CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
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
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on February 24, 2025 at 7:30 PM 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING - OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer reconvened the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor Present
Christine Boles Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
Greg Wright Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager (Zoom); Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Louis Sun, Interim PW Director; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director (Field Services/Engineering); Daniel Patten, Wastewater Engineering Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Espinosa
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Beckmeyer asked Council and staff to move Council and Staff Communications to the end of the meeting.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked the City Manager to announce Strategic Planning meeting details City Council Regular Meeting 2 February 24, 2025
and give an approximate time for public comments for that all-day session.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if any Councilmembers wished to pull any items from Consent. Seeing none, she opened public comments for the Consent Calendar. There were no public comments.
Councilmember Bier moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Boles.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
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
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
Aren Clark, Pacifica, mentioned the increase in trees on the hills and there being an increase in fire hazards. He asked about a plan to protect the open space and address the fire hazards.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, contacted elected officials regarding instating an anti-bribery ordinance in response to one of his appeals to a Pacifica development and stated Sheriff Christina Corpus was one of two respondents who would push for it. He explained that he opposed the Measure City Council Regular Meeting 3 February 24, 2025
A, which would allow the Board of Supervisors to remove her.
Amanda Kraft, Pacifica, stated they are present on behalf of a situation at the Seacliff Apartments on Palmetto Avenue regarding discrimination and illegal evictions, and she requested that the City have a dialogue and work out the situation with Code Enforcement.
Frankie Burton, San Francisco, shared her concerns about the illegal, racist, classist, and inhumane activities at Seacliff Apartments and requested that the City communicate with the advocates regarding this issue and help the community against discriminatory practices.
Natalie Hopner, Pacifica, stated she lives in Seacliff Apartments and highlighted the concerns on the predatory practices in the complex for the residents especially on subsidies and asked Council to address the issue as well as accountability.
Ken Miles, Pacifica, shared his concerns on possible wildfires in Pacifica and suggested options to mitigate the situation. He warned of the likelihood of a burnt out community.
Joaquin Jiminez, Half Moon Bay, shared his concerns about Measure A taking away our power to vote and opposed the Measure A, which would allow the Board of Supervisors to remove Sheriff Christina Corpus.
Andromeda Garcelon, San Mateo County, shared her concerns and thoughts on the issues at Seacliff Apartments. She asked the City Council to enforce tenant and renter laws in response to the predatory and retaliatory practices done by management.
Jen Hansen, Pacifica, shared a quote (“Quiet women rarely make history”) and she thinks of Sheriff Corpus when she hears about Measure A. She then expressed concerns about fire safety and encouraged a defensible space ordinance.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, spoke of the RVs coming from San Francisco and emphasized the transition of the existing homeless population into housing stability and not accepting other cities’. She also spoke on concerns regarding fire safety issues with possible strategies regarding defensible space to address it.
Mark Macias, Pacifica, stated he is a retired Fire Department Lieutenant and asked if there has been any progress made on defensible space issues on Crespi, Alma Heights, etc. He also expressed concern about the homeless panhandlers on the Linda Mar Mall exit and asked why the law is not being enforced.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse stated the Strategic Planning meeting would take place on March 1 regarding the annual Strategic Plan Update Workshop with City Council, facilitated by Greg Larson. It will occur in the City Council Chambers and in-person only. The published agenda specified that public comment will not occur earlier than 10:15 am. The day is expected to run into the afternoon, perhaps to 4:00 p.m.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 February 24, 2025
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 Code; and finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Community Development Director Samantha Updegrave presented the staff report.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Asst. City Manager Carter is on Zoom and there are HdL consultants Alex Terrazas and Bret Harmon on Zoom.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if Council had any questions.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated there were 139 compliant STRs now and asked for a rough number of how many are non-compliant. She also heard that staff is recommending against platform accountability and would like to understand how that is working out in more detail, where it is well, and where we are having trouble with enforcement, how helpful it is, etc. She is trying to understand how valuable that is and if we have been able to reduce the number of noncompliant with their help.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, according to HdL records, there are 8 non-compliant STRs in the coastal areas and 6 in the non-coastal for a total of 14.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked what date that is from.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the latest data from HdL was from Quarter 2, ending December 31, 2024.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he will start on platform accountability. He stated that the compliance work that the City has been doing is mostly through HdL as our monitor to make sure we have all the appropriate permits, so the platforms are not helpful in that compliance.
Previously the City had worked over years to develop the relationship with AirBnB in terms of putting permit numbers on sites. Once we started this process, Airbnb was less responsive to our dialogue. They are still responding and we are working on that relationship and hope to continue to encourage that.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, as indicated in the staff report, staff is not recommending including provisions about platform accountability. There are practical and legal limitations on what the City can do in terms of holding platforms accountable. In terms of practical limitations, some of the platforms are located in Europe, as well as United States. Holding a platform that is located in Europe accountable would be extremely difficult for the City. In terms of legal limitations in the United States, the City would be limited or preempted from imposing certain regulations under the Communications Decency Act, which generally regulates the content City Council Regular Meeting 5 February 24, 2025
users post on the website. She stated, as indicated in the staff report, staff’s recommended focus is on operators and responsible persons that are located locally that are more practical and achievable in terms of enforcement.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked about staff’s reasoning for the language around the ADUs in allowing someone living in their ADU to rent their house as a full-time unhosted STR. She understands that STRs cannot be an ADU by State law but what are we hoping to achieve.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it was a clarification as, under state law, the presence of an ADU cannot change the nature of the residential use. If you have a single-family house with an ADU, you cannot regulate that ADU like a duplex or a multi-family unit so the residential status of the unit itself is unaffected. What that provision does is that it clarifies and reiterates that ADUs cannot be used as the STR, but the property owner or tenant is not required to reside in the primary residence.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated it seems like a specific allowance of use of the home as what is a full time “hosted” with someone on the site but no one in the building.
Community Development Director Updegrave does not believe it allows something that is not already allowed but, in making the distinction between hosted and unhosted, that clarification becomes necessary.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that his recollection is that Council discussed this issue in the December hearing and there were comments made about the situation where that might benefit someone to live in their ADU and rent out their house as a hosted. Staff did not receive direction differently from Council on that.
Mayor Beckmeyer recalled a Council majority indicating they did not favor that practice.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that is her recollection also. She understood that the Planning Commission had other suggestions for not requiring one parking space per bedroom in the noncoastal zone but she has not heard why they thought that was important.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated her recollection was, because the recommendation had come from the Coastal Commission, the requirement for one parking space per legally rented STR bedroom related more directly to the parking needs within the coastal zone; and outside of the coastal zone, the parking demands would not be quite as high.
Thus, it was to allow existing residential dwellings to also use STR and keeping the parking requirements potentially lower and more in line with the residential zoning parking standards.
Mayor Beckmeyer referred to “detrimental impact to traffic” and asked what it means.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it is one of the operational requirements in Section 9-4.4905.
Councilmember Espinosa referred to inspections and stated the owner-occupied STR does not need the home inspection. She stated that we do not know what the house looks like; if the owner lives in the house, it does not mean that the house has the requirements like smoke detectors or a carbon monoxide detector and other issues that should be checked out.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that, in the ordinance, for the hosted STRs, City Council Regular Meeting 6 February 24, 2025
the operator would be required to self-certify that those things are present.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if they have to do it themselves or hire somebody.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it is a self-certification so they would sign an attestation as part of the application.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if they would say they have the smoke detectors and they will certify themselves.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it is a self-certification, subject to all of the applications.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated “detrimental” was in Section 9-4.4908: “permit revocation can occur when the STR is operated in a manner detrimental to the public health welfare or safety or constitutes a nuisance”.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked what detrimental impact to traffic means.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it is in section 9-4.905(g): “not create pedestrian, automobile or truck traffic detrimental to property in the vicinity or neighborhood parking impacts. The property address shall be clearly marked.” Mayor Beckmeyer opened the public hearing.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, spoke in support of limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights, having a local operator available to respond to incidents within 30 minutes, stating that the maximum two violations are within a 12-month period and may result in revocation, clarifying that hosted rentals have hosts residing in the property during the rental, removing the provision allowing STR operators to live in their ADU, requiring inspection of all STRs, and investigating platform accountability, if useful.
Sophia Chang, Pacifica, stated she was present as a resident and STR host, and she shared her thoughts in support of STRs and its benefits to Pacifica. She agreed with tighter enforcement but stressed that the funds generated from STRs are essential for public services.
Stephanie Robbins, Pacifica, spoke in support of limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights, implementing platform accountability, and maintaining the same parking standards for coastal and non-coastal areas in Pacifica.
Patrick Beatty, Pacifica, shared his experience with problematic STRs and thought the fiscal impact in the staff report was very limited. He also spoke in support of inspections of all STRs.
Don Creasman, Pacifica, stated he has been a host for eight years with no complaints and emphasized the difference between hosted and unhosted STRs. He asked that Council keep the difference in mind while crafting the ordinance.
Margaret Coles, Pacifica, stated she was representing the Seaside Merchants Association and shared their position on this issue. She stated it may be advantageous to have a carve-out area for STRs, emphasized how weekend visitors generated business and tax revenue, and encouraged a more nuanced look at how STRs are regulated.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 February 24, 2025
Jen Hansen, Pacifica, emphasized the need for platform accountability, submitting listings with STR applications, local responsible parties, limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights, inspections of all STRs, defining non-commercial events, and requiring fire ladders for multi-story buildings.
Andy Meiman, Pacifica, spoke in support of limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights and implementing platform accountability. He asked Council to be skeptical of the fiscal impact in the staff report.
Dian Emerson, Pacifica, spoke in support of limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights and keeping one parking space per bedroom per STR in all of Pacifica. She described issues with no limit on children under 12 years old in STRs.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, expressed concern with the fact that STR operators can remain in an ADU while renting out their main property and spoke in support of platform accountability.
Gary Furlong, Pacifica, expressed concerns with the fiscal impact in the staff report, including statistics about parking, renting for 60 days vs. 90 days, and multi-family rentals.
Gary Chinca, Pacifica, spoke in favor of maintaining the same parking standards for coastal and non-coastal areas in Pacifica, inspections of all STRs, and a maximum occupancy on children. He also would like an expedited timeline for implementation.
Rebecca Smith-Coggins, Pacifica, spoke in support of limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights, inspections of all STRs, a maximum occupancy on children, and viewing violations within a 24- month period.
Danny Estrella, Pacifica, stated that long-term residents that make up the rich culture of the community and expressed concerns about STRs taking up housing availability for potential residents. He opposed STRs in a residential neighborhood and especially unhosted STRs.
Bob O’Donnell, Pacifica, described the consequences of the original STR ordinance and stated improvements needed to be made to the new ordinance, such as limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights, an expedited timeline for implementation, and inspections for all STRs.
Leo Leon, Pacifica, spoke in favor of inspections for all STRs, removing the provision allowing STR operators to live in their ADU, and emphasized the importance of the health, safety, and welfare of the people.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, spoke in favor of platform accountability and described the multitude of issues she has experienced with the STR on their neighborhood with both guests and the operator. She stated she would like to see families reside in the STRs like they used to.
Kathy Moresco, Pacifica, asked for Council to look into converting STRs that come off the market to become housing. She also stated that some STRs only rent out through the summer and then are vacant for the rest of the year.
Joanne Gold, Pacifica, spoke in support of limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights, removing the provision allowing STR operators to live in their ADU, and implementing platform accountability.
Albert Zhang, Pacifica, spoke in opposition to the nightly cap, primary residence requirement, City Council Regular Meeting 8 February 24, 2025
and public QR code requirement and stated they were economically damaging and unfair to responsible STR operators. He also described ways STRs benefit Pacifica’s economy.
Connie Menefee, Pacifica, described the multitude of issues she has experienced with the STR on their neighborhood and asked Council to strengthen the ordinance. She spoke in favor of increasing the permit, violation, and inspection fees and building more hotels in Pacifica.
Alan Hyland, Pacifica, shared the positive experiences he has had as an STR operator and described ways STRs benefit Pacifica’s economy. He emphasized the need for weeding out the bad actors.
Abselam, Pacifica, emphasized the need for weeding out the bad actors and stated building restrictions and code have restricted the housing availability more than STRs. He stated that restricting STRs will not solve the problem of housing availability and affordability.
Russell Jones, Pacifica, emphasized the need for weeding out the bad actors and stated the draft ordinance revisions were economically damaging and unfair to responsible STR operators.
He emphasized the need to focus on addressing problematic STRs and to maintain the economic benefit of STRs generally.
Mark Stechbart, Pacifica, spoke in support of limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights, a maximum occupancy on children, parking enforcement, making calls for service and other data available online, implementing platform accountability, and an oversight committee for STRs.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared her concerns for STRs causing a shortage of homes. She spoke in support of limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights, having a local operator available to respond to incidents within 30 minutes, removing the provision allowing STR operators to live in their ADU, inspections for all STRs, and enforcement with platform accountability.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, spoke in support of limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights, clarifying that hosted rentals have hosts residing in the property during the rental, implementing platform accountability, and an expedited timeline for implementation for certain provisions.
Arlene Zhao, Pacifica, stated that enforcement of the ordinance is the issue with the four problematic properties and that the majority of compliant STRs should not be penalized for their conduct. She also spoke in favor of the economic benefit of STRs generally.
Alex Vardekostas, Pacifica, stated STRs make up 1% of the housing stock so removing or restricting STRs may not lead to significant changes in school enrollment and rental prices. He stated STRs may not return under this ordinance and that others were in support of Half Moon Bay’s ordinance but it allowed for STRs in commercial zones. He emphasized the need for weeding out the bad actors and spoke in favor of the economic benefit of STRs generally.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, emphasized that Pacifica is a community and spoke in favor of maintaining the same parking standards for coastal and non-coastal areas in Pacifica, implementing platform accountability, removing the provision allowing STR operators to live in their ADU, and having a local operator available to respond to incidents within 30 minutes.
Elda Kong, Pacifica, stated there are four problematic properties and that the majority of STRs are compliant. She encouraged Council to redefine “hosted” STR operator to include being reachable by phone within 10 minutes, being available at the property within 30 minutes, and City Council Regular Meeting 9 February 24, 2025
providing contact information to the neighbors and the City. She also raised privacy concerns and opposed the QR code and primary residence requirement.
Tor Neilands, Pacifica, described the health and safety issues experienced with the STR on their neighborhood. He preferred removing all unhosted STRs but spoke in support of limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights and having a local operator available to respond to incidents within 30 minutes.
Jessica Lu, Pacifica, shared the positive experiences she has had as an STR operator and described ways STRs benefit Pacifica’s economy. She emphasized the need to focus on addressing problematic STRs and for stricter regulations.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, stated that he considers unhosted STRs as hotels operating in residential units and were impacting the housing stock and school enrollment and closures.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, spoke in favor of implementing platform accountability, limiting unhosted STRs to 60 nights, and removing the provision allowing STR operators to live in their ADU.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed the public hearing. She called for a break and then reconvened the meeting.
Councilmember Bier referred to inspections and the number of children.
Mayor pro Tem Boles suggested Council make clear when there is consensus on each issue.
Councilmember Wright asked about what inspections besides smoke and C02 detectors.
Councilmember Espinosa stated for the property.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that there could be a lot of things that they inspect. The draft ordinance has inspections for unhosted but the question is inspections for hosted. She stated that the point of an inspection is catching anything illegal that they might not see.
Councilmember Wright mentioned numbers of bedrooms and egress windows.
Mayor pro Tem Boles mentioned having egress windows, rooms that are bedrooms or have heat, basic building codes, and life safety issues. She thought pools and spas should be inspected as well.
Councilmember Wright stated he would concur with the pools.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agreed, adding smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, etc.
Councilmember Wright asked if fire extinguishers required for residential properties.
Mayor pro Tem Boles it is a requirement in part of their application for businesses like this. She thinks the City will work out what the list is for what is inspected, but the question is if we are requiring inspections for both hosted and unhosted.
Mayor Beckmeyer added how is it paid for.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 February 24, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought the applicant should pay and reimburse the City for the cost.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she does not understand where that happens.
Councilmember Wright stated he would need to know exactly what they are inspecting before he can decide whether he is in favor of inspections or not.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that we have a list of things, i.e. fire extinguishers, windows, pools and spas, heat, legal bedrooms, and beds in hallways.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she has seen some that have bedrooms that open off a garage and that is a building code violation.
Councilmember Wright asked about hotels needing two means of egress.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that hotels do but houses do not.
Councilmember Wright stated that is why it gets tricky.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she is hearing inspections for life safety issues, inspections on all STRs, and the applicant pays the cost for the inspection.
City Manager Woodhouse stated in the current ordinance drafted for unhosted STRs there is a scope for the inspection. He stated that staff can read that and Council can decide to expand or take that same scope and apply it to hosted STRs.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is section 9-4.4904(d), inspection of unhosted STRs.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated packet pages 18 and 62. She stated that pools and heat were not included in the inspections currently.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that heat and light are basic building code requirements and bedrooms cannot open off of a garage or a room with a water heater.
Councilmember Espinosa mentioned windows in bedrooms.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thinks that is part of a legally permitted bedroom, but compliant windows have to be of a certain size.
Councilmember Wright mentioned lighted ingress and egress.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if a majority of Council agrees with those additions.
There was Council consensus to see the language to make the final decision.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, for process, any substantive changes to the ordinance will need to go back to the Planning Commission and it will be a while before it gets back to Council for review and adoption.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 February 24, 2025
Councilmember Wright asked, regarding the process, what signifies a significant change and would this change necessitate going back to the Planning Commission.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano answered affirmatively, stating that anytime Council changes the ordinance to something not contemplated or discussed by the Planning Commission, that would be a substantive change.
Councilmember Wright asked if it was possible to pass the ordinance as it is written and instruct staff to amend the ordinance that has been passed to include this.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Council would not adopt anything at this meeting, only introducing the ordinance. If Council wants to make changes, they can make changes prior to introduction that have been considered by the Planning Commission in areas that are nonsubstantive changes, but for substantive changes it has to go back to the Planning Commission before it is introduced.
Councilmember Wright asked whether we can do both at the same time or does it need to be re-agendized. He was concerned about the waiting period for the ordinance to go into effect.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated we need to discuss the waiting period.
Councilmember Wright preferred that the operator to be able to show up within 30 minutes.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked about the designated responsible party.
Councilmember Wright stated that somebody needs to be able to show up within 30 minutes.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated someone local.
Councilmember Wright agreed. He then asked the City Manager if the license fee covers all the costs for processing those applications.
City Manager Woodhouse stated no. He stated that the license fee helps cover the cost, as the program costs more to administer than what the fees are.
Councilmember Wright asked if we are allowed to raise the license fee or is there a cap on how much the license fee can be.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Council could consider that when we bring back the fee schedule during budget and make adjustments to what the permit fees cost at that time.
Councilmember Wright asked for the total amount of TOT revenue generated solely by STRs.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that, in the past in the last two years, STRs generated approximately $1.3 million to $1.5 million in TOT only. She stated to keep in mind that, in November, Pacifica voters voted for Measure M, raising TOT to 15%. If we were talking about increase for the upcoming year, not considering the changes in the ordinance, we would be looking at roughly $1.8 million to $1.9 million in TOT generated solely by STRs.
Councilmember Wright asked for the cost for administrating the STR permits and regulations.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 February 24, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse stated the overall cost of administering the program is not something that we have calculated. Over the last couple of years, it would be much higher than we would hope on a normal basis. He stated that there were some public comments made about HdL getting paid several hundred thousand dollars, but that might be a number that relates to all the services that HdL provides to the City, including property tax, sales tax, cannabis audits, business tax administration, other audits as well as TOT compliance and STR audits; thus, the STR component is a very small piece of that.
