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 September 09, 2024
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
September 09, 2024 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor pro Tem Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on September 9, 2024 at 6:14 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 6:14 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 City Council Regular Meeting 2 September 09, 2024
Emergency Circumstances; seconded by Councilmember Boles. City Clerk Coffey asked for a roll call vote of Council to approve Mayor Vaterlaus’ participation via Zoom due to emergency 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: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Bigstyck, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Alan Cohen, Asst. City Attorney (Zoom); Kavitha Kumar, Interim Community Development Director; Stefanie Cervantes, Interim Community Development Dep. Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; John Mullins, Interim PW Director; Scott Leslie, Acting PB&R Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep. Director-Wastewater Div.; Brianne Harkousha, Sr. Planner (Zoom); Bill Glasgo, Police Captain; Eric Martinez, Police Corporal; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgement.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Bigstyck
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Special Presentation - Fog Fest Organizing Group - 37th Pacific Coast Fog Fest Fog Fest Organizing Group President John Beckmeyer reported on the artwork created for the event and encouraged everyone to come out to Fog Fest. He shared their process and urged all community groups to show up and support Fog Fest and thanked the Board for the incredible job they did to make the Fog Fest happen. He thanked the Pacifica Lions Club and the City of Pacifica for the financial support and help from staff, in addition to other individuals like Robby Bancroft and the sponsorship committee. He felt it was heartwarming to see all these groups step up to make Fog Fest happen and he encouraged everyone to come.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked Mayor Vaterlaus for being Council’s liaison for Fog Fest and lending her expertise and advice over this year.
B. Proclamation - Suicide Prevention Month - September 2024 Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer read the proclamation for Suicide Prevention Month.
Ms. Sylvia Tang stated she is a staff member of the San Mateo County Behavioral Health & Recovery Services - Office of Diversity & Equity and co-chairs San Mateo County Suicide Prevention Committee along with Martha Cervantes and Walter Ng at Star Vista Crisis Center.
She thanked Pacifica for joining other cities and county in proclaiming Suicide Prevention Month. She stated the theme this year was Love Over Loneliness. She stated that the County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in January to proclaim loneliness as a public health City Council Regular Meeting 3 September 09, 2024
crisis. She shared data on these issues and mentioned some upcoming events. She thanked everyone in Pacifica, including Councilmember Bier, for supporting this issue.
Councilmember Bier thanked Ms. Tang for what she does and added that San Mateo County was lucky to have her.
Councilmember Bigstyck thanked Ms. Tang for the work she does and Councilmember Bier for her work and what she brings into many communities in San Mateo County. He shared his thoughts on the difficulties that may come with living and stated that having conversations about suicide might be helpful regarding loneliness.
Mayor Vaterlaus thanked Councilmember Bier and Ms. Tang for everything they do. She stated that, during college, she worked on a suicide prevention hotline and received a suicide call and luckily there was a doctor nearby who helped the person. She thanked them all again for their services.
Councilmember Boles stated she also wanted to thank Ms. Tang and Councilmember Bier. She stated that Councilmember Bier was an example of valuing each human life who comes to these meetings. She then acknowledged the difference Ms. Tang is making in whatever number of lives she saved.
Ms. Tang thanked everyone for speaking and acknowledged encouraging people to be the one to reduce stigma around suicide, mental health, and substance abuse, as one person can make a difference. She appreciated the comment on humanizing many people as it takes one person to reduce stigma and humanizing issues and they are making a difference.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if any councilmembers wanted to pull any items from the Consent Calendar. Seeing no one, she opened public comments. There were no public comments.
Councilmember Boles stated that she has a quick correction to the minutes: On packet page 46, it says “including an exact sense of patios” that she corrected to say “including any deck, fences, patios...” She stated that there was an extra “not” further down where the sentence began “She wanted to point out ... there are some exceptions here, not including...” and the word “not” must be removed.
Mayor Vaterlaus moved to approve the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to Council Communications and asked to push them to the end of the meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 September 09, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon stated we cannot start the adjourned regular meeting until 7:00 p.m.
Council agreed to defer Council Communications to the end of the meeting.
1. Approval of Disbursements for 08/01/24 through 08/31/24.
PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of August 2024.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the June 26, 2024 City Council Special Meeting.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency at the Anza Pump Station.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept Report and Make a Determination that Conditions of Local Emergency Continue to Exist at the Anza Pump Station at the Pacifica State Beach.
5. Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled “Restaurant Exteriors:
The Neglected Space”
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled “Restaurant Exteriors: The Neglected Space.”
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Errol Hunter, Pacifica, stated he has attended meetings in the past to share his concerns about the Calera Creek park situation in Vallemar, and he expressed his gratitude, appreciation, and positive thoughts on the letter the City Manager sent to Vallemar residents as follow-up.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that Council will defer Council Communications unless there is something urgent that needs to be brought to the public.
Councilmember Boles stated that the Pacifica Beach Coalition is organizing Coastal Clean Up Day on September 21, and there will be a big party afterwards.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated Fog Fest is coming up on September 28 and 29. The Pacifica Resource Center’s big fundraiser, Palm-a-Palooza, is on September 21 and is the 50th Anniversary of PRC.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought the very same day, September 21, is Sanchez Adobe Rancho Day on Linda Mar Boulevard.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 September 09, 2024
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse shared that Saturday, September 14, is the first Pacifica Children’s Business Fair outdoors at the Civic Center, which is a unique event that corresponds to the Second Saturday event that occurs in Sharp Park highlighting local merchants. This event will feature 20 businesses managed by 27 young entrepreneurs who create a product or service, develop a brand, build a marketing strategy, and open for customers at this one-day marketplace. He stated it is an exciting first-time event of youth entrepreneurs at the Civic Center.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked to share it with the Pacifica School District so they can share it through the various school sites.
Councilmember Bier thought it would be helpful to both school districts.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that completes his communications.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer followed on and thanked John Beckmeyer for the presentation and echoed his statements about how much all the different city departments support Fog Fest. She thought about PB&R and the Fun Fest and stated it is the 40th Fun Fest as it preceded Fog Fest. She stated it is a lot of fun and met Dr. Bill Michaelis at San Francisco State years ago when she worked there. She referred to all the help from the Sanchez Art Center and work with photographs, competition, and parade, and she hopes everyone can turn out for it.
Mayor Vaterlaus reminded everyone that the parade is at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday and everyone should come out. She is so excited that we can continue this special event for Pacifica.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
6. Automated License Plate Reader Technology to Enhance Public Safety in the City of Pacifica.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, authorizing the City Manager to implement the Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) program and execute the agreements with Flock Safety for ALPR technology and Axon Enterprises to activate ALPR capacity on existing hardware.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to make an introductory comment before the Police team provides a very detailed presentation. He stated that we are always striving for new technology at work. There has been some delay because of resource constraints, but over the years, regardless of the department, we are always looking for technology improvements as they help public safety and save lives. He added that this is a technology enhancement critical to the city’s resources and efficiency of operations.
Chief Sarasua began the staff report.
Corporal Eric Martinez continued the staff report.
Captain Bill Glasgo continued the staff report.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 September 09, 2024
Chief Sarasua completed the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if any councilmembers have any clarifying questions before going to public comment.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he did not have questions because Council had an opportunity with the Chief to learn about the technology beforehand. He is sensitive to the fact that not all members of the community have that opportunity and Council will be listening to any community concerns or questions that might arise.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer opened public comments.
San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaff, Redwood City, stated he supports the request of the Chief and Police Department for the cameras, stating that they have an excellent program, and he shared his thoughts and experiences on the impact of this kind of program.
Holly Smallie, Pacifica, stated she is the local director of a cannabis retail store and shared her personal experiences and thoughts in support of this program.
Gary Furlong, Pacifica, stated that he has served on the Police Department’s Chief Advisory Panel and shared his thoughts in support of this program.
Chris Redfield, Pacifica, stated he was in support of this program and he appreciated the information from District Attorney Wagstaff. He shared his thoughts on this program.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated he has been waiting for this for 2-1/2 years and shared his positive thoughts on approving the program.
Carrie Lujan, Pacifica, stated she is a spouse of a Pacifica Police officer and shared an experience she had and was in support of this program.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought nearly the entire Police Department is present and he thanked them for supporting their department and interest of the public. He stated he is in favor of this.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she was in support of the program. She looked forward to the police being able to use this to help them. She thanked staff for doing this as it is appreciated by the entire community.
Councilmember Boles was also in favor of this program. She thanked Chief Sarasua, Captain Glasgo and Corporal Martinez for all the research and outreach they did ahead of time to listen to the community, groups, and Council and making those concerned about privacy to be sure that their concerns were met. She asked staff if we need more than ten. She understands all the vehicles will be getting them too and that multiplies our numbers. She asked if there was ever a time that it would be useful to keep the data more than 30 days.
Chief Sarasua thought staff did a tremendous amount of research to be strategic about the number of cameras and the location of the cameras, and now they have to implement them and reevaluate bi-annually to see if it is enough cameras. Staff will look at some important data points regarding crimes, and she thinks ten is a satisfactory number. She will be able to report City Council Regular Meeting 7 September 09, 2024
back to Council when she knows more about the efficacy in the implementation phase.
Regarding the retention period, after much discussion with community groups and our detectives in the Police Department, 30 days, while the least amount of time, will allow staff to follow up on critical investigative leads. She stated that, as staff continue to evaluate the technology, we can make a determination at a later time if that needs to change.
Councilmember Bier thanked them for the well done and thorough presentation and appreciated their community outreach as it is the most important thing we can do in our community, i.e., create relationships. She thanked all the officers for their service in protecting us. She stated she is in favor of it.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer echoed the appreciation to the Chief and the officers who worked on this as their briefing was thorough and prepared and listened to Council’s feedback with their knowledge of the community in suggesting areas of individual groups that they might want to check in with. She is proud of the effort in their outreach. She thanked them for bringing this reasonable and well-executed project.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, authorizing the City Manager to implement the Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) program and execute the agreements with Flock Safety for ALPR technology and Axon Enterprises to activate ALPR capacity on existing hardware; seconded by Mayor Vaterlaus.
City Clerk took a vote by verbal roll call.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
7. Designation of Voting Delegate for League of California Cities Annual Conference PROPOSED ACTION: Designate a voting delegate and alternate(s) who will attend the 2024 League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Annual Conference General Assembly Meeting on Friday, October 18, 2024.
City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if Councilmembers have questions. Seeing none, she opened public comments. There were no public comments.
Councilmember Bier suggested Councilmember Boles as delegate.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated she was willing to but was going to suggest Councilmember Bigstyck as delegate.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that it is often the honor of the mayor to be chosen as the delegate and he is content that his turn was taken and if someone else would like a turn at this time, understanding that both Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and former Mayor Bier have both had the opportunities of being the voting delegates.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 September 09, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus nominated Councilmember Boles as the delegate and Councilmember Bigstyck as the alternate; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer adjourned the regular meeting at 7:44 p.m and reconvened the adjourned special regular meeting of August 26, 2024 for continuation of the short-term rental item at 8:02 p.m.
8. Short Term Rental Study Session (Continuation of Council Deliberations from 8/26/2024) PROPOSED ACTION: Receive updates on the Short-Term Rental Program and provide direction on potential revisions to the City’s Short-Term Rental regulations - Continuation of Council Deliberations from 8/26/2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that it will be a continuation of Council deliberation. She explained that public comment for this item was taken at the last meeting and we are not having public comment at this meeting. She encouraged anyone wishing to make a public comment to email the Council.
Asst. City Manager Carter presented the staff report.
Interim Community Development Dep. Director Cervantes stated she will walk them through the remaining policy considerations. She stated that the first will be allowances of STRs in multifamily residences. After reviewing the existing STRs multi-family properties in the city and reviewing other jurisdiction example ordinances, staff is recommending two things: 1) to limit STR permits for multi-family residential building with 5 or more units sharing a common wall and 2) in multi-family residential buildings consisting of 4 or less units, when sharing a common wall, each STR should obtain a separate STR permit as well. She opened it for Council deliberation.
Councilmember Boles asked if we would be able to pull up a list of STR properties with multiple units from the previous agenda packet on page 107. She stated, while we pull it up, she referred to bullet point #2 and thought we were already doing one STR permit per unit.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that we are.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we are not limiting the number, i.e., if you have four units, you can have four STR units as long as you have one permit per unit. She asked if that is what it says.
Asst. City Manager Carter answered affirmatively. She explained that an exemption would apply to buildings with up to five units for allowing STRs, and for buildings with five units, you will start restricting it at one STR per unit.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, for four units or less, there is no change; every unit has to have a permit. Buildings with 5 or more units would only be allowed one STR permit.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 September 09, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that, at the last meeting, we talked about a primary residency requirement. She asked if staff is suggesting that does not apply here in the recommendations.
She asked if an owner would need to live in one of the units.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that those units could be owned by different parties, so the primary residence requirement is a separate requirement that we would revisit. For multiple units, like a four-plex, it may have different owners.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated they could have four or one. She was puzzled as she was thinking of an apartment building which would, in Pacifica, mostly have one owner of the building that rents the units out. In New York, people own apartments.
Councilmember Boles stated that is a condominium, which is a different ownership structure.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks so.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated in a meeting he had, he had suggested, in the case of these STR management companies, the idea that they do not own these units, and somebody owns them and they have Marbella Lane manage them.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks she is hearing him say is he is differentiating between the named owner and the actual manager of the property.
Councilmember Bigstyck answered affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated our permit process allows an owner to designate someone else as an operator of the STR and thus is the permit holder presently and it could be someone other than the owner of the property so long as the owner signs off that they allow, which is how she believes it is currently.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated she is correct.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that what we want to do is discuss this issue in light of how it is now and how they wish it to be in the future.
Councilmember Boles stated staff confirmed that they are changing their application so it is the owner that applies, not an operator for the STRs, and we have the owner’s information.
Councilmember Bier appreciated their work but she disagrees. Having lived in multi-family residential buildings, she does not think that calling out a shared common wall matters. She thinks we should look at all multi-family residential buildings and only allow one permit per multifamily residential buildings. If you have three, four, or five units, you can only have one STR, and that is what she is pushing for because it is the naturally affordable housing in our community and, if we continue to get rid of them, we are hurting our community.
Councilmember Boles stated that she agrees. She stated, if the units are owned individually, she is assuming they are condominiums and they could fall under the rules that we have established previously of a primary residence, i.e. you are allowed to rent it for a certain period if you are the owner and live there as the primary residence.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 September 09, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we did not make that rule yet.
Councilmember Boles thought there were certain things that we had deliberated and agreed to but maybe we need to go back.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed we need to go back.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if it is a condominium and they are owned and built differently, she would want to limit it to one per building.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer concluded she is in agreement with Councilmember Bier.
Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus knows a building on Beach Boulevard that rents all four units as STRs, and they would not be affordable as rentals but they would be rentals available if they were not STRs. If we limit one per multi-family building, then it should be one per multi-family building not necessarily four or more. She stated that condominiums are individually owned and how can you determine what somebody else does in their unit, adding that those are separate.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if Asst. City Attorney Bazzano had a question.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reiterated the discussion of whether a condominium would be considered a multi-family dwelling and she thinks Council is of the mind that it is.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated they are not. She stated that a condominium is individually owned and are mostly all planned unit developments which are considered single families anyway; but if you have a building of 50 condominiums, how do you say that one in the entire complex can be a short-term rental.
Councilmember Boles stated that counts as a single-family residence and whatever rules we apply for a unit otherwise. She asked if we have particular examples of buildings that look like apartment buildings that are individually owned on this list.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated she will get back to that. She stated that, if there are two or more condominiums, they are typically still considered multi-family land uses; that is how zoning in the land use works. We would need to clarify what this recommended language applies for, i.e., multi-family apartment buildings or multi-family condominium buildings or an umbrella multi-family. She stated that is where staff would want some additional direction.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it sounds to her that we need to differentiate condominiums from apartments.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked staff for clarifying from a land use designation standpoint and stated the two are the same.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated in the case of buying and managing condominiums, how many of those condominiums would we like the company to be able to buy and flip into STRs. He stated that is not naturally occurring in affordable housing as it is not in an apartment complex.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 September 09, 2024
Councilmember Boles thinks the other point she raised last time is that most condominiums have HOAs. She suggested asking on the application whether it is an HOA or asking for a letter of whether or not they feel they can enforce it so we know and notify the HOA. She spoke to three different organizations with HOAs: Fairmont Homeowners Association and Sky Ridge have a lot of units and have language that limit rentals to 30 days. Pacific View Villas is a small HOA that is struggling with enforcement against STRs. She would like to see how we can encourage people to do the right thing.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is an example where there can be lots of different permutations and arrangements and legalities. We can develop the ordinance and do more research and talk to Coastal Commission staff and then bring it back. It may help to say that it is Council’s intention that an individual unit that is individually owned is not subject to this; in other words, a typical duplex or triplex or more that is in an apartment building, those are not typically individually owned units, but different permutations, townhomes, or condominiums, etc., typically individually owned would be a way to think of it. If the direction is a situation where there are individual units that are individually owned, then they fall to the other STR rules and not to the multi-family residential building.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that the way to view a condominium multi-family structure is to view it more like multiple single-family residences; we have discussed other restrictions we want to place on single family-owned property to try to address the issue with large corporations that may want to buy up properties for the purpose of STRs. She appreciated that context and thought that was a good way to look at condominiums and we can save the discussion on how we want to deal with condominiums until after we have the discussion regarding how to deal with natural persons versus corporations versus primary residency requirements. She thinks that will address some concerns with corporate entities owning properties.
Councilmember Bier stated she has a question about process. She stated that Council gave a lot of direction before we adjourned the last meeting, and she is not clear about that. She asked if we are going to hear the direction Council already gave or are we talking about it again.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Asst. City Manager Carter’s first slide had item #1 where we received direction on a lot of topics. He stated that there are some clarifications that we need to go back to because they bleed over into whatever Council may decide on these new policy considerations. We will be going back, recapping, revisiting, and discussing further the direction that was received on the earlier ones.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and added to pick up what was not completed last time and focus on those before going back over all of it at the end of this meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, a general comment is that on any of these given policy considerations, except for one, we have not done the fiscal analysis yet; after Council gives direction and staff come back to Council, staff will need to say the decision about the multifamily portion of the program is X fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if that is part of their future deliberations, she thinks we need the economic analysis in general as to how much the STRs make and how much are they costing the city.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that was a great point about fiscal impact analysis. He stated City Council Regular Meeting 12 September 09, 2024
that there are some basic and direct impacts to TOT to the city that we can do. If Council is interested in a very substantial and robust fiscal impact analysis that factors in how much does a renter bring into a community versus how much does a short term renter bring in to the community, that is going to be a separate, distinct, costly, and complicated fiscal analysis for the city; we will have to pursue that separately and it will take a long time. San Francisco is not Pacifica and you cannot generalize those provisions and we would have to do it specific to Pacifica and to employ economic consulting firms that can do that analysis. He wants to set that expectation clearly as that is a very complex analysis, like the retail leakage analysis or guidelines. There is a lot of research which is beyond staff’s capacity and we would have to hire a consultant to do that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer had one question on that piece, i.e., how much the city has looked at costs associated with enforcement of short-term rental ordinance, i.e. code enforcement, police, building inspection, etc. Some of the ideas Council discussed involve having a physical inspection of a property and how would the cost of that inspection be born and what other policies do we have in other inspections that the city requires and who bears those inspection costs. She thinks that is some of the information she needs to hear.
Councilmember Boles thought Airbnb in the last letter they sent talked about occupancy rates and there is a dollar amount of how much a person spends, whether it is an STR or resident. If you are vacant for a certain amount of time, it is still revenue to the city, and she has a problem just looking at one side of the equation.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding that the reality that we do have this analysis. She stated that former Mayor John Keener opened her eyes to the difference between the revenue generated from TOT and the revenue generated from sales tax. She referred to Councilmember Boles’ point about when there is vacancy, nobody is generating either TOT or sales tax revenue, and the notion is well-taken of the idea of a year-round supportive businesses with residential occupancy, businesses like the veterinarian and optometrist, etc., that in all likelihood would not be frequented by short term rental guests. She stated that is the level of detail that City Manager Woodhouse says we need to hire specialized staff firm to do that kind of analysis.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that she mentioned many variables and they would go into that kind of calculation.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated one example was a letter from Cotton Crustacean saying that a lot of his business comes from short-term rentals. She asked how do you know who is going to restaurants, and who is spending money in different places. She thinks that is a very complicated issue.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Boles referred to the discussion on the multiple units and affordable housing.
She stated that, in our Housing Element, duplexes are a lower price for people to buy whether they are individually owned or you own the whole building and you rent out the other to help you pay it. She stated that it makes her nervous to have too many of these being taken up by businesses when we have such a shortage of housing. She stated that some of them are residents. She stated that there are some duplexes next to her and she knows the owners, and if they want to rent out their own place, the rules we have for homes could also apply.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 September 09, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought we should concentrate on that as we have the topic of natural person and issues about primary residency, etc., and did not think we concluded it during our last meeting. She feels like Council needs to nail that down in terms of giving direction to staff. She asked about the process.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if Council was interested, for the multi-family properties policy consideration, in parking that for now while we revisit some of the others and come back to it or do we want to set preliminary direction to staff, and if so, what will that direction be.
Councilmember Bier would like to set preliminary directions to staff. She said her direction was one unit for multi-family residential buildings.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer clarified whether that building has 2 or 12 units.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought it could be a percentage. She asked about a tiered approach.
Councilmember Boles stated that the other point that was made was that, when you’re living in close quarters, people coming in and out have a much bigger impact than if you are separated as a house. She does not feel comfortable with a lot. She does not know how many buildings we have that are more than five units.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, in staff’s analysis, one of the factors that they looked at was, per Councilmember Boles’ point, when you are in close quarters, people coming in and out are a big impact; if there is one unit that is an STR in a duplex, triplex, or fourplex, that could potentially be a big impact to those others in that unit as opposed to, if all of the units up to four are short-term rentals. Then, it is less of an impact to each of those because they are all shortterm rentals. He stated that staff looked at that and the list they have in front of them about what the reality is that exists and that is how they came up to the recommendation.
Councilmember Boles asked if we have data about how many duplexes, triplexes, 4-plexes, etc. we have in Pacifica.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that we do not have that available at this time.
Councilmember Boles stated it is dangerous once you open that up.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that Council has a cap that is in place.
Councilmember Boles thinks we will come back to this one.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was inclined toward one per building with the caveat, as she does not know how many buildings we have that have 10 or more apartments so that is what she wonders about. She thought the idea of some ratio may be relevant. She is not sure if one in a duplex is equivalent to one in a 30-unit building. She understands and agrees with the point that apartment living is generally more affordable and the notion of naturally affordable housing is something that we have used in many discussions and was the basis of their ADU ordinance.
She feels that we need to leave this one for the moment and come back to it and, in light of City Council Regular Meeting 14 September 09, 2024
other discussions, that will shed an open eye on how one situation could apply to another.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that sounds great. He clarified the distinction between one individually owned unit, i.e., each individual unit that is owned. He wanted to try to make the distinction between some Councilmembers who say we are not talking about condominiums or townhomes that are typically individually owned. He stated that, as preliminary direction, Council does not have to give it on that but he wants to make sure that is another variable.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, to Councilmember Boles’ point, the unit that is a condominium and has eight units versus Creekside condominiums where she lives that have 70 or more units are not exactly comparable; some amount of scale is something we will have to address to make this intelligible.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes moved onto the next policy consideration is the density of shortterm rentals. Council had requested that staff look into limiting the number of STRs per neighborhood, for business district, or for street or block. Staff evaluated a number of ordinances and found that many do not have this type of restriction and the evaluation is that; if Council is interested in going with something similar with putting a cap per neighborhood or for business district or street or block, staff would need to do further evaluations on the financial impact of that policy and consider how it would impact the active legal STR operations in visitordriven areas. She stated some things to consider with this is that, currently, since we do not have any provision that limits the number of STRs per neighborhood, the City is likely to have, if Council does direct staff to put some sort of caps on neighborhood or for street or block, the possibility that some of our existing STRs in some areas would already be at that cap or exceed that cap so it does create an issue there. There is also already a cap of 150 STRs per citywide as well.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the other issue she wants Council to think about when thinking about limiting the number of STRs per neighborhood is that would require some determination in the event that we have more than the number we have limited it to. She stated that then the question comes up, how do you issue permits. It can be on a first come, first serve basis, but a lot of times, this could involve more administrative determination lottery. She asked if first come, first served the fairest, or if it would be more equitable to have a lottery system so that every year you have a system on who is going to receive the permits for that neighborhood. She stated that there is more than just the Council limiting the number.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we are generally going to have a higher concentration in the coastal zone because that is where people want to come and stay and that will be affected by Coastal Commission. She stated that there is a lot involved in the density issue.
Councilmember Boles stated, for the people who live in those neighborhoods, they are greater impacted. She stated that Cindy Abbott put the statistics together but we have, between Shoreview and Sharp Park, 63 STRs (about 37%) now, and they are impacted more than any other part of Pacifica.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they are impacted more by the tourists also, but if you live by the ocean, you are going to have different impacts than someone who does not live by the ocean.
Councilmember Boles stated that they did not necessarily sign up for that when they bought their house.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 September 09, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, if you live where she lives, you are not going to have the tourist traffic that you have in Sharp Park.
Councilmember Boles stated she is not talking about tourist traffic but people coming into the house next door to you every day.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated we are hearing painful stories from people who live on a court in the back of the valley or on a street up at the end of a long residential street or at the top of the Talbot area. She stated that the impact is more frequent because there is more of them in Sharp Park and Pedro Point, but even where there are not as many of them, the issue of pain in the community is consistent.
Mayor Vaterlaus acknowledged it is widespread.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is what she wants to address, to figure out how they take away most of that pain.
Councilmember Boles stated some of the other policies we are considering that we talked about previously will help alleviate some of the density issues in this area.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed with that.
Councilmember Bier stated that there are some policies out there that state that there needs to be 500 feet between parcels or something like that.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there was one jurisdiction that had a “55-foot buffer between STRs and no more than 15% of parcels per block”.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated 55 feet would not make much difference here because most lots are 50 feet wide.
Councilmember Boles stated it would just mean you could not have two right next door.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes added “...and no more than 15% of parcels per block would be allowed to operate as an STR”.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought the 55 feet does not seem like a large space but it does begin to address the condominium issue.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that Council can make different regulations, depending upon the type of residence: If you want to have a larger buffer in some areas and not others, i.e. the condominiums, you could change that and it could be 55 feet for single family residence.
Councilmember Boles stated that we could do it by zoning, i.e. R1 has a specific kind of buffer.
She then stated Half Moon Bay also has an exception in certain visitor-serving commercial zones where regular restrictive regulations do not apply and people do not have to have a primary resident fee and people can book even longer. She stated that was one of the reasons she was asking for the zoning map previously. She stated that there might be instances where we do not have to be as restrictive and instances where we want to be more restrictive.
Councilmember Bier thinks we need to have the maps.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 September 09, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed about the different zoning and referenced an example from the Sharp Park Specific Plan.
Councilmember Boles thinks we are currently updating our zoning map with the Housing Element work. She asked if hotels are not permitted by right in any zone now and that it takes a use permit application.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano believes that is correct and believes that Interim Dep. Director Cervantes mentioned that at the previous meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about hotels being permitted by right in any of our zoning.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated she would look into it.
Councilmember Bier appreciated that Councilmember Bigstyck thought about the condominiums and how the 55 feet would address that and it gave Council something to build on as she thinks it needs to be further for the single family homes. She thinks that is the beginning of the conversation and she asked how we delve further.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that at the forefront of his mind are those corporate entities who have bought up multiple dwellings or a unit that possesses multiple dwellings and flipped it into that which it was not intended to be. He stated that, if he had a way to pinpoint that and remedy it, he thinks that is the best way to begin.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if that entity owns all those units or are they managing those units.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that they are managing those units.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she looked up Beach Boulevard and Belfast, two of our biggest complaint-driven STRs, and they are owned by separate people.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that, at the end of the day, the problem is the short-term rental management, namely the ones from complaint-driven STRs. He expressed the challenges in the issue with finding the means first and figuring out if there is a better way later.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought, like Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer said, if we go back to the small details, like two people per bedroom or two cars total, we may start out with all those regulations and then later get into density or some of the other ones like hosted or unhosted. It seems like, if we make these regulations, like three strikes or lying on applications, that could take out a lot of the bad actors.
Councilmember Boles asked if we have an idea of how many are right next to each other. She thought staff had prepared a map.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought she saw that too. She knows we have a table.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated she would need to find that map first. In response to the question regarding the hotels and if there is any zoning district where they are permitted by right, the answer is yes and no. In C1/C2 zoning districts in the coastal zone, we have a provision that says visitor-serving uses are permitted by right. Hotels/motels are considered a City Council Regular Meeting 17 September 09, 2024
visitor-commercial use; however, in any scenario that she can think of, we would still need some sort of planning discretionary application because, you are either converting an existing building and changing it from residential use or some other commercial use into the motel/hotel use, which would intensify that use, so you would need a Coastal Development Permit or you are constructing a brand new hotel from scratch or remodel. In any scenario she can think of, there would be some sort of planning application discretionary action, but the use itself would be allowed by right in the coastal zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer confirmed in the coastal zone.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there are no zoning districts outside of the coastal zone that would allow it by right and they do require a use permit.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if the small hotel on Pedro Point was there by right.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the small hotel off San Pedro Avenue, Anchor Inn, does have a discretionary permit and, at minimum, a Coastal Development Permit.
Councilmember Bier appreciated what Mayor Vaterlaus was saying about looking at the little things, and she also wants to delve further while they have the opportunity.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated that the reason she requested the map was to understand how many were next to each other now as implementing 55 feet would mean we cannot have one right next to another. She asked how many instances is there of that rule.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated staff is looking for that map.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that we can make the radius larger than 55 feet.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned the issue of zoning differences, coastal zone versus noncoastal zone. She stated that was brought up by people not in the coastal zone. Her recollection is in the coastal zone we will have to have Coastal Commission review of any change and we will not be able to make it effective until that occurs; but in the non-coastal zone, it can be effective much sooner. She mentioned the room being split on the notion of what is your neighborhood and expecting more visitors in the coastal zone. She likes the idea of having buffers. She thought the distance would make sense but it will take some time.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the data on the ground is going to change so all of the other restrictions on the program will result, i.e. how many STRs are in neighborhoods. Regarding different phases of the program, he asked if Council wants to go through a complex and challenging lottery system when that may not be necessary for that block because of other restrictions on the program. He stated that there are many intertwining things here and one construct is we have these phases of the program regarding enforcement. He stated that is a policy making construct that Council can consider in this dialogue at this meeting.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, in the immediate term, will the buffers address the STRs identified in complaints and public comment.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 September 09, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated not necessarily. She stated it is about behavior, enforcement, and limitations.
Councilmember Bier agreed and mentioned 1 STR per natural person, how many people can stay in a room, and how many cars.
Councilmember Boles emphasized neighborhood cohesion if we get too many in one area, which is not necessarily controlled by those factors. It might reduce them, but the 55 feet could be a starting point.
Mayor Vaterlaus referred to her previous comment and felt sorry for people who live next to people who are bad actors. She did not think, when you purchased your house or planned on living there, that you ever expected anyone to do the things that some of these people do.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if we want different regulations for coastal zone and noncoastal zone, only to the degree that we could begin enforcing.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Councilmember Boles thinks the density issue is more important in the coastal zone. She did not think we needed different policies for the others but we could address the density one way.
She suggested putting a pin in this when we can come back with how many are right next to each other and we can see how far apart they are and we can consider regulations.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he wanted to introduce the idea of revisiting the cap because of the ideas possibly thinning out the density. He is not suggesting that conversation at this meeting, but it occurs to him that if several STRs went away, then the cap may be reduced.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood but added that the cap presently does not differentiate between hosted and unhosted.
Councilmember Bier asked if it also does not differentiate between units.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that each STR permit represents one unit.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that the four-unit building has four permits now.
Councilmember Bier stated that the five-unit apartment building has five permits but one business license for five STRs.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that, in terms of the cap, each of those five counts towards the cap.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that one owner may have five permits.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to make a clarification with zoning differences between the coastal and non-coastal zone. He stated whatever ordinance changes the Council directs and adopts, they go into effect after 30 days in the non-coastal zone and then we go down the Coastal Commission process for the coastal zone. He stated that one of the questions is about enforcement rights and those policy changes get applied immediately to the non-coastal zone.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 September 09, 2024
He stated that the question about zoning differences is having different policies for the coastal versus non-coastal.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she did not understand what the advantage is because she is focused on the negative impact on neighborhoods.
City Manager Woodhouse stated staff’s recommendation is to not have different policies for coastal and non-coastal.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if Council can think of a reason for separate different ones.
Councilmember Boles thought the policies we are trying to solve are going to help the coastal zone too, and it would be easier to keep them the same. She wants people to make sure they know that is probably not going to be a perfect ordinance and Council may make changes.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she would like to explain how this process generally works.
Council started years ago the regulatory program and are now doing what a lot of jurisdictions do, which is trying to address ways to make the ordinance better and there are different mechanisms to do that. Staff have started to more aggressively address complaints through active enforcement. She stated active enforcement is different than what Council is doing at this meeting. What Council is doing now is creating the tools upon which we will base that active enforcement in the future. Whatever actions Council takes will make this regulatory program better. In the future, some Council will be back here discussing how this program is working and asking if there are things they can do to better it.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks the zoning differences were covered.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that was the last policy that Council had not previously discussed and now we are going to go through some of the policy considerations that they had discussed at the end of August, and there are a couple where staff needs some clarification.
She stated that the first is hosted versus unhosted STRs. The direction was to create definition for hosted versus unhosted STR properties. One of the things we need further direction on is the number of days that the Council would like to limit for unhosted STRs.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that her recollection is that people were centering on 90 days and she feels like there has not been pros and cons discussed. She certainly expects for some current year-round operators a limit of 90 days is not going to be financially sufficient for them to want to continue doing business. She stated, if the goal is eliminating some of the businesses that are operating in residential neighborhoods, she thinks it will accomplish that. The real issues is which ones it will impact. She asked for input from Council.
Councilmember Bier thinks most of the ordinances she has looked over and people have sent them are 60 days and she went back and forth last time thinking about 90 for the exact same reason she needed, but it seems like most of them are 60.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she was thinking 120.
Councilmember Boles thought that was where the discussion was, that 90 was a good compromise.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is why they landed on 90 days.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 September 09, 2024
Councilmember Boles stated that this is a limit to STRs of less than 30 days, but she has seen Airbnb platforms and homes that are rented for more than 30 days and these regulations do not apply to that; therefore, someone could rent STR for 90 days and then they could rent to a visiting nurse or college interns or professor on sabbatical for less than a year.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked Mayor Vaterlaus if, once you have rented out a place for more than 30 days, are there occupancy laws that are coming into effect that weigh heavily into that decision-making process.
Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively, adding that then you are a tenant and no longer STR after 30 days and none of the regulations would apply then as you are not an STR.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer has talked to people who are working with teachers that are placed on contract who are not here for a whole year, nurses and other medical personnel, etc. and they can afford to pay a lot as the companies are covering their expenses. She asked how that works, i.e., she understands legally that tenancy issues pertain with anything over 30 days, but there is also a contract.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that you have to do a full eviction even after 30 days if they do not leave. She stated that it gets removed from the STR category as it is no longer STR. She stated that none of these rules would apply. She stated that is different, i.e., a tenancy, and you would have a tenancy lease agreement with them.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked City Attorney Kenyon if he is correct that the city does not have the ability to limit the amount charged in any fashion by any of these STR operators.
City Attorney Kenyon answered no.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is hearing 30, 60, 90, or 120 days unhosted.
City Manager Woodhouse added that this is one of those program changes that we do not know what the behavior of each of the STR owner is going to be. Council mentioned scenarios of renting out part year, and it could also be the case that the owner likes to come to Pacifica occasionally and they choose for it to sit vacant the rest of the non-60 or -90 days so their family members or friends can use it. He added that, in Council questions, the direct TOT fiscal impact is estimated and Asst. City Manager Carter can talk about it if Council is interested regarding assumptions made to show what the difference between 60, 90, and 120 days is.
Councilmember Bier stated that we can also incorporate minimum days rented.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that there is a must be rented certain amount of dates.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated two to three days minimum.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if Council means consecutive nights. He stated Council directed two consecutive nights.
Mayor Vaterlaus expressed her reservations regarding limitations on unhosted STRs. She stated previously that she owned an unhosted Airbnb in Arizona, and she only rented it for several months and she did not want to rent long-term because she wanted the availability to be City Council Regular Meeting 21 September 09, 2024
there. Her thoughts are that she does not like any time period for hosted, as the rest of the items will take care of that issue.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked Mayor Vaterlaus if she means to say she is okay with no limit at all on how many nights an unhosted STR may operate.
Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively, adding that she knows it is not in consensus with the rest of Council. She thinks that, if we have all the other additional regulations, it may address some of the issues. Many people who are currently unhosted are not having issues and they came to Council and talked about their issues. She thought, if they did inspections, two cars maximum, two people per bedroom, limit 2-3 days, and all the other regulations, such as three strikes and no lying, those are going to limit the problems with unhosted STRs.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer mentioned the position of neighborhoods and operating commercial businesses in neighborhoods.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we have pages of at-home businesses, and one Councilmember has an at-home business. She asked if we are limiting business in residential districts.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer disagreed regarding home occupancy businesses.
Councilmember Boles stated that they are tiny and you have them at very maximum square footage, thus not a big business where people are coming in and out all the time.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, with the occupancy uses, there is somebody who lives there with their business, but what we are specifically talking about are people who are not living with their business. He stated that is the difference.
Mayor Vaterlaus wanted to clarify that many public comments say there should not be businesses in residential districts, although there are many businesses in residential districts.
Councilmember Bier thinks many letters say they do not want hotel type businesses in residential.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and asked what Council wants to do with this.
Councilmember Boles stated that we still need limits. She stated that is some of the research that San Francisco did that she brought up at the last meeting. She stated that making it not such a money-making opportunity that it is causing more units to be taken away from residents who want to live here. She stated, for the people who do live next door, while the unhosted are not always a problem, the unhosted tend to be the ones that are problematic. She stated that the effects for the people wo live next door are greater. She stated that everyone she talks to lives next door to one would like to have 60 days to minimize the impact to their lives. She feels strongly needing a limit and finding the right line.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked Councilmember Bigstyck if his preference was 30.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated his preference is that houses are not bought specifically with the notion that they be flipped into a makeshift hotel room and whatever cap they put on it disincentivizes that purchase tendency.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 September 09, 2024
Councilmember Bier stated that it is not banning unhosted.
Councilmember Boles agreed to not banning unhosted, as someone may go on vacation and have the ability to rent the house and pay for their home improvements and trip.
Councilmember Bigstyck does not know what that number winds up being but he cannot vote for more than 90. He added that, as he said previously, he may not vote with consensus.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated her thought was not with consensus as well. She stated that she can look at the chart that says the loss of income for the city by limiting the numbers.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he would specifically and transparently talk about that estimate. This is just based on some assumptions for the TOT General Fund revenue impact and the number is, if Coastal Commission were to approve that limit and that limit was implemented citywide, then at that point in time, a 60-day limitation would reduce our TOT by a range of $800,000 to just over $1 million per year; 90-day limit would be a reduction of $680,000 to $880,000; and 120-day limit would be a reduction of TOT to $560,000 to $720,000. City Manager Woodhouse stated that is our best calculation at this point in time, and once it is in effect, he will be coming back with budget recommendations to close the deficit for $1 million or so. It does not factor in all of those other potential effects, as each year we have to take the tax revenues that come in to balance our budget, but in isolation for this variable to this program, that is the best knowledge we have about the fiscal impact to the city.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that this is a quick estimate of the impact of TOT just on one policy direction so they have not factored in all the discussions Council has had that will also have financial impacts. She stated, for this specific issue, we assume, based on the information we have so far, as renewal will show a little bit more data here, we have between 80% and 90% of all STRs of unhosted now, and we also assumed roughly 70% occupancy for those STRs which is the consistency we have seen so far. She stated to keep in mind that this assumes every current STR operator will continue with the new restrictive conditions, which is very unlikely. She stated that we do not know how the market and STR operators will react. She stated that the impact, at least in the first few years, is likely to be greater.
Councilmember Boles recalls that in Half Moon Bay, the TOTs went up after they put in their restrictions and, even with the 60 days, they had more applications.
Asst. City Manager Carter added a point about Half Moon Bay, i.e., their city is three times smaller than Pacifica, it has 19 hotels, about 700 rooms compared to 300 rooms in Pacifica.
Councilmember Boles stated that 70 STRs for a population that is one-third of ours and we have 150, so in terms of the STRs, it is about the same percentage.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated, based on the information we have in our research, the official number of permitted STRs is very low in Half Moon Bay.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated Half Moon Bay’s TOT went up because the total number of operators increased. Once the regulations were put in place, people knew what the rules of the game were, and they started doing it more; thus, the income went up. She stated that it is undeniable that we will bring in less TOT with any one of these changes. She is thinking about what are our costs for operating this program, with regard to code enforcement and permit management, and it sounds to her like we are more than doubling the length of the permit City Council Regular Meeting 23 September 09, 2024
application, and there is going to be an increase in staff time to manage the permit themselves which is an increase in cost. She stated that it is not just reducing the TOT we earn but making the whole overall program more complicated and that will take more staff to manage. We are reducing the money and increasing the cost, and that will have a big impact which is the reality.
Councilmember Boles stated we can increase the fees and increase the fines to help pay for the enforcement. She knows it is a problem, but what else can we do to make some of this up.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it was undeniable and the fact is that we have to do something and cannot keep it the way it is.
Councilmember Boles stated that the way it is now is not working for the community.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that there are certain clear directions from Council so we may be able to review those first and come back to this point.
Councilmember Boles asked if we need to finish deliberation on this.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated no, adding that she is suggesting that we come back after reviewing the rest of the directions.
Councilmember Boles thought we were getting close on 1B.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, in terms of the number, it is either 60 or 90 days.
Councilmember Bier stated that, with 90 days, that allows for 7.5 days a month. She does not want to lose sight of how destructive the unhosted STRs can be to their neighborhoods, and she does not want to take away business from people who are doing good business. She thinks it is hard to find a balance, and she thinks we should start with 90 days.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he can be pushed that far.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she can go down to 90 days.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we leave it at 90 and go on.
Councilmember Boles stated that she is okay with 90.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked about primary residency requirement. She thought the solution to this was specifying a natural person and now she is hearing there are legal challenges to that language. She asked if we can limit the owner to a natural person.
City Attorney Kenyon understands this discussion and clarified that the City Attorney advises Council on the risk associated with whatever action they are about to take. She stated that the conversation that she has heard secondhand is all these other jurisdictions are doing this, and why can Pacifica not. She stated that we can, and she stated that the risks associated with it are that we could make an ordinance that would only define natural person as people but the reality is, under state law, natural persons are defined as people and corporations. That risk associated with that is one that Council can consider, but there are other mechanisms that we City Council Regular Meeting 24 September 09, 2024
can put into this ordinance that will address the corporate concerns, one being one STR permit per single-family residence or per unit and that will address the issue of one entity or persons owning multiple permits.
Councilmember Boles stated that you could have a different corporation for each house and still under the same ownership.
City Attorney Kenyon suggested that Council look at all the other regulations being discussed, i.e. limited unhosted with a provision that requires that the owner of the permit have that permit be part of their primary residence and that would require a corporate entity to have one of their officers have that property be their primary residence. The reality is that there are many state regulations that require corporations to take many regulated actions in order to prove that they are a viable corporation. She stated that there is no guarantee that we will not have a corporation trying to use our single family residences as money-making operations, but the reality is, given the other enforcement tools recommended that the city incorporate into the ordinance, their profit margin, given the limit on unhosted rentals, given the requirement that natural person or entity have this be their primary residence, given that there is only one permit per owner, the majority of the concerns related to corporate ownership would be eliminated, albeit not all of them. She thinks a majority of them would be eliminated by these enforcement tools they have been talking about at this meeting.
Councilmember Boles stated, if we need to confirm, if we are okay with the primary residence, that is okay with her and we do not need necessarily a natural person and we can revisit it for any loopholes.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what would be the type of methods by which that would be determined, i.e. when they submit the application, what do they have to submit through that.
Councilmember Bier stated you have to prove that you live there.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that we have a general list in the staff report for documentation, including driver’s license, tax information, or a copy of any lease or evidence proving the host is actually living in the dwelling unit.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we would expand that as now we would have to deal with corporate entities. She added that we have had to verify corporate ownership and residency requirements on other issues and we would apply those types of verification at the application stage. She would imagine that we would always have the ability to audit. She stated, if there were complaints for any corporate entity ownerships, the city would begin the more direct enforcement with regard to a primary residence and a corporate officer living at that location.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she looked up two properties today, one on Beach Blvd., and one on Belfast, and each of them are individual owners and each of them said to the County that they were owners occupying the property.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is what she is saying as they are not occupying.
Councilmember Boles stated that is where, if we have our strict regulations and our strikes, we can take someone off if they lied on the application.
Councilmember Bier asked is that two strikes or three.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 September 09, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that was one and that was it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, with that particular example, she was hopeful with our new application requirements, we would have identified that initially. She thinks, regarding Councilmember Boles’ point, the City Attorney’s Office’s best advice now is to move forward with these new enforcement tools. She thought those enforcement tools would eliminate a lot of the concerns with corporate ownership, not all of them, as they could have a corporate ownership that believes that there is a profit to be made in Pacifica with only 90 unhosted days, but she does not think that will pencil out in their performance for the majority of them.
Councilmember Boles asked if Council was okay with the primary residence requirement.
There was Council consensus.
Councilmember Boles asked if we want to make any exceptions for people who have been permitted for a certain amount of time but do not live here. She stated that we could offer up to five or a certain number. She is asking a question on behalf of those people or if it is in certain zones and we are okay with longer and it does not need to have someone who lives there.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked how you regulate one person over another.
Councilmember Boles agreed it is easier to keep the primary.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer understood. She added that we addressed this question at the last meeting and she was emphatic about no grandfathering. She is not opposed to the notion of looking at other metrics and she is persuaded by the metric of is this a commercial zone. She thought we should look at that as it goes to that issue of how many in a neighborhood. She acknowledged that not every neighborhood has commercial zones.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that is a permanent thing and zoning is much different.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes added that, for this provision, one of the things we are asking is for the minimum time period. Initially staff had thought that they would take 365 days and subtract it by whatever Council recommended in 1B but, if Council has a different idea with what that minimum time period should be, staff would like to know that. For an unhosted STR, based on the recommendation on 1B, you would be able to host for 90 days and the rest of the year, as written in the report, it would require a primary resident to live in that unit. She clarified that the limited number of days for an unhosted STR is 90 days. This is a time period for which the primary resident or corporate officer is required to live in that unit.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that has not been discussed yet; thus, the discussion point for the Council is there is a primary residency requirement that we are going to add. Apart from anything else, she asked how long does Council want the permittee to have to reside in the home during the year in order to be considered their primary residence. She was anticipating they would have to have this as their primary residence for 365 days minus 90 which is 275.
She stated that the City Manager raised was that it means they would have to live in the home for 275 days and what about the non-corporate permittee who wants to have it unhosted for 90 days but also wants to have a long-term lease of three months. She stated that would eliminate the ability of single-family property owners, not corporations, to have 90 days of unhosted and possibly three months of a lease. There are implications to the determination of how long the City Council Regular Meeting 26 September 09, 2024
Council wants the permittee to live in the home in order to substantiate primary residence.
Councilmember Boles asked how we would verify that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that , in terms of enforcement, the most effective enforcement tool in this scenario is the application process. If the Council’s primary concern is corporate ownership with the primary residency requirement, then it would not be an issue with how many days you are requiring primary residency; but if you are trying to address primary residency in general, for both single-family owners, natural people, as well as corporate ownership, this kind of primary residency requirement, if it is too onerous, could impact their ability to rent out their home, even for long-term leases.
Mayor Vaterlaus thinks, if we want to do an insurance rental the rest of the time, generally 6 or 8 months, then we are limiting people from renting out houses, and that is contrary to why we are doing this, as we want more rentals.
Councilmember Boles thought the primary residency requirement was enough.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed but wants to explore what she is not thinking about.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that one of the challenges with this will be enforcement. It is based on self-reporting and, if there is an egregious example that it seems like it is being violated, then it is going to be expensive and lengthy to try to determine the records. He stated that operationally and enforcement on the ground is going to be challenging, but there is the deterrent effect of possible revocation. He stated that it would be complicated to enforce it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is exactly why her opinion is that the best way to secure a primary residence requirement is to make it an onerous application process to assure that this is that person’s primary residence as they get the permit. She added that the reality is that enforcement after the fact is going to be difficult. She does think that, in terms of addressing the corporation issue, just having a primary residency requirement without limiting the number of days they have to be there, without policing the issue, along with the other enforcement tools that we are thinking of putting in, will help address that problem. If your issue is that you want single-family homeowners to reside in the residency for a certain period of time, that will impact their ability to use that residence if they want to lease it out.
Councilmember Bier stated that we do not want to do that.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we were additionally talking about, when you purchase it, you have to live there for 30 days before you can rent it out.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was a good point and referred to another city’s program where you could not apply as a STR until you lived on the property a certain amount of time.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she has heard of those, not for the purpose regarding corporations, and it would have to be a longer period of time than 30 days. She would think a corporation would not mind paying for somebody to live there for 30 days and depict that as a primary residence.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it was a year and one year after the date the owner took occupancy or ownership, then you can come to the city and apply for an STR permit, but not City Council Regular Meeting 27 September 09, 2024
before. She thinks they were trying to address was the vacation rental situation and trying to drive owners toward it being resident owners that may not be there all year long.
City Attorney Kenyon thought that would be an effective tool to incorporate into the ordinance. If we eliminate putting any time periods for determining residency, she would strongly recommend a substantial time limit on ownership purchase and then use of the premises as an STR. She agreed with a year.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to the point Councilmember Bigstyck was making about buying it to flip it into an STR.
Councilmember Bigstyck responded affirmatively.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we took away many incentives with the unhosted time periods.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if he was hearing Council’s consensus to implement a waiting period policy after purchase.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that staff will have to help Council understand how we do that.
Councilmember Bier stated what if they already owned it such as for 12 years.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it would apply from the time of purchase, whenever that was.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that many bad actors have owned their properties for more than a year.
Councilmember Boles stated that it keeps new ones from wanting to do that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Mayor Vaterlaus does not know how she feels about this one.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is why she wants to talk about it, such as pitfalls.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we may need to hear from the Mayor on what she can see in terms of this concerning pitfalls.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, in many properties, people have owned them longer than a year and they can say they considered this their primary residence for the last year, and we cannot prove that they lived there beginning at that time. She does not know if you can tell a person that you can only buy this property if you plan on living in it, as realtors cannot say they have to buy the property and live in it.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, if we were telling them they have to live there in order to purchase the property, that would be a problem, but that is not what we are saying. They can purchase the property, but if they want an STR permit, they need to own it for a year.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that would be a realtor issue because she has a property and if someone wants to buy it, she asks, if you want to make this into a STR, you are going to have to read these regulations first.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 September 09, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated if someone buys and applies to the city for an STR permit, staff will say, you need to have owned this property for a year before you come and apply for an STR permit. She thinks we are using the term interchangeably, but in the event that they are not living in it, they at least have to hold it for a period of time, and a year sounds good to her, before they flip it or try to use it as the STR.
Mayor Vaterlaus understands what Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer is saying.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Council was asking about different scenarios and one could be that they rent it out for a year and they kick out that tenant and flip it to an STR and then you have an issue there.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that they can only do that for 90 days.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that at that point they have to be the primary resident.
Councilmember Boles agreed that they have to prove that they are a primary resident.
City Manager Woodhouse is saying in that scenario where they own it for a year, to make money off their investment, rent it for up to a year with a tenant and then kick that tenant out and turn it into the STR program under all the other restrictions that the city has. It does not serve the goal of the need Council has regarding long-term rental housing. It is possible after a year they realize that the person is a great renter and they will keep going with this.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes asked if we had any further discussion or direction on No. 2.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if the time period is a year occupied by the primary resident.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, after the initial year has passed, and they are signing up for the 90-day unhosted, how much time do they have to be living there.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they have direction on the purchase requirement for the purchase time period of one year. It sounded like the primary residence requirement was for no minimum period.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated just owned.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Councilmember Bigstyck thinks that the idea is that some corporate entity is buying a house specifically for the purpose of turning it into a hotel room to make personal profit, they are probably being disincentivized to the point where, whether or not they are living in the year or not. There is a question on year two, i.e., is there a requirement for how many days of the year they are occupying the house and should there be.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is what we are saying and we said no.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, after the year, then they are a STR and you have unhosted regulations.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 September 09, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that a part of the unhosted regulations we are discussing is whether or not there is a timed occupancy requirement once those unhosted regulations go into effect. He feels that, at some point, there is the point where we can revisit any regulation we are putting into place and adjust it up or down, depending on the circumstances. He stated that he tends not to be comfortable with this level of regulation.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she does not want a limitation on it in the second year. She wants to leave flexibility for a family, couple, or long-term resident contributing to the economy of Pacifica in that way.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes summarized the direction for No. 3 that Council directed one STR permit for entity or person and we will define entity and person. For No. 4, occupancy limits, she summarized that the direction was maximum of two occupants per bedroom and the max would not apply to children under the age of 12.
Councilmember Boles does not like that last exception.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how does it work in real estate.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated two per bedroom plus one person. She stated that we can limit this. If you have a three bedroom, you cannot deny rental to seven people. If it had eight people, you could say no.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated Mayor Vaterlaus does not like the idea.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated this is fine. She likes it the way it is written.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, on the notion that you want a rental where you can bring a family to go to the beach, she is uncomfortable with the idea of limiting children.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed and stated that is why it would not apply.
Councilmember Boles asked why put no limits at all for kids. She stated she has not seen an exception like that in any other city.
Councilmember Bier asked if we can say maximum to 2 occupants per bedroom.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it seemed like we had to be consistent with the way it is interpreted for real estate but we do not.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated we do not.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated two per bedroom and no reference to children.
Councilmember Boles stated plus one extra person total.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it is two occupants per bedroom plus one.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that there may be a situation where you have a pullout couch in one of the rooms, and that plus one would cover that space. She thought that would be appropriate.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 September 09, 2024
Councilmember Bigstyck proposed you have three bedrooms and each bedroom is occupied by two parents and each parent has one child.
Councilmember Bier thought it would be hard to enforce that.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that a lot of this is going to be hard to enforce.
Councilmember Bier stated two people to a bedroom and then you bring your kids.
City Manager Woodhouse thought when he was a parent with two young infants and they would never consider sleeping in a separate bedroom than their six-month-old and two-year-old. He stated that this ordinance would not allow that to happen in Pacifica.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it seemed a little onerous.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated leave it as is.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated leave it as it is as written in No. 4.
Councilmember Boles asked leaving as many kids as you want under 12.
Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Boles asked if this policy came from another city.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that this came from Palm Springs, whose regulations say no more than two people per bedroom, no more than eight total, up to two children under the age of 12. She stated it would be eight total and up to two children under the age of 12 would not count towards the eight.
Councilmember Boles would be okay with two children under the age of 12, but not eight total.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it was a four-bedroom house.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated it would be eight adults plus up to two kids under the age of 12 for a total of ten people.
City Attorney Kenyon thinks we want to keep it as occupants per bedroom and then decide how many additional children would be acceptable. What we thought was that children under 12 did not have significant impacts. There are a couple of options if Council believes they might. She stated that we could either limit the number of children, limit the maximum that would not apply to children under a certain age, or come up with two occupants per bedroom plus a certain number.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought something like under the age of 5.
Councilmember Bier disagreed. She stated that under the age of 12 is fine as it is.
City Manager Woodhouse stated there are parents where the same thing applies, and they will sleep in a room with their eight-year-old or ten-year-old, especially when they are on vacation.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 September 09, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon does not think this situation will arise often. She thought we have two councilmembers who have indicated that they would like to leave the language as is and we have suggestions for other amendments. She asked if another councilmember wants to leave it as is, that would be a consensus.
Councilmember Boles stated if three agree, that is okay with her.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks we should leave it as is and move on.
There was Council consensus.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated, for No. 5 parking requirements, the direction provided was to show the minimum number of off-street parking standards should be consistent with the city’s off-street parking standards and designs for the zoning district and all the parking spaces should be made available for renters of the unhosted STRs, at least one space available for hosted STRs.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked regarding the language for available garage space for the way it is worded for the unhosted.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that essentially any of the parking on-site that is designated parking for the resident would need to be available for the renters of an unhosted STR; where there is a hosted STR, there has to be at least one parking space available.
Councilmember Boles stated that is in conjunction with No. 1 also, so each property will have a certain number of required parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that single-family homes are required to have a two-car garage and then multi-family residences are based on the number of bedrooms.
Councilmember Boles thought it was a two-car garage plus parking in front of the garage.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that, for single-family residences, they do not have any requirements on open parking spaces, and the only requirements are on two-car garages. She stated that many homes are designed to have the driveway available because we have setback requirements for garages which is 20 feet and does allow enough space for parking, but the code does not say anything like two parking spaces plus two driveway spaces. It just says the garage needs to be set back 20 feet.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there are many houses in Pacifica that have a one-car garage because it was not the current city’s off-street parking standards.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what the mayor thinks it should be.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated two cars maximum. She stated at least if it is two cars, they are not blocking all the neighbors’ parking which is one of our biggest complaints.
Councilmember Boles asked if she was saying two onsite parking spaces.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated no, two parking generally. She said there are all these houses that City Council Regular Meeting 32 September 09, 2024
have one-car garages. She thinks two cars per rental.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated maximum of two cars per rental and Mayor Vaterlaus is not differentiating whether they park them on property or anywhere.
Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer wants them to host at least one of those cars on the property as she does not want them on the street where it is in the coastal zone and there is nowhere to park anyway. She does not think the Coastal Commission would like that either.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that is fine.
Councilmember Bier agreed with that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated two maximum and at least one of which is on property.
Mayor Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, if you have a four-bedroom or five-bedroom STR, to limit cars to two, a couple of things will happen. He questions what Coastal Commission staff will say as that is going to be interference with visiting to the coastal zone. Also, ten people showing up at an STR with only two cars is not feasible and not enforceable when they park around the block on the street.
Councilmember Bier asked if it is one car per bedroom.
Councilmember Boles stated that we are asking for a map and a diagram of the parking.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we cannot change the regulations for each STR because that is impossible to enforce and a lot of suggestions from the public were one car per bedroom.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated we also had suggestions of on the property, not on the street.
City Manager Woodhouse stated there was the off-street parking requirement, what is required, one car or two in the driveway or in a garage, and the idea of are we trying to limit the total number of cars related to the STR. He stated, just like a single-family residence has its offstreet parking requirement, there is nothing that prevents an individual from owning four cars that they park around on the street.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer added adult children.
Councilmember Bier stated that they live there.
Councilmember Bigstyck added neighbors that you have to figure out how to code system.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she has a neighbor with 12 cars and they all deal with it.
Councilmember Bier stated that because they live there and they are her neighbors and not like a party. She stated one car per bedroom.
City Council Regular Meeting 33 September 09, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated one or two on the property.
Councilmember Boles was thinking of planning regulations in other cities where there is a minimum parking per house, but when you have a bigger house with 4, 5, or 6 bedrooms, you are supposed to provide more off-street parking. It is the overflow that they are trying to limit.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if we are doing a site check when they get the permit, we make sure the garage is clear for whatever cars are going to be involved.
Councilmember Boles states she does not know what the answer is.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked staff, if we have a four-bedroom house in Pacifica, what would the number of off-street parking spaces we would require.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated a single-family residence is required to have a two-car garage.
Councilmember Boles assumed, even if you have eight bedrooms, it would still be the same requirement.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought we should look into that but settled on two.
Mayor Vaterlaus suggested one per bedroom.
Councilmember Boles asked what is the biggest STR and how many bedrooms.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated she does not have that information right away.
Councilmember Bigstyck heard of one with five or six bedrooms.
Councilmember Boles stated that would be six cars.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that was a lot.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that there were some concerns about requiring STRs to meet the minimum number of off-street parking standards, consistent with the zoning district.
The concern was that it was going to mean that some STRs will not be able to operate, but it would be the same if we have a regulation that requires a number of parking spots per bedroom. That will also limit some units that will not be able to meet that requirement and would not be able to operate as an STR. She stated it is what would be the easiest to implement. She stated that there will still be some STRs that will not be able to meet either one of those and will not be able to operate.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked what is easier from staff’s point of view.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated, from a staff point of view, it would be easier to require the STRs to be compliant with the parking requirements of the zoning district, which are already those codified, versus number of parking spaces per bedroom.
City Council Regular Meeting 34 September 09, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she was alright with doing that. She asked Councilmember Bier if she was okay with that as she had said one per bedroom.
Councilmember Bier stated she is going back with most of the feedback from the community, which was one per bedroom.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked, if you have a two-bedroom house, your minimum number is one.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated all single-family residences in Pacifica are required to have a two-car garage. There are some that are non-conforming that were built prior to our current ordinance which only have one parking space.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated almost everything in Pacifica was built prior to the current standards.
She referred to Fairmont.
Councilmember Boles added that there is no parking in any of those neighborhoods.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that there is no parking on the street there because each curb space is not big enough for an extra car.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked, in those instances with those zoning regulations, would STRs be able to operate there.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated staff’s recommendation would not allow nonconforming parking buildings to be operated as an STR.
Councilmember Boles did not think that was fair to the people living in those neighborhoods, especially for those living in affordable homes. She suggested saying that they have to provide one off-street parking.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that the recommendation is for hosted STRs to require at least one space.
Councilmember Boles stated, if they go on vacation, they could not rent it out.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated, if they wanted to do an unhosted STR and it is a single family home with only one garage space, they would not be able to operate.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked for what regulation would fit that scenario.
Councilmember Boles thought we could say one off-street and one maximum extra car in those neighborhoods if they are noncompliant.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated for a non-standard lot.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that is how they were built.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated they are not up to current code.
Councilmember Boles asked Mayor Vaterlaus if she was okay with two cars with at least one off-street for those properties.
City Council Regular Meeting 35 September 09, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that was her suggestion in the beginning was two cars per building.
Councilmember Boles did not want to limit it to two cars everywhere. She stated that we are going to have regulations based on the parking standards except in areas that are nonconforming that allow two cars.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that staff recommendation would not allow any STRs if you did not have the two car garage that you are supposed to have.
Councilmember Boles stated she is suggesting something different than what staff recommended so that they can be allowed in those neighborhoods.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked one off-street parking.
Councilmember Boles stated one maximum off-street parking.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked, if part of Council’s agenda is to thin out the number in neighborhoods with a high density of STRs, is the parking requirement one of the methods by which that occurs.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she owns a two-bedroom house that has no garage at all but it does have space for two cars to park. She raised concerns about the number of one-car garages.
City Manager Woodhouse stated what he is hearing as a potential suggestion for the nonconforming parking residences, where there is just one car garage instead of two, the requirement for an STR would be one off-street and a limitation of one on-street for that STR.
He asked if there was a majority on that concept.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, to his point, this might be one place where we want to make a differentiation between the coastal zone and the non-coastal zone.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that because of the need to preserve coastal access for day visitors, not visitors staying overnight in an STR. She knows that Coastal Commission cares about parking access in the coastal zone.
Councilmember Bigstyck concluded we would keep Councilmember Boles’ solution in Fairmont, but we keep staff’s solution in the coastal zone.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought those were the same.
Councilmember Boles stated that Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and Councilmember Bigstyck were talking about breaking out the coastal zone to not allow more parking than is on-site.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively. She stated that, in the coastal zone, you cannot park on the street and you have to park on site.
City Attorney Kenyon thought the Coastal Commission will have an issue if we are limiting visitors to the area by limiting available parking.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks the Coastal Commission will have an issue if we take up all City Council Regular Meeting 36 September 09, 2024
the street parking with overnight guests staying in STRs because the people who come to the beach for the day cannot park.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks the Coastal Commission staff and the Coastal Commission are going to have a robust discussion about that balancing act between these two programs.
Councilmember Bier stated that we are also having a lot of complaints for property out of the coastal zone with all the cars
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought it was a good point.
Councilmember Bier suggested one car per bedroom.
Councilmember Boles stated one car per bedroom is not going to work in smaller properties.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding that is what Mayor Vaterlaus is saying.
City Attorney Kenyon thought we should explore this concept. She stated that this whole issue arose because of non-conforming properties. She stated that we can easily address that issue without having to separate out the coastal zone versus the non-coastal which will complicate the ordinance. She thinks that the issue is one that the majority of Council feels can be solved by treating the non-conforming lots differently than lots that can conform to this minimum number of one and two parking requirements. She asks what is the reasonable deviation from the standard parking requirements that Council would find acceptable in those non-conforming areas. She reminded Council that the goal of this ordinance is to treat all non-conforming properties the same.
Councilmember Boles suggested staff to provide a diagram that shows where you can park and you can park wherever you can fit on-site plus one off-street if you’re non-conforming.
City Attorney Kenyon asked how that is implemented. She said that, ideally, we should have a regulation language in the ordinance that tells the potential operator what they need to do in order to get an STR permit so they have notice. She recommends that we figure out what that standard would be so we can put it into the language of the ordinance itself. She would like to see if Council is able to come up with what is the standard for the non-conforming lots; we can also define non-conforming lots for purposes of this ordinance that only apply with regard to the parking standard and limit it accordingly. If we limit that only to the issue of parking, what is that minimum parking requirement that Council would want for the non-conforming lots.
Councilmember Boles stated that conforming lots would have two parking spaces, and if you only have one parking space, then you are only allowed to have 2 cars.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that would mean one on the property and one on the street.
There was Council consensus.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated for confirming lots it would be the minimum number of offstreet parking standards consistent with city’s off-street parking standards.
Councilmember Boles stated that is only 2 plus a driveway. She asked if the driveway was part of the parking standards. She also asked if they have that setback that would be conforming, City Council Regular Meeting 37 September 09, 2024
and if they had a 2-car garage without setbacks, that would be non-conforming.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that she remembers hearing, from back in the valley, that they wanted those cars on the property, not on the street.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed, adding that if you had a 2-car garage, you could have 4 cars because you have 2 in the garage and 2 on the property generally.
Councilmember Boles stated if you are confirming you can have 4 cars.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we want them all on the property. If so, we are going to give the people that do not conform more access to parking than the conforming people.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, but that is only because there is no road to park in the nonconforming.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if there was a consensus for the parking requirements.
Councilmember Boles stated Council had consensus for non-conforming and now we are talking about conforming.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if we were talking about No. 5, in terms of staff recommendation.
Councilmember Boles stated that this does not say how many cars you can bring, just that you have to have that parking but not that you cannot bring eight cars.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and suggested adding a qualifier that states a maximum.
Councilmember Bier stated one car per bedroom.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse summarized that STR permits for conforming lots would follow the city’s off-street parking standards and the maximum number of cars is one per bedroom.
Mayor per Tem Beckmeyer agreed, adding that in non-conforming it is one on property and one on the street, two maximum.
Councilmember Bigstyck moved to extend the meeting to midnight; seconded by Mayor Vaterlaus.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
City Council Regular Meeting 38 September 09, 2024
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer called a short break and then reconvened the meeting.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes referred to No. 6 on staff recommendations, the minimal rental duration and the direction was to enforce a two consecutive night stay and prohibit events at STR units with active STR permits.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed with two nights. She thought a lot about events and she could have a baby shower at her house or a birthday party at her house.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if other people lived in their house 365 days a year, they would not have a baby shower every day of the week or every weekend.
Councilmember Bier thinks we have to define event.
City Manager Woodhouse stated defining event is important.
Councilmember Boles suggested to limit the number of visitors. She specified the number of guests that are not the ones that are legally staying there for the application and you can limit them to certain hours, such as 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if there would be discussion around noise-monitoring devices.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed and requested a limit on amplified music.
Councilmember Boles suggested, if you are allowed to have eight guests staying there, you can have half that number of additional visitors, limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
There was Council consensus.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it was the number that are allowed to stay there plus 50%.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and no amplified music.
City Manager Woodhouse mentioned that music may not need to be amplified to be loud.
Councilmember Boles asked if our noise regulations specify particular decibels.
Councilmember Bigstyck referenced noise monitors being required.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if it is exterior noise monitors.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we have a noise ordinance. However, what has happened on some STRs is that, after violations, part of the notice of violation is noise monitors become required and some STRs have implemented noise monitoring systems. He hears City Council Regular Meeting 39 September 09, 2024
Council talk about making it mandatory for every STR.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that after the first noise violation a noise monitor is required.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there is a difference between founded and unfounded violations.
Mayor Vaterlaus added after a founded noise violation.
Councilmember Boles was concerned about violations that may occur but are unfounded.
Councilmember Bigstyck agreed. He said having external noise monitors as a requirement would be good. He also shared that Airbnb sent a note saying that was a provided service.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer did not care about their expense.
Councilmember Boles stated some people put them inside and outside, but outside is what we are mostly concerned about.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, for the record, she would recommend that we make it an initial requirement as opposed to after the first violation for all the reasons in terms of enforcement.
There was Council consensus.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes moved on to No. 7, inspections and permit processing. She stated that direction from Council is to require onsite inspections at minimum from the Building and the Code Enforcement Divisions for unhosted STRs and a self-inspection for criteria prepared by the city for hosted STRs and review existing permit violations and other items prior to issuance of an STR permit.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated the permittee pays for it.
Councilmember Boles stated she would like an inspection for unhosted STRs.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes asked Councilmember Boles if she referred to hosted STRs.
Councilmember Boles agreed, saying we should inspect all of them, at least initially.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, for clarity, that Council is talking about having this as a requirement prior to issuance of an STR permit, so the application process would require a site inspection prior to issuance of any STR permit.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked how the permittee would do that.
City Attorney Kenyon recommended staff to figure out what that process would look like and bring it back to Council.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes moved on to No. 8, notice to permittees, so staff will notify permit holders of potential ordinance changes.
City Council Regular Meeting 40 September 09, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if this points to the issue of re-upping permits and the deadline of October 31.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated yes, for the renewal fee.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it was previously said that Council can change the ordinance midstream after the permit has been renewed. She is concerned about legal repercussions and asked about the language to be included regarding upcoming ordinance changes.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated between the last meeting and this meeting, we have been working with HDL on finalizing the renewal notices. What is included in the notice is that the Council is currently working on the new ordinance provisions and the new ordinance will go into effect at some point in this permit year; staff did not go into any additional discussion because the Council has not finished providing directions on all the provisions.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that No. 8 is saying that we will provide notice that there are ordinance changes coming; we are not providing notice of what the implications are for them.
Everyone needs to renew their permit and, once that renewal occurs, everybody will be bound by these new regulations.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked what happens if you have a 4-unit building and you have four permits, one for each unit, and then you can only have one unit as an STR.
City Manager Woodhouse stated from previous discussions certain ordinance provisions can be implemented in mid-permit year, but other provisions, such as making certain STRs inoperable would be more difficult legally to implement in the middle of the permit year. We would have to wait for the renewal time to do that and that includes things like an STR that does not meet the new parking requirements or an STR in the multi-family dwellings. He added if the unhosted night limitations starts when the ordinance goes into effect, for non-coastal zones, from that point on only 90 days.
City Attorney Kenyon stated there will be different regulations that will go into effect immediately and some that will be implemented most likely when they renew their permits. She stated that is a legal determination we have to go through on a case-by-case basis.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated her concern was about operators hindering their community about to renew their permits for a year. She asked if we could delay the permit until Council confirms closure of all these changes.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is an excellent point.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks HdL already sent the letters.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated we are already in the process.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that any ordinance changes in the coastal zone will not be in effect for a long while. This would mean some sort of delay or extra enforcement in the noncoastal zone, depending on when the ordinance goes into effect under Council adoption.
Councilmember Boles that the current ordinance says you can revoke the STR permit even with City Council Regular Meeting 41 September 09, 2024
one strike and she asked if we can direct greater enforcement now.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we would enforce revocation whether Council is directing them to do that or not. There are four active cases now going through an investigation to determine if we have enough facts to revoke and, if we do, we will revoke. She stated that Council does not need to direct staff to pursue revocation investigation as we are actively doing that.
Councilmember Boles asked when we started doing the investigations.
City Attorney Kenyon thought we have always been attempting to enforce.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we have taken enforcement action pre-COVID-19 on STRs. He stated that the acceleration of enforcement has been in the last couple of years. It is a lengthy, cumbersome process and why the ordinance revisions are important to make it less so and make it clear so we have more enforcement capability.
City Attorney Kenyon stated we have been moving forward with enforcement. The issue is enough facts to support going through a revocation procedure, and we have not to date. The City Manager directed the City Attorney’s Office to expedite enforcement, and as of today, we have four cases that we are actively working on. In the last six months, we have been attempting to expedite and focus our effort on not just drafting of a new ordinance but also active enforcement which is what we have done. She stated that we are at a much closer place to begin revocation proceedings if we, in fact, have the proven evidence to support it. She stated, in terms of what Council is trying to achieve in terms of eliminating bad actors, she does not think eliminating bad actors is needed through delay of issuing new permits to new permittees. She thinks it is continuing to focus on the ongoing enforcement revocation efforts.
Councilmember Boles mentioned the fines as one possible revision that can be done now or until the ordinance goes into effect.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the fines have to wait until the ordinance goes into effect. She added that, as the City Manager said, the ordinance is going to go into effect in the coastal zone not until after the Coastal Commission certifies it so that will likely take close to a year. We are looking at some permit holders who will be issued permits even though we have adopted this ordinance that will not be impacted by it other than we will still actively enforce all violations.
Councilmember Boles asked if one or two of these revisions tonight can be enforced immediately or any suggestions of what we can do and add to the ordinance.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that what we are talking about tonight is the future. What we need to deal with to address the bad actors is to continue along the enforcement path. Given the timing, we are going to be issuing permits to certain permittees who may want more permits for a four-plex and we are not going to be able to address that except through enforcement proceedings if they become bad actors.
Councilmember Bier added unless we did not issue any more permits until after that.
City Attorney Kenyon did not think there is a way to delay the permitting at this point as we are already in the midst of the process.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated she is looking at No. 7 requiring onsite inspections for all of City Council Regular Meeting 42 September 09, 2024
the hosted and unhosted STRs. She stated that the idea there is in advance of them getting a permit and rule out properties that would be problematic. We know that they presently have properties that are permitted and are problematic because it was self-reported. The idea now is the only way to catch those is through code enforcement and a building inspector which is based on a complaint. She stated that it is a form of enforcement but the only thing that is prompting it is if there is a complaint that looks like a health and safety violation.
City Attorney Kenyon referred to the point about conducting inspections prior to issuance of a permit and stated that staff needs to look at our ordinance to see if it prohibits inspection.
Councilmember Boles emphasized for this cycle as the permits are about to renew.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that we have been working very closely with City Attorney’s Office on administrative policies and procedures and regulations that we already have authority to develop and implement under the current ordinance; this would be something we might be able to do, but previous conversations on this specified that operators have to let us come on the premises to inspect. If they refuse to do it, then unless we have very strong evidence of code enforcement or any reasonable code violations, we cannot enter the premises unless the ordinance allows them to do.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is true. The way she would think to address that to provide more leverage, especially for those properties with complaints, and that we have determined as a violation, they may require more evidence than another permittee because we have gotten complaints. She agreed that they may refuse it, but she also believes that we have more authority, depending on the facts and circumstances, make that a basis to not reissue.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed and added that was exactly what the City Attorney mentioned with the four active cases; staff will look at them individually as one property is going through a revocation process and a few others are not going to be renewed for this cycle.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is a partial measure.
Asst. City Manager Carter wanted to highlight that, over the last six months, we have done a lot of work internally between Code Enforcement, Police Department, Administrative Services, City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, and HdL to align all these efforts. The internal process has been improved and some provisions, such as three strikes, have been discussed among staff and can be enforced now.
Councilmember Boles asked, if the new ordinance goes into effect, we cannot revoke someone in a 4-unit building, but we are now restricting the number of people, based on the number of bedrooms, and she asked if that was something we could enforce once we adopt the ordinance.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it is possible but she does not have a definitive answer. She stated that we need to determine what are the tools that we can immediately begin enforcement on.
Councilmember Bier thought we will be able to understand that as we will have that information the next time staff comes back to Council.
City Attorney Kenyon answered affirmatively.
City Council Regular Meeting 43 September 09, 2024
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that No. 9 is the 24-hour contact requirement. Council had directed a requirement for STR operators to list a contact person who must be available 24/7 and respond to complaints by phone within 30 minutes and in person within one hour if an in person resolution is necessary.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked about the neighbor who wants to complain and if they have access to that representative.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if Mayor Vaterlaus was suggesting some form of exterior indication of the representative.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated possibly. She suggested for the future a website that had the address and the contact person for each STR.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that an exterior marking could also be a QR code in a conspicuous place.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed, adding something that the neighbors know who to call.
Councilmember Boles stated it was important to have a place that people can look up if it is a legally permitted STR or not without having to call someone and find a list of posted information.
Mayor Vaterlaus and Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Bier liked the exterior posting.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we have seen that with businesses.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, in Tahoe, they have a sign outside of each STR with a number associated with their license. She thought a QR code that a neighbor can find and eventually the website is a good idea.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes then went to No. 10, the administrative policies and procedures and the direction was to streamline enforcement procedures for permitted STRs and revocation procedures with three-strike provision for non-compliant permit holders.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if this was where the fines come in.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if that was the $1500, $3000, $5000 times.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated, if you are operating an unpermitted STR, you should be fined.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated, in order to implement the new fines, a new ordinance needs to be in place. She stated the three strikes is something we can start doing now, and there is a citation every time there is a Notice of Violation.
Councilmember Boles stated she would rather have two strikes instead of three.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
City Council Regular Meeting 44 September 09, 2024
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she is okay with two, but the strikes need to be founded.
Councilmember Bier agreed that we have to define what falls into the strike zone.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it is any violation of the ordinance, any violation of any provision, in addition to all the enforcement rules that would be added, would be a violation of any existing enforcements.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if any violation in the ordinance.
City Attorney Kenyon reiterated that any violation of our ordinance.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that she said any violation of the ordinance, and she stated sound violation, noise violation, or number of people at at the house violation.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that lying on the application would be automatic revocation.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we included language on the new applications that all information provided on the application subject to audit.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we should put language in the application that says any false statement on this application will warrant immediate revocation. She added that there should be a signature line for them to make it contractual.
Councilmember Bier asked if she heard a consensus for two strikes.
There was Council consensus.
City Manager Woodhouse had some questions that needed clarifying: the earlier discussion about multi-family, as well as STR density. He thought we have gone through many requirements that may reflect on those. He asked if there was anything else Council wants to revisit and discuss on those. He also wants to get direction about next steps, especially related to consultation with Coastal Commission staff, to create expectation around that.
Councilmember Boles stated, regarding multi-family, if we are requiring a primary resident, that would be true for multi-family too. She stated that will limit investors owning apartment buildings if they do not live there.
Councilmember Bigstyck added the one year leads up to being able to apply for an STR permit.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer was concerned about the number of units in a multi-family residence.
Councilmember Bier stated that is why she keeps going back to one.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated two.
City Council Regular Meeting 45 September 09, 2024
Councilmember Bier asked if we are talking about a gradient scale.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that would not work because of the number of units in each apartment.
Councilmember Bier agreed and stated it should only be one.
Councilmember Boles stated a maximum percentage with a minimum of 1, i.e. if you said 10% and you have five units, you could have one; if you had 10 units, you could have 1; and if you have 20, you could have 2.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that sounds good.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks that there will still be the issue of proximity, we would not want them right next to each other or a concentrated way burdening part of the complex. She stated that it is like a single-family home and the distance between them, but it would have to be different in a multi-family.
Councilmember Bier stated we need information about density to talk about that.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if certain multi-family units in the city could apply to become a hotel.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated she would have to double check the zoning but most likely no because the city only allows hotels and motels in commercial zoning districts.
Councilmember Boles stated that is reason to limit them in a residential district.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer referred to density.
City Attorney Kenyon asked about the recommendation.
Councilmember Boles stated 10% of the number of units or 1 minimum.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if Council is fine with No. 1.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer and Mayor Vaterlaus stated no.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes asked if the 10% or one applied to all multi-family units regardless of the number of units.
Councilmember Bier stated, if we leave it to 5 or more units, then many complexes can be all STRs and she is afraid of that.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that is why she wanted clarification. She stated that it sounds like Council wants to limit to no more than 10% or one on multi-family residential buildings, regardless of the number of units.
City Council Regular Meeting 46 September 09, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks so.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that, when we were originally doing this, we started talking about condominiums, and she would have decided that condominiums are not part of this and subject to their own HOAs and cannot be considered multi-family.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated, from a land use standpoint, they are, but from an ownership occupancy standpoint, they are not.
Councilmember Bier stated that density and radius might address this.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, to capture one point, for traditional multi-family, not condominiums or homeowners, the number of STRs allowed would be 10% of the number of units with a minimum of 1, i.e. from 2 units up to 19 would be 1, from 20 to 29 would be 2, from 30 to 39 would be 3, etc.
Councilmember Bier stated it sounds good to her.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it segues into the density or buffer concept if Council wants to talk about condominiums and HOAs.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked Mayor Vaterlaus how to address this with condominiums.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought we would leave it up to the homeowners association to make their decisions. She thought Council cannot make determinations on their legal proceedings.
Councilmember Bier asked if the townhomes on Oddstad and Terra Nova Blvd. have HOAs.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they do, naming Rosita, Terra Nova, Oddstad, Pacific View, etc.
Councilmember Boles asked if we can request a letter from the HOA, even if we cannot fully enforce it.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated if a condominium comes and they want to become an STR, we would ask for a letter stating that it is okay with their association.
Councilmember Boles responded affirmatively. She stated we would be notifying the condominium association that someone is applying before the permit is granted, which would be part of the neighborhood notification.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we were notifying the neighborhoods.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we talked about it last time but we did not pin down the radius of notification.
Mayor Vaterlaus concluded that we did not talk about that at this meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer asked if Council had talked about that.
Councilmember Bigstyck does not recall.
City Council Regular Meeting 47 September 09, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought Council may have talked about it outside of the meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the concept of notification came up but it was not talked about in details. He has some questions about notification, like what does someone do with notification, as there is not a hearing or approval of the permit. He asked about its purpose.
Councilmember Boles stated that it lets them know that there is a permit pending and it points them to the regulations so they can help look out to make sure that STR is complying.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated, if there is a permit pending, there is a contact number on that permit, vis a vis updated regulations where you can get in contact 24/7; it is letting them know if you have an issue with the STR that is going to be in your neighborhood, the notification has the 24/7 contact information that should allow them to address any concerns.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if the city is expected to do the notification.
Councilmember Boles stated that the applicant can pay for it as part of the application process.
She stated the city would do it but have the applicant pay for it as an extra fee as part of the application process.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that they cannot appeal the decision.
Councilmember Boles agreed it is just a notification.
Mayor Vaterlaus did not see the benefit to it. If we are going to allow them, anybody can look up the short-term rental regulations, and we can also find out on our website or at the property who the contact person is if there are any issues. She stated that it seems like a lot of work to send notifications to the neighbors from staff.
Councilmember Boles stated that there are companies that provide that service and we could make the applicant do it directly, as that is the way San Francisco does it for other permits; we would have them send us one that goes into the file records.
City Attorney Kenyon stated there is a lot of difference between the City of San Francisco and the City of Pacifica in terms of the amount of bureaucracy that is every day with San Francisco.
She thinks that, in including additional regulations like this, we need to think about for what purpose and what is the impact going to be that is going to address whatever secondary impact you are trying to address. She asked what this provision is going to provide that will address the negative impact that we are trying to eliminate.
Councilmember Boles stated that, in reading the staff report, everything was difficult to enforce or know and we would give the community and residents around this house the information that this property is getting a permit for an STR and here are the regulations.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that this is going to be a huge workload for staff because what will happen is the neighbors will send their complaints to Council and staff and say show me how this applicant is compliant. He is not sure what to do with that information when we receive that, as they do not have any part in the approval of the permit. He stated the city’s response would be their permit is approved and they are compliant, but the city’s workload is going to be generated by Council and staff receiving those letters, concerns and comments about a pending application. He stated that it may happen regardless with any permit once issued, but he is City Council Regular Meeting 48 September 09, 2024
saying that the notification process will trigger that without any ability, from the City’s perspective, to do anything.
City Attorney Kenyon added that she has seen in other jurisdictions that have imposed these notifications requirements on issues where there is no action for the residents to take and they will come to Council meetings with questions and comments and ask why they provide them notice if there is nothing they can do about it and if they cannot stop the city from issuing the permit what can they do. She stated that we want to make sure, if we are providing the notice, that we know what we want the residents to do with it and make it clear. She stated that, in this case, if we are saying that we want them to have the information available to them so if there is a complaint, they know what to do, a QR code or a notice would be more beneficial, in terms of giving residents immediate access to resolving the problem as opposed to giving them a notice months before the event occurs. She questioned if that will be as beneficial as sort of a sign or a QR code or something on our website that indicates STR properties and, if they have an issue with them, this is the contact information. She asked what the benefit is that the city will be getting by providing them with an initial notification as soon as we issue the permit.
Mayor Vaterlaus did not think we needed to do a notification. If there is no event that they can fix with the notification, she does not think we should do it.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated that he is hearing everyone and thought, if there is a conspicuous marking on the outside of any given STR that clearly indicates who you should be calling if there is a problem, he is okay with that.
Councilmember Boles stated she was okay for that now. She stated that we talked about notifying an HOA, but if we are requiring a letter, and they have to check off if there is an HOA or not, then we do not need to notify the HOA either.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated no.
Councilmember Boles extended the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bigstyck.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:30 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Tygarjas Bigstyck, Councilmember
AYES: Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, Boles
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we need to talk about density or buffer.
Councilmember Boles thinks we need a map and more information to make that determination.
City Manager Woodhouse concluded that we put this one on hold for now.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we need to see maps to get an idea of the amount.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that we can add that sometime later once we see how these items we City Council Regular Meeting 49 September 09, 2024
addressed affect the STR properties.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if the Council was saying what Mayor Vaterlaus just said or saying that we want another hearing with more information to Council to talk about density.
Councilmember Boles stated, when staff brings back the ordinance, staff can bring that information.
City Manager Woodhouse asked about Council’s expectation about staff putting together this package of program changes and consulting with Coastal Commission staff. He added that, in that consultation process, he knows how busy the Coastal Commission staff is now and how busy Pacifica staff is with issues with Coastal Commission staff and that is going to take a while.
He stated that Council’s previous direction on these issues is, before we get to the point of considering adoption of an ordinance, and spending legal fees to develop the ordinance, we should have some consultation with Coastal Commission Staff to get their sense of staff might see as recommendable to the Coastal Commission. He thinks the most prudent thing to do would be to do that consultation and either develop the ordinance based on that or come back to Council and state we heard differently from Coastal Commission staff and ask for further direction from Council on what do we want to do with it before developing ordinance language.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thought staff needs to discuss it with Coastal Commission and, if there is a lot of feedback that needs clarification, such as strong recommendations against or for, Council should know that upfront.
City Manager Woodhouse stated most likely the consultation is that Coastal Commission staff will ask for information and data to back up these policy recommendations. He felt staff needs to have that initial conversation and absorb that feedback and determine whether we are ready to present an ordinance to Council or if we need another study session.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, as talking early with Coastal Commission staff would give a better chance of working out the differences early.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.
Councilmember Bier asked if it was possible to talk about the 15% of a street.
Councilmember Bigstyck thought that was in the context of the 55-foot buffer and no more than 15% of any given street.
Interim Dep. Director Cervantes stated that one agency required 55 feet between STRs and no more than 15% of parcels per block with STR operations. She stated that there was another agency that provided that no more than 15% of parcels could have an STR per block and that one did not have a buffer.
Councilmember Bier thought if we at least do that, we can take more time to talk about the rest.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks we have to do this and put some kind of constraint and stops on it. She asked if 55 feet and 15% of the street seem reasonable.
Councilmember Bier thinks that is kind of low.
City Council Regular Meeting 50 September 09, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that could be next door.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed.
Councilmember Bier suggested 200 feet and 15%.
Mayor Vaterlaus asked if we were talking 200 feet on one side and 200 feet on the other side or 200 feet total.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated all the way around with a radius.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated that it seems like another map issue. She thought many of the things that Council provided are going to impact existing STRs. She would like to see a map to draw a radius around it and see how big that is, e.g. in some blocks, that could be 20 houses.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed, all the way to the next block.
Mayor Vaterlaus thought not that many but possibly if you are doing circles.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated it is also in the context of 150-unit cap. If they are eliminating STRs because of the density, what are the odds that someone is going to buy a vacant house for 90-day rental after a year of not renting it out as an STR.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed. She added if you have several that are on the same block, how do you determine who gets it and who does not. She stated that we talked about that in the lottery and how are we going to determine who wins if we still want to do it.
Councilmember Bier stated we have to wait on that one.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it would be helpful to understand what are the impacts we are trying to address. If we start from that, then perhaps staff can help try to figure out what that might look like. She stated that we will not be able to fully flesh that out tonight as she does not have a diagram of where all these STRs are located. She recommends that we bring back this issue to discuss. She asked what we would like to see in terms of a buffer, such as a 200-foot buffer. She asked Council to think of it in terms of a block, how long are the blocks normally and how many homes do we want to see per block. She stated that staff bring it back and come back to Council with some ideas that try to address their issues. She wants to try to understand what the issues with this whole density buffer.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it is a concentration of too many STR homes in a neighborhood, like an undue number relative to the number of not STR homes. When there is a short block that has ten houses on it and three of them are STRs, that is too many.
Councilmember Bier stated because of the impact it has on the neighborhood.
City Attorney Kenyon stated because of the complaints, parking, and those types of issues.
She is trying to understand.
Councilmember Boles stated that it is because you do not know your neighbors anymore.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated it becomes a hotel zone.
City Council Regular Meeting 51 September 09, 2024
City Attorney Kenyon was thinking if Council was looking at this in terms of trying to get rid of bad actors, but Council was looking at it for purposes of addressing the impact, like parking, neighborhood ambience, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is good for staff to know. She asked if there are other issues.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks those are primarily it for her. She stated that the outcome is that Beach Boulevard is 53% STRs. This ordinance will prevent that, just like our cannabis ordinance which forced it to be spread out and not concentrated in one.
Councilmember Bier stated that it was clear to the permittees where they could be.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed because we already have existing permits, we can make a map and need the metric so, if someone comes in to apply, they can find out right away that their street already has two on it and until one of those two stops being an STR, we are full.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that this is helpful. She thinks that, unless Council has other directions and other issues they are trying to solve with this buffer and density issue, she asked that Council let staff look at this analysis and bring something back with a draft.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thinks that makes sense.
Mayor Vaterlaus agreed that it is big complaint that people do not know their neighbors and, if there are multiples, it just amplifies it for them to think that their neighborhood is gone.
Councilmember Bier agreed that people should be able to enjoy their homes.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that is what it is about.
Councilmember Bier thanked City Attorney for the questions as they were very helpful.
Commissioner Bigstyck stated he did not want to see coordinating with the Coastal Commission get in the way of the ordinance that we have articulated we want, which means for the noncoastal zone, even though the Coastal Commission may have an alternative view in what they would wish to see and will take time to get to the point. When the ordinance is ready, we could put in place with the non-coastal zone, and at the will of Coastal Commission, if it needs to be adjusted, coastal zone specific.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated that we will then have two sets of regulations, one for coastal and one for non-coastal.
Councilmember Boles stated that is a good idea and get us moving as quickly as we can.
Councilmember Bigstyck asked if there was any other direction or questions.
Councilmember Boles thinks we need to say these can only be legally permitted dwelling units, i.e. no ADUs, no RVs, no tents, no mobile homes, no future buildings, etc.
City Council Regular Meeting 52 September 09, 2024
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember Boles stated that some other cities had a no transfer of STR permits, and if you sell your house partly through, then you have to reapply; you cannot just take over a permit as a different primary resident.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer stated no transfer.
Councilmember Boles stated that some had insurance requirements and sometimes, as a property you only have so much, but if you are renting it out, then there is the possibility for other damage to other neighbors and she has seen some cities with a $500,000 insurance requirement. She asked if that is something we might need to consider. She stated that the main thing is that other cities, especially Half Moon Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Monica have requirements for the platform themselves. She wants to make sure we get that in here, requiring them to have a listing number as one of those things but also being able to collect fines. She stated that the fines are based on them being able to collect a percentage of their fees, and that is what has been stood up in court.
Councilmember Bier asked about the data for platforms to provide.
Councilmember Boles stated that she would like to ask them to share the data. She stated Airbnb does not do that now.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the argument that Airbnb will likely make, as they have in other jurisdictions, is that it is proprietary information. She stated that is what they like to say in terms of disclosure, but that is not to say that we cannot impose it. They do not like to provide cities with a lot of information. She stated that is something that we should consider. She will need to look into what Airbnb’s position is on that.
Councilmember Boles is just looking for ways to help us with enforcement and verification.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we do not want to be imposing regulations that we cannot enforce and that we do not know how practical it would be to enforce it. She stated that we could put that obligation in, but will Airbnb cooperate and provide the city with that information.
If they do not, is it worth it for the city to go through enforcement proceedings against Airbnb.
She would like to find out is how enforceable is a provision like that.
Councilmember Boles asked if we can research that and, in the meantime, ask for this information from the owners.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that the City Manager raised a good point that we can require from a permit holder that information.
Councilmember Boles asked if we would do that quarterly.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks that is a good question but it comes down to a requirement for self-reporting that they are limited to 90 days. At the end of a year, before their next permit renewal, if we have reason to believe that they are exceeding that, the city would have to launch a costly and difficult auditing procedure to try to prove that and revoke their permit.
Councilmember Boles stated that she does not want to wait a whole year. They pay their TOT City Council Regular Meeting 53 September 09, 2024
quarterly and can we ask for that data quarterly, such as how many rental days have they had.
She stated that it is self-reporting but at least the city is tracking and can make sure they know they cannot rent for more days. She stated we can engage early and not wait a whole year.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated regarding the point around Airbnb providing information, that we got information of what a government relations representative looks like. He thinks that, after this meeting, it would be good to follow up with our government relations people to ask those questions.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we always have had a government relations person but we may not always get their attention.
Councilmember Bigstyck stated he is happy that they reached out asit is good to have that resource.
Councilmember Bier clarified that we would not be able to legislate what kind of data we want to get from all the platforms.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she is not saying we cannot do that but that we can put all of the tools in the ordinance, but the issue is how enforceable are they going to be. She referred to putting this obligation on the permit holders, who will have much more incentive to comply with that than Airbnb. We need cooperation from Airbnb to make this work for the city and we do not have a lot of leverage with Airbnb. We can put provisions in the ordinance, but she would like to find out from Airbnb what their temperature is with compliance with that obligation. The only way the city can force them to comply is take them to court. She stated that we should know that before we start including a provision in the ordinance that would be expensive for the city to implement.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to be clear that Asst. City Manager Carter has been working with Airbnb and their government relations folks for a long time.
Councilmember Bigstyck appreciated that we have been working with them for a long time. He stated he has several conversations about the STRs, some from two years ago, and predicted the work to take three years. He stated that it has been on their work plan for upwards of 2 1/2 years, and he has been happy to meet some of the unhosted operators and dismayed that they came into this conversation at the last possible moment. He would love to have seen a task force between the unhosted operators, affected homeowners, and neutral positions to determine what would have been more equitable at the end of the day. He stated that, once this has passed, anybody operating in Pacifica has every right to petition Council to come out to that goal setting time in March to ask for that process to be placed as a priority to figure out what would be more equitable if this is not.
Mayor Vaterlaus stated she can see both sides. She thanked them all for patience.
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer thanked everyone for one of many long nights on this topic, and we will look forward to the ordinance recommendations and information coming back from staff.
City Council Regular Meeting 54 September 09, 2024
ADJOURN
Mayor pro Tem Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 12:28 a.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 10/28/2024
__________________________
Sue Vaterlaus, Mayor