Pacifica City Council
February 24, 2025

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 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
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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%
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 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.

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.
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/
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 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/
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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]-->
<!--[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
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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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 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
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.

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.

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 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.

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
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.

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.

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 the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.

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.

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.

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 • 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 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– $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.

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.”

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]
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 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 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!

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 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 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.

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 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.

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.