CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer
Mayor pro Tem Christine Boles
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
Councilmember Greg Wright
City Council Regular Meeting 1 February 24, 2025
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
February 24, 2025 (Monday) – 7:00 PM
www.cityofpacifica.org
Off-street parking is allowed by permit for attendance at official public meetings.
Vehicles parked without permits are subject to citation. You should obtain a permit from the rack in the lobby and place it on the dashboard of your vehicle in such a manner as is visible to law enforcement personnel.
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES DURING MEETING
Alternative Ways to Observe and Participate in the Meeting:
The primary method for observing and participating in the meeting is in-person at the meeting location published in the meeting agenda. However, there are alternative ways to observe and participate:
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • Watch on TV on Comcast channel 26
• Watch a Live Stream of the meeting by following https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream or www.pacificcoast.tv
• Live Remote Public Comments (offered on a pilot basis):
• Join Zoom Webinar: https://pacifica-gov.zoom.us/j/81156158241 • OR Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 | Webinar ID: 811 5615 8241 o Press * 9 to raise your hand to request to speak.
o Press * 6 to unmute when called upon to speak by the last 4-digits of your phone #. • When the Mayor announces the Agenda Item on which you would like to comment, raise your hand in Zoom. You will be called upon my screenname or last 4-digits of phone number if dialing in. Please mute any background sound and state your full name at the start of your comment.
Please note that Alternative platforms for participation are subject to underlying technology functionality and may be modified or interrupted at any time without notice. • Written Public Comments:
BEFORE THE MEETING: Written public comments may be submitted in advance by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date by email to: [email protected]. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Public Comment on Item Not on Agenda” in the Subject Line
• Include the submitter’s full name
Written public comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date will be provided in their entirety to the City Council and posted to the City’s website prior to the meeting but will not be read verbally at the meeting.
AT THE MEETING: Materials in writing provided at the meeting should provide seven (7) copies to provide for each Councilmember, City Clerk and City staff.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 24, 2025
7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Roll Call
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
The City of Pacifica acknowledges that we occupy the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We honor the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples for their enduring commitment to Mother Earth. As the Indigenous protectors of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We affirm their sovereign rights as First Peoples and wish to pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Espinosa
CONSENT CALENDAR
Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any item listed on the agenda should submit a speaker card to the City Clerk.
Public meetings are a limited public forum, meaning that there are rules for commenting at these meetings. Comments on consent agenda items must relate to that specific item.
If comments do not relate to a specific agenda item, then City will provide you with an initial warning to stay on topic. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.
Items on the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion unless a Councilmember requests, before the vote on the motion, to have an item discussed. Time limit on comments is three minutes or less.
1. 2024 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and acknowledge the 2024 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report of the North County Fire Authority’s mandated fire and life safety inspections performed within the City of Pacifica pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
2. Notice of Completion for the FY 2024-25 Resurfacing Project PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the FY 2024-25 Resurfacing Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
3. Primary Grant Agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for future Measures A and W Funding
City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 24, 2025
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing Execution of a Primary Grant Agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for future Measures A and W Funding.”
4. Resolution Authorizing Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Hazen and Sawyer for Engineering Design Services for the Headworks Rehabilitation and Improvement Project (P040)
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Approve a Resolution Authorizing a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Hazen and Sawyer for engineering design services in the amount of $1,346,500 for the Headworks Rehabilitation and Repair Project (P040); Approve budget authority in the amount of $1,548,475 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $201,975; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
This portion of the Agenda is available for the public to address the City Council on any issue that is not on the Agenda. Any person wishing to address the Council shall be recognized by the Mayor during this time, provided, however, that only items not on the Agenda for that meeting may be addressed. Comments on non-agendized items must address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. If comments do not address matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City, the City will provide you with an initial warning to stay within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City. If the warning is not followed, the Mayor will direct the City Clerk to cut off the microphone.
Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Public Comments on Items Not on the Posted Agenda. A maximum of three minutes will be allowed for any speaker.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Council Communications is for Councilmembers to inform each other of items of potential interest to other Councilmembers, such as interagency meetings.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
The purpose of Staff Communications is for the City Manager to offer announcements as appropriate.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Public Hearing on a proposed ordinance repealing and replacing Article 49 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the City of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“Short-Term Rentals”); making certain amendments to Article 29 of Title 9, Chapter 4, Section 9-4.2904 (“Exempted Signs”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code; and finding the adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PROPOSED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica repealing and replacing Article 49 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the City of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“Short-Term Rentals”); amending Article 29 of Title 9, Chapter 4, Section 9-4.2904 (“Exempted Signs”) of the Pacifica Municipal City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 24, 2025
Code; and finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CONSIDERATION
ADJOURN
NOTICE: If you challenge a city's zoning, planning or other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Judicial review of any city administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period for litigation, in certain cases 30 days following the date of the final decision The City of Pacifica will provide assistance for disabled citizens upon at least 24 hours advance notice to the City Manager’s Office (650) 738-7301, or send request via email to:
[email protected] if you need sign language assistance or written material printed in a larger font or taped, advance notice is necessary. All meeting rooms are accessible to the disabled.
The Pacifica Municipal Code is available online at the City’s website (www.cityofpacifica.org/municode);
HOW TO OBTAIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Posted agendas:
Agendas are posted no later than Friday prior to the City Council meeting date, at the entrance to the City Hall location at 170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica.
View on the Internet:
Follow the link to Council agenda, at www.cityofpacifica.org E-mail subscription:
Send a request to Sarah Coffey, at [email protected] City Clerk’s Office/City Manager’s Office
City Hall, 170 Santa Maria Ave.
Council meetings:
Agendas are available at the City Council meeting
HOW TO REACH YOUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
• San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, District 3, 500 County Center, Redwood City CA 94063 (650) 363-4569
• Governor Gavin Newsom, State Capitol Building, Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 • State Senator Josh Becker, 1528 So. El Camino Real, Suite 303, San Mateo CA 94402 (650) 212-3313 • Assembly Member Marc Berman, 721 Colorado Ave, Suite 101, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 324-0224 • Congressman Sam Liccardo, 1117 Longworth House Office Building, Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-8104
• Senator Alex Padilla, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 • Senator Adam Schiff, SD-B40B Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202) 224-3841 • President Donald J. Trump, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500
CITY COUNCIL
• Mayor Sue Beckmeyer, [email protected]
• Mayor pro Tem Christine Boles, [email protected]
• Councilmember Mary Bier, [email protected]
City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 24, 2025
• Councilmember Mayra Espinosa, [email protected]
• Councilmember Greg Wright, [email protected]
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/24/2025
1 SUBJECT:
2024 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and acknowledge the 2024 Mandated Fire and Life Safety Inspections Compliance Report of the North County Fire Authority’s mandated fire and life safety inspections performed within the City of Pacifica pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code.
STAFF CONTACT:
Craig Wittner, Assistant Fire Marshal
(650) 800-6580
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4 requires all fire departments, including the North County Fire Authority, that provide fire protection services to report annually to its administering authority (the City of Pacifica) on its compliance with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.
The North County Fire Authority performs annual inspections in every building used as a public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging house, apartment house, and certain residential care facilities. The City Manager requests the City Council of the City of Pacifica acknowledge fulfillment of the requirements of compliance with Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.
North County Fire Authority reports the following relating to those inspections:
A. EDUCATIONAL GROUP E OCCUPANCIES: Total 33
Educational Group E occupancies are generally those public and private schools, used by more than six people at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade.
During calendar year 2024, the North County Fire Authority inspected all 32 Group E occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities. This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period; and
B. RESIDENTIAL GROUP R OCCUPANCIES: Total 150
Residential Group R occupancies are generally those occupancies containing sleeping units, and include hotels, motels, apartments (three units or more), etc. as well as other residential occupancies, including those designated as residential care facilities. These residential care facilities have several different sub-classifications, and they may contain 1 Packet Pg. 6
Pacifica City Council 2
February 24, 2025
residents or clients that have a range of needs, including those related to custodial care, mobility impairments, cognitive disabilities, etc. The residents may also be non-ambulatory or bedridden. During calendar year 2024, the North County Fire Authority inspected all 149 Group. R occupancies, buildings, structures and/or facilities. This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
“Maintaining a Safe Community” includes supporting our first responders (police, fire, public works), responding to storm emergencies, protecting people, property, businesses, and our infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, storm, and wastewater), and engaging in emergency preparedness activities.
It should be noted that in addition to the 183 mandated occupancy inspections, North County Fire Authority conducts inspections of the remaining 624 business, industrial, institutional, mercantile, factory and storage occupancies in the City of Pacifica for a total of 807 inspections conducted annually.
To ensure the health and safety of the public through a mandated fire and life safety inspection program is a top priority. By ensuring that these buildings meet the standards set forth by state law, we greatly reduce the risks for the loss of life and property.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ORIGINATED BY:
North County Fire Authority
ATTACHMENT LIST:
1 Packet Pg. 7
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/24/2025
1 SUBJECT:
Notice of Completion for the FY 2024-25 Resurfacing Project RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting completion and directing the City Manager to file Notice of Completion for the FY 2024-25 Resurfacing Project; and authorize the City Manager to release the retention funds to the contractor.
STAFF CONTACT:
Matt Kelly, Project Manager
(650) 730-0212
[email protected]
Roland Yip, P.E., DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
John Mullins, Interim DPW Director
(650) 738-3767
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On April 8, 2024, City Council authorized the City Manager to Award and Execute a Construction Agreement for the FY 2024-25 Resurfacing Project. The project included pavement overlay, cape seal, double slurry seal, slurry seal, micro surfacing, base repair, pavement striping and markings, and other miscellaneous related work. The area resurfaced included the neighborhoods of Pacific Manor, Sharp Park, Fairway Park, Vallemar, Rockaway, and Pedro Point. The project was funded by SB 1, Measure W, and Measure A funds.
There were three construction change orders issued to the contractor VSS International during the course of construction in the amount of $37,447.30. The change orders were for additional striping, signage, and asphalt concrete quantity adjustments. With the change orders, the final contractor construction cost for the project was $2,396,041.86.
As the project is now complete and staff is satisfied with the contractor’s work on the project, it is appropriate to record the formal Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office. This recorded document is the legal notice that the City considers the project complete and that we intend to pay the contractor for the full and complete contract price. This also puts all subcontractors and suppliers on notice that if they have any claims for payment from the contractor, they have 30 days to file claims for payment against the City. This provision of contract law protects subcontractors from contractors who may not pay them properly. It also protects the City from claims against us for any nonpayment on the part of the contractor. The City withheld 5% of the contract amount, $119,802.09, as retention to make sure that all subcontractors and suppliers have been paid. The City will release the retention if no claims are 2 Packet Pg. 8
Pacifica City Council 2
February 24, 2025
received.
The City Manager is recommending the adoption of the attached resolution accepting completion of the project and the filing of the Notice of Completion (Attachment 1) with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the filing of the Notice of Completion. The total project Source and Use of Funds table is shown below.
Total Project Source and Use of Funds
SB1 (Fund 10) $989,000.00
Measure W (Fund 11) $380,000.00
Measure Y $650,000.00
Measure A/Fund 09 $842,457.50
Total Source of Funds $2,861,457.50
Construction Cost $2,396,041.86
Construction Design & Engineering $166,435.49
School Improvement- Reimbursement $19,000.00
Total Use of Funds $2,543,477.35
Project End Balance $317,980.15
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose not to adopt the resolution accepting completion of the project, but as the work has been satisfactorily completed, the contractor may file a claim against the City for nonpayment of retention, if there are no claims.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the Notice of Completion for the FY 2024-25 Resurfacing Project is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Stewardship of City Infrastructure: includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities such as city hall, the libraries, fire stations, etc., improving streets, and responding to impacts of sea level
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
FY 24-25 Resurfacing NOTICE OF COMPLETION (DOCX)
2 Packet Pg. 9
Pacifica City Council 3
February 24, 2025
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA
ACCEPTING COMPLETION AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE
NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE
FY 2024-25 RESURFACING PROJECT
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that WHEREAS, the City Engineer of the said City has filed with the City Clerk of said City, his Certificate as to the completion of all the work provided to be done under and pursuant to the contract between said City and VSS International, on February 24, 2025, and
WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this Council that said work under said contract has been fully completed as provided in said contract and the plans and specifications therein referred to,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered as follows:
1. That acceptance of completion of said work be, and it is hereby, made and ordered.
2. That the City Manager is directed to file for record with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo, Notice of Completion thereof, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 24th day of February 2025, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
CITY OF PACIFICA
By:
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michelle M. Kenyon, City Attorney
2 Packet Pg. 10
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
CITY OF PACIFICA
FOR THE FY 2024-25 PAVEMENT RESURFACING PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California, by Roland Yip, City Engineer of the City of Pacifica, California, that the contract awarded to VSS International on April 8, 2024, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications for said work filed with the City Clerk, and approved by the City Council of said City.
That said work and improvements were actually completed on the 30th day of October 2024 and that acceptance of completion of said work was ordered by the City Council of said City, adopted on the 24th day of February, 2025, and that the name of the surety on the contractor's bond for labor and materials on said project is Western Surety Company.
That said work consists, generally of asphalt overlay, cape seal, rubberized chip seal, double slurry seal, slurry seal, microsurfacing, base repair, pavement striping and markings.
Name and address of Owner: City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Ave
Pacifica, California 94044
Roland Yip, P.E.
City Engineer
VERIFICATION
The undersigned states that he is the City Engineer of the City of Pacifica and that he makes this verification on behalf of said entity; that he has read the foregoing, and knows the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true.
Roland Yip, P.E.
City Engineer
Executed in Pacifica, California, on February 24, 2025.
2.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: FY 24-25 Resurfacing NOTICE OF COMPLETION (5865 : Resolution - FY24/25 Resurfacing Notice of Completion Staff Report)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/24/2025
1 SUBJECT:
Primary Grant Agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for future Measures A and W Funding
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing Execution of a Primary Grant Agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for future Measures A and W Funding.”
STAFF CONTACT:
Roland Yip, DPW Deputy Director
(650) 738-3771
[email protected]
John Mullins, Interim DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In 1988, San Mateo County voters approved Measure A, a 20-year half-cent sales tax to fund and leverage additional funding for transportation projects and programs in San Mateo County.
The approval of Measure A created the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) to manage and administer the sales tax revenues generated in conformance with the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP). The 1988 sales tax expired on December 31, 2008.
In 2004, the San Mateo County voters reauthorized the Measure A half-cent sales tax and adopted a new TEP for an additional 25 years (from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2033). The TEP established funding categories for Transit; Highways Improvements; Local Streets/Transportation; Grade Separations; Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements; and Alternative Congestion Relief projects.
In 2018, the San Mateo County voters approved Measure W, a 30-year half cent sales tax, from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2048, to fund and leverage additional funding for transportation projects and programs in San Mateo County that are consistent with the Measure W Congestion Relief Plan. The San Mateo County Transit District (District) levies this tax and administers investments for the 50% of the proceeds assigned to the County Public Transportation Systems category in the Congestion Relief Plan. The TA is responsible for administering the remaining 50% of funds assigned to: Countywide Highway Congestion Improvements; Local Safety, Pothole and Congestion Relief Improvements including Grade Separations; Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements; and Regional Transit Connections. 3 Packet Pg. 12
Pacifica City Council 2
February 24, 2025
Historically, the TA has executed separate funding agreements and memoranda of understanding (and associated amendments) for each phase of each project funded by Measures A and W. To streamline the contracting process, the TA has developed a new primary grant agreement (PGA) through which the TA and project sponsors will document the structure of their relationships and related obligations. Concise individual project supplements will detail each funded project and any specifically associated requirements during the 10-year term of the PGA.
In order to be eligible for TA Measures A and W funding over the next 10 years, the TA requires sponsors' governing boards to adopt resolutions authorizing the sponsor's chief executive/mayor/chair, or designee, to sign a PGA with the TA. Please note that because the TA will be administering this agreement across numerous agencies, changes to the standard terms cannot be considered/accommodated.
The City Manager recommends approval of the Primary Grant Agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
No alternative action has been identified for adopting the resolution.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the Resolution is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
• Enhance organizational and fiscal stability: Future Measures A and W Funding will provide vital financing mechanism to improve City infrastructure. • Improve and steward City infrastructure, streets and facilities: Future Measures A and W Funding will assist in the development and improvement of City infrastructure.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with executing the Primary Grant Agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. However, failure to execute this agreement in a timely manner may disqualify the City from receiving future Measures A and W Funding.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works
ATTACHMENT LIST:
3 Packet Pg. 13
Pacifica City Council 3
February 24, 2025
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF A PRIMARY GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN MATEO COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR FUTURE MEASURES A AND W FUNDING WHEREAS, on June 7, 1988, the voters of San Mateo County approved a ballot measure to allow the collection and distribution by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) of a half cent transaction and use tax in San Mateo County for 20 years with the tax revenues to be used for highway and transit improvements pursuant to the Transportation Expenditure Plan presented to the voters (Original Measure A); and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004, the voters of San Mateo County approved the continuation of the collection and distribution by the TA of the Measure A half cent transaction and use tax for an additional 25 years to implement the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan, beginning January 1, 2009 (New Measure A); and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2018, the voters of San Mateo County authorized a new one-half percent sales tax in San Mateo County for transportation purposes, and tasked the TA with administering four of the five transportation program categories described in the Congestion Relief Plan presented to the voters (Measure W); and WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica is eligible for funding under certain programs in the 1988 Transportation Expenditure Plan, 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan, and/or 2018 Congestion Relief Plan; and
WHEREAS, the TA requires the Sponsor's governing board to adopt a resolution authorizing the Sponsor's City Manager, or a designee, to sign a Primary Grant Agreement with the TA to receive Measures A and W grants over the next 10 years, and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing board of the City of Pacifica:
1. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute a primary grant agreement with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to be eligible to receive Measures A and W grants over the next 10 years; and
2. Certifies that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and
3. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.
• • • • •
3 Packet Pg. 14
Pacifica City Council 4
February 24, 2025
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 24th day of February, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_____________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________ _________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 3 Packet Pg. 15
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/24/2025
1 SUBJECT:
Resolution Authorizing Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Hazen and Sawyer for Engineering Design Services for the Headworks Rehabilitation and Improvement Project (P040)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to Approve a Resolution Authorizing a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Hazen and Sawyer for engineering design services in the amount of $ for the Headworks Rehabilitation and Repair Project (P040); Approve budget authority in the amount of $1,530,178.50 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $201,975 ; and Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents related to the project.
STAFF CONTACT:
Daniel Patten, P.E., Engineering Manager (Wastewater)
(650) 922-7248
[email protected]
Louis Sun, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works (Wastewater) (650) 738-4662
[email protected]
John Mullins, Interim DPW Director
(650) 738-3770
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On June 24, 2024, during the FY 2024-25 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget approval process, the Council approved funding for the Headworks Rehabilitation and Repair Project P040 (Project).
Improvements to the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) were identified in the City’s “Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Condition Assessment” in 2018. This project will improve the overall reliability of wastewater treatment and improve operations and maintenance at CCWRP. Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant was built with a single influent channel, which is expensive and risky to take offline for maintenance. The Grit Vortex removes sand, gravel and inorganic materials from the influent wastewater stream. This system has been in constant operation for 25 years and will be assessed as whether to repair or replace it. Grit and inorganic materials which get past the Grit Vortex unit can built up in other systems at the CCWRP, increasing maintenance costs and lowering the life of critical equipment. CCWRP does not have a screening system at the front of the plant, which leads to the accumulation of debris inside treatment processes. Rags and debris also increase maintenance costs and decrease the life of equipment.
On July 8, 2024, the City advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from 4 Packet Pg. 16
Pacifica City Council 2
February 24, 2025
engineering design teams (Consultants) to design and develop construction bid documents for the Project. Then on September 9, 2024, two consultants bid the Project: Hazen and Sawyer, and Dudek Inc. The table below summarizes the fee and level of effort for each consultant.
Proposer Fee Level of Effort (Hours)
Hazen and Sawyer Inc. $1,346,500 5278
Dudek Inc. $701,493 2420
As required by state Public Contracts Code, the RFP utilized a qualifications-based selection (QBS) approach to ensure the City selected the most qualified Consultant for this critical Project. From September 9 - October 8 2024, Staff reviewed the proposals based on the following criteria:
· Fees and Level of Effort
· Project Understanding and Approach
· Project and Team References
Hazen and Sawyer’s Proposal is 92% higher than the lowest fee, however, the selection process is not based on the lowest fee alone. Hazen and Sawyer’s team has experience in designing Wastewater treatment plant headworks projects. The City negotiated the scope and fee with Hazen and Sawyer further, reducing costs by approximately $50,000 from the original price received.
Moreover, Hazen and Sawyer has provided a team experienced in complex wastewater treatment plant projects. Their proposed team has recently designed similar projects for San Francisco International Airport, City of San Francisco, City of San Leandro and City of Rialto.
These projects included elements which will be critical to the success of the Project, including:
· The design of wastewater treatment plant screening facilities · Large multi-disciplinary wastewater projects which include temporary bypassing and treatment systems.
· Sequencing of complex wastewater treatment plant projects. · Experience in condition assessment of existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Because of the above reasons, City staff ranked Hazen and Sawyer first and determined that they are the most qualified to perform the engineering design of the Project.
The following table summarizes the schedule anticipated for the Headworks Rehabilitation and Repair Project:
Description Date
Council Approval of Engineering Agreement February 24, 2025 Notice to Proceed March 4, 2025
Basis of Design Report January 19, 2026
60-Percent Design May 18, 2026
90-Percent Design August 31, 2026
100-Percent (Final) Design November 16, 2026
Bidding November 17, 2026
This proposed schedule will allow Project Construction to commence in the Spring of 2027.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
4 Packet Pg. 17
Pacifica City Council 3
February 24, 2025
Council may choose not to approve the Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1; however, this will result in project delays, and possible increases of construction costs. Staff does not recommend this alternate action.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Approval of the Annual Purchase Orders is consistent with the following Council adopted Goals:
· Stewardship of City Infrastructure, street, and facilities:
The Project will improve the reliability of the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and improve wastewater treatment efficiency.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of Task Order No. 1 is $1,346,500. City staff recommends including a 15% contingency to the Task Order for any additional design work due to the complexity of the project. The Source and Use of Funds spreadsheet is shown below.
Use of Funds
Task Order No. 1 - Engineering Design Services $1,346,500 Contingency (15%) $199,589
Total Use of Funds $1,548,475
Project Fund Source
Enterprise Fund (Fund 34) $8,230,000
Account No 518452-51206-P0040
Total Project Fund Source $ 1,548,475
Estimated Project Fund End Balance $6,681,525.00
No additional budget authority is necessary as sufficient funds have been allocated in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund FY 2024-25 budget for this project.
ORIGINATED BY:
Public Works - Wastewater Division
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_P roject - signed (PDF)
4 Packet Pg. 18
Pacifica City Council 4
February 24, 2025
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA
AUTHORIZING A MASTER AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICE AND TASK ORDER NO. 1 WITH HAZEN AND SAWYER, INC. FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE HEADWORKS REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P040 WHEREAS, during the FY 2024-25 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget approval process, the City Council approved funding for the Headworks Rehabilitation and Improvement Project P040 (Project); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes but not limited to the engineering design and construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, improvements to the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Headworks and Influent Channel were identified a 2018 Condition Assessment. These improvements will include repairing the influent channel, adding screening facilities and installing a bypass pipeline to provide redundancy; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2024, the City advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from engineering design teams (Consultants) to design and develop construction bid documents for the Project. Then on September 9, 2024, two consultants bid the Project; and WHEREAS, as required by state Public Contracts Code, the RFP utilized a qualifications-based selection (QBS) approach to ensure the City selected the most qualified Consultant for this critical Project; and
WHEREAS, City staff ranked Hazen and Sawyer first and determined that they are the most qualified to perform the engineering design of the Project; and WHEREAS, The City Council has considered the City Manager’s recommendation to authorize a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Hazen and Sawyer;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pacifica authorizes the City Manager to execute a Master Agreement for Consultant Services and Task Order No. 1 with Hazen and Sawyer for engineering design services in the amount of $1,346,500 for the Headworks Rehabilitation and Improvement Project and approves budget authority in the amount of $1,548,475 which includes 15% contingency in the amount of $201,975; and Authorizes the City Manager to execute all documents related to the Project. • • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on February 24, 2025 by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
4 Packet Pg. 19
Pacifica City Council 5
February 24, 2025
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
CITY OF PACIFICA
_________________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ _________________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 4 Packet Pg. 20
4.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
4.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Agreement_02_24_25_Task_Order_1_Hazen_Headworks_Rehabilitation_and_Improvement_Project - signed (5845 : Approve
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
2/24/2025
1 SUBJECT:
Public Hearing on a proposed ordinance repealing and replacing Article 49 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the City of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“Short-Term Rentals”); making certain amendments to Article 29 of Title 9, Chapter 4, Section 9-4.2904 (“Exempted Signs”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code; and finding the adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct a public hearing and introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica repealing and replacing Article 49 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the City of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“Short-Term Rentals”); amending Article 29 of Title 9, Chapter 4, Section 9-4.2904 (“Exempted Signs”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code; and finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
STAFF CONTACT:
Samantha Updegrave – Community Development Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Background:
The term Short-Term Rental (STR) refers to the use of all or a portion of a residential dwelling unit for a rental of less than 30 consecutive days. The popularity of STRs has increased steadily over the past decade due in part to the convenience of booking provided by companies such as Airbnb and VRBO and the increased availability of STRs as an alternative to a traditional hotel or motel. STRs can also provide a source of income for owners and occupants of the residential dwelling units offered for rent as STRs.
On June 11, 2018, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. 994), the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 835 - C.S.,1 establishing regulations for STRs within the City. Generally, the Ordinance established operating, permit application, permit revocation, and enforcement processes within Article 49 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“PMC”)(“STR Ordinance”). STRs are also required to comply with other applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code including but not limited to the transient occupancy tax (“TOT”) requirements and business license tax obligations in Title 3 of the Municipal Code. The application of all of these Municipal Code requirements by the City to permit and regulate STRs is often referred to as the City’s “STR Program.” On June 13, 2022, approximately four years after adoption and implementation of Article 49, at the Council’s request, City staff provided a comprehensive update to the Council on implementation, including information on STR locations, TOT collections, impacts on the City’s housing stock, unpermitted operations, and City enforcement activities.2 Based on a comprehensive review, the City Manager recommended maintaining the STR Program and 1 City Council Ordinance No. 835-C.S.
2 City Council June 13, 2022 Agenda Report, Item No. 14. 5 Packet Pg. 45
Pacifica City Council 2
February 24, 2025
continuing data gathering to (1) gain a greater understanding of the number and types of STRs, (2) provide opportunities to identify unregistered operations and (3) bring any Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) being utilized for STR purposes into compliance with City Ordinances that prohibit ADUs from being rented as STRs. Ultimately, the City Council directed that any revisions to the STR Ordinance be revisited during the Council goal setting in 2023.3 On October 10, 2022, at the request of a Councilmember, City staff presented additional information to the City Council regarding residential property sales resulting in subsequent STR use and asked for direction on whether amendments to the STR Ordinance in the near term were warranted.4In response to community concerns that increasing the number of STRs would impact the City’s housing stock, a majority of the Council directed that the STR Ordinance be amended to impose a cap of 150 active STR Permits issued in Pacifica at any given time, and that further revisions to the STR Ordinance, beyond the Permit cap, be revisited during the Council goal setting in 2023.5
On February 27, 2023, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission (Resolution 2023-001), the City Council adopted Ordinance 888 - C.S. amending the City’s STR Ordinance to establish a cap of 150 active STR Permits that can be issued at any given time in residential districts citywide. Amendments also included clarifying the prohibition on utilizing Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (“JADU”) as STRs and modifying the expiration date of STR Permits to align with business license expiration timelines. Following Council adoption of the amended STR Ordinance, the City submitted an amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan (IP) to the California Coastal Commission (CCC). In June 2024, the CCC certified Implementation Amendment Number LCP-2-PAC-23-0023-1.
City Council Study Sessions
From June to December 2024, the Council conducted four in-depth study sessions to discuss further amendments to the City’s STR ordinance, with a primary focus on addressing potential and reported community impacts associated with short-term transient uses within existing residential uses. The amendments proposed in the Draft Ordinance (attached) reflect the key goals and priorities identified by the City Council and direction given to staff on potential revisions and additions to the City’s existing STR ordinance at the four prior study sessions.
On June 24, 2024, City staff provided a report and presentation to the City Council to initiate discussion of updates to the City’s STR Program. Information presented to the City Council included an overview of current regulations and enforcement processes, outlined staff coordination efforts with the CCC, and summarized information gleaned from researching ShortTerm Rental provisions in eight jurisdictions. After receiving the staff report, presentation, and public comments and feedback, the City Council directed the City Manager to evaluate and research various policy and regulatory compliance topics.
On August 26, 2024, and at continued deliberations on September 9, 2024, staff presented detailed information, including implementation impacts and considerations, for each policy and regulatory compliance topic discussed at the June Study Session. The Council provided direction to the City Manager related to policy, regulatory compliance, and streamlining procedures for inclusion in the draft ordinance.
On December 5, 2024, staff provided updates to the Council on communications between City and CCC staff and requested that the Council discuss topics related to parking, STR density, 3 City Council Minutes June 13, 2022
4 City Council October 10, 2022 Agenda Report, Item No. 10 5 City Council Minutes October 10, 2022
5 Packet Pg. 46
Pacifica City Council 3
February 24, 2025
multi-family dwellings, and minimum rental duration in light of CCC staff feedback provided. The City Council provided specific policy direction on these topics for inclusion in the Ordinance.
Additionally, the Council discussed regulations and provided clarification on policy and regulatory compliance provisions to include in the draft ordinance.
Discussion:
Proposed Text Amendment
The attached Draft Ordinance would repeal and replace Article 49 “Short-Term Rentals” of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the PMC. The Draft Ordinance incorporates the direction provided by the Council to the City Manager at the study sessions described above. The following provides a detailed discussion of how the proposed text amendments address potential impacts and concerns within the City of Pacifica. The Draft Ordinance is attached.
Neighborhood Impacts
Impacts of STRs on neighborhoods, such as increased noise, garbage, traffic, and decreased availability of parking, were discussed by the City Council. To address community concerns and ensure STRs operate in a compatible manner with existing residential uses, the Draft Ordinance significantly changes STR operation requirements, including differentiating operational requirements for hosted and unhosted rentals. Operational requirements established for purposes of addressing community concerns and potential issues associated with operation of STRs include the following:
• Requires STRs to be a primary residence.
• Prohibits unhosted STRs in multifamily dwellings, which are defined for this purpose as buildings containing two or more units.
• Establishes advertising and signage obligations, including a requirement that the Cityissued STR Permit number be displayed on all mediums offering the availability or listing the STR and requiring the installation of an exterior sign with the STR permit details and a QR code with the operator and responsible party’s contact information. • Mandates a 24/7 responsible party who must respond to complaints within 30 minutes by phone or in person.
• Limits occupancy to two persons per legally permitted bedroom (excluding children under the age of 12).
• Requires one off-street parking space per bedroom that will be used as STR. • Restricts the use of outdoor pools/spas after 10 p.m. • Requires the operator to provide specific information to guests (e.g. occupancy limits, parking locations, refuse disposal requirements, the City’s noise regulations and social host liability ordinance).
• Explicitly states that STRs are subject to all applicable Pacifica Municipal Code regulations, including but not limited to the City’s noise regulations • Requires the installation of a noise monitor on the exterior of the property • Prohibits the use of any sound amplification device outside the building and restricts the use inside the STR where sound levels can be heard at the STR property line • Establishes a maximum of 90 rental nights per permit year and a two-night minimum stay for unhosted rentals (no maximum or minimums apply to hosted rentals). Permit year is measured from October 31 through October 30th to align with the permit expiration and renewal period.
• Includes requirements for a business license and compliance with TOT regulations Housing Availability
During City Council study sessions on the STR amendments in 2024, the potential impacts on housing availability and affordability, including the risk of displacement, were discussed. To address these concerns, the Draft Ordinance includes a provision to prohibit unhosted STRs in 5 Packet Pg. 47
Pacifica City Council 4
February 24, 2025
multi-family developments (specifically defined as two or more units for this purpose), whereas hosted STRs in multi-family developments as an accessory use of individual units is permitted.
By prohibiting the use of an entire multi-family dwelling building as an STR, the Draft Ordinance helps to ensure the continued availability of an important source of affordable housing.
Furthermore, by allowing hosted STR operations within multi-family developments, the Draft Ordinance provides opportunities for residents to supplement their income, potentially improving housing affordability for those who operate such businesses.
In addition to regulating STRs in multi-family dwellings, the Draft Ordinance continues to protect ADUs as a valuable housing resource. The Draft Ordinance continues to prohibit the use of ADUs and JADUs as STRs. However, the Draft Ordinance would allow the Operator of a Hosted Short-term Rental to reside in an ADU or JADU and operate the STR in the main residence on the site where the STR is located. These regulations discourage the development of ADUs solely for STRs, ensuring they primarily serve as long- term housing solutions for Pacifica residents and contribute to the City’s overall housing stock. By clarifying regulations, the Draft Ordinance supports the continued availability of ADUs and JADUs as a housing option while allowing residents to potentially supplement their income by operating a STR within their primary residence.
Other Regulations
In addition to the topics discussed above, the Draft Ordinance also establishes new definitions; regulations related to compliance checks such as proof of rental activity; permit renewal and expiration; grounds for suspension and revocation of permits; penalties and fines consistent with Government Code section 36900(d), enforcement procedures, and investigative tools for addressing violations of the STR regulations; and establishes that the cost of enforcement actions are the responsibility of the STR operator. These include, but are not limited to:
• Definitions for hosted and unhotsed STRs
• Required inspections for all unhosted STRs
• Allows the City to administratively subpoena records from operators and any advertising platforms compelling their attendance at hearings and requiring the production of books and records related to the operation of any short-term rental in the City, including the address of each such listing, the length of stay for each such listing, and the price paid for each stay.
• Establishes that in the event of two violations within a 12-month period, or if misrepresentation or false statements were used to obtain the permit, or if a request for inspection is denied, the Permit may be revoked.
At the December 5, 2024, meeting there was a lack of consensus among members of the Council on whether the City should include provisions directly imposing penalties and fines against platforms who list properties on their site that were not in compliance with the City’s STR Ordinance. The revised Ordinance does promote transparency by allowing the City to subpoena records directly from the advertising platforms on those properties, allowing for stepped up tax enforcement. It also allows the City to cite and fine advertising platforms for violating the information disclosure provisions of the Ordinance.
The Ordinance’s primary focus is on mitigating the health and safety impacts caused by the owners and operators of the STRs. The most efficient way to address those health and safety impacts is through direct regulation and enforcement against the owners and operators. Indirect regulation and enforcement measures will likely be met with practical and legal challenges.
And, they may also be unnecessary, given that the main hosting platforms have voluntarily agreed to hold customers accountable for violation of the Ordinance. The revised Ordinance’s 5 Packet Pg. 48
Pacifica City Council 5
February 24, 2025
focus is on the root cause of any negative health or safety impacts and not the constantly shifting marketplaces that facilitate some of the transactions. Accordingly, staff is not recommending including any provisions directly imposing penalties and fines against platforms who list properties on their site that were not in compliance with the City’s STR Ordinance.
Revisions to Section 9-4.2904 (Exempted Signs)
As indicated above, one of the operational requirements proposed in the Draft Ordinance would be to establish signage obligations for STRs to require an exterior sign with permit details and a QR code with operator and responsible party contact information. Staff had initially proposed a maximum size of 6 square feet, the size of a moveable sandwich board, however, both public commenters and the majority of Planning Commissioners felt that size was too large and could be used as an advertisement. Since the City Council did not provide direction on the size or design of the signage, the Draft Ordinance incorporates the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Based on their recommendation, the sign requirement in section 9-4.4905(f) of the Draft Ordinance is proposed to be a maximum size of 2 square feet in area with a QR code of at least 3-by-3 inches, include contact information and a link to the City’s website for complaints, and be visible from the public right-of-way. The City would provide a template design for uniformity of appearance. In addition to the revisions to Article 49, the Draft Ordinance would amend section 9-4.2904 of Article 29 of the Chapter 4 of Title 9 (“Sign Ordinance”) to add an exemption to specifically exempt STR signs erected in compliance with section 9-4.4905 from the City’s sign permit requirements in the Sign Ordinance.
Program Administration
Process Enforcement Improvements
Although outside the scope of the proposed ordinance, City Council also directed the City Manager to improve the permitting and enforcement processes for STRs. Staff has been, and will continue to improve the process including, but not limited to:
• Updated application forms with additional information • Permit cap and waitlist management
• Activity monitoring, enforcement, and reporting
• Revocation process
STR Location Map
The City Council also requested that the City Manager research and address a variety of topics, including ongoing maintenance of a STR Location Map. Specifically, the City Council expressed interest in an interactive, web-based map allowing residents to identify legally operating STRs thereby allowing the public to identify those STRs that may be operating without the proper permits. Staff is researching how this could be done, and the staff and resources that would be required. Staff will report back to City Council at a future time if the City Manager determines this to be infeasible.
Consistency Analysis
General Plan
The proposed amendments to the City’s STR Ordinance and Sign Ordinance align with the Pacifica General Plan 2040 in that the amendments maintain some of the economic benefits of STRs while effectively addressing community concerns. The Draft Ordinance is consistent with the following General Plan policies and programs.
Program HE-I-7 Preserve Existing Affordable Housing Units: The Draft Ordinance specifically addresses preservation of existing affordable housing as it includes provisions limiting the use of multi-family units as STRs to hosed STRs only. It also clarifies that Junior ADUs cannot be 5 Packet Pg. 49
Pacifica City Council 6
February 24, 2025
used as STRs. These help to ensure the continued availability of an important source of affordable housing, and also provides opportunities for residents to supplement their income, potentially improving housing affordability.
Policy ES-G-1 Leverage Assets. Leverage Pacifica’s coastal location and unique assets as a primary means to strengthen the local economy, focusing on increasing tourism facilities, including shops, hotels, restaurants, and hiking trails: STRs increase tourism by providing a diverse range of accommodation options and contribute to the City’s local economy in several ways. First, STRs generate revenue for the City in the form of business license tax (approximately $15,000 collected in 2023) and TOT (approximately $1.5 million in TOT from STRs projected for FY 24-25). Revenue streams from both business license and TOT can be used to fund essential city services such as infrastructure and recreation facility improvements, benefiting the tourist and local economies, as well as residents. As detailed in the June 24, 2024 City Council Staff Report6, the City assumes there are uncollected TOTs from Short-Term Rentals operating within the City of Pacifica. As part of the ongoing review of the Program, the City hired HdL Companies, an auditing, operations, and revenue solutions company, who is assisting the City with tracing these rentals and requiring the STR operators to register with TOT to report their gross receipts so the City may assess the outstanding tax liability. STRs attract a diverse tourist base to the city, introducing new customers to local shops and restaurants.
Tourists who patronize these local businesses directly strengthen the local economy by generating revenue for local businesses and contributing to the City’s sales tax base. Finally, STRs provide supplemental income opportunities for Pacifica residents, fostering economic empowerment and enabling contribution to the local economy through increased spending at local businesses, or by pursuing their own local business. By establishing additional STR regulations and improving enforcement actions, amendments to the STR Ordinance continues to leverage the City's unique assets.
Policy ES-I-7 Mixed Land Uses. Promote development of a broader mix of revenue-generating land uses, including hotels, to increase the City’s fiscal benefits: The proposed Draft Ordinance continues to promote a broader mix of revenue-generating transient occupancy uses. By offering a diverse range of accommodation options catering to different budgets and travel styles, STRs attract a diverse range of tourists to the City of Pacifica. This increased diversity continues to provide revenue generated from business license, TOT, and sales taxes.
Policy CD-G-3 Neighborhood Conservation. Preserve the unique qualities of each of Pacifica’s residential neighborhoods. Incorporate neighborhood narratives into the General Plan to reflect these unique qualities and inform appropriate development standards and other policies: By limiting the total number of STRs in the City, distinguishing between hosted and unhosted rentals and expanding operating regulations that address potential neighborhood impacts such as noise, litter, and parking, the Draft Ordinance preserves the unique qualities of residential neighborhoods, consistent with this General Plan Policy.
Policy CD-I-6 Accessory Dwelling Units. Facilitate the creation of accessory dwelling units that contribute to the variety of available housing and do not disrupt neighborhood character. Update the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines to address the integration of accessory dwelling units into the neighborhood fabric: The Draft Ordinance directly supports the General Plan’s objective to facilitate the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that contribute to the variety of available housing, in that it maintains prohibitions on the use of ADUs and Junior ADUs as STRs and permits the use of ADUs and Junior ADUs as part of a hosted STR operation where the operator occupies the ADU or Junior ADU and the primary dwelling is rented on a short-term basis. The Draft Ordinance ensures that accessory dwellings continue to 6 Staff Report available online at
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Calendar.aspx?From=1/1/2024&To=12/31/2024 5 Packet Pg. 50
Pacifica City Council 7
February 24, 2025
contribute to the variety of available housing and discourages the construction of accessory dwellings for the sole purpose of use as STRs. The Draft Ordinance effectively integrates ADUs and Junior ADUs and STRs into the neighborhood fabric and enables homeowners to supplement their income by offering their primary residence as a STR, while maintaining their ADU or JADU for personal use.
Local Coastal Program
Pursuant to Section 30514 of the California Public Resources Code, the Draft Ordinance would not be effective in the Coastal Zone until the CCC certifies an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP). The CCC has found that outright bans or undue restrictions on STRs are inconsistent with Coastal Act policies prioritizing public access and visitor-serving uses.
As detailed in the December 5, 2024, City Council Study Session Staff Report,7 City staff consulted with CCC staff on November 5, 2024, to discuss the feasibility of the proposed text amendments. CCC staff provided preliminary comments to staff, noting four areas of potential concern, including parking requirements, STR density limitations, use of multi-family dwellings as STRs, and minimum rental duration requirements. The City Council discussed these four topics at the December 5th study session and directed staff to amend the Ordinance to reflect CCC staff direction.
Following the adoption of the Draft Ordinance, a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) will be submitted to the CCC, who will determine whether to certify, certify with modifications, or deny the LCPA. Until such time as the CCC certifies the LCPA, existing STR regulations for areas located within the coastal zone will apply.
Coastal Act Policy No. 5 in Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan8 states that “Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. […].” Removing housing units from the Coastal Zone, even temporarily, through their rapid conversion to STRs at a greater pace than development of new long-term housing conflicts with this policy and will significantly impact the availability of housing in the Coastal Zone on a long-term basis. The proposed amendments would maintain allowances for STRs within the Coastal Zone, while providing additional regulatory and permitting requirements to address operational impacts on residential uses.
Planning Commission Review
At the January 21, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and passed Resolution 2025-001 recommending approval of the text amendment to the City Council by a vote of 6-0. The staff report and resolution are included as Attachments A & B.
The Planning Commission had additional recommendations for changes and/or clarifications to the Draft Ordinance for City Council consideration as part of the ordinance update. Those revisions to the Draft Ordinance are included in the Draft Ordinance (attached) in red and are set forth in the chart below.
While most of the recommendations from the Planning Commission clarified or expanded existing language in the Draft Ordinance, the recommendation relating to parking deviated from the City Council’s prior direction. The City Council had previously directed staff to include a 7 Staff Report available online at
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Calendar.aspx?From=1/1/2024&To=12/31/2024 8 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, March 1980 as amended 5 Packet Pg. 51
Pacifica City Council 8
February 24, 2025
requirement that an STR provide at least one off-street parking space per Legally Permitted Bedroom that is being utilized as an STR based on comments from the Coastal Commission.
The City Council did not direct staff to distinguish between Coastal Zone and non-Coastal Zone STRs. The Planning Commission recommended that the Council consider a parking restriction that distinguishes between Coastal Zone and non-Coastal Zone STRs. In the Coastal Zone, the Planning Commission recommended requiring at least one off-street parking space per Legally Permitted Bedroom. However, in the non-Coastal Zone, the Planning Commission recommended a maximum of two off-street parking spaces. # Draft Ordinance - Pacifica
Municipal Code Section
PC Recommendation
Table key: Underlined text = add / Strikethrough = delete Definitions, PMC Sec. 9-4.4901
1 Sec. 9-4.4901(f)
“Multi-family development”
For avoidance of doubt, add “duplex, triplex, and attached product (inclusive of attached single-family dwellings) are included in the definition of multifamily development” to the list of uses considered a multi-family use under this definition.
2 Sec. 9-4.4901(k)
“Permit” or “Short-Term
Rental Permit”
… means a permit issued by the City pursuant to this
Article to allow the use of a single Short-Term Rental on a single Site.
3 Definitions 9-4.4901(n)
“Responsible Party”
“Responsible party" shall mean a natural person Person, over the age of eighteen (18) ….
4 Definitions 9-4.4901(o)
“Single-family dwelling unit”
For avoidance of doubt, add “Single-family attached
homes are not included in this definition.”
Standards applicable to Short-Term Rentals, PMC Sec. 9-4.4903 5 Sec. 9-4.4903(b)
(location standards)
Clarify what is meant by “approved” in this context.
No Person shall Operate or allow a Short-term Rental in any location not approved (received Certificate of
Occupancy or equivalent final inspection) for use as a
permanent dwelling unit including, but not limited to, any vehicle, trailer, tent, storage shed or garage;
Short-term Rental Permit required 9-4.4904
5 Packet Pg. 52
Pacifica City Council 9
February 24, 2025
6 Sec. 9-4.4904(a)(i)
Application
For clarity and to protect privacy, separate name and
contact of operate from list of adults who reside onsite, and renumber section.
i. Name and contact information of the Operator.
ii. All adults for whom the property is a permanent
residence shall be listed;
iii. ii. The name and contact information of the authorized Responsible Party. Any change in the Responsible
Party’s address or telephone number shall be promptly
furnished
to the City within 48 hours of such change;
(renumber remainder)
iv. iii. Floor plan showing the use of all rooms per the California Building Code and identifying Legally Permitted Bedrooms, rooms and doors to be used for the Short-term Rental.
…
7 Sec. 9-4.4904(a)(x)
Application
Remove: Any other information the Administrator deems
reasonably necessary to administer this article;
8 Sec. 9-4.4904(c) Application Add: The permit application shall be accompanied by a signed safety declaration, under penalty of perjury, in a form prepared by the Administrator….
Operational Requirements. PMC Sec. 9-4.4905
9 Sec. 9-4905(c)
(responsible party)
Add: Responsible party shall make all reasonable efforts to address the complaint.
10 Sec. 9-4.4905(f) (signage) Add “hosted” before multi-family to clarify/reinforce requirement
11 Sec. 9-4.4905(f) (signage) Revise sign allowances to include the following design standards:
• Max size: 2 square feet
• Min QR Code size: 3 inches-by-3 inches
• Visible from right-of-way
• Weatherproof
• QR Code should also have a link to City’s Code
Enforcement page or email where public can
make a complaint about the STR
• Sign in a form approved by the Administrator
12 Sec. 9-4.4905(h)
(other PMC provisions)
Add reference to garbage requirements to list of
applicable PMC Sections.
“A Short-term Rental shall comply with all provisions of the Pacifica Municipal Code, including, but not limited to the City’s noise regulations… Garbage, Collection and
Recycling (Chapter 5 of Title 6 of this Code);”
5 Packet Pg. 53
Pacifica City Council 10 February 24, 2025
13 Sec. 9-4.4905(q) (parking) Differentiate requirements for Coastal Zones and establish a different standard for STRs outside of the
Coastal Zones:
“Within the Coastal Zone the The Short-term Rental must provide at least one off-street parking space per Legally Permitted Bedroom that is being utilized as a Short-term Rental, which shall be dedicated and available to Shortterm Renters during the period of the Rental. Outside the Coastal Zone, STRs shall require two (2) off-street
parking spaces;”
City staff recommends that the City Council consider whether the revisions recommended by the Planning Commission should be incorporated into the Draft Ordinance.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Draft Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The text amendment would be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the “General Rule” exemption in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)). The General Rule exemption provides that, “the activity is covered by the commonsense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.”
The text amendment would make amendments to the existing STR Program to, among other things, establish definitions and operational requirements for hosted and unhosted STRs within the City. These changes would not have a significant effect on the environment.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
At the time of writing this report, staff had not received any public comment related to this City Council action.
However, staff received 19 public comment letters about STRs between the publication of the Planning Commission staff report and hearing (Attachment C). In the letters, the public expressed both support and opposition to the primary residence requirements. Opposition letters fell into two camps. One stating that the requirements for unhosted STRs were too limiting and the other stating that the new requirements would not go far enough. There was overall support for measures such as designation of a responsible party and the installation of external noise meters.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Council may decline to adopt the Draft Ordinance or direct modifications to the provisions included in the Ordinance.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
The Public Hearing introducing the Draft Ordinance is consistent with the following item in the Council adopted Strategic Plan and Priority Work Plan for FY2024-25:
• Goal 3: Prioritize protection and development of affordable housing. o Strategy B: Update the Short-Term Rental Ordinance.
5 Packet Pg. 54
Pacifica City Council 11 February 24, 2025
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed amendments in the Draft Ordinance are anticipated to have significant fiscal implications for the City of Pacifica due to reduced Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collections and increased administrative costs. Estimating the precise fiscal impact is challenging and depends on various factors discussed below. However, the implementation of these ordinance amendments will require close monitoring of fiscal impacts over the coming years and prudent financial planning to attempt to mitigate effects on the General Fund.
During the Planning Commission meeting, staff communicated a potential worst-case impact to the General Fund of up to $1.3 million, combining revenue losses and increased administrative costs. However, since that meeting, staff received updated statistical information from HdL, allowing for more refined estimates of revenue losses based on specific provisions of the new ordinance. These refinements indicate that the total fiscal impact from revenue losses is projected to range between $1.4 million and $1.5 million once the new ordinance is fully implemented across coastal and non-coastal zones, as detailed below.
As of January 2025, there were 139 tax-compliant STRs operating in Pacifica (Attachment D). In evaluating revenue losses, staff assumed that all current operators would prefer to continue operating as STRs and only assessed losses from those who would no longer qualify for permit renewal under the new ordinance. Therefore, these estimates do not factor in market fluctuations, such as operators converting to long-term rentals, selling their properties, or the emergence of new hosted STRs that comply with the ordinance.
Historically, STRs have been a major revenue source for the City, generating approximately $1.3–$1.5 million annually in TOT collections. This TOT revenue from STRs was projected to grow to $1.6–$1.8 million following the November 2024 voter-approved TOT rate increase from 12% to 15%. Additionally, STR permit fees and business license taxes collectively contribute approximately $300,000 per year. However, the Draft Ordinance’s stricter regulations and expanded enforcement requirements are expected to significantly reduce the number of STR operators, leading to a substantial decline in TOT, business license, and permit revenue.
Based on the new ordinance requirements:
• 37 STR units (29 in coastal and 8 in non-coastal zones) will not be eligible for renewal due to the prohibition of STRs in multi-family buildings, resulting in a projected revenue reduction of approximately $367,000.
• 36 units (9 in coastal and 27 in non-coastal zones) will not meet new parking requirements, resulting in an estimated revenue reduction of at least $639,000. This number may increase by 20-30 additional units pending the completion of onsite inspections, further reducing revenues.
• As a result of these two provisions, the number of STRs in Pacifica could decrease to between 35 and 65 units.
• Assuming that the remaining units continue operating under the 90-day rental cap condition, TOT revenues would be further reduced by approximately $370,000.
However, given the expected attrition of operators due to these restrictions, this scenario is unlikely.
Although it is not possible to predict the exact market response or its timing—particularly as the new STR Ordinance cannot take effect in the Coastal Zone until approved by the Coastal Commission—the total annual revenue losses could range from $1.4 million to $1.5 million once implemented citywide. Assuming the ordinance takes effect 30 days after adoption and is fully implemented in the non-coastal zone during the annual renewal in October 2025, the prorated revenue reductions in TOT, business license tax, and STR permit fees are projected at $580,500 for the FY 2025-26 budget, increasing to $775,000 for FY 2026-27 (full-year impact). 5 Packet Pg. 55
Pacifica City Council 12 February 24, 2025
These estimates assume that the ordinance will not be in effect in the Coastal Zone throughout the next fiscal year.
This estimate excludes the broader economic implications of the Draft Ordinance on Pacifica’s local economy, such as sales tax revenues and impacts on visitor-serving businesses, including restaurants, cafes, and retail establishments that rely heavily on the hospitality sector. A comprehensive economic impact study, conducted by a qualified consulting firm, would be necessary to assess potential shifts in spending patterns, the impact of STR renters versus long-term renters on local businesses, and whether tourists would opt to stay in Pacifica’s limited hotel inventory or utilize STRs outside the city. The City Council has not requested such a study prior to its deliberation and direction on the STR Ordinance.
Administrative Cost Implications
The implementation and enforcement of the proposed Draft Ordinance will likely result in substantial increases in administrative costs. New operational requirements, such as permit cap management, monitoring STR activities, and ensuring compliance, will require additional staff time and resources. Specific provisions, including noise monitoring and regular inspections, will further escalate code enforcement costs and operational burdens.
The added complexities of the new regulations—including tracking rental activities, identifying violations, bringing non-compliant accounts into compliance, initiating permit revocation processes, and compiling evidentiary packets for hearings—are expected to significantly increase third-party administrative expenses. Staff is currently working with CSG, a consulting firm that may provide the necessary building inspection services for STR units, and HdL, the City's STR third-party administrator, to outline the expanded scope of work and estimate additional costs for implementing the new STR ordinance. Preliminary estimates suggest these third-party costs could increase by $50,000–$100,000 annually, not including additional staff capacity that may be required to manage the program’s increased complexity.
The City’s strategic plan includes a comprehensive review of the fee schedule to ensure adequate cost recovery for STR permit processing and enforcement. STR permit processing fees will be reassessed as part of a broader master fee schedule review, requiring a future City Council decision regarding the extent to which costs can be recovered through permit fees imposed on STR operators.
ORIGINATED BY:
Planning Department
ORIGINATED BY:
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (PDF)
Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (PDF) Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (PDF) Attachment D: Status and Count of Short Term Rental Properties FY2024-25_Q2_Pacifica (PDF)
5 Packet Pg. 56
Pacifica City Council 13 February 24, 2025
ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 5860)
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 49 (SHORT TERM RENTALS) OF CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 9 OF THE
PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REGULATION AND PERMITTING OF
SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND ESTABLISHING FINES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS CONSISTENT WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 25132(E); AMENDING PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9-4.2904 (EXEMPTED SIGNS) (TEXT AMENDMENT TA-157- 25); AND FINDING ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (FILE NO. 2025-001)
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2024, August 26, 2024, September 9, 2024, and December 5, 2024, the City Council of the City of Pacifica considered and provided input on ordinance revisions to the City’s Short-Term Rental Ordinance enacted on February 27, 2023; and WHEREAS, since enactment of the Short-Term Ordinance, residents have commented to the City Council about impacts of Short-term Rentals, including the loss of parking, excessive noise, disruptions to the community, loss of neighborhood integrity and other deleterious impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has also received public comments relating to the sale of residential property in Pacifica for the singular purpose of using the property as a Short-term Rental, which can negatively impact the community by reducing housing units available for longterm residential use; and WHEREAS, Short-term Rentals can provide benefits to the community by providing economical options for transient lodging as well as income generating opportunities for property owners in Pacifica; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to minimize the adverse impact of Short-term Rental activity on the health and safety of residents and visitors and to ensure such activity is conducted in a manner that preserves existing housing, communities and neighborhood integrity; and
WHEREAS, regulations that balance the benefits to the community from Short-term Rentals and address the negative impacts from Short-term Rentals are important to provide assurances to the community and long-term stability to Short-term Rental operators and guests; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments contained in Text Amendment TA-157-25 (File No. 2025- 001) on January 21, 2025, and adopted Resolution No. 2025-001 by a vote of 6-0 initiating and recommending to the City Council adoption of Text Amendment TA-157-25 (File No. 2025-001); and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed ordinance on February 24, 2025 and introduced Ordinance No. ### on the same date; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:
5 Packet Pg. 57
Pacifica City Council 14 February 24, 2025
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Amendment. Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals” of Chapter 4, “Zoning” within Title 9, “Planning and Zoning” is repealed and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:
“Sec. 9-4.4900. Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this article is to establish regulations governing the Short-term Rental of residential property within the City of Pacifica in order to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Pacifica, and to allow for the short-term rental of single-family and multi-family dwelling units for less than thirty (30) consecutive days, while still preserving the residential character of neighborhoods, and preventing Shortterm Rental activities from becoming a nuisance or a threat to public health, safety or welfare.
Sec. 9-4.4901. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the following words and phrases are defined as set forth below:
(a) "Administrator" means the Assistant City Manager or designee. (b) "Advertising platform" means a marketplace in whatever form or format which facilitates Short-term Rentals through advertising, matchmaking, or any other means, using any medium of facilitation, and from which the operator of the platform derives revenues, including booking fees or advertising revenues, from providing or maintaining the marketplace.
(c) “Condominium” or “Condominiums” means an estate in real property consisting of an undivided interest in common in a portion of a parcel of real property, together with a separate interest in space in a residential, industrial, or commercial building on such real property, such as an apartment house, office, or store. "Condominium" may include, in addition, a separate interest in any other portion of such real property.
(d) “Events” mean weddings, conferences, retreats, commercial events, loud or disruptive gatherings of any kind, parties or any other similar gatherings which have the potential to cause traffic, parking, noise, or other impacts to the neighborhood.
(e) “Legally Permitted Bedroom” means the number of bedrooms that are officially approved for occupancy within a dwelling unit, as reflected in the building permit records of the City of Pacifica.
(f) “Multi-family development” means a building, or portion thereof, used and designed as a residence for two (2) or more families living independently of each other and doing their own cooking in such building, including duplex, triplex, and attached product (inclusive of attached single-family dwellings), apartment houses, apartment hotels, and flats, but not including automobile courts, motels, hotels, or boardinghouses.
(g) “Noise Monitor” means a noise detecting alarm sensor device with a call-assist feature that is located on the exterior of the rental property or other noise detecting device/sensor with features that do not have a camera, record conversations, nor store any personal data. The Noise Monitor shall have the capability of detecting noise at levels established by the operator in order to comply with the regulations found in the Pacifica Municipal Code. A Noise Monitor is not a Type I or II Sound Level Meter (SLM).
(h) "Operate" means the operation of a Short-term Rental, and includes the acts of establishing, offering, maintaining, or listing for rent a Short-term Rental with an Advertising platform.
5 Packet Pg. 58
Pacifica City Council 15 February 24, 2025
(i) “Operator” means the Person who has applied for a Short-term Rental Permit or has been issued a Short-term Rental Permit by the City. (j) “Person” means natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity. (k) “Permit” or “Short-term Rental Permit” means a permit issued by the City pursuant to this Article to allow the use of a single Short-term Rental on a single Site.
(l) “Primary residence” means a residence where a Person resides, full-time, for more than six months out of the year.
(m) "Rental" means the occupancy or use of a dwelling unit property, in exchange for any form of rent that may be valued in money, including cash, credit, goods, labor, or property, regardless of whether such rent is actually received. (n) “Responsible party" shall mean a natural person Person, over the age of eighteen (18), who shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable provisions of the Pacifica Municipal Code by all Short-term Renters and visitors of a Site for a Short-term Rental, twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week when the Operator is not available. (o) “Single-family dwelling unit” means a building designed for, or used to house, not more than one family, including all necessary employees of such family. Singlefamily attached homes are not included in this definition. (p) “Site” shall mean the assessor’s parcel upon which the Short-term Rental is located.
(q) "Short-term Rental" means the use of a dwelling unit, or portion of it, for a Rental of less than thirty (30) consecutive days. A “Short-term Rental” can be either Unhosted or Hosted.
i. “Hosted Short-term Rental” means a Short-term Rental use where a resident, who is the operator and acting as a host, occupies one or more bedrooms in a dwelling unit or an accessory dwelling unit on the same Site as the Short-term Rental while other areas of the dwelling unit or main residence on the Site are rented for the purpose of transient overnight lodging.
ii. “Unhosted Short-term Rental” means a Short-term Rental use where no Operator is present on the Site during the course of the Rental. (r) “Short-term Rental Permit cap” means the maximum number of Short-term Rental permits that may be issued at any given time by the City. (s) Short-term Renter. A person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of a booking transaction, concession, permit, right of access, contract, license, or other agreement for a period of less than 30 consecutive days, counting portions of days as full days in a Short-term Renal.
Short-Term Renters also include all Persons who occupy the Short-Term Rental during the overnight hours of 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.
In the event of a conflict between the words and phrases defined in this article and the words and phrases defined Title 9 “Planning and Zoning, Chapter 4 “Zoning”, Article 2 “Definitions”, the definitions in this article shall prevail.
Sec. 9-4.4902. Permits required for Short-term Rentals – Permit Cap. (a) The Short-term Rental of residential dwelling units is a prohibited use in every zoning district in the City, with the exception of permitted Short-term Rentals approved pursuant to the requirements of this article.
5 Packet Pg. 59
Pacifica City Council 16 February 24, 2025
(b) Subject to the requirements of this article, including the Short-term Rental Permit cap, Short-term Rentals are allowed as accessory uses to residential dwelling units in all zoning districts where residential dwelling units are allowed as a permitted or conditional use.
(c) Permit Cap. The Short-term Rental Permit cap shall be one hundred fifty (150) Short-term Rental Permits at any given time. The Administrator shall not approve any applications for Short-term Rental Permits once the Administrator has determined that the Short-term Rental Permit cap has been reached. (d) The Administrator shall create a waiting list where the number of Short-term Rental applicants exceeds the total number of available Short-term Rental Permits. Pursuant to Section 9-4.4904(g) of this article, Short-term Rental applications for qualifying properties on the wait list shall be processed in the order applications were received.
Sec. 9-4.4903. Standards applicable to Short-term Rental Sites.
The following standards shall apply to any Site offered as a Short-term Rental. No Shortterm Rental Permit shall be issued if the Site is not compliant with the following:
(a) In accordance with Section 9-4.453(a)(6) and 9-4.454(a)(6), no Person may operate a Short-term Rental in any accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. However, the Operator of a Hosted Short-term Rental may reside in an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on the Site and Operate the Hosted Short-term Rental in the primary residence on the Site; (b) No Person shall Operate or allow a Short-term Rental in any location not approved for use as a permanent dwelling unit (received Certificate of Occupancy or equivalent final inspection), including, but not limited to, any vehicle, trailer, tent, storage shed or garage;
(c) Each Person Operating a Short-term Rental shall have their Primary Residence at the Site of the Short-term Rental. If the Person is a corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity, the managing member of the limited liability company, officer of the corporation, or trustee of the business trust or estate or a partner must have their Primary Residency on the Site. To prove Primary Residency, the Person must provide at least three forms of documentation to the Administrator evidencing that the Site of the Short-term Rental is their Primary Residence for more than six months of the year. Documentation can include, but is not limited to, proof of homeowner's tax exemption, voter registration card or certificate, or proof of vehicle registration.
(d) An Operator shall Operate only one Short-term Rental at any given time; (e) For a single-family residential unit or a residential condominium dwelling unit, one Short-term Rental may Operate as an accessory use on the Site; and (f) For a Multi-family development, only Hosted Short-term Rentals may be Operated as an accessory use to an individual unit within the Multi-family development.
Sec. 9-4.4904. - Short-term Rental Permit required.
5 Packet Pg. 60
Pacifica City Council 17 February 24, 2025
Subject to those requirements in Section 9-4.4903 and subject to the Short-term Rental Permit cap specified in Section 9-4.4902, a Short-term Rental Permit along with a ShortTerm Rental Permit number may be approved and issued by the Administrator, provided that the Administrator determines the applicant has met the following requirements:
(a) Application. Any Person seeking to operate a Short-term Rental must complete an application on a form provided by the City, accompanied the fees established by resolution of the City Council. The application form will include, at a minimum, the following information:
i. Name and contact information of the Operator.
ii. All adults for whom the property is a permanent residence shall be listed; ii.iii. The name and contact information of the authorized Responsible Party.
Any change in the Responsible Party’s address or telephone number shall be promptly furnished to the City within 48 hours of such change; iii.iv. Site plan showing location, dimensions, and use of all existing buildings on the Site, and on-Site parking;
iv.v. Floor plan showing the use of all rooms per the California Building Code, and identifying Legally Permitted Bedrooms Rooms, rooms and doors to be used for the Short-term Rental;
v.vi. If the Operator is not the property owner, the property owner’s written consent to the Short-term Rental use;
vi.vii. The Operator shall provide documentation required by section 9-
4.4903(c) that the Site is the Operator’s Primary Residence; vii.viii. Identification of whether the Short-term Rental shall be a Hosted or Unhosted Short-term Rental or combination of both, and the estimated number of nights per year the Short-term Rental will be rented; viii.ix. Advertising platform(s) used by the Operator to advertise the Short-term Rental;
ix.x. Proof that the Operator has installed a Noise Monitor on the exterior of the Short-term Rental in a location to ensure that accurate noise levels can be taken by the Noise Monitor;
x. Any other information the Administrator deems reasonably necessary to administer this article; and
xi. The permit application and any associated business licenses shall include an affidavit signed by the owner under penalty of perjury stating that all the information in the application is correct and that the owner maintains full responsibility that the Short-term Rental shall be advertised, rented, operated, and maintained in compliance with this article and all other relevant municipal codes. Failure to sign the affidavit shall be grounds for denial of a Short-term Rental Permit.
(b) The permit application shall be accompanied by an application fee in an amount established by City Council resolution. Applications for a Short-term Rental Permit shall not be deemed complete until all information required by this article is provided and the Short-term Rental application fee, as set by City Council resolution, is paid to the City.
(c) The permit application shall be accompanied by a signed safety declaration, under penalty of perjury, in a form prepared by the Administrator, to be kept in the property file at the City, self-certifying that the Short -term Rental is in a safe and habitable condition and contains working smoke detector(s), carbon monoxide detector(s), and fire extinguishers have been installed and maintained consistent with the requirements of and in compliance with the California Fire Code, as adopted by the City in Title 4, Chapter 3, Article 1 of this Code and the California Building Code, International Property Maintenance Code and Residential Code, as adopted by the City in Title 8 of this Code. 5 Packet Pg. 61
Pacifica City Council 18 February 24, 2025
(d) Inspection of Unhosted Short-term Rentals. For Unhosted Short-term Rentals, the City shall conduct a health and safety inspection of the proposed Short-term Rental unit prior to issuing a Short-term Rental Permit. A health and safety inspection shall include verification of the number of Legally Permitted Bedrooms, the presence and operation of working smoke detector(s), carbon monoxide detector(s), and fire extinguishers. The City shall also verify that no space has been converted into a bedroom or living space without permits required by the California Building Code, International Property Maintenance Code and Residential Code, as adopted by the City in Title 8, or any other provision of this Code.
(e) Consent to Inspection and Production of Records. For all Short-term Rentals, the permit application shall be accompanied by a consent to inspection in a form prepared by the Administrator, which shall be signed by the Operator and if the Operator is not the owner of the Site, the owner of the Site consenting to (i) physical inspection(s) by city staff, contractors, or representatives for the purpose of verifying compliance with this article during regular business hours (7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.) upon forty-eight (48) hours’ notice and (ii) that if said inspection is deemed necessary by the Administrator because of complaints received by the City of non-compliance, the Operator will produce records demonstrating compliance with all provisions of this article within seven (7) calendar days of the request.
(f) Compliance with the Municipal Code. No Short-term Rental Permit shall be issued if there are any unresolved or outstanding building, electrical, plumbing, fire, health, housing, police, or planning violations or enforcement actions issued by the City or other enforcement agency, including but not limited to, any administrative citations, notices of violation, notices to cure, orders of abatement, cease and desist orders, or correction notices related to the Site. (g) Compliance with Operation Requirements. No Short-term Rental Permit shall be issued if the Site has had two or more violations of this article within twelve months prior to application submittal. No Short-term Rental Permit shall be issued if the Operator has had a Short-term Rental Permit revoked within twelve months of the application date by the City of Pacifica. (h) Waitlist. The Administrator will maintain a waiting list when the number of Shortterm Rental applicants exceeds the Short-term Rental Permit cap identified in Section 9-4.4902. The Administrator will continually maintain the Short-term Rental Permit cap inventory as Permits are not renewed or revoked. Persons wishing to be placed on the waitlist shall submit a waitlist application on a form provided by the City accompanied by the completed Short-term Rental Permit application required by Section 9-4.904(a). A nonrefundable waitlist application fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council shall be remitted with the application. Short-term Rental applications for qualifying properties on the waitlist will be processed bi-annually between October 31 and November 30 of each year and between April 30 and May 31 of each year based on the date of receipt of the application, starting with the oldest date. The Administrator, in their discretion, may require an Applicant placed on the waitlist to provide updated information at the time a Short-Term Rental Permit becomes available, in accordance with requirements in place at the time the application is being considered.
(i) Appeals of Determination of Administrator. Any decision of an Administrator relating to an application or the waitlist may be appealed within ten (10) days of the decision of the Administrator to an administrative hearing officer, pursuant to the process specified in section 9-4.4908(d).
Sec. 9-4.4905. Operation Requirements.
5 Packet Pg. 62
Pacifica City Council 19 February 24, 2025
A Short-term Rental must comply with the following operation requirements at all times that the Short-term Rental Permit is issued:
(a) Permit required. The Short-term Rental must be operated under a valid Shortterm Rental Permit issued by the City in accordance with Section 9-4.4904; (b) The Operator shall, during the term of the Short-term Rental Permit, promptly inform the Administrator regarding any changes to the information provided in the application, including contact information and Advertising platform(s) used by the Operator to advertise the Short-term Rental;
(c) The Operator shall, at all times while the Site is being used as a Short-term Rental, maintain a Responsible Party that can be reached via telephone twentyfour (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the Short-term Rental. The Responsible Party shall respond, either in person, or by return telephone call, within thirty (30) minutes of a complaint. The Responsible party shall make all reasonable efforts to address the complaint.
The Operator can be identified as the Responsible Party if they can satisfy these requirements;
(d) The Operator must provide the following materials electronically to any Shortterm Renters before arrival and make available printed materials on-site for the guest with the following information:
i. A diagram of exits, fire extinguisher locations, and fire and police contact numbers;
ii. The Short-term Rental Operator’s contact information; iii The Responsible Party’s contact information;
iv. Information on the maximum allowed number of occupants, parking capacity and location of parking spaces, noise regulations, disclosure that the property is equipped with a noise monitoring device, quiet hours, and trash and recycling disposal requirements;
v. The City's noise regulations (Chapter 10 of Title 5 of this Code); and vi. The City's Social Host Liability Ordinance (Chapter 28 of Title 5 of this Code);
(e) The Operator shall include the City-issued Short-term Rental Permit number in any Advertising platform or any other advertisement appearing in any newspaper, magazine, brochure, television trade paper, internet website, etc., that promotes the availability or existence of a Short-term Rental on the Site. The Short-term Rental Permit number must also be prominently and legibly included in the first line of the property description text in any advertisement in the following format: “City of Pacifica Short-term Rental Permit No. #### ”; (f) Each Short-term Rental Site shall be identified with a single, weatherproof exterior sign, not more than two (2) square feet in total area, posted either at the front of the Site and visible from the right-of-way for single family dwellings, or on the door if it is a hosted Multi-family dwelling unit or condominium, indicating the Site is being utilized as a Short-term Rental. The sign shall include the Shortterm Rental Permit number and a Quick Response (QR) code that is a minimum of 3-by-3 inches with both the Operator’s name and contact information and the Responsible Party’s name and contact information, if different, and a link to the City’s code enforcement website. The sign shall be in a form approved by the Administrator. At a minimum, the sign shall be posted while the Site is being utilized as a Short-term Rental;
5 Packet Pg. 63
Pacifica City Council 20 February 24, 2025
(g) A Short-term Rental shall not create pedestrian, automobile, or truck traffic detrimental to property in the vicinity or neighborhood parking impacts. The property address shall be clearly marked;
(h) A Short-term Rental shall comply with all provisions of the Pacifica Municipal Code, including, but not limited to the City’s noise regulations (Chapter 10 of Title 5 of this Code) and the Loud and Unruly Gatherings and Social Host Liability Ordinance (Chapter 28 of Title 5 of this Code), Garbage, Collection and Recycling (Chapter 5 of Title 6 of this Code), and the Building Regulations (Chapters 1-17 of Title 8 of this Code);
(i) A Short-term Rental shall comply with all applicable state and local laws and orders, including any public health order;
(j) Each Person Operating a Short-term Rental shall comply with the transient occupancy tax requirements set forth in Chapter 7 of Title 3 (Transient Occupancy Tax) of this Code, and shall obtain a Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate pursuant to the Section 3.7-06 for the entire period of time the Site is used as a Short-term Rental;
(k) Each Person Operating a Short-term Rental shall obtain a business license and pay the business license tax required pursuant to Chapter 1 of Title 3 (Business Licenses) of this Code for the entire period of time the Site is used as a Shortterm Rental; (l) Maximum overnight occupancy for all Short-term Rentals shall not exceed two (2) Short-term Renters per Legally Permitted Bedroom. Children under the age of twelve (12) shall not count towards these occupancy limits; (m) In addition to the maximum number of Short-term Renters allowed, the number of guests and visitors allowed at any time in a Short-term Rental shall not exceed one half of the maximum Short-term Renters allowed;
(n) Use of all outdoor pools, spas and hot tubs shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.;
(o) In addition to the noise standards identified in Chapter 10 of Title 5 and Chapter 28 of Title 5 of this Code, no radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, compact disk player, loudspeaker, karaoke machine, sound amplifier, or any machine, device or equipment that produces or reproduces any sound shall be used outside or be audible from the outside of any s Short-term Rental. Any machine, device or equipment that amplifies music inside any Short-term Rental shall not be heard beyond the property line of the Short-term Rental at all times; (p) Each Operator shall install and maintain in continuous operation a Noise Monitor on the exterior of the Short-term Rental to ensure compliance with the City’s noise regulations (Chapter 10 of Title 5 of this Code). The Operator shall retain a record of the Noise Monitor readings for a period of thirty (30) days after each Rental of the Short-term Rental;
(q) Within the Coastal Zone, the The Short-term Rental must provide at least one offstreet parking space per Legally Permitted Bedroom that is being utilized as a Short-term Rental, which shall be dedicated and available to Short-term Renters 5 Packet Pg. 64
Pacifica City Council 21 February 24, 2025
during the period of the Rental. Outside the Coastal Zone, Short-term Rentals shall require two (2) off-street parking spaces;
(r) Short-term Rentals shall not be concurrently used for any commercial Event (such as a corporate retreat or conference), and shall not be used for any noncommercial Event that is likely to result in a violation of traffic, parking, noise, or other standards regulating the residential use and character of the neighborhood.
Home occupations conducted by the primary resident compliant with the City’s home occupation ordinance are allowed; provided that parking and all other requirements for both the Short-term Rental and the home occupation are met; (s) Short-term Rental use shall comply with trash and recycling requirements and scheduled solid waste pick-up days at least once per week. Trash and recycling containers shall be located to be readily accessible for servicing, but shall not be placed within the limits of any street, road, avenue, way, alley, public place, or any other places as to constitute a nuisance; and
(t) Unhosted Short-Term Rentals. The following additional operation requirements shall apply only to Unhosted Short-term Rentals:
i. An Unhosted Short-term Rental shall be Operated no more than ninety (90) nights per year, commencing on October 31st of each year and ending October 30th of each year.
ii. Minimum Stay. Unhosted Short-term Rentals shall have a minimum two consecutive night stay for Short-term Renters.
iii. Unhosted Short-term Rentals are prohibited in Multi-family development units.
Sec. 9-4.4906. Record Keeping.
The Operator shall retain records documenting the compliance with this article for a period of three years after any Short-term Rental, including, but not limited to, records indicating the history of all Short-term Rental reservations on the subject property from the Advertising platform or otherwise, records indicating the payment of any and all transient occupancy taxes, length of stay per reservation, and number of Persons per reservation. The Operator shall provide any such documentation to the City within thirty (30) days of the City’s request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, readings from the Noise Monitor shall be retained for a period of thirty (30) days after the Rental of the Short-term Rental.
Sec. 9-4.4907. Permit term and renewal.
(a) Term. A Short-term Rental Permit is valid for one year from the date of issuance until October 31st of each year, unless suspended or revoked by the Administrator prior to October 31st.
(b) Renewal. The Short-term Rental Permittee may renew the permit annually by submitting a renewal application, in a form prepared by the Administrator, and applicable fee between October 1st and October 31st of each year, regardless of when the Short-term Rental permit was issued. If a renewal application and fee are not filed prior to the October 31st deadline, the Short-term Rental Permit shall expire automatically. Under such conditions, the Operator shall be required to apply for and 5 Packet Pg. 65
Pacifica City Council 22 February 24, 2025
obtain a new Short-term Rental Permit, subject to the requirements in effect at the time an application is submitted.
i. Renewal applications shall be reviewed for compliance with this article. If a Short-term Rental Operator is not in compliance with this article, the Short-term Rental shall not be renewed.
ii. Proof of Rental Nights. For any renewal, the Operator shall provide documentation of the number of nights the unit was rented during the prior year, including whether the unit was used as a Hosted Short-term Rental or an Unhosted Short-term Rental.
Sec. 9-4.4908. Permit Suspension and Revocation
(a) Permit suspension. The Administrator may suspend a Short-term Rental Permit, at the Administrator’s sole discretion, after making a determination that the Operator has violated any provisions of this article if the Administrator determines that the nature of the violation may be corrected within a reasonable period of time.
(b) Permit revocation. The Administrator may revoke a Short-term Rental Permit, at the Administrator’s sole discretion, after making a determination that the Operator has violated any of the provisions of this article or is operating the Short-term Rental in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or constitutes a nuisance. A Short-term Rental Permit may also be revoked for the following reasons:
i. That the Short-term Rental Permit was obtained by misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud;
ii. That the Short-term Rental activity is being conducted in violation of local or state or federal law;
iii. That two violations of this article have occurred on the Site within the preceding twelve months;
iv. That the Short-term Rental is being operated in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety;
v. That consent to an inspection has not been provided; or vi. That records documenting the compliance with this article, including, but not limited to, records indicating the history of all Short-term Rental reservations on the Site from the Advertising Platform or otherwise, records indicating the payment of any and all transient occupancy taxes, length of stay per reservation, number of Persons per reservation and were not provided to the City within thirty (30) days of the City’s request. (c) The Administrator shall provide the Short-term Rental Operator with written notice stating the supporting factual basis for the decision. The notice shall contain an advisement of the right to request an appeal before a hearing officer by filing a written appeal.
5 Packet Pg. 66
Pacifica City Council 23 February 24, 2025
(d) Appeal to Hearing Officer. Suspension or revocation issued by the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) will be effective ten (10) days from the date appearing on the notice, unless a timely appeal is filed before such date along with the deposit of an appeal fee established by resolution of City Council. A hearing shall be scheduled before the hearing officer within thirty (30) days. The decision of the hearing officer shall be a final administrative order, with no further administrative right of appeal or reconsideration. The hearing officer may sustain a denial, suspension, or revocation, overrule a denial, suspension, or revocation, reduce a revocation to a suspension and/or reduce the length of a suspension. (e) Reapplication. No application for a Short-term Rental Permit will be accepted within one year after a Short-term Rental Permit is revoked.
Sec. 9-4.4909. Violations and enforcement.
(a) The City may issue a notice of violation or administrative citation for any violation of this article, to any occupant, invitee, renter, lessee, owner of the property, Operator, Responsible Party, managing agency or agent, and/or Advertising platform for a violation of any provision of this article or other provisions of the Code pursuant to Title 1 of this Code.
(b) Each and every day, or portion thereof, that a violation of this article and/or Code exists constitutes a separate and distinct violation for which a notice of violation or administrative citation may be issued. Such notice of violation or administrative citation shall be issued, notice given, and any appeals heard in the manner and by the process described in Title 1 of this Code.
(c) A violation of any provision of this article, or failing to comply with any mandatory requirement hereof, shall constitute a misdemeanor. The fine amount for each violation shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Notwithstanding the preceding sentence or any other section of this article, a violation of this article may, in the discretion of the enforcement officer be charged and prosecuted as an infraction. In addition, the City may enforce this article by any means permitted by law, including, but not limited to, those penalty provisions set forth in Title 1 of this Code.
(d)Pursuant to Government Code Section 36900(d), for infractions that pose a threat to public health or safety, the fine shall be, at a minimum, one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) for an initial violation of this chapter, three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) for a second violation of the same provision within one (1) year, and five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each subsequent violation of the same provision within one (1) year. Operation of a Short-term Rental without a permit or violations of the any of the provisions of this article shall be deemed to pose a threat to public health or safety.
i. For fines imposed under this subsection, the Administrator may grant a hardship waiver to reduce the amount of the fine upon a showing by the Short-term Rental permittee that the Short-term Rental permittee has made a bona fide effort to comply after the first violation and that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on the responsible party. No such waiver shall be granted for subsequent violations.
5 Packet Pg. 67
Pacifica City Council 24 February 24, 2025
ii The fines set forth in this subsection shall not apply to a first-time offense of failure to register or pay a business license fee.
(e) Revocation. In addition to the fines and penalties imposed by this section, upon a second violation of this article within a twelve (12) consecutive month period, the Administrator shall revoke the Short-term Rental Permit. (f) Cost Recovery. The City’s costs to enforce this section are the responsibility of the Operator. The costs may be recovered pursuant to Chapter 2 of Title 1 of this Code, Government Code Section 38773 et seq. and any other legal method. (g) Administrative Subpoenas. The city manager, or designee, shall have the authority to request the city attorney to subpoena witnesses to compel their attendance and testimony at hearings and to require the production of books, papers, records or other relevant items regarding Short-term Rental listings located in the City, including, but not limited to, the names of the Persons responsible for each such listing, the address of each such listing, the length of stay for each such listing, and the price paid for each stay, to determine whether the Short-term Rental listings comply with this article. Any subpoena issued pursuant to this Section shall not require the production of information sooner than thirty (30) days from the date of service. A Person, Advertising platform, or Short-term Rental operator that has been served with an administrative subpoena may seek judicial review during that thirty (30) day period.
Sec. 9-4.4910. Administrative Regulations. The Administrator is authorized to promulgate any policies or procedures necessary to implement and enforce this article, including, but not limited to administering the waitlist set forth in Section 9-4.4904(g) and a process for accepting and prioritizing applications received after the Short-term Rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902 is reached.
Sec. 9-4.4911 Application of Ordinance to Issued Short-term Rental Permits. (a) Areas outside the Coastal Zone. Upon the Effective Date of this Ordinance, the following provisions of this Ordinance shall be immediately applicable to all Short-term Rentals in areas outside the Coastal Zone: Sections 9-4.4900, 9-4.4901, 9-4.4902, 9-4.4903(a) and (b), 9-4.4904, 9-4.4905(a) through (k), 9-4.4906, 9-4.4907, 9-4.4908, 9-4.4909 and 9-4.4910. All other provisions of this Ordinance (Sections 9-4.4903(c) through (f) and 9-4.4905(l) through (t)) shall not apply to Short-term Rentals that have been issued a Short-term Rental Permit prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance until that Short-term Rental Permit is renewed, terminated, or revoked.
(b) Areas within the Coastal Zone: Upon certification by the California Coastal Commission of an amendment to the City’s local coastal program relating to the adoption of this Ordinance, the following provisions of this Ordinance shall be immediately applicable to all Short-term Rentals in areas within the Coastal Zone: Sections 9-4.4900, 9-4.4901, 9-4.4902, 9-
4.4903(a) and (b), 9-4.4904, 9-4.4905(a) through (k), 9-4.4906, 9-4.4907, 9-4.4908, 9-4.4909, and 9-4.4910. All other provisions of this Ordinance (Sections 9-4.4903(c) through (f), 9-
4.4905(l) through (t)) shall not apply to Short-term Rentals that have been issued a Short-term Rental Permit prior to the date of Coastal Commission Certification until the Short-term Rental Permit is renewed, terminated or revoked; or two years from the date of adoption of the Ordinance, whichever is earlier.
Section 3. Amendment. Article 29 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 is amended by adding subsection (t) to Section 9-4.2904. Exempted signs which shall be read as follows:
“Sec. 9-4.2904. - Exempted signs.
…
5 Packet Pg. 68
Pacifica City Council 25 February 24, 2025
(t) Short-Term Rental signs required pursuant to, and in compliance with, Section Sec. 9-4.4905 Operation Requirements” Are exempt from the permit requirements and provisions of this Article.”
All other subsections within Section 9-4.2904 shall remain unchanged.
Section 4. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.), including without limitation under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. The City Clerk shall file a Notice of Exemption with the San Mateo County Clerk.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentence, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. For areas within the Coastal Zone, this Ordinance shall not become effective until the California Coastal Commission certifies an amendment to the City’s local coastal program pursuant to Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code as set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance.
Section 8. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
5 Packet Pg. 69
Pacifica City Council 26 February 24, 2025
____________________________ ____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 5 Packet Pg. 70
Pacifica City Council 27 February 24, 2025
* * * * *
(ID # 5860) at 2/24/2025 7:00 PM City Council Regular Meeting 5 Packet Pg. 71
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
DATE: January 21, 2025 FILE: TA-127-25
ITEM: 1
SUBJECT: File No. 2025-001 – Text Amendment TA-127-25, initiated by the City of Pacifica, to repeal and replace Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals” of the City of Pacifica Zoning Regulations (Title 9, Chapter 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code) relating to the regulation and permitting of Short-Term Rentals and establishing fines for violations consistent with Government Code section 25132(e); amending Section 9-4.2904 “Exempted Signs”; and finding the text amendment exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PROJECT
LOCATION: Citywide
PUBLIC NOTICE: A one-eighth page Notice of Public Hearing was published in the San Mateo Daily Journal on January 8, 2025.
CEQA
RECOMMENDATION: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) “General Rule” exemption.
REQUIRED
APPROVALS: Government Code Section 65853 et seq. requires the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and provide a written recommendation to the City Council on any new zoning ordinance, amendment to a zoning ordinance, or change in a property’s zoning designation. Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.3501 et seq. similarly requires the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and to provide by resolution a recommendation to the City Council on any zoning text amendment or change in a property’s zoning designation.
The City Council, as the legislative body of the City, must conduct a public hearing and enact by ordinance any zoning text amendment or change in a property’s zoning designation before it may take effect, with few exceptions. Public Resources Code Section 30514 additionally provides that any ordinance enacted by the City Council which amends the City’s zoning standards or zoning map shall not take effect within the 1 Packet Pg. 126
5.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 21, 2025
Coastal Zone until the California Coastal Commission certifies an amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Program.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Adopt a Resolution initiating the Text Amendment, and recommending approval of the ordinance to City Council and finding the proposed ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). (Attachment A)
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The proposed amendments to the Short-Term Rental (STR) Ordinance are anticipated to have significant fiscal implications for the City of Pacifica through reduced Transient Occupancy Tax collections and increased administrative costs. Estimating the fiscal impact is difficult and depends on numerous variables as discussed below. However, implementation of these ordinance amendments will require close monitoring of fiscal impacts over the coming years and prudent financial planning to prepare for a potential worst case annual fiscal impact to the General Fund of up to $1.3 million in a combination of revenue losses and increased administrative costs.
STRs have historically been a major contributor to the City’s revenue, generating approximately $1.3–$1.5 million annually in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collections. This figure was anticipated to grow to $1.6–$1.8 million following the November 2024 voter-approved increase in TOT from 12% to 15%. Additionally, STR permit fees and business license taxes collectively contribute about $300,000 per year. However, the new ordinance’s stricter regulations and expanded enforcement requirements are likely to significantly reduce the number of compliant operators, leading to a substantial decline in TOT revenue.
The 90-day rental cap for unhosted STRs alone is projected to reduce TOT revenue by $850,000–$900,000, assuming all currently permitted STRs continue operating under these conditions—a scenario unlikely given the expected attrition of operators due to these restrictions. Furthermore, the prohibition of unhosted STRs in multifamily dwellings and the imposition of new parking requirements (one off-street parking space per bedroom) will likely disqualify many current STR operators from obtaining future permits. Although it is not possible to predict the exact market response, and the timing of that response (understanding that the new STR Ordinance cannot go into effect in the Coastal Zone until approved by the Coastal Commission, revenue losses in the future could range from $950,000 to $1.2 million annually.
This estimate excludes the broader economic implications of this ordinance on Pacifica’s local economy, such as sales tax impacts to visitor-serving businesses, including restaurants, cafes, and retail establishments, who rely heavily on the hospitality sector. An assessment of broader economic implications, such as sales tax impacts from short-term renters versus long-term renters, whether tourists would choose to stay in Pacifica’s limited hotel inventory versus an STR outside of Pacifica, or other variables, would require an economic impact study conducted by a qualified consulting firm. The City Council has not requested such a study prior to their deliberation and direction regarding revisions to the STR Ordinance.
The implementation and enforcement of the revised STR ordinance will likely result in substantial increases in administrative costs. New operational requirements, such as permit cap management, monitoring STR activities, and ensuring compliance, will require additional staff 1 Packet Pg. 127
5.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 21, 2025
time and resources. Specific provisions, including noise monitoring and regular inspections, will further escalate code enforcement costs and operational burdens.
The added complexities of the new regulations, such as tracking rental activities, identifying violations, bringing non-compliant accounts into compliance, initiating permit revocation processes, and compiling evidentiary packets for hearings are expected to significantly increase third-party administrative expenses. Staff is currently working with CSG, a consulting firm that may provide the necessary building inspection services for STR units, and HdL, the STR thirdparty administrator, to outline the enhanced scope of work and estimate the additional costs for implementing the new STR ordinance. Preliminary estimates suggest these third-party costs could increase by $50,000–$100,000 annually, not counting additional staff capacity that may be required to manage the increased complexities of the program.
The City’s strategic plan includes a comprehensive review of the fee schedule to ensure adequate cost recovery for STR permit processing and enforcement. STR permit processing fees will be reassessed as part of a broader master fee schedule review and require a future City Council decision about the level of cost recovery that may be feasible for STR operators to pay through permit fees.
BACKGROUND:
On June 11, 2018, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. 994), the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 835 - C.S.1, establishing regulations for STRs within the City. Generally, Ordinance No. 835 - C.S. established operating, permit application, permit revocation, and enforcement processes within Article 49 of the Zoning Code (“STR Ordinance”). STRs are also required to comply with other applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code including but not limited to the transient occupancy tax (“TOT”) requirements and business license tax obligations in Title 3 of the Municipal Code. The application of all of these Municipal Code requirements by the City to permit and regulate STRs is often referred to as the City’s “STR Program.”
On June 13, 2022, approximately four years after adoption and implementation of Article 49, at the Council’s request, City staff provided a comprehensive update to the Council on implementation, including information on STR locations, TOT collections, impacts on the City’s housing stock, unpermitted operations, and City enforcement activities.2 Based on the comprehensive review of the Program, the City Manager recommended maintaining the STR Program and continuing data gathering to gain a greater understanding of the number and types of STRs, provide opportunities to identify unregistered operations and bring any Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) being utilized for STR purposes into compliance with City Ordinances that prohibit ADUs from being rented as STRs. Ultimately, the City Council directed that revisions to the STR Ordinance be revisited during the Council goal setting in 2023.3 On October 10, 2022, at the request of a Councilmember, City staff presented additional information to the City Council regarding residential property sales resulting in subsequent STR use and asked for direction on whether amendments to the STR Ordinance in the near term were warranted.4In response to community concerns that increasing the number of STRs would 1 City Council Ordinance No. 835-C.S.
2 City Council June 13, 2022 Agenda Report, Item No. 14. 3 City Council Minutes June 13, 2022
4 City Council October 10, 2022 Agenda Report, Item No. 10 1 Packet Pg. 128
5.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 21, 2025
impact the City’s housing stock, a majority of the Council directed that the STR Ordinance be amended to impose a cap of 150 active STR Permits issued in Pacifica at any given time, and that further revisions to the STR Ordinance, beyond the Permit cap, be revisited during the Council goal setting in 2023.5
On February 27, 2023, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission (Resolution 2023-001), the City Council adopted Ordinance 888 - C.S. amending the City’s STR Ordinance to establish a cap of 150 active STR Permits that can be issued at any given time in residential districts citywide. Amendments also included clarifying the prohibition of Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) for use as STRs and modifying the expiration date of STR Permits to align with business license expiration timelines. Following Council adoption of the amended STR Ordinance, the City submitted an amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan (IP) to the California Coastal Commission (CCC). In June 2024, the CCC certified Implementation Amendment Number LCP-2-PAC-23-0023-1.
From June to December 2024, the Council conducted four in-depth study sessions to discuss further amendments to the City’s STR ordinance, with a primary focus addressing potential and reported community impacts associated with short-term, transient uses within existing residential uses. The amendments proposed in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A, Exhibit 1) reflect the key goals and priorities identified by the City Council and direction given to staff on potential revisions and additions to the City’s existing STR ordinance at the four prior study sessions.
City Council Study Sessions
This section summarizes the Study Sessions that occurred between June and December 2024.
The proposed amendments discussed in this staff report and presented in the Draft Ordinance are informed by and reflect feedback from the community and direction provided by the City Council at these meetings.
On June 24, 2024, City staff provided a report and presentation to the City Council to initiate discussion of updates to the City’s STR Program. Information presented to the City Council included an overview of current regulations and enforcement processes, outlined staff coordination efforts with the CCC, and summarized information gleaned from researching ShortTerm Rental provisions in eight jurisdictions. After receiving the staff report, presentation, and public comments and feedback, the City Council directed the City Manager to evaluate and research various policy and regulatory compliance topics.
On August 26, 2024, and at continued deliberations on September 9, 2024, staff presented detailed information, including implementation impacts and considerations, for each policy and regulatory compliance topic discussed at the June Study Session. The Council provided direction to the City Manager related to policy, regulatory compliance, and streamlining procedures for inclusion in the Draft Ordinance.
On December 5, 2024, staff provided updates to the Council on communications between City and CCC staff and requested that the Council discuss topics related to parking, STR density, multi-family dwellings, and minimum rental duration in light of CCC staff feedback provided. The City Council provided specific policy direction on these topics for inclusion in the Ordinance.
Additionally, the Council discussed regulations and provided clarification on policy and regulatory compliance provisions to include in the Draft Ordinance. 5 City Council Minutes October 10, 2022
1 Packet Pg. 129
5.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 21, 2025
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Planning Commission’s Role
The Planning Commission serves in an advisory role to the City Council for the proposed zoning amendment. In analyzing the proposed amendments, the Commission may consider prior City Council discussions and direction, public health, safety, comfort, and general welfare and consistency with the City’s General Plan.
Prior to making a recommendation to City Council, the Planning Commission should review the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A, Exhibit 1), and determine whether the proposed amendments effectively incorporate the key goals and priorities outlined by the City Council. Should the Planning Commission identify areas for improvement, specific recommendations may be provided to the City Council for consideration.
Draft Ordinance
The proposed text amendment in the Draft Ordinance would repeal and replace Article 49 “Short-Term Rentals” of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the PMC. The Draft Ordinance incorporates direction provided by the Council at the preceding study sessions. The following provides a detailed discussion of how the proposed text amendments address potential impacts and concerns within the City of Pacifica. The Draft Ordinance is provided in Attachment A, Exhibit
1. Neighborhood Impacts
Impacts of STRs on neighborhoods, such as increased noise, garbage, traffic, and decreased availability of parking, were discussed by the City Council. To address community concerns and ensure STRs operate in a compatible manner with existing residential uses, the Draft Ordinance significantly expands STR operation requirements, including differentiating operational requirements for hosted and unhosted rentals. Operational requirements established for purposes of addressing community concerns and potential issues associated with operation of STRs include the following:
• Requires STRs to be primary residences.
• Establishes advertising and signage obligations, including a requirement for the Cityissued STR Permit number on all mediums offering the availability or listing the STR and requiring the installation of an exterior sign with the STR permit details and a QR code with the operator and responsible party’s contact information. • Mandates a 24/7 responsible party who must respond to complaints within 30 minutes by phone or in person.
• Limits occupancy to two persons per legally permitted bedroom (excluding children under the age of 12).
• Requires one off-street parking space per bedroom that will be used as STR. • Includes time restrictions on the use of outdoor pools/spas. 1 Packet Pg. 130
5.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 21, 2025
• Requires the operator to provide specific information to guests (e.g. occupancy limits, parking locations, refuse disposal requirements, the City’s noise regulations and social host liability ordinance).
• Explicitly states that STRs are subject to all applicable Pacifica Municipal Code regulations, including but not limited to the City’s noise regulations • Requires the installation of a noise monitor on the exterior of the property • Prohibits the use of any sound amplification device outside the building and restricts the use inside the STR where sound levels can be heard at the STR property line, • Establishes a maximum of 90 rental nights per year and a two-night minimum stay for unhosted rentals (no maximum or minimums apply to hosted rentals) • Includes requirements for a business license and compliance with transient occupancy tax regulations
Housing Availability
The amendments adopted in 2023 by the City Council (Ordinance 888 – C.S.) established a Citywide permit cap on the total number of STRs that can operate within the City at any given time. The cap was established to preserve the availability of housing, including affordable housing, and to ensure consistency with the adopted General Plan, Housing Element, and Local Coastal Land Use Plan policies. During City Council study sessions on the STR amendments in 2024, potential impacts on housing availability and affordability, including the risk of displacement, were discussed. To address these concerns, the Draft Ordinance includes a provision to prohibit unhosted STRs in multi-family developments (specifically defined as two or more units for this purpose), whereas hosted STRs in multi-family developments as an accessory use of individual units is permitted.
By prohibiting the use of an entire multi-family dwelling building as STR, the Draft Ordinance helps to ensure the continued availability of an important source of affordable housing.
Furthermore, by allowing hosted STR operations within multi-family developments, the Draft Ordinance provides opportunities for residents to supplement their income, potentially improving housing affordability for those who operate such businesses.
In addition to regulating STRs in multi-family dwellings, the Draft Ordinance continues to protect Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) as a valuable housing resource. The Draft Ordinance continues to prohibit the use of ADU and Junior ADUs as STRs. However, the Draft Ordinance would allow the Operator of a Hosted Short-term Rental to reside in an ADU or Junior ADU and operate the STR in the main residence on the site where the STR is located. These regulations discourage the development of ADUs solely for STRs, ensuring they primarily serve as longterm housing solutions for Pacifica residents and contribute to the City’s overall housing stock.
By clarifying regulations, the Draft Ordinance supports the continued availability of ADUs and Junior ADUs as a housing option while allowing residents to potentially supplement their income by operating a STR within their primary residence.
Other Regulations
In addition to the topics discussed above, the Draft Ordinance also establishes new definitions; regulations related to compliance checks, proof of rental activity, permit renewal and expiration; 1 Packet Pg. 131
5.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 21, 2025
grounds for suspension and revocation of permits; penalties and fines consistent with Government Code section 25132(e), enforcement procedures, and investigative tools for addressing violations of the STR regulations; and establishes that the cost of enforcement actions are the responsibility of the STR operator. These include, but are not limited to:
• Definitions for hosted and unhotsed STRs
• Required inspections for all unhosted STRs
• Establish revocation of an STR Permit in the event of two violations within a 12-month period, and if misrepresentation or false statements were used to obtain the permit Revisions to Section 9-4.2904 (Exempted Signs)
As indicated above, one of the operational requirements proposed in the Draft Ordinance would be to establish signage obligations for STRs to require an exterior sign with permit details and a QR code with operator and responsible party contact information. The sign would be a maximum size of 6 square feet in area. In addition to the revisions to Article 49, the Draft Ordinance would amend section 9-4.2904 of Article 29 of the Chapter 4 of Title 9 (“Sign Ordinance”) to add an exemption to specifically exempt STR signs erected in compliance with section 9-4.4905 from the City’s sign permit requirements in the Sign Ordinance.
Program Administration
Process Enforcement Improvements
Although outside the scope of the proposed ordinance, City Council also directed the City Manager to improve the permitting and enforcement processes for STRs. Staff are working on procedures and improvements including, but not limited to:
• Updated application forms with additional information • Permit cap and waitlist management
• Activity monitoring, enforcement, and reporting
• Revocation process
STR Location Map
]The City Council also requested that the City Manager research and address a variety of topics, including ongoing maintenance of a STR Location Map. Specifically, the City Council expressed interest in an interactive, web-based map allowing residents to identify legally operating STRs thereby allowing the public to identify those STRs that may be operating without the proper permits. Staff is researching how this could be done, and the staff and resources that would be required. Staff will report back to City Council at a future time if the City Manager determines this to be infeasible.
Consistency Analysis
The proposed amendments to the City’s STR Ordinance and Sign Ordinance align with the Pacifica General Plan 2040 in that the amendments maintain the economic benefits of STRs 1 Packet Pg. 132
5.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 21, 2025
while effectively addressing community concerns. The Draft Ordinance is consistent with the following General Plan policies and programs.
Program HE-I-7 Preserve Existing Affordable Housing Units The Draft Ordinance specifically addresses preservation of existing affordable housing as it includes provisions limiting the use of multi-family units as STRs to hosed STRs only. It also clarifies that Junior ADUs cannot be used as STRs. These help to ensure the continued availability of an important source of affordable housing, and also provides opportunities for residents to supplement their income, potentially improving housing affordability.
Policy ES-G-1 Leverage Assets. Leverage Pacifica’s coastal location and unique assets as a primary means to strengthen the local economy, focusing on increasing tourism facilities, including shops, hotels, restaurants, and hiking trails.
STRs increase tourism by providing a diverse range of accommodation options and contribute to the City’s local economy in several ways. First, STRs generate revenue for the City in the form of business license tax (approximately $15,000 collected in 2023) and TOT (approximately $1.5 million in TOT from STRs projected for FY 24-25). Revenue streams from both business license and TOT can be used to fund essential city services such as infrastructure and recreation facility improvements, benefiting the tourist and local economies, as well as residents. As detailed in the June 24, 2024 City Council Staff Report6, the City assumes there are uncollected TOTs from Short-Term Rentals operating within the City of Pacifica. As part of the ongoing review of the Program, the City hired HdL Companies, an auditing, operations, and revenue solutions company, who is assisting the City with tracing these rentals and requiring the STR operators to register with TOT to report their gross receipts so the City may assess the outstanding tax liability. STRs attract a diverse tourist base to the city, introducing new customers to local shops and restaurants. Tourists who patronize these local businesses directly strengthen the local economy by generating revenue for local businesses and contributing to the City’s sales tax base. Finally, STRs provide supplemental income opportunities for Pacifica residents, fostering economic empowerment and enabling contribution to the local economy through increased spending at local businesses, or by pursuing their own local business. By establishing additional STR regulations and improving enforcement actions, amendments to the STR Ordinance effectively leverage the City's unique assets and strengthen the local economy.
Policy ES-I-7 Mixed Land Uses. Promote development of a broader mix of revenue-generating land uses, including hotels, to increase the City’s fiscal benefits.
The proposed Draft Ordinance promotes a broader mix of revenue-generating transient occupancy uses. By offering a diverse range of accommodation options catering to different budgets and travel styles, STRs attract a diverse range of tourists to the City of Pacifica. This increased diversity enhances the City’s fiscal health through revenue generated from business license, TOT, and sales taxes. Furthermore, it stimulates the local economy by increasing revenue generated by local businesses and STR operators.
Policy CD-G-3 Neighborhood Conservation. Preserve the unique qualities of each of Pacifica’s residential neighborhoods. Incorporate neighborhood narratives into the General Plan to reflect these unique qualities and inform appropriate development standards and other policies. 6 Staff Report available online at
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Calendar.aspx?From=1/1/2024&To=12/31/2024 1 Packet Pg. 133
5.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 21, 2025
By limiting the total number of STRs in the City, distinguishing between hosted and unhosted rentals and expanding operating regulations that address potential neighborhood impacts such as noise, litter, and parking, the Draft Ordinance preserves the unique qualities of residential neighborhoods, consistent with this General Plan Policy.
Policy CD-I-6 Accessory Dwelling Units. Facilitate the creation of accessory dwelling units that contribute to the variety of available housing and do not disrupt neighborhood character. Update the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines to address the integration of accessory dwelling units into the neighborhood fabric.
The Draft Ordinance directly supports the General Plan’s objective to facilitate the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that contribute to the variety of available housing, in that it maintains prohibitions on the use of ADUs and Junior ADUs as STRs and permits the use of ADUs and Junior ADUs as part of a hosted STR operation where the operator occupies the ADU or Junior ADU and the primary dwelling is rented on a short-term basis. The Draft Ordinance ensures that accessory dwellings continue to contribute to the variety of available housing and discourages the construction of accessory dwellings for the sole purpose of use as STRs. The Draft Ordinance effectively integrates ADUs and Junior ADUs and STRs into the neighborhood fabric and enables homeowners to supplement their income by offering their primary residence as a STR, while maintaining their ADU or JADU for personal use.
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Pursuant to Section 30514 of the California Public Resources Code, the Ordinance amendments would not be effective in the Coastal Zone until the CCC certifies an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP). The CCC has found that outright bans or undue restrictions on STRs are inconsistent with Coastal Act policies prioritizing public access and visitor-serving uses.
As detailed in the December 5, 2024, City Council Study Session Staff Report7, City staff consulted with CCC staff on November 5, 2024, to discuss the feasibility of the proposed text amendments. CCC staff provided preliminary comments to staff, noting four areas of potential concern, including parking requirements, STR density limitations, use of multi-family dwellings as STRs, and minimum rental duration requirements. The City Council discussed these four topics at the December 5th study session and directed staff to amend the Ordinance to reflect CCC staff direction.
Following the adoption of the Draft Ordinance, a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) will be submitted to the CCC, who will determine whether to certify, certify with modifications, or deny the LCPA. Until such time as the CCC certifies the LCPA, existing STR regulations for areas located within the coastal zone will apply.
Coastal Act Policy No. 5 in Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan8 states that “Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. […].” Removing housing units from the Coastal Zone, even temporarily, through their rapid conversion to STRs at a greater pace than development of new long-term housing conflicts with this policy and will 7 Staff Report available online at
https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Calendar.aspx?From=1/1/2024&To=12/31/2024 8 Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, March 1980 as amended 1 Packet Pg. 134
5.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Staff Report
Short-term Rental Program Amendment
January 21, 2025
significantly impact the availability of housing in the Coastal Zone on a long-term basis. The proposed amendments would maintain allowances for STRs within the Coastal Zone, while providing additional regulatory and permitting requirements to address operational impacts on residential uses.
PUBLIC COMMENT
At the time of writing this report, staff had not received any public comment related to this Planning Commission action.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the proposed zoning text amendment in the Draft Ordinance to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The text amendment would be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the “General Rule” exemption in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) The General Rule exemption provides that “The activity is covered by the commonsense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.”
The text amendment would make amendments to the existing STR Ordinance to, among other things, establish provisions related to STR operation and enforcement actions for noncompliance. The additional provisions and regulations governing STRs would not have a significant effect on the environment.
STAFF RECCOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution, initiating the text amendment, and recommending approval to the City Council.
COMMISSION ACTION
MOTION FOR APPROVAL:
Move that the Planning Commission FINDS the Draft Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3); and ADOPTS the resolution included as Attachment A to the staff report to initiate Text Amendment TA-127-25 and recommends approval to the City Council; and INCORPORATES all maps and testimony into the record by reference.
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A - Draft Resolution for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (DOCX)
Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (DOCX)
1 Packet Pg. 135
5.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA INITIATING TEXT AMENDMENT TA-127-25 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 49 "SHORT-TERM RENTALS" OF CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 9 OF THE PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
REGULATION AND PERMITTING OF SHORT- TERM RENTALS, AMENDING PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9-4.2904 “EXEMPTED SIGNS”; ESTABLISHING FINES FOR VIOLATIONS CONSISTENT WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 25132 (E); AND
FINDING THE TEXT AMENDMENT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (FILE NO. 2025-001)
___________________________________________________________________ Initiated by: City of Pacifica
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2018, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance 835-C.S. adding Article 49 "Short-Term Rentals" ("STRs") to Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to establish regulations governing the short-term rental of residential property within the City of Pacifica; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance 888-C.S. repealing and replacing Article 49 "Short-term Rentals" of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code relating to the regulation and permitting of short- term rentals; and WHEREAS, during 2024, the City Council advanced Goal 3: prioritize protection and development of affordable housing, Strategy 3.2: Update the Short-Term Rental Ordinance of the City’s Strategic Plan 2023 to 2030; and
WHEREAS, advancement of Goal 3, Strategy 3.2 of the City’s Strategic Plan included a comprehensive evaluation of the program’s status and enforcement activity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a Study Session on June 24, 2024, to receive information on the Short-Term Rental Program and provide direction on potential ordinance provisions for City staff to research and analyze and bring back to Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a Study Session on August 26, 2024, with continued deliberations occurring on September 8, 2024, to consider implementation impacts for each of the policy and regulatory compliance topics discussed at the June
1.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program
5.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Study Session, and to provide direction on provisions for the updated Short-Term Rental Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2024, city staff consulted with California Coastal Commission staff to discuss feasibility of the proposed text amendments; and WHEREAS, during the November 5, 2024 consultation between City staff and CCC staff, four areas of potential concern were identified and feedback was provided, including parking requirements, short-term rental density limitations, use of multi-family dwellings as short-term rentals, and minimum rental duration requirements; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 2024, the City Council held a Special Council Meeting to receive updates regarding the November 5, 2024 consultation meeting between City staff and California Coastal Commission discuss the four topics of concern and provide feedback and direction to staff on ordinance provisions and amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments contained in Text Amendment TA-127-25 (File No. 2025-001) (“Draft Ordinance”) on January 21, 2025, and adopted Resolution No. # by a vote of # to # with # of absences, initiating and recommending City Council approval of Text Amendment TA127-
25. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
2. In making its findings, the Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials.
3. The Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
a. The proposed Draft Ordinance and included amendments to Article 49 are consistent with General Plan Program HE-I-7 Preserve Existing Affordable Housing Units, in that:
i. The Draft Ordinance specifically addresses preservation of existing affordable housing as it includes provisions limiting the use of multi-family units as STRs to hosted STRs only.
ii. Provisions limiting the use of multi-family units for STR purposes helps to ensure the continued availability of an important source of affordable housing, and provides opportunities for residents to
1.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program
5.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental supplement their income, potentially improving housing
affordability.
b. The proposed amendments Policy ES-G-1 Leverage Assets (Leverage Pacifica’s coastal location and unique assets as a primary means to strengthen the local economy, focusing on increasing tourism facilities, including shops, hotels, restaurants, and hiking trails), in that:
i. Short-term rentals increase tourism by providing a diverse range of accommodation options; and
ii. Short-term rentals contribute to the City’s local economy by generating business license tax and transient occupancy taxes (TOT), revenues from which can be used to fund essential city services such as infrastructure and recreation facility improvements, benefiting both the tourist and local economies; and
iii. Short-term rentals attract a diverse tourist base to the city, introducing new customers to local shops and restaurants; and iv. Tourists who patronize these local businesses directly strengthen the local economy by generating revenue for local businesses and contributing to the city’s sales tax base; and
v. Short-term rentals provide supplemental income opportunities for Pacifica residents, fostering economic empowerment and
enabling contribution to the local economy through increased spending at local businesses, or by pursuing their own local business; and
vi. By establishing additional short-term rental regulations and improving enforcement actions, amendments to the short-term rental Program effectively leverage the city's unique assets and strengthen the local economy.
c. The proposed amendments are consistent with General Plan Policy ES-I-7 Mixed Land Uses (Promote development of a broader mix of revenuegenerating land uses, including hotels, to increase the City’s fiscal benefits), in that:
i. The promotes a broader mix of revenue-generating transient occupancy uses; and
1.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program
5.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental ii. Allowing short-term rentals to operate within the City offers a diverse range of accommodation options catering to different budgets and travel styles; and
iii. Short-term rentals attract a diverse range of tourists to the City of Pacifica, thereby enhancing the City’s fiscal health through revenue generated from business license, TOT, and sales taxes; and
iv. Allowing short-term rentals to operate within the City stimulates the local economy by increasing revenue generated by local businesses and short-term rental operators.
d. The proposed amendments are consistent with General Plan Policy CDG-3 Neighborhood Conservation (Preserve the unique qualities of each of Pacifica’s residential neighborhoods. Incorporate neighborhood narratives into the General Plan to reflect these unique qualities and inform appropriate development standards and other policies), in that:
i. The Draft Ordinance preserves the unique qualities of residential neighborhoods by distinguishing between hosted and unhosted rentals and expanding operating regulations that address potential neighborhood impacts such as noise, litter, and parking. e. The proposed amendments are consistent with General Plan Policy CD-I6 Accessory Dwelling Units (Facilitate the creation of accessory dwelling units that contribute to the variety of available housing and do not disrupt neighborhood character. Update the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines to address the integration of accessory dwelling units into the neighborhood fabric), in that:
i. The amended Short-Term Rental Program facilitates the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADU) that contribute to the variety of available housing by maintaining prohibitions on the use of ADUs and junior ADUs as STRs, ensuring that accessory dwellings continue to contribute to the variety of available housing and discouraging the construction of accessory dwellings for the sole purpose of use as STRs; and
ii. The amended Sort-Term Rental Program permits the use of ADUs and JADUs as part of a hosted short-term rental operation where the operator occupies the ADU or Junior ADU and the primary
1.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program
5.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental dwelling is rented on a short-term basis, enabling homeowners to supplement their income by offering their primary residence as a short-term rental, while maintaining their ADU or Junior ADU for personal use.
f. The proposed amendments are consistent with in Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Coast Act Policy No. 5, (lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided) in that:
i. The proposed amendments maintain allowances for STRs within the Coastal Zone, while providing additional regulatory and permitting requirements to address operational impacts on residential uses.
4. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare clearly permit the adoption of the Draft Ordinance, in that clarifying operating regulations for hosted and unhosted short-term rentals reduces neighborhood impacts and ensures short-term rentals operate in a compatible manner with existing residential uses.
5. The Planning Commission further finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the commonsense exemption, Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. This Ordinance is an exercise of the City’s police power to reduce the adverse effects of short term rentals. As a result, this Ordinance will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment and is not subject to CEQA.
6. Implementation of the Draft Ordinance in areas located within the coastal zone is contingent upon the California Coastal Commission’s certification of a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the public testimony related to the Draft Ordinance has demonstrated that the presence of short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods has created quality of life issues including noise, trash, and parking congestion; and
1.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program
5.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the City of Pacifica the zoning text amendment described in Text Amendment TA-127-25 attached hereto as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 21st of January 2025.
AYES, Commissioners:
NOES, Commissioners:
ABSENT, Commissioners:
ABSTAIN, Commissioners:
____________________________
Samantha Hauser, Chair
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ _____________________________ Samantha Updegrave, Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
Community Development Director
1.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment A - Draft Resolution for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program
5.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 49 (SHORT TERM RENTALS) OF CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 9 OF THE
PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REGULATION AND PERMITTING OF
SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND ESTABLISHING FINES FOR VIOLATIONS CONSISTENT WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 25132(E); AMENDING PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9-4.2904 (EXEMPTED SIGNS) (TEXT AMENDMENT TA-127-25); AND FINDING
ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (FILE NO. 2025-001)
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2024, August 26, 2024, September 9, 2024, and December 5, 2024, the City Council of the City of Pacifica considered and provided input on ordinance revisions to the City’s Short-Term Rental Ordinance enacted on [insert date]; and WHEREAS, since enactment of the Short-Term Ordinance, residents have commented to the City Council about impacts of Short-term Rentals, including the loss of parking, excessive noise, disruptions to the community, loss of neighborhood integrity and other deleterious impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has also received public comments relating to the sale of residential property in Pacifica for the singular purpose of using the property as a Short-term Rental, which can negatively impact the community by reducing housing units available for longterm residential use; and WHEREAS, Short-term Rentals can provide benefits to the community by providing economical options for transient lodging as well as income generating opportunities for property owners in Pacifica; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to minimize the adverse impact of Short-term Rental activity on the health and safety of residents and visitors and to ensure such activity is conducted in a manner that preserves existing housing, communities and neighborhood integrity; and
WHEREAS, regulations that balance the benefits to the community from Short-term Rentals and address the negative impacts from Short-term Rentals are important to provide assurances to the community and long-term stability to Short-term Rental operators and guests; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pacifica held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments contained in Text Amendment TA-127-25 (File No. 2025- 001 ) on [MONTH DAY, YEAR], and adopted Resolution No. # by a vote of # initiating and recommending to the City Council adoption of Text Amendment TA-127-25 (File No. 2025-001); and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed ordinance on [MONTH DAY, YEAR] and introduced Ordinance No. # on the same date; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:
1.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Amendment. Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals” of Chapter 4, “Zoning” within Title 9, “Planning and Zoning” is repealed and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:
“Sec. 9-4.4900. Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this article is to establish regulations governing the Short-term Rental of residential property within the City of Pacifica in order to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Pacifica, and to allow for the short-term rental of single-family and multi-family dwelling units for less than thirty (30) consecutive days, while still preserving the residential character of neighborhoods, and preventing Shortterm Rental activities from becoming a nuisance or a threat to public health, safety or welfare.
Sec. 9-4.4901. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the following words and phrases are defined as set forth below:
(a) "Administrator" means the Assistant City Manager or designee. (b) "Advertising platform" means a marketplace in whatever form or format which facilitates Short-term Rentals through advertising, matchmaking, or any other means, using any medium of facilitation, and from which the operator of the platform derives revenues, including booking fees or advertising revenues, from providing or maintaining the marketplace.
(c) “Condominium” or “Condominiums” means an estate in real property consisting of an undivided interest in common in a portion of a parcel of real property, together with a separate interest in space in a residential, industrial, or commercial building on such real property, such as an apartment house, office, or store. "Condominium" may include, in addition, a separate interest in any other portion of such real property.
(d) “Events” mean weddings, conferences, retreats, commercial events, loud or disruptive gatherings of any kind, parties or any other similar gatherings which have the potential to cause traffic, parking, noise, or other impacts to the neighborhood.
(e) “Legally Permitted Bedroom” means the number of bedrooms that are officially approved for occupancy within a dwelling unit, as reflected in the building permit records of the City of Pacifica.
(f) “Multi-family development” means a building, or portion thereof, used and designed as a residence for two (2) or more families living independently of each other and doing their own cooking in such building, including apartment houses, apartment hotels, and flats, but not including automobile courts, motels, hotels, or boardinghouses.
(g) “Noise Monitor” means a noise detecting alarm sensor device with a call-assist feature that is located on the exterior of the rental property or other noise detecting device/sensor with features that do not have a camera, record conversations, nor store any personal data. The Noise Monitor shall have the capability of detecting noise at levels established by the operator in order to comply with the regulations found in the Pacifica Municipal Code. A Noise Monitor is not a Type I or II Sound Level Meter (SLM).
1.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
(h) "Operate" means the operation of a Short-term Rental, and includes the acts of establishing, offering, maintaining, or listing for rent a Short-term Rental with an Advertising platform.
(i) “Operator” means the Person who has applied for a Short-term Rental Permit or has been issued a Short-term Rental Permit by the City. (j) “Person” means natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity. (k) “Permit” or “Short-term Rental Permit” means a permit issued by the City pursuant to this Article to allow the use of a Short-term Rental on a Site. (l) “Primary residence” means a residence where a Person resides, full-time, for more than six months out of the year.
(m) "Rental" means the occupancy or use of a dwelling unit property, in exchange for any form of rent that may be valued in money, including cash, credit, goods, labor, or property, regardless of whether such rent is actually received. (n) “Responsible party" shall mean a Person, over the age of eighteen (18), who shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable provisions of the Pacifica Municipal Code by all Short-term Renters and visitors of a Site for a Short-term Rental, twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week when the Operator is not available.
(o) “Single-family dwelling unit” means a building designed for, or used to house, not more than one family, including all necessary employees of such family. (p) “Site” shall mean the assessor’s parcel upon which the Short-term Rental is located.
(q) "Short-term Rental" means the use of a dwelling unit, or portion of it, for a Rental of less than thirty (30) consecutive days. A “Short-term Rental” can be either Unhosted or Hosted.
i. “Hosted Short-term Rental” means a Short-term Rental use where a resident, who is the operator and acting as a host, occupies one or more bedrooms in a dwelling unit or an accessory dwelling unit on the same Site as the Short-term Rental while other areas of the dwelling unit or main residence on the Site are rented for the purpose of transient overnight lodging.
ii. “Unhosted Short-term Rental” means a Short-term Rental use where no Operator is present on the Site during the course of the Rental. (r) “Short-term Rental Permit cap” means the maximum number of Short-term Rental permits that may be issued at any given time by the City. (s) Short-term Renter. A person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of a booking transaction, concession, permit, right of access, contract, license, or other agreement for a period of less than 30 consecutive days, counting portions of days as full days in a Short-term Renal.
Short-Term Renters also include all Persons who occupy the Short-Term Rental during the overnight hours of 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.
In the event of a conflict between the words and phrases defined in this article and the words and phrases defined Title 9 “Planning and Zoning, Chapter 4 “Zoning”, Article 2 “Definitions”, the definitions in this article shall prevail.
Sec. 9-4.4902. Permits required for Short-term Rentals – Permit Cap.
1.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
(a) The Short-term Rental of residential dwelling units is a prohibited use in every zoning district in the City, with the exception of permitted Short-term Rentals approved pursuant to the requirements of this article.
(b) Subject to the requirements of this article, including the Short-term Rental Permit cap, Short-term Rentals are allowed as accessory uses to residential dwelling units in all zoning districts where residential dwelling units are allowed as a permitted or conditional use.
(c) Permit Cap. The Short-term Rental Permit cap shall be one hundred fifty (150) Short-term Rental Permits at any given time. The Administrator shall not approve any applications for Short-term Rental Permits once the Administrator has determined that the Short-term Rental Permit cap has been reached. (d) The Administrator shall create a waiting list where the number of Short-term Rental applicants exceeds the total number of available Short-term Rental Permits. Pursuant to Section 9-4.4904(g) of this article, Short-term Rental applications for qualifying properties on the wait list shall be processed in the order applications were received.
Sec. 9-4.4903. Standards applicable to Short-term Rental Sites.
The following standards shall apply to any Site offered as a Short-term Rental. No Shortterm Rental Permit shall be issued if the Site is not compliant with the following:
(a) In accordance with Section 9-4.453(a)(6) and 9-4.454(a)(6), no Person may operate a Short-term Rental in any accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. However, the Operator of a Hosted Short-term Rental may reside in an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on the Site and Operate the Hosted Short-term Rental in the primary residence on the Site; (b) No Person shall Operate or allow a Short-term Rental in any location not approved for use as a permanent dwelling unit including, but not limited to, any vehicle, trailer, tent, storage shed or garage;
(c) Each Person Operating a Short-term Rental shall have their Primary Residence at the Site of the Short-term Rental. If the Person is a corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity, the managing member of the limited liability company, officer of the corporation, or trustee of the business trust or estate or a partner must have their Primary Residency on the Site. To prove Primary Residency, the Person must provide at least three forms of documentation to the Administrator evidencing that the Site of the Short-term Rental is their Primary Residence for more than six months of the year. Documentation can include, but is not limited to, proof of homeowner's tax exemption, voter registration card or certificate, or proof of vehicle registration.
(d) An Operator shall Operate only one Short-term Rental at any given time; (e) For a single-family residential unit or a residential condominium dwelling unit, one Short-term Rental may Operate as an accessory use on the Site; and
1.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
(f) For a Multi-family development, only Hosted Short-term Rentals may be Operated as an accessory use to an individual unit within the Multi-family development.
Sec. 9-4.4904. - Short-term Rental Permit required.
Subject to those requirements in Section 9-4.4903 and subject to the Short-term Rental Permit cap specified in Section 9-4.4902, a Short-term Rental Permit along with a ShortTerm Rental Permit number may be approved and issued by the Administrator, provided that the Administrator determines the applicant has met the following requirements:
(a) Application. Any Person seeking to operate a Short-term Rental must complete an application on a form provided by the City, accompanied the fees established by resolution of the City Council. The application form will include, at a minimum, the following information:
i. Name and contact information of the Operator. All adults for whom the property is a permanent residence shall be listed;
ii. The name and contact information of the authorized Responsible Party.
Any change in the Responsible Party’s address or telephone number shall be promptly furnished to the City within 48 hours of such change; iii. Site plan showing location, dimensions, and use of all existing buildings on the Site, and on-Site parking;
iv. Floor plan showing the use of all rooms per the California Building Code, and identifying Legally Permitted Bedrooms Rooms to be used for the Short-term Rental;
v. If the Operator is not the property owner, the property owner’s written consent to the Short-term Rental use;
vi. The Operator shall provide documentation required by section 9-4.4903(c) that the Site is the Operator’s Primary Residence;
vii. Identification of whether the Short-term Rental shall be a Hosted or Unhosted Short-term Rental or combination of both, and the estimated number of nights per year the Short-term Rental will be rented; viii. Advertising platform(s) used by the Operator to advertise the Short-term Rental;
ix. Proof that the Operator has installed a Noise Monitor on the exterior of the Short-term Rental in a location to ensure that accurate noise levels can be taken by the Noise Monitor;
x. Any other information the Administrator deems reasonably necessary to administer this article; and
1.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
xi. The permit application and any associated business licenses shall include an affidavit signed by the owner under penalty of perjury stating that all the information in the application is correct and that the owner maintains full responsibility that the Short-term Rental shall be advertised, rented, operated, and maintained in compliance with this article and all other relevant municipal codes. Failure to sign the affidavit shall be grounds for denial of a Short-term Rental Permit.
(b) The permit application shall be accompanied by an application fee in an amount established by City Council resolution. Applications for a Short-term Rental Permit shall not be deemed complete until all information required by this article is provided and the Short-term Rental application fee, as set by City Council resolution, is paid to the City.
(c) The permit application shall be accompanied by a signed safety declaration in a form prepared by the Administrator, to be kept in the property file at the City, selfcertifying that the Short -term Rental is in a safe and habitable condition and contains working smoke detector(s), carbon monoxide detector(s), and fire extinguishers have been installed and maintained consistent with the requirements of and in compliance with the California Fire Code, as adopted by the City in Title 4, Chapter 3, Article 1 of this Code and the California Building Code, International Property Maintenance Code and Residential Code, as adopted by the City in Title 8 of this Code.
(d) Inspection of Unhosted Short-term Rentals. For Unhosted Short-term Rentals, the City shall conduct a health and safety inspection of the proposed Short-term Rental unit prior to issuing a Short-term Rental Permit. A health and safety inspection shall include verification of the number of Legally Permitted Bedrooms, the presence and operation of working smoke detector(s), carbon monoxide detector(s), and fire extinguishers. The City shall also verify that no space has been converted into a bedroom or living space without permits required by the California Building Code, International Property Maintenance Code and Residential Code, as adopted by the City in Title 8, or any other provision of this Code.
(e) Consent to Inspection and Production of Records. For all Short-term Rentals, the permit application shall be accompanied by a consent to inspection in a form prepared by the Administrator, which shall be signed by the Operator and if the Operator is not the owner of the Site, the owner of the Site consenting to (i) physical inspection(s) by city staff, contractors, or representatives for the purpose of verifying compliance with this article during regular business hours (7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.) upon forty-eight (48) hours’ notice and (ii) that if said inspection is deemed necessary by the Administrator because of complaints received by the City of non-compliance, the Operator will produce records demonstrating compliance with all provisions of this article within seven (7) calendar days of the request.
1.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
(e) Compliance with the Municipal Code. No Short-term Rental Permit shall be issued if there are any unresolved or outstanding building, electrical, plumbing, fire, health, housing, police, or planning violations or enforcement actions issued by the City or other enforcement agency, including but not limited to, any administrative citations, notices of violation, notices to cure, orders of abatement, cease and desist orders, or correction notices related to the Site. (f) Compliance with Operation Requirements. No Short-term Rental Permit shall be issued if the Site has had two or more violations of this article within twelve months prior to application submittal. No Short-term Rental Permit shall be issued if the Operator has had a Short-term Rental Permit revoked within twelve months of the application date by the City of Pacifica.
(g) Waitlist. The Administrator will maintain a waiting list when the number of Shortterm Rental applicants exceeds the Short-term Rental Permit cap identified in Section 9-4.4902. The Administrator will continually maintain the Short-term Rental Permit cap inventory as Permits are not renewed or revoked. Persons wishing to be placed on the waitlist shall submit a waitlist application on a form provided by the City accompanied by the completed Short-term Rental Permit application required by Section 9-4.904(a). A nonrefundable waitlist application fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council shall be remitted with the application. Short-term Rental applications for qualifying properties on the waitlist will be processed bi-annually between October 31 and November 30 of each year and between April 30 and May 31 of each year based on the date of receipt of the application, starting with the oldest date. The Administrator, in their discretion, may require an Applicant placed on the waitlist to provide updated information at the time a Short-Term Rental Permit becomes available, in accordance with requirements in place at the time the application is being considered. (h) Appeals of Determination of Administrator. Any decision of an Administrator relating to an application or the waitlist may be appealed within ten (10) days of the decision of the Administrator to an administrative hearing officer, pursuant to the process specified in section 9-4.4908(d).
Sec. 9-4.4905. Operation Requirements.
A Short-term Rental must comply with the following operation requirements at all times that the Short-term Rental Permit is issued:
(a) Permit required. The Short-term Rental must be operated under a valid Shortterm Rental Permit issued by the City in accordance with Section 9-4.4904; (b) The Operator shall, during the term of the Short-term Rental Permit, promptly inform the Administrator regarding any changes to the information provided in the application, including contact information and Advertising platform(s) used by the Operator to advertise the Short-term Rental;
1.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
(c) The Operator shall, at all times while the Site is being used as a Short-term Rental, maintain a Responsible Party that can be reached via telephone twentyfour (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the Short-term Rental. The Responsible Party shall respond, either in person, or by return telephone call, within thirty (30) minutes of a complaint. The Operator can be identified as the Responsible Party if they can satisfy these requirements;
(d) The Operator must provide the following materials electronically to any Shortterm Renters before arrival and make available printed materials on-site for the guest with the following information:
i. A diagram of exits, fire extinguisher locations, and fire and police contact numbers;
ii. The Short-term Rental Operator’s contact information; iii The Responsible Party’s contact information;
iv. Information on the maximum allowed number of occupants, parking capacity and location of parking spaces, noise regulations, disclosure that the property is equipped with a noise monitoring device, quiet hours, and trash and recycling disposal requirements;
iii. The City's noise regulations (Chapter 10 of Title 5 of this Code); and iv. The City's Social Host Liability Ordinance (Chapter 28 of Title 5 of this Code);
(e) The Operator shall include the City-issued Short-term Rental Permit number in any Advertising platform or any other advertisement appearing in any newspaper, magazine, brochure, television trade paper, internet website, etc., that promotes the availability or existence of a Short-term Rental on the Site. The Short-term Rental Permit number must also be prominently and legibly included in the first line of the property description text in any advertisement in the following format: “City of Pacifica Short-term Rental Permit No. #### ”; (f) Each Short-term Rental Site shall be identified with a single exterior sign, not more than six (6) square feet in total area, posted either at the front of the Site, for single family dwellings, or on the door if it is a Multi-family dwelling unit or condominium, indicating the Site is being utilized as a Short-term Rental. The sign shall include the Short-term Rental Permit number and a Quick Response (QR) code with both the Operator’s name and contact information and the Responsible Party’s name and contact information, if different. At a minimum, the sign shall be posted while the Site is being utilized as a Short-term Rental; (g) A Short-term Rental shall not create pedestrian, automobile, or truck traffic detrimental to property in the vicinity or neighborhood parking impacts. The property address shall be clearly marked;
(h) A Short-term Rental shall comply with all provisions of the Pacifica Municipal Code, including, but not limited to the City’s noise regulations (Chapter 10 of Title 5 of this Code) and the Loud and Unruly Gatherings and Social Host Liability Ordinance (Chapter 28 of Title 5 of this Code) and the Building Regulations (Chapters 1-17 of Title 8 of this Code);
1.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
(i) A Short-term Rental shall comply with all applicable state and local laws and orders, including any public health order;
(j) Each Person Operating a Short-term Rental shall comply with the transient occupancy tax requirements set forth in Chapter 7 of Title 3 (Transient Occupancy Tax) of this Code, and shall obtain a Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate pursuant to the Section 3.7-06 for the entire period of time the Site is used as a Short-term Rental;
(k) Each Person Operating a Short-term Rental shall obtain a business license and pay the business license tax required pursuant to Chapter 1 of Title 3 (Business Licenses) of this Code for the entire period of time the Site is used as a Shortterm Rental; (l) Maximum overnight occupancy for all Short-term Rentals shall not exceed two (2) Short-term Renters per Legally Permitted Bedroom. Children under the age of twelve (12) shall not count towards these occupancy limits; (m) In addition to the maximum number of Short-term Renters allowed, the number of guests and visitors allowed at any time in a Short-term Rental shall not exceed one half of the maximum Short-term Renters allowed;
(n) Use of all outdoor pools, spas and hot tubs shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.;
(o) In addition to the noise standards identified in Chapter 10 of Title 5 and Chapter 28 of Title 5 of this Code, no radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, compact disk player, loudspeaker, karaoke machine, sound amplifier, or any machine, device or equipment that produces or reproduces any sound shall be used outside or be audible from the outside of any s Short-term Rental. Any machine, device or equipment that amplifies music inside any Short-term Rental shall not be heard beyond the property line of the Short-term Rental at all times; (p) Each Operator shall install and maintain in continuous operation a Noise Monitor on the exterior of the Short-term Rental to ensure compliance with the City’s noise regulations (Chapter 10 of Title 5 of this Code). The Operator shall retain a record of the Noise Monitor readings for a period of thirty (30) days after each Rental of the Short-term Rental;
(q) The Short-term Rental must provide at least one off-street parking space per Legally Permitted Bedroom that is being utilized as a Short-term Rental, which shall be dedicated and available to Short-term Renters during the period of the Rental;
(r) Short-term Rentals shall not be concurrently used for any commercial Event (such as a corporate retreat or conference), and shall not be used for any noncommercial Event that is likely to result in a violation of traffic, parking, noise, or other standards regulating the residential use and character of the neighborhood.
Home occupations conducted by the primary resident compliant with the City’s home occupation ordinance are allowed; provided that parking and all other requirements for both the Short-term Rental and the home occupation are met;
1.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
(s) Short-term Rental use shall comply with trash and recycling requirements and scheduled solid waste pick-up days at least once per week. Trash and recycling containers shall be located to be readily accessible for servicing, but shall not be placed within the limits of any street, road, avenue, way, alley, public place, or any other places as to constitute a nuisance; and
(t) Unhosted Short-Term Rentals. The following additional operation requirements shall apply only to Unhosted Short-term Rentals:
i. An Unhosted Short-term Rental shall be Operated no more than ninety (90) nights per calendar year, commencing on January 1st of each year. ii. Minimum Stay. Unhosted Short-term Rentals shall have a minimum two consecutive night stay for Short-term Renters.
iii. Unhosted Short-term Rentals are prohibited in Multi-family development units.
Sec. 9-4.4906. Record Keeping.
The Operator shall retain records documenting the compliance with this article for a period of three years after any Short-term Rental, including, but not limited to, records indicating the history of all Short-term Rental reservations on the subject property from the Advertising platform or otherwise, records indicating the payment of any and all transient occupancy taxes, length of stay per reservation, and number of Persons per reservation. The Operator shall provide any such documentation to the City within thirty (30) days of the City’s request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, readings from the Noise Monitor shall be retained for a period of thirty (30) days after the Rental of the Short-term Rental.
Sec. 9-4.4907. Permit term and renewal.
(a) Term. A Short-term Rental Permit is valid for one year from the date of issuance until October 31st of each year, unless suspended or revoked by the Administrator prior to October 31st.
(b) Renewal. The Short-term Rental Permittee may renew the permit annually by submitting a renewal application, in a form prepared by the Administrator, and applicable fee between October 1st and October 31st of each year, regardless of when the Short-term Rental permit was issued. If a renewal application and fee are not filed prior to the October 31st deadline, the Short-term Rental Permit shall expire automatically. Under such conditions, the Operator shall be required to apply for and obtain a new Short-term Rental Permit, subject to the requirements in effect at the time an application is submitted.
i. Renewal applications shall be reviewed for compliance with this article. If a Short-term Rental Operator is not in compliance with this article, the Short-term Rental shall not be renewed.
ii. Proof of Rental Nights. For any renewal, the Operator shall provide documentation of the number of nights the unit was rented during the
1.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
prior year, including whether the unit was used as a Hosted Short-term Rental or an Unhosted Short-term Rental.
Sec. 9-4.4908. Permit Suspension and Revocation
(a) Permit suspension. The Administrator may suspend a Short-term Rental Permit, at the Administrator’s sole discretion, after making a determination that the Operator has violated any provisions of this article if the Administrator determines that the nature of the violation may be corrected within a reasonable period of time.
(b) Permit revocation. The Administrator may revoke a Short-term Rental Permit, at the Administrator’s sole discretion, after making a determination that the Operator has violated any of the provisions of this article or is operating the Short-term Rental in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or constitutes a nuisance. A Short-term Rental Permit may also be revoked for the following reasons:
i. That the Short-term Rental Permit was obtained by misrepresentation, false statement, or fraud;
ii. That the Short-term Rental activity is being conducted in violation of local or state or federal law;
iii. That two violations of this article have occurred on the Site within the preceding twelve months;
iv. That the Short-term Rental is being operated in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety;
v. That consent to an inspection has not been provided; or vi. That records documenting the compliance with this article, including, but not limited to, records indicating the history of all Short-term Rental reservations on the Site from the Advertising Platform or otherwise, records indicating the payment of any and all transient occupancy taxes, length of stay per reservation, number of Persons per reservation and were not provided to the City within thirty (30) days of the City’s request. (c) The Administrator shall provide the Short-term Rental Operator with written notice stating the supporting factual basis for the decision. The notice shall contain an advisement of the right to request an appeal before a hearing officer by filing a written appeal.
(d) Appeal to Hearing Officer. Suspension or revocation issued by the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) will be effective ten (10) days from the date appearing on the notice, unless a timely appeal is filed before such date along with the deposit of an appeal fee established by resolution of City Council. A hearing shall be scheduled before the hearing officer within thirty (30) days. The decision of the hearing officer shall be a final administrative order, with no further administrative right of appeal or reconsideration. The hearing officer may sustain
1.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
a denial, suspension, or revocation, overrule a denial, suspension, or revocation, reduce a revocation to a suspension and/or reduce the length of a suspension. (e) Reapplication. No application for a Short-term Rental Permit will be accepted within one year after a Short-term Rental Permit is revoked.
Sec. 9-4.4909. Violations and enforcement.
(a) The City may issue a notice of violation or administrative citation for any violation of this article, to any occupant, invitee, renter, lessee, owner of the property, Operator, Responsible Party, managing agency or agent, and/or Advertising platform for a violation of any provision of this article or other provisions of the Code pursuant to Title 1 of this Code.
(b) Each and every day, or portion thereof, that a violation of this article and/or Code exists constitutes a separate and distinct violation for which a notice of violation or administrative citation may be issued. Such notice of violation or administrative citation shall be issued, notice given, and any appeals heard in the manner and by the process described in Title 1 of this Code.
(c) A violation of any provision of this article, or failing to comply with any mandatory requirement hereof, shall constitute a misdemeanor. The fine amount for each violation shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Notwithstanding the preceding sentence or any other section of this article, a violation of this article may, in the discretion of the enforcement officer be charged and prosecuted as an infraction. In addition, the City may enforce this article by any means permitted by law, including, but not limited to, those penalty provisions set forth in Title 1 of this Code.
(d ) Pursuant to Government Code Section 36900(d), for infractions that pose a threat to public health or safety, the fine shall be, at a minimum, one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) for an initial violation of this chapter, three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) for a second violation of the same provision within one (1) year, and five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each subsequent violation of the same provision within one (1) year. Operation of a Short-term Rental without a permit or violations of the any of the provisions of this article shall be deemed to pose a threat to public health or safety.
i. For fines imposed under this subsection, the Administrator may grant a hardship waiver to reduce the amount of the fine upon a showing by the Short-term Rental permittee that the Short-term Rental permittee has made a bona fide effort to comply after the first violation and that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on the responsible party. No such waiver shall be granted for subsequent violations.
ii The fines set forth in this subsection shall not apply to a first-time offense of failure to register or pay a business license fee.
1.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
(e) Revocation. In addition to the fines and penalties imposed by this section, upon a second violation of this article within a twelve (12) consecutive month period, the Administrator shall revoke the Short-term Rental Permit. (f) Cost Recovery. The City’s costs to enforce this section are the responsibility of the Operator. The costs may be recovered pursuant to Chapter 2 of Title 1 of this Code, Government Code Section 38773 et seq. and any other legal method. (g) Administrative Subpoenas. The city manager, or designee, shall have the authority to request the city attorney to subpoena witnesses to compel their attendance and testimony at hearings and to require the production of books, papers, records or other relevant items regarding Short-term Rental listings located in the City, including, but not limited to, the names of the Persons responsible for each such listing, the address of each such listing, the length of stay for each such listing, and the price paid for each stay, to determine whether the Short-term Rental listings comply with this article. Any subpoena issued pursuant to this Section shall not require the production of information sooner than thirty (30) days from the date of service. A Person, Advertising platform, or Short-term Rental operator that has been served with an administrative subpoena may seek judicial review during that thirty (30) day period.
Sec. 9-4.4910. Administrative Regulations. The Administrator is authorized to promulgate any policies or procedures necessary to implement and enforce this article, including, but not limited to administering the waitlist set forth in Section 9-4.4904(g) and a process for accepting and prioritizing applications received after the Short-term Rental permit cap set forth in Section 9-4.4902 is reached.
Sec. 9-4.4911 Application of Ordinance to Issued Short-term Rental Permits. (a) Areas outside the Coastal Zone. Upon the Effective Date of this Ordinance, the following provisions of this Ordinance shall be immediately applicable to all Short-term Rentals in areas outside the Coastal Zone: Sections 9-4.4900, 9-4.4901, 9-4.4902, 9-4.4903(a) and (b), 9-4.4904, 9-4.4905(a) through (k), 9-4.4906, 9-4.4907, 9-4.4908, 9-4.4909 and 9-4.4910. All other provisions of this Ordinance (Sections 9-4.4903(c) through (f) and 9-4.4905(l) through (t)) shall not apply to Short-term Rentals that have been issued a Short-term Rental Permit prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance until that Short-term Rental Permit is renewed, terminated, or revoked.
(b) Areas within the Coastal Zone: Upon certification by the California Coastal Commission of an amendment to the City’s local coastal program relating to the adoption of this Ordinance, the following provisions of this Ordinance shall be immediately applicable to all Shortterm Rentals in areas within the Coastal Zone: Sections 9-4.4900, 9-4.4901, 9-4.4902, 9-
4.4903(a) and (b), 9-4.4904, 9-4.4905(a) through (k), 9-4.4906, 9-4.4907, 9-4.4908, 9-4.4909, and 9-4.4910. All other provisions of this Ordinance (Sections 9-4.4903(c) through (f), 9-4.4905(l) through (t)) shall not apply to Short-term Rentals that have been issued a Short-term Rental Permit prior to the date of Coastal Commission Certification until the Short-term Rental Permit is renewed, terminated or revoked; or two years from the date of adoption of the Ordinance, whichever is earlier.
1.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
Section 3. Amendment. Article 29 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 is amended by adding subsection (t) to Section 9-4.2904. Exempted signs which shall be read as follows:
“Sec. 9-4.2904. - Exempted signs.
…
(t) Short-Term Rental signs required pursuant to, and in compliance with, Section Sec. 9-4.4905 Operation Requirements” Are exempt from the permit requirements and provisions of this Article.”
All other subsections within Section 9-4.2904 shall remain unchanged.
Section 4. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.), including without limitation under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. The City Clerk shall file a Notice of Exemption with the San Mateo County Clerk.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentence, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption and shall be published and posted as required by law. For areas within the Coastal Zone, this Ordinance shall not become effective until the California Coastal Commission certifies an amendment to the City’s local coastal program pursuant to Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code.
Section 8. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental PC Ord draft
____________________________ ____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney
1.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance for File No. 2025-001 STR Ordinance Text Amendment (5836 : Short-term Rental Program Amendment)
5.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report + Attachments dated January 21, 2025 (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental
5.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
5.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment B: Planning Commission Final Resolution 2025-001 - signed (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Patrick Beatty
To: Public Comment
Subject: Planning Commission 01-21-25: TA-127-25 "Short-Term Rentals" Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 12:04:43 PM
Attachments: Screenshot 2025-01-21 at 11.53.33 AM.png
[CAUTION: External Email]
To The Planning Commission,
I have lived across from 1 Carmel Ave for a year and a half now. It is a very large Airbnb/VRBO such that in the words of the owner, Lance, on his own Google posting he says it can be over 30 guests for receptions and large corporate events:
I have had to call the police multiple times on this property because they have been out late partying and loud, even during the day. Lance does not live there and doesn't care if they are a disturbance to others. It falls to myself and other people that actually live here to do it. We are doing his job. This is basically a hotel that has popped up in the middle of our community.
There are over 100 of these in Pacifica. The guests don't add any economic value. An actual resident not only buys food in the area but supports dentists, doctors, schools, etc. These STRs are hollowing out our communities for the benefit of people that don't live here and aren't the citizens of Pacifica. Or even worse some faceless corporations who do not care at all for us.
If you do not feel this pain, then it might be because you don't live in Pacifica. Many other towns (even Colma!) have regulations against STRs or even outright bans. Anyone who has an STR pop up next to them knows how you hate to have them next to you. If the council does not fix this STR issue, the community will see you don't care and get rid of you.
I would reiterate the changes from other community members as follows:
“Mandates a 24/7 responsible party who must respond to complaints within 30
5.c
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) minutes by phone or in person” (Remove “by phone”. A real person needs to be available to deal with many issues that a person in a remote call center won’t be able to do)
“Limits occupancy to two persons per legally permitted bedroom (excluding children under the age of 12)”. (Suggest removing or modifying the limit regarding the exclusion of children)
“Establishes a maximum of 90 rental nights per year and a two-night minimum stay for unhosted rentals (no maximum or minimums apply to hosted rentals)”. (maximum of 60 days for unhosted, per the CCC recommendation and HMB ordinance)
“However, the Draft Ordinance would allow the Operator of a Hosted Short-term Rental to reside in an ADU or Junior ADU and operate the STR in the main residence on the site where the STR is located” (This doesn’t make sense. It would still encourage the operation of STRs. Stating that the homeowner can live in the ADU instead of the main house is not increasing affordable housing. It would only add a loophole and create more confusion for enforcement)
“exterior sign with the STR permit details and a QR code with the operator and responsible party’s contact information... The sign would be a maximum size of 6 square feet in area.”(Signs do not need to be this big. Just big enough for the pertinent details to be publicly displayed. Anything as large as 6 square feet appears more like an advertisement and would be an eyesore if they were present throughout residential neighborhoods) ““Person” means natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity.” (Nope. It does not. This provides way too many loopholes for bad actors. Needs to simply be ”Natural Person”)
“In addition to the maximum number of Short-term Renters allowed, the number of guests and visitors allowed at any time in a Short-term Rental shall not exceed one half of the maximum Short-term Renters allowed” (needs to have a clarification that the extra guests/visitors are not allowed during quiet hours or overnight stays)
“Required inspections for all unhosted STRs” (we need to have annual inspections for ALL STRs both hosted and unhosted. All STR guests should have a right to safety and there can’t be a loophole where unhosted operators claim their accommodations are hosted therefore getting around the safety inspections)
“the City Council expressed interest in an interactive, web-based map allowing residents to identify legally operating STRs thereby allowing the public to identify those STRs that may be operating without the proper permits” (We 100% need this for transparency and ease for neighbors to report violations) Sincerely,
Patrick
Patrick Beatty
Pacifica, CA
Patrick Beatty
5.c
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Cheryl Greene
To: Berman, Lauren; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris; City Council; Public Comment Subject: STRs Action
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 11:52:03 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Esteemed Members of the Council,
Thank you for the countless hours of work you all provide on our behalf. I have attended many city council meetings and have been so impressed with the difficulty of responding to the needs and desires of our diverse community. Your jobs are even more difficult in this era of business objectives outweighing the needs of community members.
I laud your decisions to limit non-hosted STRs and would like to encourage you to further limit their impact by:
1. Enforcing a 60-day rental limit per year
2. Requiring a local contact person to respond within 30 minutes to resolve community complaints of noise and over-parking
3. Immediately requiring STRs in multi-owner buildings to convert to long-term rentals or sell to a non-STR owner
Best regards,
C~
Cheryl Greene
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: robert odonnell
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Proposed STR Ordinance
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 11:45:37 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I have watched closely the community concerns and urgent call for an effective new STR ordinance as a 51 year resident of Pacifica. Our family has been affected by a nearby unsupervised STR.
While the proposed ordinance makes good progress, I think we need to have a 60 day maximum as other cities have implemented.
Also, implementation in Oct. 2025 for non non coastal properties and Oct. 2026 for coastal properties seems very slow given the problems we encounter in our neighborhoods. Also , these are commercial properties! They should be inspected as such for health and safety concerns and not given a pass because they are hosted.
I plan on attending tonight’s meeting. Thank you for considering my comments.
Robert O’Donnell
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Victoria Sanchez De Alba
To: Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Berman, Lauren; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris Cc: City Council; Public Comment; Rick De Alba
Subject: Urgent: NEW STR Ordinance on Jan 21 Planning Commission Agenda – Take Action! Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 11:45:23 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commission Chair Samantha Hauser, Vice Chair Alex Ferguson and Commissioners:
I am writing to express my deep concern about the City Staff's apparent disregard for the safety and well-being of Pacifica residents. The decision to delay implementing meaningful restrictions on unhosted short-term rentals (STRs) until their renewal in October 2025 for non-coastal areas and October 2026 for coastal areas is alarming and unacceptable. This delay undermines the recommendations of City Council Members and the community, who called for immediate action to stop issuing permits in a “business-as-usual” manner last October, knowing a new ordinance was forthcoming.
Instead, City Staff appears to prioritize the interests of investors who are buying homes and converting them into unhosted STRs, effectively turning our cherished neighborhoods into commercial districts. This is a direct threat to the unique character of Pacifica and the well-being of its long-term residents.
As homeowners who have invested significantly in our properties and contribute thousands of dollars annually in property taxes, we have the right to live peacefully in our own community. The proliferation of unhosted STRs brings transient visitors who often disregard the peace, safety and quiet that long-term residents value.
The impact of these STRs on our daily lives is profound. For example:
A large two-story house at 520 San Pablo Terrace operates as an unhosted STR and has caused repeated disturbances. Late-night parties required multiple police interventions, and a memorial event at this property brought nine cars, with additional vehicles blocking our driveway. Overflowing trash bins have left garbage scattered across the street.
Another unhosted Airbnb at 549 San Pablo Terrace and a property at 451 Talbot Street also generate excessive noise, disrupting the tranquility and safety of our neighborhood.
These incidents are not isolated. They reflect a pattern of negligence that erodes the safety and quality of life for Pacifica residents. How would City Staff or the owners of these STRs feel if their own neighborhoods—or their mothers' neighborhoods—were subjected to such disruptions?
Many of these investors live far from the consequences of their actions, in places like Millbrae and Burlingame, while we, the residents of Pacifica, bear the brunt of their commercial ventures.
5.c
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) I urge you to please take immediate action to enforce stricter regulations on unhosted STRs. The integrity of our neighborhoods and the safety of our community depend on your leadership. Pacifica should remain a place where residents can enjoy the peace and security they deserve.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
-Victoria and Rick De Alba
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: DrGreene
To: Berman, Lauren; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris Cc: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Re: Public Comment Pacfica STRs
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 11:38:06 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Autocorrect Amendment: Council, not Counsel
Best regards,
Alan Greene, MD
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:30 AM DrGreene <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Members of the City Counsel,
First, I would like to thank the city council for its work in protecting and enhancing the lives of Pacificans and welcoming visitors to enjoy our beautiful coast.
I have two requests:
First, please do not delay implementing your new regulations for non-hosted STRs located in multi-unit buildings. We don't want our neighbors and neighborhoods to suffer.
Second, for all non-hosted STRs, a local contact person should be available in 30 minutes to address the problems that arise. As a pediatrician, I understand the burden of complying with this. I am available to respond within 30 minutes to my patients and am local to be able to solve problems as they arise. While this is a burden, I consider it an important part of my job.
Thank you for your consideration.
Alan Greene, MD
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: JUDY MASON
To: Berman, Lauren; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris; Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex Cc: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Recommended revised STR ordinance for Pacifica Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 11:35:45 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I have lived at the corner of Carmel & Beach for 15 years, and I am fully aware of the extraordinary place it is. And, of course, visitors and tourists should see what an ocean-side town has to offer. And, of course, they should be able to stay and enjoy what the town and area have to offer. However, our homes and flats and apartments are not hotels.
Our neighborhood is not for late night partying, fireworks being set off from upper decks, and cars bearing people for weddings and corporate retreats taking up all the street parking. We are rapidly losing our neighbors.
The large house across from me at 1 Carmel used to be 1 large apartment upstairs with two small apartments for the owners' two daughters downstairs. We knew each other; we chatted in the street; we were neighbors. Now it is listed on Airbnb and VRBO as a house that can sleep 27 people!! That is not a home. That is an hotel. During the holidays, I texted the owner to tell him that Recology had holiday pickups and told him what they were. (God forbid the owner, who lives in Foster City, would check about anything local--Fog Fest, garbage pickup,...) He did nothing except leave overflowing bins sitting outside.
I know that Pacifica needs money but you are collecting it at the expense of the people who live here. STRs must be brought under control with new regulations that are followed and punished if they are not. I sincerely hope you will do that.
Thank you.
Judy Mason
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Kate Chinca
To: Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Berman, Lauren; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris Cc: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: STRs in Pacifica
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 11:13:02 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Chair, Vice-Chair and Commissioners,
I must begin by stating that I have found that many of the decisions you have made that involve all of the citizens of Pacifica have been admirable and appreciated.
At this time, I come to you in regards to the new ordinance for STRs that has been in the works for 2 years. As soon as the one up the street first came into being, I looked up the Pacifica ordinance regarding these places and was shocked that they were so poorly governed.
I know that I have seen at least one commissioner attending the City Council Meetings (and I am sure that there have been more) hearing why we need an ordinance that truly addresses our neighborhood issues. Rather than repeat what I am sure you already know and certainly City Council has heard, I would like to list the questions for me:
1) I don't understand why we have mini motels as businesses in our neighborhoods (long term renters are not the issue)
2) I don't understand why anyone would need to own more than one STR if they are trying to better utilize the home they own
3) I don't understand why these homes would not be inspected considering the City permits their use
4) I don't understand how a rep of the owner is just 30 minutes away when he lives in the Castro in SF...I worked there...not true
5) I don't understand why a 90 day limit should be considered when a 60 day is working in Half Moon Bay nicely
6) I don't understand why anyone would think that there should not be a cap on the number of guests per room
7) I don't understand why quiet hours would not be initiated Issues:
1) 8 or 9 or more cars in a neighborhood when the neighbors need to park, as well 2) People partying with the windows open until 2 a.m....yelling and hooting out the windows
3) Sunday morning for those in the community that are awakened at 6:45 while the renters are leaving and loudly yelling goodbyes
4) Trouble connecting with the owners' rep when garbage cans fly down the street with no one to pick them up except neighbors
5) Strangers in and out of our neighborhoods at all times of the week and day 6) Large vehicles backing into the driveway and blocking the sidewalk 7) Hosted businesses would alleviate the need for neighbors to patrol what is happening at any given STR
And, this STR is 5 doors away. I truly feel that the neighbors on either side (renters
5.c
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) urinating on the next door house, etc.) Strangers being able to peer over the fence when neighbors are in their gardens.
What is being said:
Well, at the very first meeting regarding STRs, the City Manager and City Attorney said that they were really already too busy to take this one on. They'd have to drop some of their other assignments to work on the STR situation. Ever since, it has been a very slow go.
The taxes and revenues for Pacifica came into view from them early on. How do STRs generate more taxes than people staying at one of our local hotels? It seems that 3 families staying in a hotel for 2 nights would bring more TOT (3 rooms rather than 2 nights for all of those people at one STR. Our restaurants, wait staff and other employees will not be serving as many people when renters can bring their own food to cook in the STR. Tourists will still visit Rockaway Beach, Palmetto District, Pedro Point, Sharp Park and Pacific Manor Whether they are staying one block away or 1 mile away.
I can't help but think that this could very likely produce a new position through our Police Department for a Code Enforcement Officer dedicated to following up on all of the STRS. This should be a full time job judging from the amount of STRs already working here. It would require a service fee by the owners that would cover their position. It would also allow them to be able to research those STRs that are currently running illegally.
These are my thoughts and I really never thought I would still be pursuing the City's help over this one issue. Thank you for your time and hearing my concerns.
Best wishes,
Kate Chinca
Aspen Dr., Pacifica
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Lyla Reinero
To: Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Berman, Lauren; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris Cc: Beckmeyer, Sue; Bier, Mary; Boles, Christine; Espinosa, Mayra; Wright, Greg; Public Comment Subject: Planning Commission 01-21-25 Agenda - Item 1, TA-127-25 - Repeal and replace Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals”
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 10:56:01 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Commission Chair Hauser, Vice Chair Ferguson, and Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for meeting and reviewing the draft STR ordinance put together by city staff at the direction of our City Council. This is a significant step in the right direction!
I’ve read the staff report and have some serious concerns about a few issues.
I have copied and pasted from the draft ordinance in quotes, my suggestions and comments are in blue:
“Mandates a 24/7 responsible party who must respond to complaints within 30 minutes by phone or in person” (Remove “by phone”. A real person needs to be available to deal with many issues that a person in a remote call center won’t be able to do)
“Limits occupancy to two persons per legally permitted bedroom (excluding children under the age of 12)”. (Suggest removing or modifying the limit regarding the exclusion of children)
“Establishes a maximum of 90 rental nights per year and a two-night minimum stay for unhosted rentals (no maximum or minimums apply to hosted rentals)”. (maximum of 60 days for unhosted, per the CCC recommendation and HMB ordinance)
“However, the Draft Ordinance would allow the Operator of a Hosted Short-term Rental to reside in an ADU or Junior ADU and operate the STR in the main residence on the site where the STR is located” (This doesn’t make sense. It would still encourage the operation of STRs. Stating that the homeowner can live in the ADU instead of the main house is not increasing affordable housing. It would only add a loophole and create more confusion for enforcement)
“exterior sign with the STR permit details and a QR code with the operator and responsible party’s contact information... The sign would be a maximum size of 6 square feet in area.”(Signs do not need to be this big. Just big enough for the pertinent details to be publicly displayed. Anything as large as 6 square feet appears more like an advertisement and would be an eyesore if they were present throughout residential neighborhoods) ““Person” means natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity.” (Nope. It does not. This provides way too many loopholes for bad actors. Needs to simply be ”Natural Person”)
“In addition to the maximum number of Short-term Renters allowed, the number of guests and visitors allowed at any time in a Short-term Rental shall not
5.c
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) exceed one half of the maximum Short-term Renters allowed” (needs to have a clarification that the extra guests/visitors are not allowed during quiet hours or overnight stays)
“Required inspections for all unhosted STRs” (we need to have annual inspections for ALL STRs both hosted and unhosted. All STR guests should have a right to safety and there can’t be a loophole where unhosted operators claim their accommodations are hosted therefore getting around the safety inspections)
“the City Council expressed interest in an interactive, web-based map allowing residents to identify legally operating STRs thereby allowing the public to identify those STRs that may be operating without the proper permits” (We 100% need this for transparency and ease for neighbors to report violations) Finally, we need to have platform accountability and REAL enforcement and penalties for the bad operators. My family and I moved to Pacifica because we loved the neighborhood and its family-friendly vibe. We have been living in a nightmare with the home across the street from us at 400 Belfast since 2019, when the property was purchased by a corporation that turned it into a fulltime STR. Since that time, we have had to deal with every nuisance imaginable including loud noise, illegal parking blocking access needed for emergency responders, eyesores of overflowing garbage and property neglect, entitled guests throwing debris towards our house, the list goes on… The owners even hired a lawyer who has sent us letters threatening legal action for having called the police. The property has had a red tag violation posted to the outside of of the illegal ADU conversion since August 2024 yet they have continued to allow access for guests. The city did not renew the STR permit as of November 1st, 2024, yet Marbella Lane has continued to allow short-term stays. Operators need to be fined for violations and the STR platforms need to be accountable and remove listings that are in violation of the ordinance rules.
While we are so eager to have an amended STR ordinance, we can’t rush through and sign off on the Draft Resolution in its current form. It needs corrections and we need to make sure we get it done right.
Thank you for your time to read this and for all that you do for our wonderful city of Pacifica where we have the privilege to reside! Sincerely,
Lyla Reinero
Founding Member of Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels
Pedro Point Resident and PPCA Member
Co-VP ASEP, Cabrillo School PTO
Pacifica Police CERT Member
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Cindy Abbott
To: Hauser, Samantha; Berman, Lauren; Ferguson, Alex; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris Cc: Public Comment; City Council; Coffey, Sarah; Woodhouse, Kevin Subject: Planning Commission Meeting: Jan 21, 2025, Public Hearing Item 1, Short Term Rental Ordinance Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 10:16:39 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Chair Hauser and members of the Pacifica Planning Commission, Two years ago, in January 2023, you provided recommendations to the City Council regarding the need for stronger regulations regarding Short Term Rentals, including feedback about the 150 STR cap. Since that time, the community-at-large has been coming together with increasing concern.
It’s now time to complete a robust update to the Short Term Rental Ordinance that addresses how the concept of home sharing has morphed from one that gave local residents a little extra income while offering travelers affordable accommodation, to a scheme for commercial profit.
We’ve lost community members to displacement and neighborly connection has been replaced by a revolving door of strangers who don’t volunteer, go to our schools, or support local stores and services on an ongoing basis. Please recognize the continuing disruption to our neighborhoods and community.
Please consider the following in your recommendations:
1. Reduce the number of days rentable for unhosted STRs to 60, in line with Half Moon Bay and other jurisdictions versus the proposed 90 day limitation.
2. Definitions of owners and operators has been added to the Ordinance. To ensure that corporate profiteering is negated, require the OPERATOR of an STR to be a “natural person” as has been included in other ordinances, including those approved by the California Coastal Commission.
3. Recommend applying the 1% cap on STRs by neighborhood to ensure the burden of STRs is equally distributed across ALL of Pacifica. No location is Pacifica is that far from the beach, hiking or other visitor serving businesses.
The current unlimited number has impacted some of the smallest neighborhoods in Pacifica such as Sharp Park. (Data below from City provided STR permits as of June 2024).
City of Pacifica, Short Term Rentals, by Neighborhood
West Sharp Park 48 28%
East Sharp Park 12 7%
WSP Shoreview 3 2%
Sharp Park/Shoreview 63 37%
Manor 38 22%
Fairmont/Manor 5 3%
43 25%
Linda Mar 16 9%
5.c
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Park Pacifica 14 8%
30 18%
Pedro Point 20 12%
Vallemar 7 4%
East Rockaway 6 4%
Fairway 2 1%
171
4.Require additional platform accountability to be added to the Ordinance. The inclusion of these provisions has been upheld in courts and the City of Pacifica should accept no less.
5. Enhance the language, considering that in the Half Moon Bay Ordinance, regarding response time (Sec 9-4.4905 c) where currently the language only indicates that answering a phone call in 30 minutes is all that is required to comply with complaints from the neighborhood.
6. Strengthen language regarding the application (Sec 9-4.4904 a) that falsifying any information provided in the application is grounds for denial and/or (permanent) revocation of the permit. (Paragraph xi provides for the owner being required to sign an affidavit that the information is correct and if they don’t sign it the permit won’t be processed. What about after the fact documentation that information in the application is false? They are liable for perjury but not clearly permit revocation.)
7. Inspections should be required for both hosted AND unhosted STRs.
8. Inspections should include verification of on-site parking availability.
9. Exterior signage language (Sec 9-4,4904 d) should ensure that this is informative signage only as to the STR being legally permitted and contact information, not a commercial advertisement re the availability of the property.
10.Ensure that during the annual renewal process that a reinspection of the property is required. (Sec 9-4, 4907 b)
11. Change the Permit Suspension and Revocation timing (Sec 9-4. 4908) Permit Suspension and Revocation time period from two strikes in 24 months (versus 12). AND, add clarifying language that community reporting is considered in the suspension/revocation review.
12.ADD language that City regulations regarding waste disposal includes COMPOSTING in addition to recycling and other waste removal and that all regulations regarding visibility of bins and time bins can be out on the street are adhered to.
13.Review and consider eliminating the unreasonable clause regarding an “unlimited” number of children under 12 years of age being permissible during rental.
Throughout the current process, in response to concerns by the community that staff wouldn’t put forward a moratorium and continued with the October renewal period of permits, city staff has indicated that the Ordinance would become effective (outside of the Coastal Zone) 30 days after the Ordinance is approved by City Council. The recommendation now is hold off on sections of the new
5.c
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) ordnance until the renewal period. This surprising change in direction needs to be discussed and vetted, with consideration given to all provisions (including Sections 9-4.4903 (cc through F and 9-4-4905 (i-t) going into effect within the 30 day period.
Please don’t be swayed on the need for stronger regulations, based on the staff focus on the fiscal impact. The City of Pacifica hasn’t “historically” received income from STRS, as the build up in the commercialization of our neighborhoods only began in 2018 and took a few years to reach i’s current level. The increase in TOT tax rate offsets some of the city projected loss in revenue and should never have been counted on as a “plus”.
Staff analysis continues to be lacking in recognizing the overall cost to the community of Short Term Rentals. Though they note the high costs of enforcement and staff time, it’s not recognized in the overall cost of the program.
Additionally, the PLUS of full time residency with residents being part of the community on an ongoing basis, continues to not be reflected in figures. NO amount of TOT taxes can suffice for the current disharmony and anxiety that has been created by unhosted short term rentals. Gain the “economic balance” staff has indicated is needed by supporting our local hotels and their expert role as lodging providers, while also providing the ability for residents to offer hosted (and/or limited unhosted) affordable accommodation.
Thank you for continuing this work and being available to receive the public comment. As a note, the staff report states that no public comment had been received at the time of the publishing of the report. No one was aware that you would be hearing this item on a Tuesday following a holiday. Extensive public comment though has been shared during City Council study sessions and meetings on the draft Ordinance that was just published last week.
You can read public comments on the City Council Agenda page as follows:
June 24, 2024
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/18294/638560594444000000 August 26,
2024https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/18800/638602742191730000 December 5,
2024https://www.cityofpacifica.org/home/showpublisheddocument/19367/638689998963900000 Thank you,
Cindy Abbott
West Sharp Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Maura O"Neill
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment for January 21, 2025
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 9:31:43 AM
Attachments: Better Neighbors Comment Letter - Pacifica City Council Meeting January 17, 2025 4929-0929-7168 v.1.pdf [CAUTION: External Email]
Good Afternoon,
Attached please find Better Neighbor LA’s comment letter on the File No. 2025-001 – Text Amendment TA-127-25.
Thank you,
Maura O’Neill
Policy Analyst and Advocate
Better Neighbors LA
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) 250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900 betterneighborsla.org
January 17, 2025
Pacifica City Council
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
[email protected]
VIA EMAIL
RE: Text Amendment TA-127-25 Regarding Short-Term Rentals Dear Honorable Mayor Vaterlaus and Pacifica City Councilmembers, Better Neighbors LA is a coalition of hosts, tenants, housing activists and community members. We conduct data analysis and research on the short-term rental industry, including the industry’s impact on coastal communities.1 Better Neighbors also works to promote short-term rental policies that foster true home-sharing in hosted-only short-term rentals within the Coastal Zone, which is the best way to balance the preservation of affordable housing and coastal public access.
The updated ordinance is a good step towards safeguarding existing housing stock; however, without further amendments to the ordinance, the proliferation of short-term rental (“STRs”) will continue to leave long-term residents at risk of displacement. BNLA urges the Pacifica City Council to amend current STR regulations to a true home-sharing model composed of hosted-only rentals. A hosted-only policy that includes a primary residency requirement will help prevent displacement and ensure that communities are protected from the negative effects of STRs. Hosted STRs necessarily function as housing for their host, whereas unhosted STRs do not. Unhosted STRs are more likely to be owned by corporations and have no full-time, taxpaying resident associated with them. This is a significant issue in a city like Pacifica whose population is already shrinking.
Should the Council decide not to move forward with a true home-sharing model, we encourage the City to adopt common-sense policies present in many jurisdictions throughout the California coast, including establishing a 60-night cap on the number of nights an unhosted short-term rental can operated annually, setting STR density limits, ensuring there is accountability for STR platforms, subjecting existing STRs immediately to ordinance requirements, disallowing properties with ADUs to have an STR, and tightening inspection and good neighbor policies.
1 https://www.betterneighborsla.org/
5.c
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Better Neighbors LA
January 17, 2025
Based on our data analysis and research, we suggest that the City Council move forward with the following ordinance amendments:
1. 60-Night Cap on Unhosted STRs Annually: We suggest limiting the rental of unhosted STRs to 60 days per calendar year, rather than 90 to prevent continued commercialization of housing in the City. This cap is similar to the one adopted by the City of Half Moon Bay.2
2. STR Density Limits: We support the recommendation from Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels (PHANH) to update the ordinance to include a 250-foot lineal distance between STRs and to set a limitation of no more than 15% of homes on any block operating as STRs. Such a limitation would help distribute the impact of the negative effects of short-term rentals, as well as preserve the existing neighborhood character per the Local Coastal Plan. Currently, some streets in Pacifica contain up to 8 STRs in total, which alters the neighborhood and causes significant nuisance issues for residents. Density limits are needed to prevent the continued corporatization of housing, as they provide a significant roadblock to corporate speculators intending to buy up swathes of properties to turn into tourist accommodations. Both Seaside and Pacific Grove have successfully implemented density requirements for STRs based on lineal-foot distance from parcel boundaries.3
3. Accountability for Platforms: Requiring the registration number in each STR advertisement is a good step towards compliance with the STR ordinance. However, more needs to be done to ensure that platforms crack down on non-compliant listings and comply with regulatory requirements. The Council should hold platforms accountable for allowing listings that violate the City’s ordinance by establishing a fine that could be issued to platforms that facilitate bookings and payments for non-compliant listings.
4. No Exemptions for Existing Permits: STR permits granted before the issuance of this ordinance should not be exempt from Sections 9-4.4903(c) through (f) and 9-
4.4905(l) through (t) until those permits expire. Pacifica residents need the changes made in this ordinance to take effect now to protect their community from continued loss of housing stock. The City needs to institute the primary residency requirement and cap on unhosted STRs immediately to reverse some of the damage STRs have caused in Pacifica.
5. Restrict STRs on Properties with ADUs: Allowing STR owners or operators to live in their ADU while they rent out their actual home as an STR may impact the availability of ADUs as affordable housing. In addition, it is extremely difficult to prove that an ADU is being used as primary residency which can make enforcement against noncompliant STRs more difficult.
2 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/3/W14b/W14b-3-2023-report.pdf 3 Seaside: https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/662/Short-Term-RentalProgram#:~:text=The%20property%20must%20comply%20with,verify%20compliance%20with%20this%20requirement.
Pacific Grove:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/our_city/departments/administrative_services/business_taxes,_license___resources/shortterm rental program/index.php
5.c
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Better Neighbors LA
January 17, 2025
6. Inspections of hosted STRs: According to STR listing data from AirDNA, as of March 2023, there were approximately 198 short-term rentals operating in Pacifica, 173 of which were unhosted.4 The City should require inspections of all STRs to ensure no unhosted STR is fraudulently claiming to be a hosted STR.
7. Responsible party: The ordinance should require that the 24/7 responsible party must be able to respond in-person, if needed. The mandate to answer either by phone or inperson does not ensure that there is a local responsible party who can respond inperson if the situation warrants it.
We urge the Council to adopt the recommendations above at the January 21, 2025 hearing, which would strengthen regulations to adequately protect long-term residents while allowing hosted STRs to exist. Should you have any questions, please contact Maura O’Neill at [email protected].
Sincerely,
/s/ Randy Renick
4 Data on file with BNLA. AirDNA combines data from STR websites to put together a picture of the STR market in a particular area: https://www.airdna.co/
5.c
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Pam Raymond
To: Berman, Lauren; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Public Comment
Subject: Recommended revised STR for Pacifica
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 9:29:45 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commissioners & officers:
I am a Beach Blvd. resident and homeowner since 1988. I am glad that the city council has taken seriously the need for a strong STR ordinance that does not allow the entire street to be bought up by the greedy folks that want to turn all the houses into a hotel zone. I have lived next to many iterations on 1 Carmel Ave., the last which has been the worst because it is 100% unhosted STR 365 days a year. Strangers coming and going all year long, some more disrespectful and loud than others, parking shortages on the street, garbage blocking parking and messes spilling out over the top are just a few of the inconveniences we have had to endure for the sake of the city making more revenue with TOTs.
I side with the Coastal Commission's recommendation for a 60- day night limit on unhosted STRS. 90 days will allow this operator to still operate most weekends of a calendar year.
I also ask that under operation requirements Section 9-4.4905 (n) that you add outdoor firepits to "use of outdoor pools, spas & hot tubs prohibited hours between 10pm- 7 am. There are 2 firepits at this property one on upper deck and one on lower deck and when there are revelers out there enjoying between quiet hours it can get quite loud and rowdy, i.e., no sleep.
Thank you,
Pam Raymond
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Updegrave, Samantha
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Letter Letter Opposing Short-term Rental Program Amendment (article 49 replacement) Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 7:46:53 AM
From: Zhang Albert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 9:24 PM
To: Hauser, Samantha <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Alex <[email protected]>; Redfield, Chris <[email protected]>; Devine, Daniella <[email protected]>; Godwin, James <[email protected]>; Berman, Lauren <[email protected]>; Updegrave, Samantha <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter Letter Opposing Short-term Rental Program Amendment (article 49 replacement) [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Pacifica City Planning Commissioners:
My name is Albert Zhang. My husband and I live in Pacifica, and sometime use our home as an unhosted Airbnb when we’re traveling. I read the ordinance drafted by the city staff, and would like to take some time to provide my opinion, regarding how restrictive, harmful (to the city) and illogical it is.
As a responsible Airbnb operator, I deeply value our neighbors and community. Most of our guests are families who come to enjoy easy access to the beach or visit loved ones in Pacifica while staying together under one roof at an affordable cost. In all the time we’ve operated, we’ve never received a single complaint from our neighbors.
The proposed ordinance includes a 90-day cap on rentals and requires operators to maintain the property as their "primary residence," clearly tailoring to individuals who live in their homes and occasionally rent them out.
However, for the majority of unhosted short-term rental (STR) operators, this would effectively mean shutting down their operations, converting to long-term rentals, or selling their properties. While this may be the goal of the ordinance, it would wreak havoc on many levels.
Currently, the city has a cap of 150 permits, with about 80% likely being unhosted STRs. While there are undoubtedly a few bad actors, data from the city and police shows that issues stem from only four operators. Instead of penalizing all STR operators, the city could implement targeted regulations to address specific problems and ensure compliance without disrupting the lives of more than 120 responsible, hardworking operators.
Many of us rely on STR income because we’ve left the city for work, experienced life changes, or invested our life savings into creating welcoming spaces for visitors. We pay property taxes, contribute to the local economy, and collectively generate over $2 million in transient occupancy taxes (ToT) annually.
If this ordinance takes effect, the real-life consequences would be dire. The 90-day cap spreads bookings across the year, leaving operators with irregular, unused days that make mid-term or long-term rentals impractical.
Requiring operators to live in the house for at least 180 days a year is equally unfeasible. Faced with these restrictions, many operators will have no choice but to sell their properties, adding to an already declining housing market—home values in Pacifica are already down more than 10% since 2022. An influx of new inventory would push prices even lower, harming homeowners and the city.
5.c
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) The ordinance would hurt the city financially in at least three ways:
1. The majority of the $2 million in ToT revenue would disappear. The city estimate of losing $900K underestimates the true impact, as it assumes operators would continue at the 90-day limit without converting to long-term rentals or selling properties.
2. Falling property values would reduce property tax revenue.
3. Local businesses would lose revenue from tourists who would otherwise stay in STRs, as the city lacks the hotel infrastructure to accommodate families affordably.
Ironically, the ordinance itself acknowledges that enforcement will increase costs by $100K annually. In essence, the city would voluntarily forgo millions in revenue, spend more on enforcement, and likely lose application and permit renewal fees ($1,700 per permit).
This is neither rational nor sustainable governance. Let alone, some parts of the ordinance border on violating personal privacy—such as the requirement for each operator to post an outdoor sign with a QR code displaying their personal contact information.
This exposes operators to potential harassment and safety risks, creating an unnecessary burden on responsible individuals who are already complying with the law.
As STR operators, we welcome reasonable regulations to manage operations effectively and maintain harmony with the community. In fact, some of the ordinance's measures—such as noise monitoring, fines for violations, and limits on rooms and parking—originate from proposals we made to the city.
However, the 90-day cap and primary residence requirement clearly signal an intent to eliminate unhosted STRs, driving out existing operators who have done no wrong.
To the commissioners, I pose these question: Does this ordinance truly serve the best interests of the city? Can the city afford this ordinance?
I appreciate your time reading through this and considering my perspective.
Best Regards,
Albert
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: HD
To: Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Berman, Lauren; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris; City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Short Term Rentals (STR) Ordinance and Its Implications Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 12:00:44 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my serious concerns about the new Short Term Rental (STR) ordinance and to share my personal experiences living near an unhosted STR. The current ordinance contains several significant shortcomings that could adversely affect our community and its economic stability. Below, I outline these issues and provide supporting evidence to emphasize the need for stricter regulations.
1. Excessively Lenient 90-Night Limit on Unhosted STR Operations The proposed 90- night limit is far too lenient compared to Half Moon Bay’s 60-night limit. Allowing 90 nights of operation enables unhosted STRs to profitably operate throughout the year by renting out 87% of the weekends with higher fees. This generous limit not only incentivizes short-term rentals over long-term housing but also prevents these properties from being available to families and long-term tenants who contribute to our community’s fabric. Reducing the limit to 60 nights would better discourage corporate and investor-driven STR operations and help restore neighborhood stability by attracting families back to Pacifica and supporting our schools.
2. Inadequate Inspection Requirements for Hosted STRs The lack of mandatory inspections for hosted STRs is a glaring oversight. This policy allows unhosted STR owners to falsely claim their properties are hosted, thereby undermining the ordinance’s credibility. Regular inspections are essential to ensure compliance and confirm that hosted STRs genuinely have the owner residing on-site.
3. Insufficient Local Representation for STR Management The ordinance does not mandate that the designated “representative” be local. Simply answering a phone within 30 minutes does not ensure that the representative is physically near the property or even within the country. To ensure prompt and effective responses to issues, it is crucial that representatives be local and readily accessible.
4. Improper Use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) for STRs While operating an ADU as an STR is illegal, the ordinance allows owners to reside in their ADU while renting out the main house as an STR. This practice contradicts the goal of preserving ADUs for affordable housing. ADUs should be reserved for long-term housing to promote community stability and affordability.
5. Lack of Robust Platform Accountability The ordinance’s requirement for including an STR permit number in advertisements is insufficient for ensuring compliance.
Stronger measures, such as regular audits and penalties for platforms that list unpermitted properties, are necessary to enforce adherence to the regulations.
5.c
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
6. Delayed Implementation of Critical Ordinance Provisions Allowing current STR owners/operators to defer compliance with key aspects of the ordinance until their permits expire in October significantly undermines its effectiveness. Essential provisions, including primary residence requirements, night limits for unhosted STRs, and off-street parking, should be enforced immediately to prevent ongoing disruptions and neighborhood commercialization.
7. Implementation of Severe Penalties for Violations I recommend imposing substantial financial penalties for false applications and violations. For properties purchased in or after 2020, the penalty should be three times the annual property tax, and for properties purchased before 2020, five times the annual property tax.
8. Clear Reporting Process and Public Awareness The reporting process and penalty fees should be transparent and accessible to the public and neighbors of all STRs. For instance, neighbors of registered STRs should receive an annual instruction letter detailing how to report violations and outlining expected STR guidelines.
Personal Experience Living near an unhosted STR has subjected my family to numerous disturbances, including late-night noise, increased wrong-way traffic, and a constant influx of strangers in our neighborhood. These issues have not only disrupted our quality of life but also heightened our concerns about allowing our young children to play outside alone. A report by the Urban Institute underscores how STRs contribute to housing shortages and rising rental prices, exacerbating affordability challenges in communities (Urban Institute, 2020).
I strongly urge the Planning Commission to address these critical issues and adopt stricter regulations to protect our community’s character and financial health. Thank you for considering my concerns.
Sincerely, Haroldo
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Stephanie Robbins
To: Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Redfield, Chris; Berman, Lauren; Godwin, James; Devine, Daniella Cc: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Planning Commission meeting, public comment, January 21, 2025 Date: Monday, January 20, 2025 10:11:04 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Pacifica Planning Commission,
This has been a long process and we are so close to finalizing the STR ordinance and proving that those who run our city do actually care about our quality of life. I want to thank you and the city council for continuing down this long path. However, there are some issues that still need addressing.
In reviewing the proposed ordinance, I'm confused why the CCC recommendation for a 60-night limit, which also aligns with our neighbors such as Half Moon Bay, has not been included. The 90-night limit currently proposed is simply problematic. We've heard neighbor after neighbor plead for a 60-night limit, and, as already mentioned, the CCC also suggested this. So why isn't this being implemented? Additionally, why is this ordinance being held up for implementation through October 2026 in some cases? As a resident of the coastal area, and to be clear that is where the majority of the unhosted STRs are located, this simply extends the current problems for another two years.
It really makes me wonder why staff, specifically Mr. Woodhouse, is pushing this out as far as it can go.
We've seen the evidence that he is not in favor of this progress with his responses, and that he does not support what we the residents, who pay his salary, are requesting. He has been resistant and, at times, unprofessional in his responses. It is disheartening to me as a 25 year resident of Pacifica to see such a cavalier attitude toward the citizens. He was hired to represent, support and help us to maintain our quality of life in Pacifica. His lack of support, and obvious disdain for the proposed restrictions have caused greater work and time in moving this forward. Now we see wrangling by his staff on all levels to reduce the efficacy of this ordinance.
We need this to take place, to be upheld and to be thorough so that it is truly useful. We citizens of Pacifica are not asking for some kind of gain, we are asking for our own sanity, our quality of life, to simply regain the neighborhoods we have lived in and loved for many years. It is imperative that the last few issues are pushed forward. Please enforce a 60-night limit, make the change more immediate, and truly be accountable for the permitting, and follow through on ensuring that these random businesses in these areas zoned for homes, are following the rules.
Thank you,
Stephanie Robbins
West Sharp Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Bryan Reinero
To: Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Berman, Lauren; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris Cc: Beckmeyer, Sue; Bier, Mary; Boles, Christine; Espinosa, Mayra; Wright, Greg; Public Comment Subject: Planning Commission 01-21-25 Agenda - Item 1, TA-127-25 - Repeal and replace Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals”
Date: Monday, January 20, 2025 8:11:49 PM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Commission Chair Hauser, Vice Chair Ferguson, and Commissioners Berman, Devine, Godwin, and Redfield,
Having worked for years in support of strengthening Pacifica’s short term rental ordinance, I am encouraged by our City Council’s leadership on this issue and grateful to see that the draft ordinance is now in review by the Planning Commision. However, having read the draft ordinance prepared by City Staff, I see that it does not properly represent the heavy toll that unhosted STRs take from our community and economy, and the proposed ordinance lacks critical elements needed to ensure it is potent.
ECONOMIC HARM Unhosted STRs harm local economies. Customers of unhosted STR simply do not spend money in Pacifica as residents do. STR customers do not buy groceries weekly, take their pets to the local veterinarian, go to the local dentist, or shop at the local hardware store. Furthermore, they are not supporting our local non-profits. 2015 study by San Francisco’s Office of Economic Analysis shows that San Francisco city lost $250,000-$300,000 per year for every unhosted STR in operation.
Using the same model for Pacifica, STRs cost Pacifica an annual loss of $37.5 million. ($49.77 million adjusted for inflation). That’s just counting the 150 allowed STRs. The actual number is likely much higher as the number of STRs operating in Pacifica is greater than what City Staff is aware of.
TRUE LOSS of TOT City Staff inflates the amount of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) generated by STRs. City Staff has already admitted that STRs are very hard for them to regulate. As a consequence, many STRs are operating without a permit, and without paying the TOT. Staff’s ability to enforce and collect TOT won’t improve, as they recommend that it’s best that we hope STRs comply and pay TOT voluntarily[page 103] . On top
of this, the loss of TOT is compounded by the fact that STRs draw business away from hotels, which are a reliable source of TOT revenue.
LOSS OF SCHOOL FUNDING The economic damage is not limited to lost TOT revenue.
5.c
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) STRs have a very serious, very detrimental effect on the community’s economy as a whole.
Consider the harm to our schools caused by STRs. If just half the unhosted STRs in Pacifica were home to even one child, our schools would have received $2.3 million this year, and well over $1.5 million in each prior year. Cumulatively our schools lost $7.56 over the last 4 years[ref]
. In just the past year our schools lost 1.35 times more money than the projected yearly ToT revenue from STRs. Consider how this loss has contributed to this month’s announcement by the Pacifica School District that it is planning to close Ocean Shore Elementary[ref]
.
WEALTH TRANSFER 73% of unhosted STRs in Pacifica run by out-of-town operators, and are at least 2 bedroom homes, suitable for a resident family[ref] . Every out-of-town operation
displaces a resident family, taking with them $151,849 median household income each[ref] .
In just this past year, the combined loss of these residents have drained $28.5 million in annual combined household income from our local economy. This money, in addition to the rental profits made by out-of-town operators, instead flows into the economies of the towns where STR operators live.
LOST HOUSING STOCK Unhosted STRs deplete our housing stock, and jack up rental rates in real, quantifiable ways. A study by Professor David Wachsmuth, a leading researcher on how Unhosted STRs affect on housing, found Long term rents go up not only because the available rental stock is depleted, but also because it incentivizes aggressive landlords to jack up rents who have the option to convert the property if the tenant can't accept the rent increase.
A 1% increase in Airbnb listings leads to an 0.018% increase in rents and 0.026% increase in house price
LOST ACCESSIBILITY TO THE COAST It’s a total fallacy to claim that the draft ordinance promotes a diverse range of accommodation options for different budgets. A recent report from analytics company AirDNA found that in suburban U.S. markets, the average daily rate for short-term rentals surpassed that of hotels this year[1]. Families need housing, NOT travel accommodations. Getting affordable travel accommodations isn’t even a top problem facing economically disadvantaged persons. Travel accounts for just 1% of overall household expenditures. Long term Housing is the key need, but Unhosted STRs work against that by locking people out of the housing market.
Further, multitudes of unhosted STRs are not ADA compliant, and are by their nature exclusionary. If unhosted STRs are successful in putting hotels out of business, it will eliminate access for disabled persons to safe accommodations in the coastal zone, as well as in any area STRs operate without constraint.
5.c
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) The Key to a Strong Ordinance
Given the problems Unhosted STRs cause to our community, Pacifica needs a robust ordinance with no loopholes. Unfortunately, the draft ordinance has some gaping holes. An example of such a hole is on packet page 131; "However, the Draft Ordinance would allow the Operator of a Hosted Short-term Rental to reside in an ADU or Junior ADU and operate the STR in the main residence on the site where the STR is located". ADU have been allowed in Pacifica for the explicit purpose of increasing the availability of long term housing. Allowing ADUs to be used as the residence of an STR operator while the main residence is rented totally negates that purpose, and is wholly illogical. ADU must not be used in any way that supports or permits the operation of STRs.
Operators of an STR must be a natural person. City staff have argued that it is difficult to make a distinction between a natural person and a corporate entity, but this is not the case.
Consider the following definition, “A natural person (also sometimes referred to as a physical person) is a title used to identify an individual human being. This is different from a legal person, which can be an individual or a company.” [ref] The use of the term “human being” is key. An article from the Penn State Journal of Law explores the theory behind what is a natural person. The theories define two types of person, natural persons and juridical persons, where “The first group refers to a human being, who is an individual being capable of assuming obligations and capable of holding rights.” The term natural person also has precedent. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines a "natural person" as a California resident who is not a corporation or other business entity[ref] Given
the clarity that a natural person is one who is a physical human being, there is no reason that STR permits can’t be restricted to one per natural person.
Building inspections must be required to qualify for any STR permit or renewal. Sec. 9-4.4904 (d) of the ordinance requires inspection of unhosted STRs, which should instead be a requirement for all STRs. It's important that the Commission beware that an operator renting out unpermitted and unsafe STRs isn’t some hypothetical possibility. There have already been operators, such as 400 Belfast[ref], which rent unpermitted dwelling spaces that are uninspected, and not compliant with Chapter 12 of the building code. If the city demanded inspections prior as a prerequisite to getting or renewing a STR permit, this operator would not have been able to rent this dangerous STR for years.
Platform Accountability. This is the most effective enforcement of STR ordinances.
Platform accountability is also the most efficient form of enforcement because It puts the onus on the rental platform to police illegal listings. Platforms are penalized for listing properties without the proper licensing. The policy makes it difficult for bad actors to list their homes illegally, and makes it easy for the city to double-check that listings are appropriately registered and legally operating.
5.c
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) San Francisco is an excellent example of platform accountability. Section 41A.5 of the San Francisco Administrative Code requires hosting platforms to provide the data necessary for enforcement
The name of the Owner or Business Entity who offered a Residential Unit The address of the Residential Unit,
The dates for which the tourist or transient user procured use of the Residential Unit The registration number for the Residential Unit
The ordinance has teeth “..any Hosting Platform that provides a Booking Service for a Residential Unit to be used for Tourist or Transient Use in violation of the Hosting Platform's obligations under this Chapter 41A, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. … punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000” San Francisco’s ordinance is also effective.
Every month, Airbnb provides a spreadsheet detailing the rental activity of every STR to the SF Office of Short Term Rentals. The City goes through the list and identifies violations and has Airbnb remove them within a week.
I ask that the Commision remember that a strong ordinance requires these key elements Primary Residence Requirement - prevents out-of-town investors from buying Pacifica homes and leach wealth to communities where they choose to live instead One STR Permit per Natural Person - prevents corporations and speculators from systematically buying up out homes and flipping them into unhosted STRs Limit on unhosted STRs to 60 rental nights per year - Limits the profitability of financial viability of STRs, which discourages investors from flipping a house into a dedicated unhosted STR, and limits the damage that STR can do to our economy All unhosted STRs must have a local representative who will be at the property within 20 minutes. STR operators have to be responsible for stopping disturbances and cleaning up trash immediately. Not the Police. Not the neighbors.
Building inspections are required to qualify for any and all STR permits - This assure all STRs built to code, properly permitted, and safe
5.c
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Platform Accountability - rental platforms can only collect a booking fee on listings that are legal. This is the most effective form of enforcement because It puts the onus on the rental platform, not the city, to police their listings.
Regards,
Bryan Reinero
Board Member, Pedro Point Community Association
Founding Member, Pacifica Homes are Not Hotels
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Caitlin Quinn
To: Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Berman, Lauren; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris Cc: Beckmeyer, Sue; Bier, Mary; Boles, Christine; Espinosa, Mayra; Wright, Greg; Public Comment Subject: Planning Commission 01-21-25 Agenda - Item 1, TA-127-25 - Repeal and replace Article 49, “Short-Term Rentals”
Date: Monday, January 20, 2025 4:47:10 PM
Attachments: clip image001.png
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commission Chair Hauser, Vice Chair Ferguson, and Commissioners Berman, Devine, Godwin, and Redfield,
Thank you for reviewing the new STR ordinance city staff has prepared at the direction of City Council. As many of you know, the negative impacts of the large number of unhosted STRs in Pacifica has degraded residents’ quality of life and quiet enjoyment of their homes, commercialized our neighborhoods at the expense of community, taken much-needed housing away from families (many with children who could shore up our depleted schools), and caused myriad nuisances in terms of parties, noise, trash, trespassing, reduced residential parking, and a whole host of other issues that regularly tax our city’s enforcement resources. A new STR ordinance to protect our neighborhoods and housing stock from corporations and out-of-town investors—and that includes restrictions already in place in many other cities in San Mateo County and along our state’s coast—has been long overdue.
While the new ordinance drafted by city staff repealing and replacing Article 49 (Short-term Rentals) of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code is a good start, it has serious flaws that I hope you will recommend be redressed, as follows:
I.STR Operators Must Be “Natural Persons”
Sec. 9-4.4901 Definitions
<!--[if !supportLists]-->(j) <!--[endif]-->“Person” means natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity. and
Sec. 9-4.9403 Standards Applicable to Short-term Rental Sites <!--[if !supportLists]-->(c) <!--[endif]-->Each Person Operating a Short-term Rental shall have their Primary Residence at the Site of the Short-term Rental. If the Person is a corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity, the managing member of the limited liability company, officer of the corporation, or trustee of the business trust or estate or a partner must have their Primary Residency on the Site. To prove Primary Residency, the Person must provide at least three forms of documentation to the Administrator evidencing that the Site of the Short-term Rental is their Primary Residence for more than six months of the year. Documentation can include, but is not limited to, proof of homeowner's tax exemption, voter registration card or certificate, or proof of vehicle registration.
While a corporation may own a home, an STR operator must be a “natural person,” as a corporation
5.c
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) or LLC cannot have a “primary residence,” i.e., a property at which they do normal human functions like eat, shower, and sleep. This is because corporations are not human and, thus, do not do things like eat, shower, and sleep.
I have researched dozens of STR ordinances throughout California, and I have yet to come across one that allows an STR operator to be anything other than a “natural person,” i.e., a human being. I fail to understand then why we are opening up a bevy of loopholes for corporations and other entities to exploit by the language employed in the above sections, and hereby urge the Planning Committee to request a detailed explanation of this from city staff.
Additionally, in the language above regarding documentation to prove primary residency, please request that “Documentation can include, but is not limited to, proof of homeowner’s tax exemption, voter registration card or certificate, or proof of vehicle registration” be changed to read that at least two of the forms of documentation listed (homeowner’s tax exemption, voter registration card or certificate, or proof of vehicle registration) are required and that utility bills are not not valid.
II.“Hosted” Must Mean the STR Operator is Present During the Rental Sec. 9-4.4091 Definitions
i. “Hosted Short-term Rental” means a Short-term Rental use where a resident, who is the operator and acting as a host, occupies one or more bedrooms in a dwelling unit or an accessory dwelling unit on the same Site as the Short-term Rental while other areas of the dwelling unit or main residence on the Site are rented for the purpose of transient overnight lodging.
Nowhere in the above does it state that the operator of a hosted STR must be onsite for the duration of the rental. If a hosted STR operator is not sleeping in a bed at the property while it’s being rented, then it’s a de facto unhosted rental.
Please recommend that language be added stating that operators of hosted STRs be on site during the rental, emphasizing that operators of hosted STRs must especially be onsite during the quiet hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Please also recommend that the language placed in bold in Sec. 9-4.9091 (i) above re: ADUs be stricken, per my point III. below.
III.ADUs Must be Protected as Affordable Housing
Sec. 9-4.4093 Standards Applicable to Short-term Rental Sites <!--[if !supportLists]-->(a) <!--[endif]-->In accordance with Section 9-4.453(a)(6) and 9-
4.454(a)(6), no Person may operate a Short-term Rental in any accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. However, the Operator of a Hosted Short-term Rental may reside in an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on the Site and Operate the Hosted Short-term Rental in the primary residence on the Site; To allow STR operators to move into an ADU while renting out their primary residence (and thereby treating such as a hosted rental) is a misuse of an ADU, as well as a gift-wrapped loophole to avoid unhosted STR restrictions. Allowing an ADU to be used in such a fashion doesn’t provide a net increase in Pacifica’s affordable housing supply. It simply provides one more crack in the new STR ordinance that will be ripe for exploitation.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
5.c
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) <!--[endif]-->
Please recommend that STR operators not be permitted to exploit ADUs in this fashion.
IV.“Hosted” STRs Must be Subject to Inspection Alongside “Unhosted” STRs Sec. 9-4.4904 Short-term Rental Permit Required
<!--[if !supportLists]-->(d) <!--[endif]-->Inspection of Unhosted Short-term Rentals. For Unhosted Short-term Rentals, the City shall conduct a health and safety inspection of the proposed Short-term Rental unit prior to issuing a Short-term Rental Permit. A health and safety inspection shall include verification of the number of Legally Permitted Bedrooms, the presence and operation of working smoke detector(s), carbon monoxide detector(s), and fire extinguishers. The City shall also verify that no space has been converted into a bedroom or living space without permits required by the California Building Code, International Property Maintenance Code and Residential Code, as adopted by the City in Title 8, or any other provision of this Code.
If the goal is to ensure STRs are up to code in terms of health and safety requirements, then I fail to understand why the City wouldn’t also want to inspect those STRs whose operators claim they will be hosted. Is the health and safety of guests who stay at hosted STRs any less important than those who rent unhosted ones? Given city staff’s past truthful assertions that such a small percentage of Pacifica STRs are hosted, it doesn’t seem as this would add much extra work.
Furthermore, how will the City know for certain if an STR is, indeed, a hosted variant, if they do not inspect the property? We already know of STR owners/operators in Pacifica who have applied for permits to run hosted STRs in other cities (i.e., Brisbane) and who were subsequently caught out not actually residing at what was claimed to be their primary residence via an on-site inspection. Once Pacifica’s new ordinance goes into effect, requiring an STR operator’s rental property to be their primary residence, what is the likelihood that many operators of currently unhosted STRs will suddenly claim those properties are now, magically, their primary residences and so are, in effect, hosted STRs? I fear it’s a pretty high likelihood and propose that Pacifica guard itself against such fraudulence by requiring annual on-site inspections—to be paid for by the STR owner/operator--of both unhosted AND hosted STRs.
Please recommend that the language to this section require annual inspections of both hosted and unhosted STRs.
V.Operators Whose STR Permit Has Been Revoked Should Have to Wait 24 Months—Not 12—Before Reapplying
Sec. 9-4.4904 Short-term Rental Permit Required
<!--[if !supportLists]-->(f) <!--[endif]-->Compliance with Operation Requirements. No Shortterm Rental Permit shall be issued if the Site has had two or more violations of this article within twelve months prior to application submittal. No Short-term Rental Permit shall be issued if the Operator has had a Short-term Rental Permit revoked within twelve months of the application date by the City of Pacifica.
and
5.c
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Sec. 9-4.4908 Permit Suspension and Revocation
<!--[if !supportLists]-->(e) <!--[endif]-->Reapplication. No application for a Short-term Rental Permit will be accepted within one year after a Short-term Rental Permit is revoked.
If an STR operator has behaved so poorly as to have had their permit revoked, why would we want to invite them back to do business again in our city in as quick a period as 12 months—especially given the time and money the revocation process will take? Operating an STR in Pacifica should be seen as a privilege and respected as such. Please recommend that staff amend the language above to indicate a waiting time of 24 months to reapply after permit revocation.
VI.Two Strikes Within a 24-Month Period--Not a 12-Month One--Triggers Permit Revocation Sec. 9-4-4908
<!--[if !supportLists]-->(b) <!--[endif]-->iii. That two violations of this article have occurred on the Site within the preceding twelve months;
Are we honestly prepared to allow any STR operator who has had two ordinance violations within a oneyear period to merely hit the “reset button” when January 1st rolls around and perhaps start the malfeasance over again, with no real consequences? By this accounting, an STR operator could ostensibly commit four (4) ordinance violations within a 24-month period with only a proverbial slap on the wrist. How many of us would keep on staff an employee who committed four (4) illegal acts within a 24-month period? Not many, I’m betting.
Please recommend that staff amend the above to read, “That two violations of this article have occurred on the Site with the preceding twenty-four months.” Additionally, please ask staff to address and codify what role residents will be permitted to play in the STR permit revocation process. Will city staff accept videographic and photographic evidence of ordinance violations from neighbors of STR properties? Will affected residents be able to attend permit revocation hearings and present evidence there? Currently, Pacifica’s permit revocation process is a murky one, where neighbors of problematic STR properties often feel their complaints to the city do not result in any real or sustained penalties to the STR owner/operator.
Code Enforcement and our Police officers cannot be everywhere at all times. With this new, more restrictive ordinance in place, the city will need the help of residents to monitor and report on STR ordinance violations more than ever. I hope that we will be afforded the respect and attention we deserve.
VII.An STR’s Responsible Party Must Be “Local”
Sec. 9-4.4905 Operation Requirements
(c)
The Operator shall, at all times while the Site is being used as a Short-term Rental, maintain a Responsible Party that can be reached via telephone twenty- four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the Short-term Rental. The Responsible Party
5.c
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) shall respond, either in person, or by return telephone call, within thirty (30) minutes of a complaint. The Operator can be identified as the Responsible Party if they can satisfy these requirements;
Allowing an STR Responsible Party to limit their accountability to returning a telephone call within thirty (30) minutes dilutes significantly the purpose of said Responsible Party. For instance, the corporate-owned and -operated unhosted STR next to me has an 855-number that is claimed to be manned 24/7. When I have called it in the past and someone has actually answered the phone (in my experience, late at night no one answers it), I have more often than not ended up speaking to someone in an overseas calling center.
Please compare Pacifica’s proposed language to the following language in Half Moon Bay’s ordinance:
5. Operation Requirements
g. Responsible Party. For hosted short-term vacation rentals, the operator shall be the host and the responsible party. For unhosted short-term vacation rentals, the responsible party may be the property owner, operator, or the operator’s agent. In all cases, the responsible party shall be a local contact person who shall meet all of the following minimum qualifications:
//UBF8T346G9.ms/WebArchiveCopyPasteTempFiles/com.microsoft.Word/page4image6904112"/> <!--[if !vml]--> <!--[endif]-->
i. Be available twenty-four hours per day and seven days per week when the short-term vacation rental is in operation; and
ii. Be accessible and able to respond in person at the short-term vacation rental within a reasonable time (approximately twenty minutes) to any complaint regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of the dwelling; and iii. Be responsive to take remedial action necessary to resolve any violations of the requirements of this section.
Please recommend that Pacifica’s new STR ordinance include language requiring that a Responsible Party: 1) be “local”; 2) be able to arrive at the property within 30 minutes of being alerted to an issue requiring an in-person intervention; and 3) be able to take all remedial action necessary, up to and including the eviction of renters.
VIII.Visitors of STR Renters Must Be Prohibited During Quiet Hours
5.c
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Sec. 9-4.4905 Operation Requirements
(m) <!--[endif]-->In addition to the maximum number of Short-term Renters allowed, the number of guests and visitors allowed at any time in a Short-term Rental shall not exceed one half of the maximum Shortterm Renters allowed; This is requirement is good, but it doesn’t protect against STR renters having visitors arrive at all hours of the day and night, thereby leaving neighborhoods prey to STR “party houses.” Should STR renters be allowed to have visitors arrive at midnight or 3 a.m.? (NB: I have experienced this very thing courtesy of the unhosted STR next to me.)
Please recommend that city staff amend the above to include language stating that visitors and guests of STR renters are not permitted between the quiet hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
IX.Reduce the Number of Nights of Operation for Unhosted STRs from 90 to 60 Sec. 9-4.4905 Operation Requirements
(t) <!--[endif]-->Unhosted Short-Term Rentals. The following additional operation requirements shall apply only to Unhosted Short-term Rentals:
i. An Unhosted Short-term Rental shall be Operated no more than ninety (90) nights per calendar year, commencing on January 1st of each year.
As you are likely aware, Half Moon Bay’s STR ordinance restricts unhosted STRs to a total of 60 nights of operation per year. This was done to protect housing stock and to mitigate the negative effects of unhosted STRs on neighbors and community. (In fact, in a surprising turn of events when HMB’s STR ordinance was presented to the CCC in 2022, the Commissioners sided with the city against their own staff by granting HMB the 60-night limitation even when the city was willing compromise with Commission staff on a limit of 120 nights.)
If City Council’s goals are truly to protect housing stock and mitigate the negative effects of unhosted STRs on neighborhoods and community, then our ordinance must restrict unhosted STR operations to 60 nights.
Please take the following into consideration: 90 nights of operation means a whole-house, unhosted STR in Pacifica is in business 45 out of 52 weekends a year. Or, when factoring in major holidays, 35 weekends, plus a two-night stay for every major holiday. Of course, the property isn’t going to lie fallow the other 275 nights of the year. The owner/operator will likely rent it out on a 31-night, mid-term-rental basis as often as possible. All that results in significant rental profit that will NOT de-incentivize corporations and out-of-town investors from purchasing or hanging onto property to operate as unhosted STRs in Pacifica.
Furthermore, in city staff’s December 5, 2024 report (Packet Page 10), which recounts the November 2024 meeting with CCC staff, it was stated that CCC staff “requested clarifications on the City’s preference of a 90 day over a 60 day limitation.” This implies that even the CCC staff is perplexed as to why Pacifica is not seeking the same 60-night unhosted limit as HMB.
Please recommend that the number of nights an unhosted STR may operate in Pacifica be reduced from 90 to 60.
5.c
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) X. Add “Nuisance” to Description of STR Operations that Trigger Permit Revocation Sec. 9-4.4908 Permit Suspension and Revocation
1. (b) Permit revocation. The Administrator may revoke a Short-term Rental Permit, at the Administrator’s sole discretion, after making a determination that the Operator has violated any of the provisions of this article or is operating the Short-term Rental in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or constitutes a nuisance. A Short-term Rental Permit may also be revoked for the following reasons:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->iv. <!--[endif]-->That the Short-term Rental is being operated in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety; City staff have long been unwilling to cite STRs for being neighborhood nuisances and defining “compliance” almost exclusively in terms of the payment of TOT and permit and business license fees.
Poorly run unhosted STRs with out-of-town owners/operators account for myriad complaints to our police force and Code Enforcement, and many of them are bona fide public nuisances. Therefore, I am concerned about the omission of the word “nuisance” in iv. above and respectfully ask that you please recommend “or constitutes a nuisance” be added to this provision.
XI. No Waiting Until October Permit Renewal Date for New STR Ordinance Provisions to Take Effect Sec. 9-4.4911 Application of Ordinance to Issued Short-term Rental Permits (a) Areas outside the Coastal Zone. Upon the Effective Date of this Ordinance, the following provisions of this Ordinance shall be immediately applicable to all Short-term Rentals in areas outside the Coastal Zone: Sections 9-4.4900, 9-4.4901, 9-4.4902, 9-4.4903(a) and (b), 9-4.4904, 9-
4.4905(a) through (k), 9-4.4906, 9-4.4907, 9-4.4908, 9-4.4909 and 9-4.4910. All other provisions of this Ordinance (Sections 9-4.4903(c) through (f) and 9-4.4905(l) through (t)) shall not apply to Short-term Rentals that have been issued a Short-term Rental Permit prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance until that Short-term Rental Permit is renewed, terminated, or revoked. (b) Areas within the Coastal Zone: Upon certification by the California Coastal Commission of an amendment to the City’s local coastal program relating to the adoption of this Ordinance, the following provisions of this Ordinance shall be immediately applicable to all Short- term Rentals in areas within the Coastal Zone: Sections 9-4.4900, 9-4.4901, 9-4.4902, 9- 4.4903(a) and (b), 9-
4.4904, 9-4.4905(a) through (k), 9-4.4906, 9-4.4907, 9-4.4908, 9-4.4909, and 9-4.4910. All other provisions of this Ordinance (Sections 9-4.4903(c) through (f), 9-4.4905(l) through (t)) shall not apply to Short-term Rentals that have been issued a Short-term Rental Permit prior to the date of Coastal Commission Certification until the Short-term Rental Permit is renewed, terminated or revoked; or two years from the date of adoption of the Ordinance, whichever is earlier.
According to the bolded sections above, none of new STR operating requirements that will provide relief to the community and protect Pacifica’s housing stock (e.g., primary residence requirement, limit of nights for unhosted, one STR per owner, maximum guests per bedroom, off-street parking requirements—even
5.c
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) requiring quiet hours for pools and spas) will take effect, for all intents and purposes, until the current STR permits expire in either October 2025 or October 2026. While I understand the idea of some amnesty period for a portion of the new restrictions, I find it unconscionable to ask residents suffering from disruptive unhosted STR activity to be forced to wait until October 31, 2025 for those living in the noncoastal zone and, ostensibly, until October 31, 2026 for those living in the coastal zone, to be afforded the relief for which they have been clamoring for years.
Please ask city staff to clarify why these delays are being proposed—especially in light of how the community and City Council had been calling out for most of last year the fact that city staff was moving forward with permit approvals last October in a “business-as- usual” fashion instead of delaying the permit renewal process while the new ordinance was being drafted.
In closing, I’d like to point out how disappointing it is to read in city staff’s January 21, 2025 report and resolution prepared for the Planning Commission the repeated overstatement of, in a number of fact-free assertions, the benefits of short-term rental tourists on the local economy. Further, staff ignores work from other cities, such as San Francisco, that demonstrate unhosted STRs have a net negative financial impact because tourists don’t spend money or support local businesses and communities the way permanent residents do (please see the study done by the San Francisco Office of Economic Analysis https://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/6458-150295_economic_impact_final.pdf? documentid=6457).
To this point, city staff has been heard to say at Council meetings, “Pacifica’s not San Francisco.” True, it’s not; but Pacifica is also not the Moon. It doesn’t exist in some strange, inverted time/space vacuum where the normal rules of commerce and economics don’t apply. Tourists visiting Pacifica simply don’t spend money in the same way OR at the same volume or level of consistency that Pacifica’s full-time residents do. In fact, a study done by the Economic Policy Institute (https://files.epi.org/pdf/157766.pdf) concluded that “the economic costs Airbnb imposes [upon a community] likely outweigh the benefits." And while the staff report states correctly that “STRs provide supplemental income opportunities for Pacifica residents,” it fails to note that the large majority (87% per the last count done by Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels https://www.pacificahomesarenothotels.org) of STR owners/operators in Pacifica are NOT residents.
Further, staff’s bemoaning the potential loss of compliant hosts while not acknowledging the cost-savings of purging non-compliant hosts is troubling. How much money will the city save through no longer having to chase non-compliant operators for their TOT and/or whose bad behavior expends Police and Code Enforcement resources? Isn’t there a significant cost-saving benefit from having fewer of these? These decidedly biased sentiments and fact-free assertions about STR impact on our local economy are regurgitated in Sections 3b. i-vi and 3c. i-iv of the Resolution created for the Planning Commissioners' signatures. I hope that the Commission will ask for those sections to be struck from the Resolution or, at the very least, require staff to provide a report created by an outside, objective consulting firm to verify staff’s grandiose claims before signing.
Finally, it’s frustrating to see nowhere, in either the staff report or draft ordinance, language requiring accountability from STR platforms like Airbnb, VRBO, Booking.com, and even from smaller ones like Marbella Lane Vacation Rentals (https://www.marbellalane.com). I understand it's daunting to imagine taking a Goliath such as Airbnb to court, but shouldn’t Pacifica at least maintain the option to do so—or to at least grant a private right of action to its citizens to do so—especially if Airbnb and other platforms continue making a profit on unpermitted STRs, i.e., illegal activity? If you have read this far, THANK YOU! I am grateful for your time and service to our community.
5.c
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Sincerely,
Caitlin Quinn
West Sharp Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: mark stechbart
To: Public Comment
Subject: Jan 21 planning STR testimony
Date: Monday, January 20, 2025 3:50:00 PM
Importance: High
[CAUTION: External Email]
STRs have zero neighborhood support. No one clamors for STRs. In fact, I defy anyone of find a municipality anywhere in US that is expanding its STR program.
Best solution is abolish. City generally incapable of enforcement (only late 2024 did city wake up, and no hearings I am aware of. 916 Park Pacifica did not have a hearing even after 50 people and 25 cars at a wedding, amplified music you could hear for 500 yards..) Otherwise make enforcement easy for PD and neighbors.
The resolution in the 1/21 commission report reads glowingly about arguably false and certainly unproven “attributes” of STRs.
Reads like an ad for AirBNB. Never know Council has been bombarded for over a year with a severe litany of neighborhood complains. Neighborhood complaints were casually glossed over by staff.
Res sections 3B and C. Strike. This ramp-up of STR unearned positives probably will tie council hands in the future when more restrictions will be needed. STR operators will say, look city loves us, what right or reason does council have to finally wake up and restrict? This language is untrue and a trap.
Staff complaint: city addicted to tot revenue. Admin costs high. Too bad. Neighborhoods come first. Make program self sustaining: increase tot and fees to cover.
ADU use shift. Strike. ADUs are designed to increase affordability.
Staff wants ADUs to morph into a haven for operators and not affordable renters. Vacated operator primary dwelling at same address becomes a STR? Is this “new” str” unhosted? Worst of all worlds: lose a rental ADU, convert a single family home into an unwanted STR for transients. Is the ADU vacated when “owner” “operator” moves back
5.c
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) into the primary residence when STR period expires? What a mess. A single family home moves to STR and not available even for a rental family. A ADU is moved off the rental market to a contrived STR operator residence.
Institute a citizen oversight advisory committee because the neighborhoods are more active and focused on STRs than either Council or staff.
Retain current pretty solid noise ordinance Chapter 10, Title 5. No noise off perimeter. Sounds carry long distances in most neighborhoods. STR occupants on vacation do not care about neighborhood impact—they are on vacation and having fun= noise and neighborhood insensitivity.
Staff has this fixation with 10PM to 7AM time periods. That does not work in my neighborhood.
Chapter 10, Title 5 prohibits any noise that is annoying. Strike all noise and outside use references to 10PM to 7 AM. Zero noise outside property perimeter 24/7. No outside use at all 7PM to 9AM.
Policy Considerations:
Number of days 60. No more. 90 is an artificial guess for no compelling reason, benefits speculative operators and only prolongs neighborhood annoyance.
Parking: appears no on-street parking permitted for occupants. But visitors totally unregulated.
Very supportive-- • Primary Residence Requirement.
Oppose-- • Weak Occupancy Limits: not counting kids a fool’s errand.
The updated Ordinance should contain a provision restricting STR occupancy to a maximum of two occupants per bedroom. The maximum occupancy requirement would not apply to children under the age of twelve.
2 people per bedroom puts 916 Park Pacifica at 8 people when census
5.c
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) average is 2.7. Why give away the store to out-of-town speculators? Don’t count kids? How about the several sports teams who have visited 916 Park Pacifica with 10 or more kids? What exactly does a 12 year old look like? Who is going to demand id?
Is PD going to roll up on house in Jan at 10PM to count occupants and ages? PD can't get into house and cannot force everyone out. On Nextdoor, I will urge all neighbors to complain about occupancy to always call PD and have PD sort it out. Totally unenforceable. Why have occupancy limits with unlimited sleeping bags in the living room? Under new improved Pac ordinance, 916 will contain 8 adults and unlimited kids. 20-30 total??
STR Density: 1000 ft separation.
No day visitors taking additional street parking places, and exceeding house limits.
Why have 2 per bedroom, unlimited kids plus visitors? So 916 could have 8 adults, 20 kids plus 14 visitors (visitors half of legal occupancy with unlimited cars on street) = 42! Who is going to count?? Identify and inspection of hosted and unhosted-- -- . All repair work needs to be licensed and to code. Safety equipment applies to both.
Hosted need an identification plaque, biz license, proof host actually owns house and is in it, etc.
Hearings, documents and locator map: City has had no public hearings and avoided responsibility for years Re 2018 enabling ordinance assurances. Hearings must be noticed and open to public. All permit apps and docs on city website, with locator map.
No provision for public to learn about a violation hearing or testify at violation hearing. No provision for public to appeal a weak hearing officer decision.
Locator map: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html? appid=a8c0865543ba41feb95ba23dba899a5e
5.c
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Advisory oversight committee is required. Hearings public.
Management contact, responsible party (RP) : in person within 30 minutes. Operator/ RP will always say in person not needed, so make in person mandatory. PD should be first call. If PD not first call, PD must accompany all RP in person visits to document. Otherwise violations glossed over, not in city administrative file and forgotten. Then permit revocation strikes will be meaningless.
Enforcement Procedures for Unpermitted STRs – reveal city enforcement plan, otherwise neighbors will develop a hunt program and post on Nextdoor.
Plaque on house identifying property as STR or hosted.
Details: max occupancy, max cars, PD phone, manager name and phone, no noise off perimeter. A QR code is useless after dark or in the rain in January.
See new ord 9-4.4905
Sections l, m,n o
Maximum overnight occupancy for all Short-term Rentals shall not exceed two (2) Short-term Renters per Legally Permitted Bedroom.
Children under the age of twelve (12) shall not count towards these occupancy limits;
--not counting kids weak, discussed above
In addition to the maximum number of Short-term Renters allowed, the number of guests and visitors allowed at any time in a Short-term Rental shall not exceed one half of the maximum Short-term Renters allowed; With unlimited kids, sky is limit for visitors with massive on-street parking problems looming. Discussed above
Use of all outdoor pools, spas and hot tubs shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.;
Strike: conflicts with Chapter 10 and certainly hijacks current neighbor practices.
5.c
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Any machine, device or equipment that amplifies music inside any Short-term Rental shall not be heard beyond the property line of the Short-term Rental at all times;
This works and must be applied to all noise and activities inside or out.
publication: no one in Pacifica reads san mateo daily journal. No one reads Pac tribune either. For legal publication, Daily Journal is required. But for proper public disclosure, use Nextdoor. City publishes all sorts of chatty communications on ND. Staff knows how to use ND, just doesn't want to.
mark stechbart
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Gary Furlong
To: Hauser, Samantha; Ferguson, Alex; Berman, Lauren; Devine, Daniella; Godwin, James; Redfield, Chris Cc: City Council; Public Comment; Beckmeyer, Sue; Bier, Mary; Boles, Christine; Espinosa, Mayra; Wright, Greg Subject: Item 1: Repeal and Replace Article 49, Short Term Rentals Date: Monday, January 20, 2025 10:08:26 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Planning Commission Chair Samantha Hauser, Vice Chair Alex Ferguson and Commissioners, It is my understanding that on Tuesday evening, January 21, you will be reviewing the draft of the new city ordinance in regards to Short Term Rentals (STRs) in Pacifica. It is past time that we officially recognize that neighborhoods are for neighbors and not for hotels; the blight of unhosted STRs has had a significant impact on the quality of life in our neighborhoods and has also robbed the city of Pacifica of much needed housing during a housing shortage. I encourage you to review this new ordinance with an eye toward ensuring the quality of life in our neighborhoods and encouraging that our houses are used for homes, not for hotels.
In reading through the staff report there are some things that I feel the need to highlight. * On packet page 127 there is a reference to, "....STRs have historically been a major contributor to the City’s revenue..." (emphasis mine) Balderdash. To refer to anything dealing with the modern version of STRs as "historical" is just odd as they have only been around in their current, unhosted, full-time form for a few years. Yes, the city has collected TOT from STRs for the last few years but at the expense of our neighborhoods and, overall, at the expense of the city itself. The AirBnB data that was shared in a letter in the agenda packet for the August 26, 2024 City Council meeting noted that "A typical Host on Airbnb in Pacifica has guests for a little over three months a year...". Which financially benefits the city more: an STR that is rented out for an average of a little more than 3 months a year or a house that is occupied by a family 12 months of the year? We hear that tourists support our businesses and that's true when they're here; a house that's used for a family does the same thing (and more!) twelve months out of the year. Not only do they visit the coffee shops they also visit the vet offices, the dentist office, the dry cleaners, the hardware stores, and so on and so on. Plus when a house is occupied full time there's a chance that will mean more children in our beleaguered school system. Right now the local school system is debating closing one of their facilities due to declining enrollment, something that unhosted STRs have made worse by displacing families with children. I would point out that numerous other cities have already passed similar ordinances and have emerged stronger for it; Pacifica is not "breaking new ground", instead we're bringing up the rear of the line. * On packet page 130, under "Neighborhood Impacts" it says: To address community concerns and ensure STRs operate in a compatible manner with existing residential uses, the Draft Ordinance significantly expands STR operation requirements, including differentiating operational requirements for hosted and unhosted rentals." (emphasis mine). Elsewhere in this document reference is again made to the difference between hosted and unhosted. This has me confused. This draft specifies that an STR must be a primary residence and that it can only be an unhosted STR for three months per year (90 days); is that what is being referenced in the above citation? As I understand it, going forward there will be no full time unhosted
5.c
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) STRs. So what is the operational difference that is being referenced? * On packet page 131 it is stated, "However, the Draft Ordinance would allow the Operator of a Hosted Short-term Rental to reside in an ADU or Junior ADU and operate the STR in the main residence on the site where the STR is located..." Very serious thought needs to be given to allowing this to happen (the owner of an ADU to move into the ADU and then use their main residence as an STR). Pacifica's ordinance authorizing ADUs is clear that the specific purpose of ADUs is to increase the availability of affordable housing ( Section 9-4.451(c) PURPOSE). The city ordinance plainly envisions an ADU as providing the city with an additional, and affordable, housing unit. The city ordinance specifically prohibits using an ADU as an STR ( Section 9-4.453 (6) Development Standards,"If any accessory dwelling unit is rented, terms of rental shall not be less than thirty (30) consecutive days..." ). Allowing this switch around is just a way to get around this, which will reduce our housing stock during a time when we're in need of more housing stock, particularly affordable housing stock. (This issue is also addressed on packet page 145, Sec. 9-4.4903, item "a"). * In regards to the financial cost to the city of administering this program it is important to remember that the STR program is a for-profit enterprise. As such the STR permit holders should bear the full cost of the program. It may well be that the city would want to consider a graduated scale for permit cost, perhaps based on how many bedrooms are being rented, but the entire cost should be allocated to the program itself. * Packet page 149, item (c) Mandates a 24/7 responsible party who must respond to complaints within 30 minutes by phone or in person. I have read through a great many city ordinances dealing with STRs. Our version of the "person on call" is extremely odd in that it doesn't state that someone must be available IN PERSON within a set period of time, usually within 30 to 60 minutes. A phone call will not always get the job done, sometimes someone must go there in person and deal with the situation. Please check a variety of other STR ordinances and you'll see that while many allow for a phone call first, almost all then require someone to show up in person within no more than 60 minutes (and some require within 30 minutes). If there is a problem with a temporarily unhosted STR at 3am the neighbors have the right to know that someone is going to quickly resolve the issue instead of letting it drag on the rest of the night while phone calls go back and forth. The way the ordinance is currently written just begs for STR owners to forward their phone to their vacation rental in some foreign country; good luck with getting anything resolved by someone 4,000 miles away.
* There must be an inspection of all STRs to ensure compliance with the ordinance, this is just common sense.
* While it is essential that the ordinance require the posting of permit numbers on all forms of advertising, the city also needs to work out the details of platform accountability. Other cities (such as San Francisco) have been done this, has defended it in court and it has worked. If Pacifica modeled their platform accountability on what has already been proven legal in court, such as San Francisco's, then it would ensure its success. * I would encourage the Commission to consider recommending that the City change its proposed ordinance to only allow 60 unhosted days per year instead of 90. 90 unhosted days is essentially 3 months per year that a house can be an unhosted STR (for example, all of June, all of July and most of August), or, to look at it another way, 45 out of 52 weekends per year.
5.c
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) That's just too much time. The emphasis has got to be on preserving our neighborhoods and their quality of life. Neighborhoods are built on the continuity of everyday life, something impossible to achieve when some of the houses are rented out to strangers for up to 3 months a year with no host onsite.
* Packet page 150, item (m): In addition to the maximum number of Short-term Renters allowed, the number of guests and visitors allowed at any time in a Short-term Rental shall not exceed one half of the maximum Short-term Renters allowed. This needs to be amended to say, "No guests are allowed between the hours of 9pm and 8am." Without a time restriction on visitors then "visitors" can spend the night and it not count toward the total number of people allowed in the STR overnight, after all they're just "visiting", right? If a house has two STR bedrooms then there can be a total of four adult "renters" plus two visitors for a total of six that can spend the night, if there isn't a time restriction on visitors. * Packet page 144, item (j) under definitions. "“Person” means natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity." So the ordinance is defining basically anything as a person? How does this reconcile with the operational requirement listed on packet page 130, "Requires STRs to be primary residences."?
* Packet page 138: (starting on packet page 137 under the heading, "The Planning Commission hereby finds..."), under item "b", numbers "ii" and "iv" cannot be determined without the city authorizing a comprehensive cost analysis of the impact of STRs on the city's finances and thus these should be stricken from this document. While unhosted STRs do bring in some TOT, they do so at the cost of displacing people who want to own, or rent long-term, houses to live in; people who would be shopping here, paying taxes here, sending children to our schools, etc. In addition, there is also good reason to believe that hotels have limited their presence here due the competition of largely unregulated, unhosted STRs. Based on the work that has been done elsewhere there is actually good reason to believe that unhosted STRs actually cost the city more than they produce (in terms of revenue) when the total picture is considered. Again, without a comprehensive cost analysis it is fallacious to make the above listed claims. Just stating that something is true doesn't actually make it so.
I would also ask the commissioners to do all within their power to encourage the city to begin looking at bringing additional hotels into our city. Now that we'll be able to offer the hotels some assurance that they won't be having unregulated competition from unhosted STRs I would think that the chances of developing new hotels would increase significantly.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Regards,
Gary Furlong
5.c
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Remi Tan
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Comment Pacifica Citty Council Meeting agenda - Mayor Date: Monday, January 20, 2025 12:18:57 AM
[CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Council: I would like to comment on the upcoming agenda item on the mayor pro tem appointment.
I heard that the city council meeting on 12/09/24 that Councilmember Boles was passed up for mayor pro tem for this year in favor of Councilmember Bier. This does not make any sense and does not follow typical and historical protocol of the rotating mayor and mayor protem. I am happy to see the city council has decided to revisit the appointment for mayor pro tem on the next council meeting.
Councilmember Bier have previously served as Mayor in her previous term and was re-elected in 2022 with the term ending in 2026. Councilmember Boles was elected in 2022 with term ending in 2026 and never has served as Mayor. Council member Wright and Espinosa were just newly elected in 2024 with term ending in 2028. (Councilmember Beckmeyer was the previous mayor pro tem last year and now is mayor, following protocol.)
As Councilmember Boles is the most senior councilmember that has not served as mayor, it is logical and following typical historical protocol that she should be appointed mayor pro tem.
There was conversation at the last meeting where some of the councilmembers thought Councilmember Boles was" not ready" to be Mayor. This is farthest from the truth.
Councilmember Boles is probably the
most qualified to be Mayor and lead our city though hard times. Over the last two years, she has carefully read and analyzed all agenda packet items and, she has asked staff, engineers, project applicants the hardest, most detailed questions on issues, projects that come before council and thus she has done the most out of all the councilmembers to protect our city and make sure we get the best resolutions on issues and the best projects for the city and our citizens and businesses.
Plus her constituent newsletters are detailed and informative and keeps us constituents well informed of all local issues affecting the city and our district. We never gotten newsletters from our previous councilmembers, so this was very refreshing.
I urge the council to vote and appoint Councilmember Boles as our mayor pro tem this year. This would allow her to be mayor in 2026 in the last year of her current term.
Thank you and Best Regards,
Remi Tan, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Architecture, Green/Sustainability Consulting, and Real Estate Investment District 2 Pacific Manor/Edgemar
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) From: Updegrave, Samantha
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Letter Opposing Short-term Rental Program Amendment (article 49 replacement) Date: Sunday, January 19, 2025 4:00:51 PM
Attachments: Letter Opposing STR Program Ammendment.pdf From: Pacifica for Responsible Tourism <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 5:35 PM
To: Hauser, Samantha <[email protected]>; Ferguson, Alex <[email protected]>; Redfield, Chris <[email protected]>; Devine, Daniella <[email protected]>; Godwin, James <[email protected]>; Berman, Lauren <[email protected]>; Updegrave, Samantha <[email protected]>
Cc: Woodhouse, Kevin <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter Opposing Short-term Rental Program Amendment (article 49 replacement) [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear City Planning Commission Members,
Please see our letter outlining concerns with the STR Program Amendment (attached below). We are urging all members of the Planning Commission to "vote no” on this amendment and have outlined, in the attached letter, our concerns and requests before voting on the matter this Tuesday, January 21, 2025.
We understand the time constraints of your role, but please realize our group represents over 100 STR operators and local businesses — therefore we ask that these concerns, before the vote, be given consideration.
We do appreciate your time.
Sincerely,
Russell Jones
Pacifica for Responsible Tourism
http://www.pacificatourism.org
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize
5.c
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.
5.c
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Friday, January 17, 2025
D. Russell Jones
Pacifica for Responsible Tourism
[email protected]
To All Members of the Pacifica Planning Commission:
The Pacifica City Council has recently enacted an ordinance that will have adverse financial consequences for our city and impact all residents. We strongly oppose this ordinance, which restricts un-hosted short-term rental (STR) operators to a 90-day annual limit. We believe this ordinance was hastily drafted based on erroneous assumptions.
We urge the Planning Commission to vote against this ordinance. By returning it to the City Council for a thorough review, we propose that the STR ordinance can accommodate the concerns of residents adversely affected by irresponsible operators while simultaneously allowing responsible actors to contribute essential revenue to our city’s budget.
We are a group that represents STR operators. We have collaborated with small business owners and residents in crafting this email, urging you to vote “no” on this ordinance.
In this letter, we will provide detailed analysis of our concerns, including 1) why we feel the ordinance was drafted irresponsibly 2) what we believe the negative outcomes of this ordinance will be and 3) possible compromises to address our concerns.
I. Irresponsible Ordinance
The vast majority of short-term rental operators are good, honest operators who bring a lot of value to Pacifica. In fact, complaints against the roughly 150 tax paying operators center around just 4 of those operators in the city and founded complaints about STR operators make up less than 0.2% of all police complaints in our city.
5.c
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Furthermore, the revenue generated by responsible operators is substantial. During the Study Session on August 24, a Council Member asserted that the city’s shortterm rental program was costly and therefore unprofitable. Since the ordinance was passed partially based on this false claim, it would be relevant for the Planning Commission to reject this ordinance on this fact alone.
So let’s look at this claim made by the Council Member. The claim that the cost of running the STR programs generates a $40,000 deficit for the city is found on page 76 of the FY23-24 city budget book. Essentially, the permit fees short-term rentals paid amounted to $243,300, while the cost of the STR program was $285,300 — leaving a shortfall of $42,000.
However, the permit fees are just a small portion of what our Airbnb operators contribute. Including the TOT, we generated over $2M, while the city's cost is only $285K. And of course, in addition to ToT there is revenue from tourism dollars that goes directly to small businesses. Any corporation or business would be thrilled to have an operating cost to profit spread like this. Why is Pacifica thumbing its nose to such clear revenue, especially when the city already runs a structural deficit? As a Planning Commission it is imperative that you pause and consider the irresponsible actions of the City Council in drafting this harmful ordinance. I say this not only as a Short-term Operator, but as a resident and tax payer living and working in Pacifica.
During the Study Session held on August 24, our City Manager, Kevin Woodhouse, said: ‘If the City Council passes this ordinance, then next year I will come back to you with an outline of city services that need to be cut.’ In essence, the City Council’s actions are tantamount to someone discovering they have a minor cockroach problem — so they decide to burn down their house.
Furthermore, the short-term operators who engaged in public speaking and correspondence with the Council were largely disregarded in the final decisionmaking process. This issue clearly creates a rift within our community, as outlined in the SF Standard article referenced below:
https://sfstandard.com/2024/09/06/pacifica-airbnbs-regulations/ It is important to note that an equal number of residents attended those meetings asking that the Council not create an environment hostile to responsible operators.
And yet, in the private words of a Council Member, the regulations drafted ‘are designed to make it so onerous to operate an STR that most un-hosted operators will voluntarily withdraw and stop operating in our city.’ In other words, there was an implicit bias against all operators whether they had done anything wrong or not.
5.c
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) It is important to clarify that our objective is not to promote unchecked growth in short-term rentals.
• We believe the current cap of 150 total STR licenses per year is good for the city.
• We believe reasonable ordinance updates, like requiring noise meters on the outside grounds and allowing city employees to view meter readings whenever there is a complaint are good for the city.
• We also believe that requiring the host or representative to answer the phone or be on-site within 30 minutes upon receiving a complaint is a reasonable update to our city requirements.
The problem with the 90-day cap on un-hosted operators is that it will drive many good operators out of business — when they have done nothing wrong. The vast majority of these operators only own one property that they operate. It is a lifetime investment. They have acted responsibly and the council carelessly passed a law that will stifle their business and make it impossible to operate at a profit — and this was done intentionally.
In addition to harming a large cross-section of responsible entrepreneurs, this ordinance will impact Pacifica’s small businesses. If you review the number of letters from small business owners in Pacifica sent to the Council during their review, they all tell the same story: these businesses regularly have visitors who come into their shops and restaurants who are staying at a local STR.
The group Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels has repeatedly made the claim that guests at STRs do not spend money in Pacifica. They make this claim with zero evidence. However, attached to this letter, I have included countless reviews from STR guests who outline the many ways they have frequented our small businesses and have come here to enjoy the peaceful quite and beauty of Pacifica (see attached Addendum I).
Of course, there is a common sense approach to this question: of course responsible tourism is good for Pacifica. Of course, $2 million dollars in extra revenue is good for our budget. Of course, it is good to support local entrepreneurs and small businesses who are struggling to survive and have done nothing wrong.
For these reasons, we make the case that this ordinance was drafted and passed irresponsibly:
• The majority of operators are responsible
• The revenue from STR is essential to the economic health of our city
5.c
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) • The needs and concerns of responsible STR operators were ignored during the drafting of this ordinance
• The ordinance was intentionally drafted to force un-hosted operators out of business
• The ordinance will harm the many small businesses who benefit from tourists staying at an STR
II. Potential Outcomes of this Ordinance
We have already outlined some potential negative impacts of this ordinance. First, it was intentionally designed to drive un-hosted operators out of Pacifica. Many of these fellow operators sank their life savings into buying property here to create valuable tourism revenue in our community. It is true, there are a small number of bad actors, however this ordinance does nothing to target unwanted behavior and instead paints all operators with the same illegitimate brush.
Currently our city operates in a structural deficit, to further reduce revenue by driving out good operators who currently generate nearly 5% of our city budget is short-sighted at best. As a Planning Commission, we beg you to consider these implications and place a pause on the former City Council’s actions.
In addition, we know several small businesses already submitted written pleas to the City Council, emphasizing the essential role of tourism in their livelihoods. Many of these businesses, particularly those located in District 2, do not have hotels to attract tourists in these areas. They solely rely on local residents, guests from short-term rentals (STRs) and other day-trippers to generate demand, revenue and foot traffic.
We ask again that you review Addendum I, which presents numerous, clear written examples of the positive impact these visitors have on our community.
Ignoring these requests will have adverse effects on business. However, there are additional outcomes that are more difficult to quantify but are logically inevitable.
Currently, the housing market in Pacifica is experiencing a shift characterized by extended listing periods. A notable example is a duplex on Beach Boulevard, which remained unsold for an unusually long time, prompting its removal from the market.
Several factors contribute to this change, some of which are within our control, while others are beyond it.
One factor that cannot be controlled is the high-interest rates currently affecting the market. However, if the majority of the current 150 Short-Term Rental (STR) operators are compelled to sell due to the inability to generate a profit (as this
5.c
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) ordinance aims to achieve), it will result in an influx of additional inventory into the market at a time when demand is already experiencing a decline.
Furthermore, many of these properties were acquired during periods of high demand and record valuations. If they are purchased in the near future at lower costs in the current cooling market, they will generate lower annual property taxes for the city.
Just as importantly, the current STR operators create affordable access to our coastline. If you read the guest comments we have provided (see Addendum I), you will see many refer to living in the Bay Area and being able to spend the weekend on the coast, visit family nearby, or a desire to get away from the heat in the East Bay.
Not only does Pacifica not have hotel inventory to meet this demand, this customer base prefers a whole house option, where they can gather, play board games, watch movies together, go on hikes together, browse local shops and eat at nearby restaurants. The group Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels are fixated on a few isolated instances where this is not the case. We are providing countless data points to prove the contrary.
It would be difficult to talk about consequences of this ordinance without quoting from the city’s own assessment:
The 90-day rental cap for un-hosted STRs alone is projected to reduce TOT revenue by $850,000–$900,000, assuming all currently permitted STRs continue operating under these conditions — a scenario unlikely given the expected attrition of operators due to these restrictions.
Revenue losses in the future could range from $950,000 to $1.2 million annually.
This estimate excludes the broader economic implications of this ordinance on Pacifica’s local economy, such as sales tax impacts to visitor-serving businesses, including restaurants, cafes, and retail establishments, who rely heavily on the hospitality sector.
The implementation and enforcement of the revised STR ordinance will likely result in substantial increases in administrative costs. New operational requirements, such as permit cap management, monitoring STR activities, and ensuring compliance, will require additional staff time and resources. The added complexities of the new regulations, such as tracking rental activities, identifying violations, bringing noncompliant accounts into compliance, initiating permit revocation processes, and compiling evidentiary packets for hearings are expected to significantly increase third-party administrative expenses. Preliminary estimates suggest these third-party costs could increase by $50,000–
5.c
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) $100,000 annually, not counting additional staff capacity that may be required to manage the increased complexities of the program.
In other words, this hastily crafted ordinance, based largely on hyperbolic accusations and demonizing of a majority of highly engaged citizens, will financially be devastating to our struggling economy and housing market. The Planning Commission should vote “no.”
However, there is another less direct negative outcome by allowing this ordinance to pass as is. It is harder to define, but no less real. There is a small group of highly organized, vocal residents. They wield a lot of political power. They show up to every key council meeting, they have organized talking points and they often rely on false information and accusations to move forward agendas that harm Pacifica and are largely designed to keep Pacifica solely for long-term Pacifica residents — and exclude outsiders or newcomers.
I certainly have experienced the impact of this group. They speak about me as if I am less than human because I operate an STR. They are hostile in social media chats, they throw accusations but refuse to provide proof. The council gave them a lot of power when they ignored our concerns and passed an ordinance designed to give them everything they asked for: basically drive out short-term rental operators.
Pacifica already had a good foundation for its short-term rental operations. Revenue was good, we had a reasonable cap of 150 operators. We only had to refine our policy to eliminate bad actors and possibly distribute the STR operations more equitably in neighborhoods. But this vocal group weren’t willing to listen to compromise. They didn’t care who their ordinance affected.
If you allow this ordinance to move forward as is, you give credence to the tactics they utilize. This possibly could be the greatest negative impact.
Pacifica has important issues ahead of us. We have the quarry development, we have a seawall we need to consider, we have tensions on the council around the selection of mayor — with accusations that are outlandish.
This group has learned that spreading misinformation is the way to succeed. It would hopefully reframe future conversations if the Planning Commission were to stop this absurd ordinance and demand that Pacifica take a second look – one that factors in real problems with real solutions. One that eliminates bad actors, but allows responsible hosts to thrive.
5.c
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) III. Possible Compromises
Prior to the enactment of this sweeping and potentially detrimental government overreach, our group meticulously developed several straightforward alternatives.
We crafted our proposals after carefully listening to the concerns expressed by frustrated citizens who participated in the Study Sessions. We care about our fellow citizens and want to ensure that no one lives next to an irresponsible, careless STR operator.
We created 6 proposal ideas. All of them, if enacted, would have easily allowed Pacifica to continue enjoying the benefits of short-term rentals, without suffering from any of the outlined grievances of some citizens.
While it may seem irrelevant now that the ordinance has passed the Council, we have included our original 6 Proposals in Addendum II for your review.
We are proud to find that many of these ideas wound up in the new ordinance and we take issue with none of them. The main points in the new ordinance that we take issue with are:
• 90-day cap on un-hosted operations: this makes operating an STR in Pacifica impractical and honestly impossible for almost all current operators
• Primary residence requirement: this requirement should be stricken from the ordinance and is unnecessary
• Sign posted with personal contact information is unnecessary and excessive considering a good host willingly shares this with their neighbors and knows their neighbors personally
• 3 year record keeping requirement for any host seems excessively onerous
As we outlined, these provisions were intentionally designed to drive good operators out of business — and it will. There are a couple of reasonable compromises that we feel will address the concerns of our group concerning the un-hosted requirement:
1. Redefine hosted listing as “owner or representative can be on the premisses within 45 minutes of any and all complaints.”
5.c
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
2. Remove the 90-day cap on un-hosted listings and rely on licensing and penalties to restrict bad operators and thereby leave responsible hosts alone.
Either of these changes to the ordinance will leave us feeling like we have been heard — and the needs of small businesses, city revenues and our hard working STR entrepreneurs in good standing are being acknowledged.
As far as the excessive administrative aspects of this ordinance, they should be removed simply for the benefit of the city, it’s tax strains and revenue realities. Few of them offer any real advantage and simply add costs to a city budget already under duress. We have no objection to most of them other than as a tax payer, government corpulence is never a good thing. If the City Planning Commission or Council would like an itemized list of the excessive administrative aspects of this ordinance, I’d be happy to offer a line item assessment upon request.
IV. Summary
In short, tourism revenue represents a significant portion of our city's income and some individuals are threatening to take it away due to a few bad actors. We believe that thoughtful enforcement is all that's necessary to maintain this revenue, rather than excessive government regulation.
The city's own employees have warned the Council this will result in an immediate decline in city taxes and fees collected. In the words of our own City Manager: if this is passed, then next year we will need to outline city services that need to be cut.
We urge you to consider the negative implications of this poorly drafted ordinance.
It not only affects STR operators but detrimentally impacts all Pacificans. It is excessive in scope and unnecessarily adds administrative costs to the city while reducing revenue. It is an ordinance created in haste, contrary to overwhelming evidence and without a fair and partial view of how it impacts our city, our resources and the entrepreneurs of this city. Please vote “no.”
Sincerely,
D. Russell Jones
Pacifica for Responsible Tourism
[email protected]
5.c
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Addendum I: Reviews from local STR guests in Pacifica
Below is a list of reviews from just one Airbnb in Pacifica, where guests express their love for the tranquility of Pacifica. They emphasize that stays in Pacifica offer a unique experience that cannot be replicated in hotels. They also praise our charming shops, restaurants and businesses.
09.23 Beautiful spacious bright home and outdoor area in the center of Pacifica. All that you need for your stay was available! Comfy Beds, plenty of blankets, towels, spices to cook a meal, etc. and delish red velvet cupcakes upon arrival from host! Great hiking trails, pacific ocean a block away, and local businesses to enjoy! We were lucky to enjoy FOG FEST annual festival that has been taking place in the community for over 30 years. We will be back for sure!
09.24 Fun & relaxing stay at this cozy cottage. Xiaojing is an exceptional host...helpful, responsive & respects your privacy. Cottage has everything you need for comfy nights, movie watching, or daily sunset strolls on the pier or beach, a walk or catching Bart into San Francisco. Restaurants, markets, antique stores & golf course within walking distance. Loved our time in Pacifica! Keep doing what you are doing! Appreciate how easy you make remembering the door code & all the special touches.
Your kindness & understanding & knowledge of the area were such a gift! Thank you!
12.24 We truly enjoyed our cozy stay in Pacifica. I loved walking just a block down to the ocean. My dogs and I took long walks to Mori Point and explored the numerous trails that offered breathtaking views. It was a quiet space where we could spend quality time together as a family. The house was well-equipped with kitchen utensils and small appliances, making it perfect for our needs. Overall, it was the ideal place for family time.
10.24 My dogs and I had a great stay at Albert (Xiaojing) and Russell's house. I've stayed at many Airbnb's over the years and this was the first time it felt like someone's actual home. While there were some personal items and food around, it was still thoughtfully prepared for guests and felt like I was staying at a friend's home. The homemade cookies and dog treats left for us were delicious and very welcoming. Free of clutter, clean, comfortable, and homey — with the best welcome binder I've ever seen! My dogs loved hanging out in the backyard and the location is central to some
5.c
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) great hiking and beaches. I appreciated that Pacifica did not feel as touristy as most Bay Area locations are.
07.24 This stay is a gem — an absolutely brilliant gem. The quiet location makes for an exceptional starting point for travels about the area. The little town is full of local coffee shops and eateries, and everything is walkable for those who can. Otherwise, it is an easy drive. The nearby hiking is superb, and strolls along the ocean are incredible. The house is spotless, bright, sunny, and full of amenities. I wholeheartedly recommend this stay.
07.24 This is the place to book if you want a beautiful atmosphere that feels safe, private and comfortable with all the amenities you could ask for and excellent hosts. Very responsive and even left homemade gluten free cookies for us on arrival, and ensured my parcels were kept safe on pre delivery for our arrival. Much better value than staying in a hotel in the city while still close enough to Uber to the sites and airport. Thank you so much for our beautiful stay.
08.24 I would highly recommend staying here. We had a great stay. The host was very responsive and kind enough to leave some homemade muffins which were absolutely delicious. The space was very clean and comfortable. All the amenities you would need inside and plenty of sights to see and things to do in walking distance from the house.
07.24 What a wonderful place! We were greated with fresh blueberry muffins. I stepped on to the back patio and could smell the salt ocean breeze. We thoroughly enjoyed the house, it was amazing and had everything we needed and more. You can walk the board walk a mile to a short hike and it's beautiful. If we're ever in the area we will definitely want to stay here again.
06.24 Love this place. It's the perfect location to really get a feel for the Pacifica life! Highly recommend the hosts too — they're so flexible and accommodating!!
06.24 We absolutely loved this place! The hosts are so accommodating and have made a highly enjoyable home for guests visiting Pacifica. The home is centrally located and steps away from the ocean. We loved riding our bikes and walking the neighborhoods. Even the neighbors were friendly!
10.24 We had a great stay at Xiaojing's place. The house was clean, comfortable, and had
5.c
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) all the amenities needed. It was only 5-10 min drive to the beach with Taco Bell which is a nice point to surf. Xiaojing was so kind to leave us some home-made delicious cookies and even treats for our dog! The instructions about the house were clear, and they were very responsive. The restaurant recommendations were also very helpful (tried one and liked it a lot). Definitely would love to stay there again.
05.24 my husband and I truly enjoyed our stay at Albert and Russell's place! we were in town for my graduation and they had balloons, a card, cupcakes, and flowers there to congratulate me, which was so unbelievably kind and generous! It blew me away and made me feel so special! also, the house was in a great location (you can walk to the beach, restaurants, and a corner store), extremely clean, had everything we needed to cook and keep their place clean, and the beds were the most comfortable we've ever slept in. We loved the personal touches around their house (especially the dog pictures) and after a bit, we felt like we were staying at a friends home. their communication was prompt, friendly, and warm. they let us check in early and there wasn't a lot of hassle upon check out. We come back to the bay pretty often and this will definitely be 'our home' when we come to pacifica. Thank you Albert and Russell.
We will never forget how special you made our trip.
05.24 This was such a wonderful stay! Quiet, peaceful, very easy to get to the city but also really nice just to walk around Pacifica. Great, responsive, and kind hosts. Would absolutely stay again!
05.24 Such a lovely house and beautiful, peaceful location. The hosts were friendly and easy to communicate with.
03.24 A wonderful stay at this cozy, chic, and clean home. We enjoyed the walkability of the neighborhood. So many great local businesses to explore, and just a block from the ocean. The bed in the primary was soooooo comfortable. We also loved all the natural light and how kind and considerate our host was over messages.
11.23 This was by far one of the best Airbnb's I have ever stayed in. The place is clean and well stocked with amenities. The high ceilings and skylights are an added touch to make it feel comfortable and homey. The location is convenient to SF but far enough away to provide some peace and quiet. The neighborhood is great with cafes, restaurants, grocery stores and the stunning beach within walking distance. Xiaojing is a responsive, accommodating host and even made us muffins. We will definitely be back!
5.c
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates)
09.23 What a wonderful place! We were greeted with fresh blueberry muffins. I stepped on to the back patio and could smell the salt ocean breeze. We thoroughly enjoyed the house, it was amazing and had everything we needed and more. You can walk the boardwalk a mile to a short hike and it's beautiful. If we're ever in the area we will definitely want to stay here again.
09.23 Staying at Albert and Russell's place was nothing short of amazing! They made us feel right at home and couldn't have asked for more. They even had homemade blueberry muffins upon arrival & treats for my dog! It was honestly so sweet, they really went above and beyond. The place was spotless and had everything you could ever need. Nice backyard to lounge around and the beach is walking distance about a block away. Highly recommend!!
09.23 This place was fabulous! Close to the beach, big, backyard, walked to everywhere.
Had everything we needed and more. Great communication!
08.23 What a beautiful Airbnb! Super clean and beautifully decorated. So close to the beach and local restaurants! Pacifica is a treasure. We would definitely come again!
08.23 The BEST hosts hands down and a WONDERFUL spot to relax. What a special place — this was such a charming neighborhood and spotless cottage with lovely decor.
The scrumptious treats Albert provided made feel right at home. This Airbnb is beautiful, comfortable and only a very short walk to the beach.
07.23 Our flights were badly (two days) delayed. Xiaojing communicated effectively and quickly, making our situation less stressful. He was kind, flexible and considerate — to the point of cooking us a meal due to the tardiness of our airline! His place is clean, tidy and well appointed. It's a pleasant and safe neighbourhood that's walking distance to amenities like groceries, cafes and restaurants. The sea is 5 mins from the doorstep. A superb host that we thought went above and beyond what's expected from a holiday rental.
07.23 Super cute house — nice and quiet neighborhood but close enough to the city! The homemade muffins were delicious and loved the guidebook for all recommendations!
07.23 This place is great. We arrived early and walked to the ocean that you can see from
5.c
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) the sidewalk!! Within minutes we were counting the whales. Really cool place. Easy to access everything. Hiking fishing shopping public transportation. We were able to check in an hour early. Love this place.
06.23 Spacious inside and walkable to the beach, corner store, and a bar! We had fun! also they made us muffins which were so good
06.23 This beach house was wonderful! Close to the water, plenty of shops and places to eat nearby, but still a sanctuary at the end of the day. A clean, quiet space to enjoy.
Highly recommended!
05.23 We had a wonderful stay! The house was immaculately clean, cozy and super relaxing. We enjoyed both the indoor and outdoor spaces including all of the beautiful plants. Location cannot be better. Walk to ocean, stores and restaurants.
The added touches of homemade muffins, games, huge tv, etc were very much appreciated. We will definitely return - the sooner, the better! Thank you Albert and Russell for providing the perfect Pacifica stay!
02.23 Wow. This place is amazing. We were greeted by the most delicious freshly baked blueberry muffins upon entering the house. The reviews are all correct. These muffins are so good, I could stay here just on these muffins alone. But the muffins are going to be a main reason why I come back. You have everything you could possibly need all in this beautifully decorated, comfortable home. It's so close to wonderful shops, restaurants, and bakeries, etc. And, the beach is also a very short walk away. We had the best girls getaway here. Albert and Russell were the best hosts we could have asked for.
11.22 Their home is just a block from the ocean and was the perfect location for leisurely strolls. There are many cafes and small shops in easy walking distance and it's only a quick 15 minute drive into the City. The home had everything we needed for a family vacation for four, with one very happy surfer among us. We will be sure to book this location again the next time we crave a vacation by the sea.
06.22 This cute little Pacifica bungalow was a pleasant surprise from its charming and modest curb appeal. An adorable little courtyard welcomes you right in. Vintage and charming pocket window pane doors open to a small guest bed off the front room.
Walking further into the home, an updated bathroom offers ample toiletries. The kitchen is small, but roomy enough, and equipped with just the right amount of dishes/cups/and cooking tools with a spacious fridge. Enter the living room: Natural
5.c
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) light floods through the skylight and transom windows to highlight the large screen tv and stylish furniture. Lots of streaming channels/shows/movies. Really great lighting during the evenings. Easy/convenient sliding door access to the cute back deck and clean landscaping. High ceilings in the living and bedroom; bedroom also has easy access to the back area. Washer/dryer handy in the garage. Quick minute walk to a new corner convenient store, minutes away from Oceana market, Safeway, and a few restaurants. Walkable to the beach, with a direct view of the ocean waves! Pleasantly quiet neighborhood. Thanks to Albert for the fun stay!!
06.22 Russell and Albert were very welcoming and warm. Their home was cozy and very clean. The check in process was smooth and everything nicely arranged and carefully thought out. On the town itself, Pacifica is a very interesting place. It is so laid back and quiet, with seabirds circling around the beach and the pier, and yet in just 15 min drive you're in the buzzling San Francisco city. Or drive in the other direction on Hwy 1 along the coast, it's a completely different landscape. You can hike the hills, surf in the ocean, explore the lighthouse in Montara and drive all the way to Half Moon Bay. I can't recommend here more!
07.22 Great spot close to the ocean and a nice calm slower pace in Pacifica. Wonderful little house only a block away from downtown shops and places to eat. Loved my stay and would stay again.
07.22 Just great. No hassles, no surprises, no worries. Good guys all around. I would stay there again anytime. The Mexican food place they recommended, walking distance around the corner from them, was fantastic.
03.23 Love the town, love the location - walk to restaurants, the beach and all in town. The backyard and front yard is beautiful.
07.22 Albert and Russell were amazing hosts. The room was clean, really comfortable bed and they made me feel right at home. Only two blocks from the beach and some local cafe with great breakfast close by. Epic sunsets and just a really safe and relaxing neighborhood. Highly recommended if your looking for a place in Pacifica.
5.c
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Addendum II: Our original 6 Policy Proposals
If enacted instead of a 90-day cap, these proposals would have solved any and all concerns residents have with bad actors and would not interfere with revenue generating operators.
Policy 1: Three Strikes and You're Out
Instead of convoluted ordinances that can unfairly hamper every Pacifican's right to use their property in a fair and equitable way, we propose a simple rule to punish bad hosts while protecting the good ones. 3 violations within a 12 month period would result in revocation of a license for 24 months.
Irresponsible hosts have no place in our town. Founded complaints of nuisances like parties or code violations result in:
1st Offense: written notice of a violation
2nd Offense: written notice of violation and fine of $1,000 3rd Offense: notice of violation, fine of $1,500, and revocation of STR permit for 24 months
Once the license is suspended or revoked, if they continue to operate, every day results in another $500 daily fine.
These violations should be applied to the guests, the host, and the property owner.
This model has a fantastic track record in places where the city and AirBnB work together to delist STRs without a valid permit.
Policy 2: More Stringent Noise Restrictions
The city already has ordinances that ban noise overnight, but we further propose that hosts are required to install decibel noise sensors on the interior and exterior of their properties and make readings available to the city upon its request for compliance verification. Since this agreement will be included in the business license, refusal to turn over noise detector readings can also be a warning or violation.
The city needs to notify the host and the guest of the noise complaint. Violations are
5.c
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) mailed to the registered business mailing address.
For example, if the police give a citation to loud partiers. A separate fine is also sent to the registered business mailing address of the host. In the past, we were informed by the city that many hosts don’t even know the guests were cited for noise violations. This policy ensures accountability on all sides by citing both the instigators and the host and encourages the host to take a more active part in vetting their guests.
Policy 3: Someone Needs to Be Accountable
Each STR must designate someone who can answer the phone within 20 minutes and be onsite within 60 minutes, 24 hours a day, should something come up. This can also become a standard definition for “hosted."
Policy 4: Disallow Hosting Too Many People
We took a unique look at this one, factoring concerns about houses that crammed a lot of guests or built-up rooms to allow for it. The purpose of this is for safety but also to hurt large corporations trying to create party houses. So in that spirit, this policy creates two separate triggers.
Of course, each STR must cap the number of guests it can host to two per bedroom plus one more.
But just as importantly, we advise the city to create a total cap for any short-term rental of 8 total individuals. So in other words, no matter how many rooms you have, there cannot be more than 8 guests per booking. This disincentivizes corporations buying properties and instead focuses on the hosts who are trying to accommodate families looking to create memories here.
We also propose no more than 1 car per legal bedroom with a maximum number of 2 cars per booking.
Policy 5: Keep Multi-unit Buildings For Affordable Rentals STRs should not be allowed in buildings with four or more units outside of the grandfathering of the 10 STRs currently doing this, so long as they are in good standing, without complaints.
5.c
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) Policy 6: Smart City Planning
STRs should continue to be capped at 150 and not be overly concentrated in any one area. City staff should prepare a study to recommend the STR distribution for our town.
Beyond ordinances, Pacifica needs to push for more housing to be built. Its housing stock has grown by a mere 1% over the past eight years. Developers simply do not want to build in our town, and we believe it results from its lackluster economic growth. For such a beautiful town by the sea, we find this a tragedy. A responsible injection of tourism can change this by bringing in fresh energy and stimulating local businesses. Tourists spend significantly more than permanent residents (think about how you budget for your own daily spending while on vacation versus a more routine day at home). Further, lively towns are diverse towns, with a sprinkle of visitors from other places!The same thoughtful consideration of our concerns were certainly never factored into this ordinance or weighed by Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels.
5.c
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment C: Public Comments to Planning Commission (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Updates) City of Pacifica HdL Companies
Status and Count of Short Term Rental Properties Data for 1/29/2024
COASTAL NON-COASTAL COMBINED
150
Total STRs Accounts (Compliant, In-Process, or Non-Compliant) 74 81 155 Compliant STRs 66 73 139
In Process 0 0 0
Non-Compliant 8 6 14
Discovery 0 2 2
COASTAL NON-COASTAL COMBINED
Compliant STRs 66 73 139
STR Permit Issued (Current Status) 59 65 124
With the City for Final Sign-off (Pending City Status) 7 8 15 In Process COASTAL NON-COASTAL COMBINED
In-Process 0 0 0
New Applicant (Early in Process) 0 0 0
Yet to Renew (Active last year but not advertising this year) 0 0 0
COASTAL NON-COASTAL COMBINED
Non-Compliant 7 7 14
Escalated HdL Compliance Phase (Final action before escalated to City) 6 7 13 Escalated City Compliance Phase (City Attorney's Process) 1 0 1 STR Permit TOT BL
X X P 4 2 6
X P X 0 0 0
P X P 0 0 0
X P P 2 0 2
X X X 3 3 6
COASTAL NON-COASTAL COMBINED
Closed or Inactive 44 62 106
HdL Discovered STRs (Newly Discovered, beginning Compliance Process) 0 2 2 Non-Compliant means the STR does not meet ALL criteria for 'Compliant'. The STR may be missing one or all of the items (Business License, STR Permit, TOT Account).
STR Permit Cap
Compliant STRs
Compliant means the STR has a valid 2023-24 Business License, has paid and submitted the STR Permit with the Business License, and is registered and reporting In Process means the STR has either not completed the permitting process for current or prior years, owes a permit fee, or remains non-compliant for other TOT or BL and is working with HdL to come into compliance.
Non-Compliant STRs
5.d
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment D: Status and Count of Short Term Rental Properties FY2024-25_Q2_Pacifica (5860 : Ordinance - Short-Term Rental