Councilmember Wright asked if he had any estimate.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we would have to run those numbers. Staff have been having conversations with HdL about what future costs would be to administer this complex program as it would go up significantly.
Councilmember Wright thought he saw a number like $100,000 increase in that cost.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we do not have a hard cost yet, as we just started communications with HdL about what those new provisions would be.
Councilmember Wright thought estimated revenue from STRs are $1.8 million, subtracting the $1.4 million we would be potentially losing and the increased cost from HdL of $100,000, not to mention staff time and money lost on the revenue on processing the applications, etc. He thought the actual benefit to the city is minuscule compared to the amount of staff time put in to this and amount of time Council put into it. He is questioning the reasonableness of even trying to do an STR policy. He asked what the real benefit is to the City of having STRs at all.
Councilmember Espinosa added what people are going through.
Councilmember Wright asked staff about whether this policy gives Police sufficient ammunition to enforce this if there are problems as Code Enforcement does not work 24 hours a day.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there are different enforcement mechanisms and processes involved in this program, such as compliance with tax aspects, business licenses, and permitting. Code Enforcement enforces property matters, and Police enforces public safety matters. He stated that the enforcement provisions in this ordinance will help but enforcement will always be complicated and difficult for private property matters, whether STR or other Code Enforcement matters. He stated that this ordinance, as drafted, helps with the enforcement means. The amount of fines that would be applied would hopefully be an incentive to bring a non-compliant operator into compliance but it will be a learning curve.
Councilmember Wright knows when some multi-unit buildings in the City have a fire alarm event SFFD sends a bill to the property owner for their response. He wondered if it would be possible to have the same ability for fining the STR operator for the cost of the Police response.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we currently have that type of recovery process through the loud and unruly gatherings ordinance but that is specifically allowed by State law. Typically, fines for violations are set by the State for general law cities, such as Pacifica, and fines are very specific in what can be charged. Typically, we would try to recoup the cost related to the Code Enforcement action, but that is dependent upon the City succeeding in the Code Enforcement action and being able to recover the cost of enforcement; thus, it is not easy to receive that recovery back.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 February 24, 2025
Councilmember Wright asked if it was more work than it is worth.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks it depends on the case. For some cases, it is vital to recover what the City has lost. In other cases, there may not be much recovery because the person may not have funds or there is no property at issue that we can lien and it would not be worth the City’s time in most of those instances to try to recover those costs.
Councilmember Wright asked if we can see any benefit on the application to have them sign that it is okay for the sites to share information with us and that we reserve the right to amend our ordinance on 30 days’ notice.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the fact that the host or operator signs that type of agreement would not necessarily bind the platforms to anything; that does not obligate the platform to share anything, even though the operator has signed that document. In addition, the City does not have a signed document from an applicant to say the City can change its ordinance. She stated that Council, in its discretion, may legislate as it sees fit. She stated that the question is whether or not the applicant would be able to raise legal arguments about the applicability of those new ordinances, and she did not think we could have that person sign away any legal arguments that they could make in the future.
Councilmember Wright referred to the signage, and there was some concern that, in the event there was a disruption, neighbors might feel awkward about walking up to get that signage. He asked about mailing that same QR code to neighbors within 500 feet.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Council can include some type of notice provision to adjacent neighbors, although it can be something other than a QR code that indicated that an STR will be conducted at that location.
Councilmember Wright asked how much time has staff dedicated to dealing with the STR issue, both in support of STR operators and our citizens.
City Manager Woodhouse does not have an hour estimate on that, but these last two years it has occupied a significant amount of time in the City Manager’s Office, Finance Department, Planning Department (including Code Enforcement and planners), the Police Department, and the City Attorney’s Office.
Councilmember Wright asked for the reason for the 90-day cap as opposed to the 60-day cap.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Council discussed the cap and decided 90 days.
Councilmember Wright asked staff why the implementation is slower and why we cannot offer relief sooner.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated staff have tried to come up with timelines that would fit within the City’s permit process but also reasonably address the requirements of the ordinance. She stated that we cannot control the Coastal Commission’s certification of the ordinance in the coastal zone; it is dependent on when the City submits the application for the amendment and when they are able to schedule it and make a determination.
Councilmember Wright asked the City Manager of any unintended impacts related to this or the City Council Regular Meeting 14 February 24, 2025
lost revenue piece or what potential other decisions this would affect.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the fiscal impact is very real. He stated it is his responsibility as the City Manager to present Council with what the budget realistically will be and what the fiscal impact of program decisions will be and, in August 2024, he presented the same analysis.
Staff did more detail and came out with a similar number now, based on much more facts about what we know, given the ordinance that Council has directed. He stated that the fiscal impact is real and when we enter into budget development this year, we will be building in a $500,000 deficit for the next fiscal year related to TOT revenue directly. He stated that he cannot speak specifically to the policy implications of that as it will depend on how Council prioritizes where and how the budget should be balanced.
Councilmember Wright asked if this ordinance will protect good operators.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks we heard comments from operators that this ordinance will put good operators out of business in Pacifica and there might be other good operators that then can operate but he cannot answer that question directly.
Councilmember Wright asked how soon are we entitled to amend it once we see unforeseen, unintended consequences.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Council can amend an ordinance whenever they would like. What would be administratively challenging is if we have an ordinance application pending to the Coastal Commission and then Council amends it in that intervening year or however long the Coastal Commission would take.
Councilmember Wright asked how quickly Coastal Commission may respond to these changes.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, from the December report, it is not unusual for Coastal Commission to take at least a year to review this kind of an LCP ordinance amendment.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that Councilmember Bier mentioned talking about inspections and children and she would like to address the issue of tonight’s meeting closure time. She prefers 11:00 p.m. but they may want to discuss at a continued meeting on this topic.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thinks there are changes that will be needed to this ordinance. She asked if it would be helpful to staff to stay longer and give an idea of some of the issues that Council wants to revisit or should we reschedule it for another meeting as it is already late.
City Manager Woodhouse thought it would be more time-efficient to get all Council’s direction about what additional staff work or research would be necessary to come back if there was staff work to be done for those particular issues. Otherwise, this conversation would continue, and staff would need to do the work on the revisions to the ordinance and take it to the Planning Commission before it comes back to Council if it were ready at that point. In terms of timing, he was not sure if we have agenda capacity in either of the March meetings to take this up.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if we could have a special meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed that we could have a special meeting, but those are very difficult to schedule.
City Council Regular Meeting 15 February 24, 2025
Councilmember Espinosa asked if we can name what we are supposed to discuss.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Councilmember Bier moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Boles.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-1]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa
NOES: Wright
Councilmember Bier suggested talking about the parking first. She thought that parking should be the same in both zones.
There was Council consensus for the coastal zone and non-coastal zone to have one off-street parking space per legal bedroom.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that is also what Council directed previously. She stated that there has been discussion about platform accountability, which will save us money and enforcement because, if a unit does not have a City permit, they should take it off of their platforms and this applies to all platforms. She stated that the City Attorney gave Council language from the City of Santa Monica ordinance and she likes all of them. She thought that is something Council can talk about next time. Included in the Santa Monica ordinance is hosting platforms shall be responsible for collecting all applicable TOTs.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that our transient occupancy tax code requires the operator to collect the tax and she did not think that specific provision will work but there are other provisions in City of Santa Monica’s ordinance that may be agreeable to Council.
Mayor pro Tem Boles also read from the City of Santa Monica ordinance that, “subject to applicable laws, hosting platform shall disclose to the city on a regular basis, each homesharing and vacation rental listing located in the city, the names of the persons responsible for such listing, the address, the length of stay for each such listing, and the price paid per stay”.
She concluded we could get reporting on a regular basis so platforms can confirm who is staying, how much is rented, etc. and that will help us with our hosted versus unhosted.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that the language “vacation rentals” is not a term that we have identified in our ordinance.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano anticipated the language would have to be massaged to conform to our current ordinance.
Mayor pro Tem Boles continued, “Hosting platforms shall not complete any booking transactions for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the City’s registry at the time the hosting platform receives a fee for the booking transaction.” She stated, to the point about the law, we are not controlling the content of what they are putting on their website, but the way they do transactions. She stated that it is helping them take illegal properties off of their website.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 February 24, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if the list of our permitted STRs constitute a registry.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we would need to massage it to conform but the City would essentially have to create a registry that could be cross-checked by a platform.
Mayor pro Tem Boles added from the City of Santa Monica ordinance “shall not collect or receive a fee, directly or indirectly during agent or intermediary for facilitating or providing services ancillary to the vacation rental, including insurance, concierge service, catering restaurant bookings,” etc. She mentioned safe harbor as well.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if it says anything about a field where they put the permit number.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it does not. She stated that City of Santa Monica’s ordinance is somewhat similar to the City and County San Francisco’s ordinance.
Mayor Beckmeyer was unsure how we compel the platform to do that if we do not say anything about it.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thinks that is the question, i.e., whether asking them to make that information available constitutes asking them to make content on their website. She stated it is a verification of a number, not content. She stated that it is easy for them and then it is always in the same place.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the City of Santa Monica’s provisions were reviewed by a court and upheld; thus, if Council would like to direct the City Attorney’s Office to massage those provisions and include them, that can be a change that can be made.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that one thing that is not on there and is in the City and County of San Francisco’s are fines. She asked if we can fine them if we find that they are advertising something that does not have our permit number.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles would like that to be considered too.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that they become subject to the ordinance and the fines are not necessarily the larger STR fines as those deal with public safety but other general fines.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked about the number of nights.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that she suggested 90 and the majority of Council at the time suggested 60 and former Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus was questioning whether we should have limits at all so 90 days was a compromise. She stated, when she was thinking 90, she was thinking someone taking a summer break and going on sabbatical and renting their home for that amount of time. She did not think about it in terms of 45 weekends of people visiting.
She thought there was some difference in revenue generation to the City but she is okay going to 60 if that is still what Council desires.
Councilmember Bier stated she was having a hard time with it.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 February 24, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated we can revisit that if she wants to.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated put it on the list of things we want to talk about when we come back.
She stated that the issue of a natural person came up multiple times and, on packet page 52, we talk about defining a responsible party as a natural person over the age of 18. She stated that somewhere else in the ordinance we define a person as a corporation, LLC, etc. She thinks that was because it was the definition of the owner versus the operator.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the Planning Commission recommended adding “natural person” for the designation of the responsible party. That is also in the red line copy of the ordinance.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that there is another place in the definition section.
Community Development Director Updegrave asked definition of “person”.
Mayor Beckmeyer read, “Operator means a person who has applied for a short term rental” and “Person means natural person, corporation business trust, estate trust, partnership limited liability company, association or other entities”.
Councilmember Bier stated that there has been language which says “require that STR operators must all prove primary residency, be natural persons, not corporations, Trust, LLCs , estates and partnerships”.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the responsible party change from “person” to “natural person” was by the Planning Commission, and she understood that the Planning Commission felt it needed to be a natural person as there was an obligation where someone would need to respond personally to a complaint through phone call or in person. She added that the definition of person includes corporate entities and other business entities and those types of entities can be an operator.
Councilmember Bier thought we did not want that.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agreed, stating that is what we were trying to avoid.
Councilmember Bier stated that we do not want big corporations coming in.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that operator means the person who applied for the short-term rental permit and then we define person as a corporation. She stated that the operator could be the corporation.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Wright asked how the operator or corporation could live there.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it was discussed in the primary residence section, i.e. an allowance for how a corporate entity can establish that it is a primary residence. She explained that there are entities that hold properties. She stated that is allowed in California. She stated that it is very common to have a trust or LLC hold a property. That is something that will happen in the ownership of property and we have provided a way that the officers of the corporate entity or partners can establish the residence as a primary residency.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 February 24, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles thinks we need to bring this back one more time. She stated that we may need a definition of natural person separately. She stated that Marin County has one where they define a natural person as a human being, and the term natural person does not include legal entities of any kind. She knows corporations have certain rights but are they natural persons and do they count for the person who has to respond and do they count for ownership and have to count for operator.
Councilmember Bier agreed, adding the difference between ownership and operators.
Councilmember Espinosa thought the operator is the person who will be taking the phone call, not necessarily the owner.
Councilmember Bier agreed, adding the natural person.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that person might be a local and we want them to be a local person.
Councilmember Wright stated not just taking a phone call but wanting them to show up.
Councilmember Espinosa agreed if they have to.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that the way the definitions are linked to each other is that a person who takes the phone call and the person who shows up in 30 minutes. It also says it means the person who has applied for the short-term rental. She stated that the next line down is the definition of a person is not a human being but potentially a corporation. She stated that we have to work on that. She likes what Mayor pro Tem Boles said about the Marin County definition and perhaps there is a way for us to add clarity.
Councilmember Bier agreed so there is a difference between an owner and an operator.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, if the company does not live here, they can hire someone to be the operator.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that it is supposed to be a primary residence.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed, stating that is the issue.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thinks we need to come back as it is complicated. She stated that was always our intention to not have corporations who own multiple ones. She also had a concern with the ADU policy.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano asked if we have direction from the majority of Council to add a definition of natural person or does Council want to do something different.
Councilmember Wright thought Council wanted to bring it back and discuss it more later.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that giving the definition is important.
Councilmember Bier added like not including an LLC as an operator.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 February 24, 2025
Councilmember Wright agreed that an operator has to be a natural person but owner did not.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked, if Council gives a more specific definition to natural person, how do we define and relate that person or the operator to the residency.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the ordinance currently does not define owner. It regulates a person who operates a short-term rental and a person can be a corporate entity.
The operator has to show proof of primary residency and, if not the owner of the property, they have to show permission by the owner. The owner may not factor into the STR operation.
Mayor Beckmeyer referred to Councilmember Espinosa saying they can hire someone.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated the reason she is concerned about this is because it feels like there is opportunity for a loophole. She wants to figure out how to tighten our definition.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that, if we are going to have un-hosted, we would like them to hire an operator who is local and someone can call them and show up in 30 minutes.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano heard that there is a desire to have the operator morphed into the responsible party obligation. Right now we have an operator who can operate an STR but sometimes that operator is not going to be available and a responsible party is also required to be designated; the responsible party has to be available when the STR is in operation and an operator is not available. She stated that it sounds like Council wants just one obligation for the operator to be constantly available.
Mayor pro Tem Boles does not think that is realistic.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is why the responsible party was created, as there could be situations where the operator is unavailable and the responsible party is a fall back.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we still do not like the corporate language for being able to apply for STRs and having seen it stated so clearly that they are allowed is troubling.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed. However, because corporations and trusts own property, we cannot legislate that away, regardless of our definition.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated Council gets to decide how they want to legislate. She stated that Council ultimately gets to make the decisions and she will make recommendations as the City Attorney and the City Manager can make recommendations.
Mayor Beckmeyer understands and stated she wants to look at the Marin County definition, but not at this time. She would like to look at that definition in terms of how it relates or does not to our section 9-4.4901 (j).
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated section 9-4.4903 (c) that talks about how primary residency needs to be shown if the person is a corporation, business trust, etc.; the managing member of the company, the officer, the corporation, the trustee, etc., would have to have the site as their primary residency.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 February 24, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles would like to remove the ADU option, where someone can live in their ADU and rent out their house. She stated that it encourages people to buy properties with ADUs and not necessarily live there but rent out the house all year long as it counts as hosted.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that, the way it is defined here, it does, but she does not consider that as hosted; her intent of hosted STR is that you are within the four walls of the building that is being rented out on a short-term basis. If you are in the ADU in the backyard, you are not in the same structure. She stated that, when Director Updegrave brought that forward, she thought something about how the ADU law is defined is where this came from. She stated that we did not ask for it, but it is clarifying that.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that, otherwise, we banned STRs in ADUs. She was not sure what we were gaining by having this particular language.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that the real question is do we need it and are we required under the state ADU law.
Community Development Director Updegrave thought that is how we will have to implement it.
Anytime we can be clear about what is allowed, particularly around ADUs, it benefits the public, decision makers, and people implementing it. She stated that the concern is that we cannot add additional restrictions to the residential use based on the presence of an ADU.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought that would be helpful. She stated on looking at the ordinance, we have not made a “whereas” clause about the impacts to residential neighborhood character resulting from the operation of lodging businesses in areas zoned for residential uses. She stated that we have talked about the benefits we can provide but have not talked about the problems they can create. Since this ordinance is becoming so restrictive, it feels that we need to have “whereas” clauses that explain why it needs to be restricted.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
She then referred to packet page 59, item 0: “Single-family dwelling unit means a building designated for or used to house not more than one family, including all necessary employees of such family. Single family attached homes are not included in this definition.” She asked if this is a townhome or a condo and why that was inserted.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the Planning Commission added that in conjunction with the previous page under line F. Within the zoning ordinance itself, multi-family development is defined currently as 3 or more units so it does not include attached single-family homes. Within the STR ordinance, the direction was to regulate 2 or more for the purposes of STRs only as multi-family dwellings or multi-family development. The Planning Commission wanted to add the example of including duplex, triplex and attached units, inclusive of attached single family dwellings. Because they made that change there, they also made the change under the single-family definition so that they match. She stated that these differ from the definition of multi-family and single-family that are applicable in the rest of the zoning ordinance or other provisions.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that a complex with four units can be considered single-family.
If more, it would be multi-family.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that it is townhomes or condos.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 February 24, 2025
Councilmember Espinosa thought that condos and townhomes are multi-family. She is talking about a four-plex.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we decided that condos and townhouses were single-family even though they are connected.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that clarifies it.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we can talk about children under 12.
Councilmember Wright mentioned two per adult.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated two children per adult.
Councilmember Espinosa wanted to say 3 children per adult.
Councilmember Espinosa stated two adults and three kids.
Councilmember Wright asked for how many bedrooms.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that each unit can have eight adults. She stated you have to think about the number of two people per bedroom and she thinks you have to think about the totals and not just a family with a certain number of members.
Community Development Director Updegrave thinks there should be care taken to not be regulating family size. There have been State law changes about what constitutes family and a household in the last two years to help prevent discrimination against different family types.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated we need to put it on our list and come back to the number of children.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that it could be a health and safety issue to have too many people in one room.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agreed that we need to talk about it some more.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed to put that on our list to talk about at our next meeting which is a date uncertain at this point.
Mayor pro Tem Boles added a continuation so we can continue on the business and not necessarily have to take public comment again.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed that was her understanding.
City Clerk Coffey added to make sure to get Asst. City Attorney Bazzano’s input on that because of the changes to the ordinance of this magnitude that are being considered.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we are not necessarily bringing back a draft ordinance.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we are going to continue the hearing to a date uncertain. Council has conducted the public comment portion of the hearing so Council can City Council Regular Meeting 22 February 24, 2025
continue deliberations at that meeting. It is always within the Council’s discretion to make a different decision but Council has taken public comment on this particular public hearing and that would not need to be done at that meeting. They need to continue it to a date uncertain.
Mayor Beckmeyer also wanted to acknowledge the passing of Luigi who was so meaningful for so many families, including her family. She hopes we will have an opportunity to have a fuller discussion and appropriate acknowledgement, but she would like to adjourn the meeting in his honor and memory.
Mayor Beckmeyer moved to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
CONTINUE MEETING TO A DATE UNCERTAIN
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
CONSIDERATION – NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 11:29 p.m. in memory of Luigi.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 3/24/2025
__________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor