically be there. She needs to understand the nuance when we say hosted, is host on site 24/7 the whole time.
Councilmember Boles thinks hosted means someone is there the whole time, but unhosted can have a certain number of days that there is no one there.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that staff report says hosted was defined as a host on premises at all times between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Councilmember Boles suggested saying on the premises as we would not be able to monitor how many hours a person is there.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added if you are not there and are at work then you will not be in the house 24/7.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks that, accounting for not specifying hours, a host is someone who is sleeping at their house at the same time that they have guests utilizing the empty room.
He stated that the point is in a 24-hour cycle, there is somebody coming and going who belongs to that house while the STR guests are present.
Councilmember Bier asked why we were differentiating.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if you are capping an unhosted STR to 60 or 90 days, but letting hosted STRs be whatever they will be, it is important that they have a definition in place of what that means.
Councilmember Bier wanted to be sure because she felt we addressed it with limiting corporations with one permit.
Councilmember Boles read Half Moon Bay’s definition of unhosted STR: “a STR where no resident is present in the rental during the course of the rental”. She stated that an unhosted STR should be operated no more than however many nights we decide per calendar year. She stated a hosted STR in the Half Moon Bay ordinance is “a STR where a resident who is the operator and acting as a host occupies one or more bedrooms in a dwelling unit while other areas of the unit are rented for the purpose of transient overnight lodging”. They have no limitations on the number of nights that a hosted STR may be rented and she agrees with that.
Councilmember Bier added limiting the days.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, when we are talking about hosted and unhosted, this is City Council Regular Meeting 33 August 26, 2024
where he wanted to mention, in terms of monitoring and enforceability, that this is based on selfreporting from the owners as there is no way to otherwise track that.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if we have the law and the neighbors know you are on vacation, we have some enforcement.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it seems that the operator is going through Airbnb and there is a mechanism for Airbnb could be supplying the data if Airbnb is acting in good faith and that is a start. He stated that we are trying to work with VRBO.
Councilmember Bier referred to platform accountability.
Mayor Vaterlaus thinks the neighbors will provide the proper information.
Councilmember Bier mentioned 90 days for limiting the length of unhosted STRs.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks that we presently have no limitations and going from no limitations to 90 days is a big cut in the way people are operating. She stated that may be what we decide they want to do, but she is thinking that the impact of that could be very strong. The notion of a few bad actors and big corporations ruining it for everyone else does resonate with her to a point, but on the other hand, the notion of a residence or a duplex that could be someone’s house all the time also resonates and it is really about what is the intent. She stated that, when we first decided to have an STR ordinance, it was because we had a visitorserving economy and we could collect transit occupancy tax and we knew there were STRs happening in Pacifica anecdotally; and because we had no ordinance, we had no basis for collecting transit occupancy tax. She felt that was the focus as it was absolutely a financial decision. She wants to fix the current situation but she is not sure what the right way is to fix it or how rapidly we can. She asked everyone on their thoughts on 60, 90, or 120 days.
Councilmember Boles stated that we do have data from about eight cities in the county and she thought 60 was on the low end and 120 was on the high, and she thinks 90 is a good intermediate number.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to point to a piece of information that those other cities that have day limitations do not have caps on their number of STRs.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he does not feel comfortable going above 90 days, as his motivation is he does not want entities buying up houses to put them into STRs. He does not know where the cap lies that it would not be worth it to an investor to buy a house to turn it into a hotel room.
Councilmember Boles stated that San Francisco did that analysis in 2015 as part of the documentation that was shared and it varied by neighborhood.
Councilmember Bier stated that we have not talked about density yet.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he was inclined to not want to go above 90, given his level of uncertainty.
Councilmember Bier wants to revisit the density.
City Council Regular Meeting 34 August 26, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it is 12:55 a.m.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to public comment mentioning that, if someone could not rent a home as an STR and therefore we would not collect the TOT, they could go to a hotel and rent the hotel and we would collect the TOT, but what we do not have is any information that is concrete about occupancy. She stated that some people say there is tons of room for occupancy and everyone can be accommodated at the hotels and other people say we have 90% occupancy. She does know we do not have many hotel rooms in Pacifica.
Councilmember Boles stated that a hotel does not meet the needs of a family. She travels on STRs and she stated she needs a 3-bedroom house when she is traveling and there are people like that. She does not want to ban them all as she thinks they do serve a population but not making them hugely profitable is not the point; we are helping people stay in their homes and helping people have extra income when they travel but, at some point, you can rent too many days and they are hugely profitable and you are losing more housing stock to investors and not to people committed to the community.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if staff has direction.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that staff has direction on some of the policy considerations and it sounds like there are others that Council wants to continue to discuss. He is not sure we have sufficient clarity and direction for the City Attorney’s office and staff to spend the time and money drafting ordinance provisions but we can start. He asks if the Council’s expectation is that we are going to take this information and start collaboration with Coastal Commission staff to see what their response is; typically, they have a lot of specific Pacifica data requests they want to know. He stated that, to begin that process before they bring back ordinance revisions, that is what staff has suggested. He needs Council direction on that. If we are going to start that process but Council wants to continue to discuss other policy considerations at some future meeting, we will need to agendize that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer does not think we have had the totality of the conversation, especially with regard to jurisdiction. She stated that the Coastal Commission would certainly have an interest in knowing what we were going to talk about in that regard.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked Asst. City Attorney if this is one of those ones where we can continue this study session to a date determined or to be determined so we can continue the discussion past public comment.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Bigstyck then thinks we should continue this study session accordingly, having heard robust public comment, so we can finish their discussion.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we could potentially do that at the next City Council meeting on September 9. He stated that, for clarity, before Council makes a motion, what we would not have time for on the agenda that night is hours of public comment.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked that we move to continue for five more minutes so we can have the action.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend meeting to 1:05 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember City Council Regular Meeting 35 August 26, 2024
Bier.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
EXTEND MEETING TO 1:05 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is asking because we are in the middle of a conversation and we should finish that conversation within the context of not looking for additional public comment but the public is welcome to send as many emails as they like and meet with Council.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to continue this study session to a date certain, September 9, 2024; seconded by Councilmember Boles.
Councilmember Bier asked City Manager if there were some things where staff needed more direction.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated jurisdiction, number of STRs in different jurisdictional by district or coastal zone versus not, etc.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Council will pick that up. He stated that the goal would be to confirm all the policy considerations that Council wants built into the ordinance. Staff has some direction that he got clearly about some things to be built into the permit application.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if we gave direction that we start the ball rolling with Coastal Commission staff now.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated no, as we want to talk about jurisdictions first. Coastal Commission will want to know how many will be in the coastal zone.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks that it is never too early to begin coordination with Coastal Commission staff. He thinks that is the better approach.
Councilmember Boles did not think we have said anything that deviates from the Half Moon Bay ordinance which has been approved.
Councilmember Bigstyck added that, for those things that staff has direction on, he would like to know sooner than later what Coastal Commission staff’s interest is in terms of what data they feel that they will need and, even if we should have it all defined beforehand, it would be good to know what kind of stuff they will want when we are ready to send them the package.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, realistically speaking, he did not think we were going to make any progress with Coastal Commission staff before September 9.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded that we will not be hearing an update from that.
Councilmember Boles stated that there were some very strong comments about economic City Council Regular Meeting 36 August 26, 2024
analysis, and she asked if Council all feel like we need an economic analysis to make decisions at this point.
Councilmember Bigstyck did not know if, by September 9, staff will be able to give Council the kind of analysis we will be looking for and he does want to finish the discussion on September 9.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that a lot of it is unknown as we do not know if visitors go to restaurants, buy gifts, or what they do or whether a person renting a house is going to have children that affects the school district financially. She stated that there is so much unknown and she did not think we can do a financial analysis.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and Councilmember Boles agreed.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that is why he holds fast to the planning work we are doing rather than the various numbers.
Councilmember Bier moved that Council adjourn.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated we need a motion to adjourn to the September 9 meeting.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he made the motion and it was seconded.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
CONTINUE MEETING TO A DATE CERTAIN, SEPTEMBER 9
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
ADJOURN
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 1:04 a.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 10/14/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor