CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer
Mayor pro Tem Christine Boles
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
Councilmember Greg Wright
City Council Regular Meeting 1 July 14, 2025
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
July 14, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor pro Tem Christine Boles called the meeting to order on July 14, 2025 at 5:30 PM 5:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor pro Tem Boles called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and went into Closed Session. 00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9 (1 Potential Case).
00b. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS - Government Code section 54957.6 - Agency designated representatives: Mark Wilson, Allison Hernandez of Burke, Williams, and Sorenson; Employee organizations: Fire Battalion Chiefs, IAFF Local 2400; Fire Fighters, IAFF Local 2400; Management Unit, Teamsters Local 350 ; Miscellaneous Employee, Teamster Local 856; Pacifica Police Officers Association; Police Mgmt. & Police Supervisors; Wastewater Treatment Plant Teamsters Local 856
7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor pro Tem Boles reconvened the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor Absent
Christine Boles Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
Greg Wright Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager (via Zoom); Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Melissa Tigbao, Public Works Director; Louis Sun, PW Dep.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 July 14, 2025
Director-Wastewater Div.; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Zach Harris. Human Resources Manager; Vicente Romero, Police Captain; Elizabeth Brooks, Management Analyst; Brittany Hernandez, Program Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor pro Tem Boles read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Councilmember Espinosa
Closed Session Report
For the report of the closed session held on July 2, 2025, Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, given the City’s ongoing budget constraints and the importance of predictable funding, the City Council voted at the July 2, 2025 Closed Session to join King County, the City and County of San Francisco, and several other jurisdictions and agencies across the nation, to prevent the federal government from imposing coercive funding conditions on federal grants the City has historically received and relies on to promote public health and safety, and fund infrastructure projects.
For the report of the closed session held on July 14, 2025, City Attorney Kenyon stated that there was no reportable action.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - JoAnne Arnos (service on Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee)
Mayor pro Tem Boles read the proclamation in recognition of JoAnne Arnos’ service on Open Space & Parkland Advisory Committee.
Councilmember Wright mentioned the hours of volunteer time Ms. Arnos did keeping Pacifica great and he hoped future generations follow in her footsteps.
Councilmember Bier thanked Ms. Arnos for showing what dedication, passion, and compassion looks like, as well as serving all over the community, county, and region.
Councilmember Espinosa appreciated the opportunity to meet Ms. Arnos and thanked her for everything she did.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated Ms. Arnos is an earth hero and she appreciated her friendship, adding that our open space is what defines Pacifica with all the beaches and hills and brings many here to live and visit. She appreciated Ms. Arnos’ advocacy for better processes to be more thoughtful about planning and development and to encourage developers to get early input in design stages to be better for the environment and those who use the space.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that Ms. Arnos has demonstrated exemplary commitment and dedication to preserving and enhancing open space and trails. She met Ms. Arnos on her first day in Pacifica, and she was warm and welcoming.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 July 14, 2025
Ms. Arnos stated it was important for the committee to have impact on open space and mindful development and open space is the essence of our City. She stated it is good to have mentors that have time for you to instill passion for our City and the importance of open spaces and trails to our lives. She thanked them.
Mayor pro Tem Boles opened public comment.
Ellen Natesan, Pacifica, stated she is the current chair of OSPAC. She has known Ms. Arnos for 8 of her 18 years of service on OSPAC and it has been a pleasure and honor to work with her and everyone working with her knows they want her on their team as she gets things done.
She shared everything Ms. Arnos has done over the years for advocacy.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, thanked Ms. Arnos for 18 years of dedication and passion as Mother Earth needs earth mothers.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, stated it was an honor since 2007. She stated that Ms. Arnos is her hero, as she is always there, compassionate, respects our environment and ties it in with our culture and economy. She was always giving honor to those mentors before her.
Mayor pro Tem Boles closed public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Clerk Coffey stated she has a note on the consent calendar for Item #5 for the MOUs. On packet page 89, there was an incorrect reference to 3%, although the references in the resolution and MOU attachment are correct. On packet page 89 in the staff report, the reference with respect to Pacifica Police Management Association should read that the bargaining unit classification shall be increased by 5% effective July 1, 2025, and July 1, 2026.
There were no public comments.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
ABSENT: Beckmeyer
1. Approval of Disbursements for 06/01/25 through 06/30/25 PROPOSED ACTION: Approval of Disbursements for 06/01/25 through 06/30/25
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the June 9, 2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting, the June 23, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting and the July 2, 2025 City Council Special Meeting.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 July 14, 2025
4. Adoption of a Resolution Approving Execution of Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and W. E. Lyons Construction
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution approving execution of Settlement Agreement between the City of Pacifica and W. E. Lyons Construction.
5. Resolutions approving the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the City of Pacifica and the following represented labor groups: 1) Teamsters Union Local 856 Miscellaneous; 2) Teamsters Union Local 856 Wastewater; 3) Pacifica Fire Fighters Association and San Mateo County Fire Fighters IAFF 2400; 4) Pacifica Police Officers Association; 5) Pacifica Police Management Association; and 6) Pacifica Police Supervisors Association for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolutions approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacifica and 1) Teamsters Union Local 856 Miscellaneous; 2) Teamsters Union Local 856 Wastewater; 3) Pacifica Fire Fighters Association and San Mateo County Fire Fighters IAFF 2400; 4) Pacifica Police Officers Association; 5) Pacifica Police Management Association; and 6) Pacifica Police Supervisors Association; for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028, including the revised salary schedules effective July 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, and July 1, 2027. After Council approval, staff will ensure the MOUs are properly cleaned up, and all technical corrections are made, including any remaining typos, fixing the tables of contents, finalizing the documents for signature, and eventually posting online.
6. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Accepting the Report of Sewer Service Charges for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and Directing the Filing of Charges for Collection by the County Controller.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the proposed "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica accepting the report of Sewer Service Charges for Fiscal Year 2025-2026, and directing the filing of charges for collection by the County Controller" to place the assessment charges on the County of San Mateo Property Tax Roll.
7. Approval of Annual Agreements for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2025-2026 for Polydyne, Inc. for $240,000; Trojan Technologies for $100,000, Synagro West, LLC for $180,000, and Centrisys CNP for $175,000 PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the following resolutions to approve Annual Agreements for the Department of Public Works - Wastewater Division for FY 2025- 2026:
1. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Agreement with Polydyne, Inc. In The Amount Of $240,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2025-26 Annual Supply of Polymer.
2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Purchase Agreement with Trojan Technologies Group, ULC in The Amount Of $100,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2025-26 Annual Supply of Trojan System UVSigna 2 Row System Replacement Parts.
3. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment 2 for Master Agreement for Biosolids Services and Task Order No. 3 with Synagro West, LLC In the Amount Of $180,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2025-26 Annual Biosolids City Council Regular Meeting 5 July 14, 2025
Hauling and Disposal.
4. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Master Agreement for Centrifuge Services with Centrisys CNP In the Amount Of $175,000 For the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant’s FY 2025-26 Annual Centrifuge Services.
8. Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement Between the City of Pacifica and Raney Planning & Management, Inc.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution to approve an Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and Raney Planning & Management, Inc., by increasing the contract amount by $50,000 for a total contract amount of $1,025,000, extend the term to June 30, 2026, and to authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.
9. Second Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement for Professional Planning and Related Services Between the City of Pacifica and Consulting Firm MIG PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Pacifica and MIG, Inc., to extend the agreement term through December 31, 2025, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Joyce Toomey, Pacifica, stated we need an ordinance that will prohibit camping in a tent in Pacifica. She stated that she wants Paloma Avenue to be removed from the oversized vehicles parking map and shared her concerns on this issue.
Nancy Tierney, Pacifica, referred to concerns expressed regarding people living in vehicles in various neighborhoods and shared her thoughts on the successful Temporary Safe Parking Program. She encouraged everyone to be good neighbors and expand opportunities for people living in their vehicles.
Michael Wahlman, Pacifica, requested that Council consider rescinding approval from Pacifica School District to build 70 units of housing at Oddstad and attach clawback provisions for any funding being provided to Pacifica City Council. He also shared progress of the recall effort of the Pacifica School Board.
Jay Chew, Pacifica, shared concerns on the danger levels of the pathway between Vallemar and Fairway Park and asked that the bike path between Vallemar and Linda Mar be relabeled to multi-use path.
JoAnne Arnos, Pacifica, shared her concerns on the RVs on Esplanade who have returned following the painting of the bike path and is also speaking on behalf of a disabled friend she knows who live on Esplanade. She raised issue with hygiene and the number of RVs in the neighborhood.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, thanked the City and PRC for the success of the Temporary Safe Parking Program, thanked the Sharp Park Library in making immigrant resources available, and shared information on those immigrant resources.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 July 14, 2025
Sue Digre, Pacifica, thanked the community for coming and speaking and advocated for community engagement. She shared her experience at mobile home parks, where rent for onebedroom units was $3,300. She stated even if we build many units, we may still have unhoused people because of the high rent, and we have to be reasonable.
Joanne Rokosky, El Granada, stated she is a member of Faith in Action Bay Area and spoke in support of continuing Pacifica’s Temporary Safe Parking Program.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, acknowledged the Sharp Park residents expressing their concerns on RVs on Paloma Avenue and shared her concerns on garbage in the City’s streets, especially in Esplanade Avenue where RVs have returned. She emphasized that we need to clean up the City in order to bring people to the City.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
There was Council consensus to move Council Communications to the end of the meeting.
At the end of the meeting, no Councilmembers spoke for Council Communications.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Woodhouse reminded all that the July 28 Council meeting has been cancelled as is normal for summer recess and the next regular scheduled Council meeting will be August 11.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated there was a request to reopen public comments on the Consent Calendar.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the vote was taken and we need to move forward.
Mayor pro Tem Boles apologized for the mistake and encouraged the member of the public to reach out via email to the entire Council.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. Public Hearing on a proposed ordinance repealing and replacing Article 49 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the City of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“Short-Term Rentals”); making certain amendments to Article 29 of Title 9, Chapter 4, Section 9-4.2904 (“Exempted Signs”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code (File 2025-001, Text Amendment TA-127-25); and finding the adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PROPOSED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica repealing and replacing Article 49 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the City of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“Short-Term Rentals”); amending Article 29 of Title 9, Chapter 4, Section 9-4.2904 (“Exempted Signs”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code; and finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that Commissioner Devine is present on behalf of the Planning Commission. She then presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked Commissioner Devine if she had anything to add from the last Planning Commission meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 July 14, 2025
Commissioner Devine stated there has been advocacy from the community and Planning Commission heard the depths on the way this has changed people’s way of life. She can envision how hard it was for people to stay here and keep homes here and how some of these disruptions have shattered their day-to-day situation. She believes that these are restrictive policies, but she stands by the recommendations the Commission made to Council. Aside from deep concern about her neighbors in general, her second concern is compliance and enforcement. These are restrictive policies and she hopes, if enacted, the City will meet the level of enforcement that this will demand.
Mayor pro Tem Boles opened the public hearing.
Peggy O’Donnell, Pacifica, shared her negative experiences living next to an STR, including noise, parking, and garbage, and eagerly awaited approval of this ordinance.
Molly Miller, Pacifica, agreed with Ms. O’Donnell’s comment and approved of the ordinance.
Gary Furlong, Pacifica, emphasized the importance of neighborhoods for residents, hosts being onsite for hosted rentals, requiring a state- or federal-issued ID, and regular code enforcement reports. He approved of the ordinance.
Michael Wahlman, Pacifica, requested the STR cap be removed from hosted rentals and allowing ADUs to be hosted rentals.
Patrick Beatty, Pacifica, shared his negative experiences living next to an STR and the challenges his neighbors have reporting them and encouraged building hotels and rentals in areas zoned for commercial.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, supported the Planning Commission recommendations and approved of the ordinance.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, acknowledged the high level of involvement of neighbors working with Council on this ordinance, approved of the ordinance, and requested the ordinance be implemented immediately in the coastal area upon Coastal Commission approval.
Bob O’Donnell, Pacifica, shared his negative experiences living next to an STR, including parking, congestion, and garbage; acknowledged the high level of involvement of neighbors working with Council on this ordinance; and requested the ordinance be implemented immediately in the coastal area upon Coastal Commission approval.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, shared her negative experiences living next to an STR, offered a suggestion to include that for hosted rentals the host must be on the property overnight, approved of the ordinance, and requested the ordinance be implemented immediately in the coastal area upon Coastal Commission approval.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, asked to include that for hosted rentals the host must be on the property overnight and adding composting requirements, rejected the idea of subsidies for inspection fees, and requested the ordinance be implemented immediately in the coastal area upon Coastal Commission approval. She also asked to include three “whereas” statements from the Planning Commission into the ordinance.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 July 14, 2025
Albert Zhang, Pacifica, stated the ordinance penalized all hosts indiscriminately instead of addressing the problem STRs. He described the challenges homeowners would face under the new ordinance and stated it was an unnecessary burden on good faith participants.
Stephanie Robbins, Pacifica, asked to include that for hosted rentals the host must be on the property overnight and requested the ordinance be implemented immediately in the coastal area upon Coastal Commission approval.
Mayor pro Tem Boles closed the public hearing. She asked staff about the next steps of the process. She thought there was clarification from the City Attorney that there are some things we can put in place but others we cannot until we go through the renewal period in October.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she will speak to the implementation of the ordinance in Section 9-4.4911 and perhaps Director Updegrave can follow up on the timeline and other procedural requirements for filing with the Coastal Commission. In Section 9-4.4912, it was structured so regulations that can be implemented with relative ease by the operator can go into effect immediately which is true for areas in the coastal zone as well. Certain sections of the ordinance in areas in the coastal zone would go into effect immediately after certification by the Coastal Commission but certain regulations that would substantially change the way the STR is operated and would require significant monetary investment and changes would not be able to go into effect until the time that the STR permit is renewed; once a permit is issued, it is issued under the regulations that are in effect at that time and the permit period is for one year. If the Coastal Commission has not certified the ordinance at the time the permit is obtained, that operator has a reasonable expectation to operate an STR under that permit for the year period that the permit is issued and in effect.
Mayor pro Tem Boles added something that would restrict the number of people or parking that affects their ability to make money would not be enforceable.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed, stating that some things that could not go into effect immediately is the parking. If someone obtains an STR permit but they do not have the ability to comply with the parking regulations, they have an expectation to use that permit for the year, assuming they do not have any violations or revocations; they cannot come into compliance with the parking requirement and that regulation would have to wait until the period of renewal.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked what one example of something we can enforce.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated one example is some of the reporting requirements or administrative regulations.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated another example of one that cannot go into effect right away is the hosted versus unhosted because the permit would have been issued under the current regulation that are not in effect. In terms of the amendment process, once this has been adopted, we will need to file for a Local Coastal Plan amendment with the Coastal Commission; it could take anywhere from 6-12 months to go through that whole process, as we will need to prepare the application, submit it, work with Coastal Commission staff, and get to a Coastal Commission hearing.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought there is a chance that this could be done before the next year.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 July 14, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it largely depends on the Coastal Commission process.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, in terms of the process with the Coastal Commission, he would add, based on our prior experience for the STR cap process, upon diligently preparing the submittal, typically there will be data requests and questions coming back from Coastal Commission staff that can often be very time-consuming. We will have to work on that with Coastal Commission staff towards a complete application. He thinks the Coastal Commission typically has a 90-day period to bring something to a hearing but they can grant themselves an extension of up to one year and it is out of the City’s hands on how long that process will take.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano reiterated that the regulations in Section 4912 specify the exact sections that would go into effect immediately after certification as well as the section of the ordinance that would have to wait until that renewal period.
Councilmember Wright asked if we could put in the ordinance some verbiage something to the effect that, when we renew the licenses in this round, our new ordinance will apply upon Coastal Commission approval.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the law that applies to the permits is in effect when they obtain the permit. We can advise them that the laws are changing but we do not know when the certification will happen or what Coastal Commission will do in terms of the submittal. She added that type of disclaimer will not negate the fact that we issued a permit for a period one year and they could argue that they are entitled to use that permit for the year-long period.
Councilmember Wright asked if there is a reason that we cannot shorten the permit period.
Community Development Director Updegrave thinks it is the same issue where anything that gets issued this October is under the current rules which as of now allow for one year. If Council wanted to shorten the time period of the permit, it would apply in the non-coastal zone and would not be applicable within the coastal zone until certification at the end of the permit period.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated essentially we have the same problem.
Councilmember Bier asked if someone can clarify the “whereas” statements that were approved by the Planning Commission that are not in the ordinance.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the direction of the Planning Commission was to add it to the Planning Commission resolution (on packet page 648) and those were incorporated into the Planning Commission resolution as directed.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked Commissioner Devine if that was their intention.
Commissioner Devine stated it was their intention for them to be in the ordinance.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano recalled clarifying with the Chair that it was to be included in the Planning Commission resolution, which was confirmed by the Planning Commission Chair and a majority of the Planning Commissioners.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 July 14, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that is how it was relayed, to add the “Whereas” recitals to the Planning Commission resolution.
Commissioner Devine confirmed it was for the Planning Commission resolution.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if Council could choose to add those to the ordinance.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano agreed that was something Council can choose to do.
Councilmember Espinosa stated she has a question about the home inspection. She asked if that is a fee or is the City paying for it.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated Council has not identified what the inspection fee will be.
Mayor pro Tem Boles saw packet page 636 says Council will establish the fee for the inspection and asked when and how does that happen.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, to establish a fee, staff would have to prepare an agenda item and a resolution and bring it back to Council for consideration. To answer Councilmember Espinosa’s question, the fee has not been established, but the intent is that the applicant would be paying the inspection fee.
Councilmember Espinosa assumed it will be for both, hosted and unhosted.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it is all STRs.
Councilmember Bier referred to the whereas statements from Planning Commission again.
Mayor pro Tem Boles suggested Community Development Director Updegrave read them from the Planning Commission resolution.
Community Development Director Updegrave referred to packet page 648, where Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-006 states the following: “WHEREAS, the California State Legislature has declared that housing is statewide concern; and WHEREAS, preservation of existing housing is an integral component of the City of Pacifica Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the stock of naturally affordable housing that comes from multi-family complexes is being impacted by short-term rentals, reducing affordable housing”.
There was Council consensus to add those three WHEREAS statements to the ordinance.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano mentioned that is an amendment that can be made at the time a motion is introduced.
Councilmember Bier requested to add reference to compost in the ordinance.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it is in the ordinance on packet page 638, under subsection D.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it is also a requirement under subsection H.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 July 14, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated page 640, subsection U, says “Short-Term Rental use shall comply with trash and recycling and scheduled solid waste pick-up” but it does not mention composting and, if possible, we could add that word in that section, also.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that we do not think it is necessary as that is talking about the trash and recycling containers more than anything. It is a general requirement in the Pacifica Municipal Code that residences comply with the composting requirements of our waste ordinance. She stated that we can certainly add that term, although it is not necessary.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is already included in the ordinance and the problem with including it in that provision is that the provision is dealing with the containers, not necessarily what goes in the containers.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we have a composting container that is separate than the other trash and replacement containers.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is covered elsewhere in the ordinance and this covers garbage containers.
Councilmember Wright asked if he could hear about the parking requirements. He doubted that a house with six bedrooms would meet the parking requirement and he wondered if the parking requirement would help address that issue.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the Planning Commission had recommended splitting the requirement so Council’s original direction would apply only in the coastal zone and would be less outside of the coastal zone and Council at the last meeting had directed to go back to one citywide provision, which is what is reflected in the ordinance now.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated one parking space per bedroom.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the original was that, within the coastal zone, there would be one off-street parking space, and outside the coastal zone, there would be two off-street parking spaces.
Community Development Director Updegrave confirmed the latest provision is at least one offstreet parking space per legally permitted bedroom being utilized as a short-term rental citywide (packet page 639).
Councilmember Wright asked the City Manager how much revenue loss do we expect once this is implemented.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated the estimated impact for the ordinance implementation would be between $1.4 and $1.5 million once the ordinance is fully implemented in coastal and noncoastal zones which, as discussed at this meeting, will take awhile.
Councilmember Wright stated there was mention of much increased administrative cost for managing this and what is the expected cost for that in addition to the revenue loss.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated there was a number of administrative items that would be required. We do not have a hard estimation of inspections but staff is working on that and tax and fee compliance costs are already known, which would increase the budget by $75,000 to City Council Regular Meeting 12 July 14, 2025
accommodate this cost. The estimated new cost of tax and fee compliance would be about $125,000 a year.
Councilmember Wright asked about increased enforcement cost with more rules.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated this number does not include staff internal cost of enforcement considerations. She stated this is only a third-party cost.
Councilmember Wright asked about the consequences are for unregistered STRs.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, if a short-term rental is operating without a permit, they would be in violation of the existing short-term rental ordinance and potential future ordinance; they would still be obligated to pay any transient occupancy taxes that were incurred or outstanding during their operation as a short-term rental and there may be other fines, fees, and penalties that are owed.
Councilmember Wright asked how we estimate their revenue that we missed out on TOT.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated typically, we estimate what revenue they had during their operation, and then the tax assessor develops an estimate on what is owed and they are provided an opportunity to respond and refute that estimate but, ultimately, they are obligated to pay.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if he is asking for an estimate of what we think those costs might be, that would be impossible to estimate because it depends on the individual violation as well as the individual STR permit operator.
Councilmember Wright asked, in her opinion, is it sufficient to act as a deterrent.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is difficult to answer. It probably will for some, but not for others.
Councilmember Wright asked if City Manager Woodhouse could speak to enforceability of the ordinance in general.
City Manager Woodhouse stated when the ordinance goes into effect our implementation of this will begin; for our enforcement efforts, one of the goals of the ordinance revisions is to make the requirements very clear and concise so it makes enforcement clearer. What we cannot predict is the amount of enforcement that will be required, how many will comply, how many not, and how many will operate illegally. He stated that there are restrictive provisions that will be difficult to enforce and may require audits financially per STR in some cases and different actions that will be time-consuming. The whole program of implementation and enforcement is going to cost a lot and be very staff-intensive.
Councilmember Wright asked if someone can speak to platform accountability.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the proposed ordinance, per Council’s direction, includes a provision regarding platform accountability. It is modeled after the Santa Monica ordinance; it provides that they will disclose to the City on a regular basis rental listings located in the City and cross check any listings that the City has on the permitted STRs, and advertising City Council Regular Meeting 13 July 14, 2025
platforms shall not complete any booking transaction for a short-term rental unless it is listed on the City’s registry.
Councilmember Wright stated staff have answered all his questions.
Mayor pro Tem Boles wanted to talk about enforcement in terms of the permit revocation on packet page 641, Item B. She asked does it say two violations of anything or are there some instances where we are revoking with one violation, like a misrepresentation on their application or a public safety issue.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated it could be one violation or two violations, all at the administrator’s discretion.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if it seems confusing that the middle statement says two violations of the article when this is all part of the article that could be one.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that the goal was to address as many potential scenarios as possible to ensure that enforcement revocations specifically could take place. It could mean one violation and the administrator would determine if the violation warrants revocation in that instance. If there are two violations within 12 months, that is different than one violation and, in that instance, when there are two violations within the preceding 12 months, the administrator may also revoke for that reason.
Mayor pro Tem Boles concluded something like a noise violation would not be one of these immediate revocations but two noise violations would.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if it would be helpful to further define “hosted” on packet page 633.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that, typically, we do not include any regulation language in the definition. Regulations are in the operating requirements or the permit standards, etc. That is not where we would enforce a violation. The definitions provide only definitions of a term; the regulations are the body of the operating regulations or permit requirements. If somebody is saying they looked at the definition and it did not say anything, that is not a defense as the regulation is what we would be enforcing.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated there was a question about reporting back to Council and asked, assuming this goes into effect in November outside the coastal zone, when would be a reasonable time to know if it is working, how enforcement is working, and what the challenges are.
City Manager Woodhouse knows there are aspects of this regulation where information will be transparent. He would defer to see what time period it makes sense to report on how the program is going. He stated there will also be the Coastal Commission process underway and, if the intent of the reporting out is to consider changes to the ordinance, you would not want to do that while you are in application to the Coastal Commission; there will also be some questions from the Coastal Commission as it proceeds or before it goes to hearing about what the effect has been in the non-coastal zone as they are interested in lodging near the beach.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 July 14, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles thanked the public for being patient all this time and for all the research they have done. We are hopeful that we are making some good changes that will improve our housing stock and our community livability while maintaining some tourism and some revenues for the City.
Councilmember Bier thanked everybody as well. She stated, regarding ADUs, that she wants the public to understand that the original pretense for our ADU ordinance was for naturally affordable housing and that is why she thinks it does belong just as it is written in the ordinance.
Councilmember Wright moved to introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica
repealing and replacing Article 49 of Title 9, Chapter 4 of the City of the Pacifica Municipal Code (“Short-Term Rentals”); amending Article 29 of Title 9, Chapter 4, Section 9-4.2904 (“Exempted Signs”) of the Pacifica Municipal Code; and finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended to include the WHEREAS recitals from Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-006 as follows: “WHEREAS, the California State Legislature has declared that housing is statewide concern; and WHEREAS, preservation of existing housing is an integral component of the City of Pacifica Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the stock of naturally affordable housing that comes from multi-family complexes is being impacted by short-term rentals, reducing affordable housing”; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Boles.
Mayor pro Tem Boles called a 5-minute recess and then reconvened the meeting.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [4-0]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
ABSENT: Beckmeyer
11. Introduction of an Ordinance of The City Council of The City of Pacifica To Amend Section 5-2.03, “Violations: Abatement”, Section 5-2.05, “Notices of Hearings”, Section 5-2.06, “Hearings: Determinations” and Repealing Section 5-2.07, “Appeals” and Section 5-2.08, “Removal” Within Chapter 2, "Vehicles Parked For Seventy-Two Hours Or More” of Title 5 Of The Pacifica Municipal Code Relating to Parking Exceeding 72 hours (Status: CEQA Exempt)
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to waive the first reading and introduce by title only an Ordinance of The City Council of The City of Pacifica To Amend Section 5-2.03, “Violations: Abatement”, Section 5-2.05, “Notices of Hearings”, Section 5-2.06, “Hearings: Determinations” and repealing Section 5-2.07, “Appeals” and Section 5-2.08, “Removal” Within Chapter 2, "Vehicles Parked For Seventy-Two Hours Or More” of Title 5 of The Pacifica Municipal Code Relating to Parking Exceeding 72 hours and find the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act Police Chief Sarasua and Captain Vicente Romero presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Boles opened the public hearing.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she is sitting board member for Healthcare for the Homeless and Farm Workers Board and for Pacifica Resource Center, but her remarks are her own. She City Council Regular Meeting 15 July 14, 2025
stated the homeless population has been traumatized and suggestions we may want to reconsider regarding possible repercussions on some of these amendments.
Joyce Toomey, Pacifica, appreciated Police Chief Sarasua for getting this through and spoke in favor of the Temporary Safe Parking Program, but raised concerns about the number of RVs from neighboring cities.
Ava, Pacifica, shared her concerns on the clarification of language used on this ordinance and the Police Department’s notices and specifically requested that Paloma Avenue be removed from the OSV parking map.
Ellen Hage, Pacifica, stated she is a leader with Faith in Action Bay Area. She asked that Council take into account the concerns of the neighborhood and unintended consequences for unhoused members and urged that Council decline these amendments and direct staff to study further options for Pacifica’s unhoused.
Mayor pro Tem Boles closed the public hearing.
Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to the question regarding the current 72-hour notices not saying how far people need to move but, if the ordinance passes at this meeting, will those be updated with more clarity.
Police Captain Romero stated that the forms will be updated and officers will be provided training.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that tonight is the introduction of the ordinance and the adoption of it will come back to Council on August 11 and then the ordinance goes into effect 30 days following that.
Councilmember Wright asked, if somebody parks for 72 hours, then you get a complaint, you go out, then 72 more hours, then you post a 72-hour notice so then we are at a 9-day strike before we can tell.
Police Captain Romero stated that the procedure is that, once we get a complaint and response to location, identify the vehicle and, if it is positioned where the complaint is, the vehicle will be marked and we will place a notice on the vehicle advising the owner of the vehicle of the complaint and the notice to move the vehicle after 72 hours; once that 72 hours is completed, the officer will come back to determine if there has been compliance and, if not, then the officer has a few options on how to address the issue.
Councilmember Wright asked what the shortest period of time and the longest period of time to resolve that issue and how long before citizens should reach out. Should the citizens wait 72 hours to make a complaint.
Police Captain Romero stated each situation is different, depending on the set of circumstances and availability of staff. Our intention is that, once we have a complaint and we determine that there is a violation, we intend to enforce it if that is the route that is appropriate at that time, such as soon as 72 hours after initial complaint or depending on the set of circumstances.
Councilmember Bier wanted to clarify that this is complaint-based.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 July 14, 2025
Police Chief Sarasua stated it can be both, generated from complaint or officer-initiated activity.
Councilmember Bier stated that she is concerned about residents in parking and if they leave for a week and have to then move it after 72 hours.
Police Chief Sarasua stated what is important is that officers have discretion and flexibility in their decision-making. What the Pacifica officers will do is take action that is procedurally just.
She stated in that scenario it is reasonable for someone going on vacation and neighbors looking out for neighbors and letting the officers on seeing what the circumstances are. She stated that there is some adaptiveness, flexibility, and decision-making. The officers are trying to go out and do the right thing and she trusts their judgment to make appropriate decisions in that situation.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked how Police are working with PRC now for our unhoused residents that are living on the streets. She knows we have a special officer that works hand in hand with PRC. She stated, to the concerns about harassment etc., how would we respond to that.
Police Captain Romero stated we have an officer who typically works on a regular basis with the Resource Center and, when he goes out in the field and encounters individuals living out of their vehicle, he will reach out and connect with them to identify what the difficulties are. He will get into contact with PRC and they will work in partnership together to make the resources available to the person that is living in their vehicle and there is continuous follow-up. For the last 18 months, we have been working closely with the PRC and it has been a great partnership and we have been able to help many individuals to get housing or participate in the Temporary Safe Parking Program. It has been very effective and our intention is to continue to provide services and make sure we are supporting our community.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked, if you see a vehicle that you know PRC is working with, would your approach be different or would they be notified also. She talked with PRC Director Rees before and her feeling was that vehicles should move because they should be maintained and operational and that is not necessarily an undue burden to have to move, but if something breaks down on their car and they are trying to get something fixed, it is a huge cost to them to bring it out of that tow lot.
Police Chief Sarasua assured her that the police officers apply a trauma-informed approach to these interactions, which she would describe as deeply caring as we consider themselves members of the community and understand the vulnerability that exists for those experiencing homelessness. To provide a balanced perspective, she will share that what we find is that most occupants of these vehicles that we come into contact with are not experiencing homelessness but is a lifestyle decision they enjoy, either living in their RV or in other circumstances and they decline services from PRC. To provide a balanced perspective, she says that where the perception is that most of the occupants we come into contact with are experiencing homelessness, that is not what we are finding in all circumstances.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that there are websites that are encouraging people to come on vacation here and park for free on our streets. She understands what she said that a lot of the numbers we are seeing are not because of the unhoused in our community.
City Manager Woodhouse wanted to be clear that the intent is that we will be enforcing this 72- hour ordinance change regardless of the vehicle. In that process is where the officer discretion and collaboration with the PRC comes into play. It will be on a case-by-case basis, but there City Council Regular Meeting 17 July 14, 2025
may be a case where the individual before being cited needs some assistance to move their vehicle, but vehicles need to move and cannot return within 24 hours within a thousand feet of that location. That is the ordinance that needs to be applied across the entire city but there is the individual discretion and compassion and work with the PRC that the police engage in.
City Attorney Kenyon added that, in addition, we also have protocols in place that the Police Department will be following to provide additional due process for those vehicles that are, in fact, unhoused. There are other ways to address the unhoused who will be towed using this ordinance. She stated that there will be warnings in place and, in that warning period, there will be attempts to connect people with services to find out what their needs are and to work with them.
Councilmember Bier confirmed that it is not an automatic tow.
Police Chief Sarasua stated it was not.
Councilmember Wright concluded that the typical procedure would at least make them aware of the services available at PRC or are they given the contact information for PRC.
Police Chief Sarasua stated that we have dedicated community service officers that go out to make contact with the occupants and provide services for them, explain what their options are, etc. She stated she could share one circumstance where the occupant asked for a gas card and PRC was helpful in providing that and they were able to move on their way. She stated applying some reasonable and balanced approach to trust our police officers to use their discretion to behave and perform their duties in a just and responsible way is what they are aiming for here.
Councilmember Wright asked, out of privacy concerns, if we are allowed, when receiving a complaint, to pass on that information about that particular vehicle to PRC.
Police Chief Sarasua stated that no privacy issue exists there.
Councilmember Wright asked if that was typical policy or does it fall within officer discretion.
Police Chief Sarasua stated that we respect the wishes of the occupant as well as they are considered members of our community and, if they refuse services, we respect those wishes.
She stated, depending upon the circumstances, the information that the officers receive during the call for service, they will make the decision about whether or not a referral is appropriate in that circumstance.
Councilmember Bier assumed we work closely with the outreach team at the PRC.
Councilmember Espinosa thinks our concern is that we displace these people, and she wants to make sure we are taking care of residents related to Pacifica. She knows we need to work on enforcement.
Police Chief Sarasua added that many of the occupants are not from Pacifica. She stated that there are advertisements on the internet that Pacifica has become a destination for people who want to live the RV or van life with no consequences or enforcement action. She stated a balanced approach that appropriately addresses and mitigates this issue, whether they are City Council Regular Meeting 18 July 14, 2025
experiencing homelessness or the occupant has decided to come to Pacifica as a destination, is where we will use their best judgment to serve.
Councilmember Espinosa thanked her, adding that we do want to take care of them.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if it was possible to work with PRC on a notice of how we communicate to people ahead of time before the ordinance comes into effect so they are aware.
Police Chief Sarasua stated we have had excellent experience working with Dir. Rees and more specifically Marina who has been wonderful and we consider them our partner in public safety and with each of these circumstances, when it feels appropriate to reach out, she has been very helpful and they have been an excellent resource. We sometimes speak with them on a weekly basis regarding individual cases and they serve as case managers in helping us resolve the issue.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if we have had discussions about this ordinance with PRC prior.
Police Chief Sarasua stated we were going to wait to see what the approval was and speak with PRC and come up with a cooperative way to work together.
Councilmember Bier clarified that this is about moving vehicles, not about displacing people.
She appreciated her saying that their cars need to be running. She also appreciates how this appears to our community and it is important that we make sure we hear our entire community and respond to what they are saying. She thought there have been so many complaints about vehicles that are not moving and she thinks this is one way we can address that and trust the partnerships between PRC and the Police Department. She stated this is about moving vehicles and there has to be compassion in this for those living in vehicles and for those experiencing vehicles parked across from their house for a very long time.
Councilmember Espinosa stated we need to figure out how we are going to solve the homelessness, such as getting jobs, housing, and moving forward. She would like to see what we are going to do, such as training or a plan to permanent housing. She thought it may be something we have to work on.
Councilmember Bier stated that those fall under case management at PRC.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if we can apply for a grant to help them.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thinks that is outside what we are reviewing today, but she knows the PRC does a lot of that good work.
Councilmember Wright asked if this is an important tool for the police to use to help balance the needs between the housed community and the van community.
Police Chief Sarasua thought it would be helpful to have this distance be codified to provide clarity for both the occupants of the vehicles and the members of the residential community being impacted by this and it would also allow our officers to have more clarity around their enforcement practices as well.
Councilmember Wright feels like we are going to make things difficult for somebody no matter what we do. He has heard the public speak loudly about how much of a problem this is for City Council Regular Meeting 19 July 14, 2025
them. He cannot imagine how much of a problem it is if they were parked across the street from his house. He does have some empathy for them.
Mayor pro Tem Boles moved to waive the first reading and introduce by title only an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to amend Section 5-2.03, “Violations: Abatement”, Section 5-2.05, “Notices of Hearings”, Section 5-2.06, “”Hearings” determinations” and repealing Section 5-2.07, “Appeals” and Section 5-2.08, “Removal” within Chapter 2, “Vehicles Parked for Seventy-two Hours or More” of Title 5 of the Pacifica Municipal Code Relating to Parking Exceeding 72 hours and find the ordinance exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
ABSENT: Beckmeyer
CONSIDERATION
12. Resolution to Adopt the Climate Action and Resilience Plan (Continued from May 27, 2025)
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution finding adoption of the Climate Action and Resilience Plan (CARP) categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15306 and 15308, and approving the CARP and all Appendices.
Management Analyst Brooks presented the staff report.
Mayor pro Tem Boles opened public comments.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated this is an important and good plan but disagreed with changing the name of the document and softening the language of the climate goals. She also advocated for a committee to implement the Plan.
Michael Wahlman, Pacifica, shared his concerns about dealing with potential increased housing and the sewer, power, water, and traffic needs associated with that housing. He asked how the City intends to fund more housing units and be resilient in our planning.
Nancy Tierney, Pacifica, stated she was on Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Task Force and encouraged the City Council to approve the Plan. She described the work put into the Plan by members, staff, and consultants and emphasized the recommendation of creating an Environmental Commission.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, agreed with the previous commenters and stated the Plan needs to be strong in light of major impacts of climate change.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, stated she was on Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Task Force and disagreed with changing the name of the document and softening the language of the climate goals. She also advocated for a committee to implement the Plan.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 July 14, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked Chair Meagher about Task Force review of the staff revisions provided last week.
Chair Meagher stated that the Implementation Subcommittee at the direction of the entire Task Force reviewed the document. The entire Task Force was given an opportunity to review and many members have somewhat stepped back from involvement. It was largely the Implementation Subcommittee that was reviewing those redlines and providing the input.
Mayor pro Tem Boles understood that everyone had an opportunity. She remembered Councilmember Wright expressing concerns about staff workload and we talked about having a caveat at the beginning. She did not recall changing the language in all the different policies and asked if throughout the rest of the document if other language had been changed.
Management Analyst Brooks stated language at the beginning of the following action plan items were recommended to be changed: E1.5, E1.6, E1.7, T2.1, F3.1, R2.10, and R2.11. She stated they were listed on packet page 711 with a redline version.
Mayor pro Tem Boles and Councilmember Bier asked why the name was changed from Climate Action and Adaptation Plan to Climate Action and Resilience Plan.
Management Analyst Brooks stated the recommendation began with Rincon Consultants and that went to the Task Force for consideration and discussion and they acted as a body to approve that change. The reason is not the intent of the document, but the action and scope of the document are more in line with resilience practices rather than a full-fledged adaptation plan, which would include things done through the Local Coastal Land Use Plan, such as extensive technical studies and hazard studies that were not included in the scope of this document. To not preclude that work from being done but rather acknowledge it being done in another City document, their intent is to recognize that this document’s scope is more about resilience. There is some adaptation, but it is not the technical Adaptation Plan other bodies might be looking for.
Mayor pro Tem Boles wanted to confirm when the Plan was brought to Council the last time, it had the name change and the Task Force as a body approved that name change.
Management Analyst Brooks stated that before it came to Council on May 27, the Task Force had already approved that the name needed to be changed and recommended it, also.
Councilmember Bier thought it was an important clarification for everyone.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought we could start with the disclaimer language on packet page 867 and then go through the areas of language change, particularly the two where there were still some areas of disagreement between staff and the Task Force implementation team.
Afterwards, we can go through other questions about the different policies.
Councilmember Bier stated that sounds good to her.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated the first language change on packet page 712 (CARP page 8) summarizes direction and process. She asked if this language helps alleviate Councilmember Wright’s concerns.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 July 14, 2025
Councilmember Wright agreed that it goes a long way towards alleviating the concern of not making promises that we have no way of keeping.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated Councilmember Bier had concerns about weakening some of it, and she asked if she was okay with this language being added.
Councilmember Bier stated she was okay with this language. She wanted to talk about the Council-appointed body at some point.
Mayor pro Tem Boles read, “these recommendations offer the range of strategies for Council to consider each year through its annual Strategic Goal Setting process with implementation decisions guided by legal financial and operational feasibility” and suggested that we add “yearly targeted greenhouse gas reduction goals” at the end of the sentence.
Councilmember Wright stated he had no problem with that and added that he is in favor of the goals. However, he does not want to promise things they don’t have the money to do.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we have goals we are trying to meet and these other things might come in the way but she does not want these to be the only things that we are considering. She is making sure we are shooting for the goal of reaching our greenhouse gas goals.
Councilmember Wright stated he is all on board with that.
Management Analyst Brooks asked who would determine the GHG reduction targets, i.e., the Council-appointed body that is making the recommendation to Council at Goal Setting, staff, etc.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought we could remove “yearly” but keep “as well as targeted greenhouse gas reduction goals”.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the last sentence in that paragraph says “adoption of the CARP commits Pacifica to take action to reduce GHG emissions and adapt climate change, making Pacifica an even more beautiful and healthy place to live”.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agreed but the part that bothered her says that the implementation decisions are only guided by those three things and she felt it was important to add that there too. She stated that we are not saying specifically what the targeted greenhouse gas reduction goals are, just that we are trying to meet their goals as part of our decision.
Councilmember Wright stated that we are talking about it and reviewing it on an annual basis.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agreed and asked if that is okay with all of them.
Councilmember Wright stated if staff is okay with it.
City Manager Woodhouse does not see any problem with that revision.
Chair Meagher suggested “greenhouse gas emission reduction goals”.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 July 14, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to packet page 711 for Action Table Revisions and asked where the language has changed for R2.10 and R2.11.
Management Analyst Brooks stated on packet page 711, E1.3 is the first action that had edits and then for the beginning action words it begins E1.5.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated E1.5, Reach Codes, was something she wanted to talk about. She stated new State laws were put in the budget reconciliation bill with SB130 and SB131, and that includes AB306, which limits municipalities from creating new Reach Codes, starting this year for a six-year period until 2031. She was at a Climate and Energy Conference with a few other people and everyone was shocked that this was done, as it completely contradicts the goals of the State for greenhouse gas reduction and climate goals too. Her understanding is that it came from a place with Speaker Rivas thinking about the fire areas in LA and wanting to avoid additional burdens placed on rebuilding new housing in those areas. This topic has come up at Peninsula Clean Energy and they had written a letter to oppose unless amended that she was hoping to bring to Council today until it was put in this way. She understands why the language has changed because the law makes it difficult now. She asked if the City Attorney or Community Development Director Updegrave can talk about how this new law might limit our Reach Codes and what is available to us going forward.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated AB306 does prohibit amending, adding or appealing residential Building Code standards, including Green Building Code requirements applicable to residential units between October 1, 2025 and June 1, 2031 unless changes to the Code meet certain exceptions and findings. There are exceptions that include changes related to public health and safety, emergency, fire safety or changes necessary to align with the General Plan approved on or before June 10, 2025. She stated that there are exceptions that the City could avail itself of if certain facts apply.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she and Councilmember Wright had a meeting with Peninsula Clean Energy trying to understand the laws. Until we have a draft ordinance, the City Attorney cannot necessarily opine but their feeling was that we do have some possibility because of General Plan alignment and of our CAAP which our General Plan calls for it to be updated, there are potential ways of moving forward with some Reach Codes. She felt it was troubling.
Councilmember Wright stated it was extremely disturbing.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated some other cities are trying to get some new Reach Codes in before the October 1 deadline.
Councilmember Wright stated they are having a hard time with staffs of 50.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that for the record and stated she will be meeting with our elected representatives locally to try to understand how this happened and whether we might be able to change the laws. She felt it was disturbing with the conflicting nature of what we are being told and how it changes day to day.
Councilmember Bier stated that there are reasons for changing the language because the Plan is not adopting anything. Council has to adopt it and would have to consider to adopt it. She does not know if she agrees with “analyze the viability” but instead “consider”. On R2.10, it says “consider adoption” because it has to be the Council that adopts it.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 July 14, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that is true. She does not think there is anything in there that the Task Force will necessarily do on their own without coming for adoption.
Councilmember Bier was trying to understand the change in the language to make sense of it.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano thinks the language for E1.5 through E1.7 was “analyze the viability of implementation” or “analyze the viability of adopting” because there are considerations and findings that Council needs to make in order to adopt.
City Attorney Kenyon stated there are findings that staff and legal will need to go through to determine whether or not those findings can be made in order for Council to consider adoption.
That is all what will happen and why the language “analyze the viability” is necessary.
Chair Meagher stated that the Task Force is generally in alignment but she thinks it is difficult as AB306 was very sudden and unexpected. She stated, going back to the concept of softening the language, the hope is that this is the minimum, and ideally, this does not restrict us from taking those next steps on the path forward, but it feels premature to put that in now, given the newness and shifting nature of this legislation.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated the other suggestion that was made for E1.5 and E1.6 from Peninsula Clean Energy in light of looking at AB306 was to say “adopt Green Building standards which reduce methane use in new and existing construction by 2028”. She thinks the Zero NOx is very specific like zero nitric oxide and those findings might be harder to do within our existing language but reducing methane use is broader and that could open up more possibilities.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated Zero NOx is one very specific type of Reach Code and the language that Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to is a broader approach that could be considered.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if it would be better to put this instead of Zero NOx or in addition to E1.6 and E1.7.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated instead of would be appropriate.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked what Chair Meagher’s thoughts are on that.
Chair Meagher thinks making it more encompassing makes sense.
Mayor pro Tem Boles concluded striking this language and putting in what she recommended.
Chair Meagher responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated “adopt Green Building standards which reduce methane use in new and existing construction by 2028”.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, when a motion is made, these will be amendments to the motion.
Management Analyst Brooks referred to T2.1, on packet page 711, where the recommendation was to replace “create” with “analyze the viability of creating a policy to eliminate reduced minimum parking requirements for new developments…”
City Council Regular Meeting 24 July 14, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles assumed the Task Force did not object to that language change.
Chair Meagher agreed, stating her understanding is that this was comments from Council around concerns with the original language.
There was Council consensus with T2.1.
Management Analyst Brooks stated the recommendation for F3.1 is to replace “establish” with “consider establishing a food recovery program for restaurants by December 2027, consistent with State law”.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked about staff’s concerns about that policy in particular.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated “consider establishing” was consistent with the prior Council recommendations on softening the language but the addition of “consistent with State law” was to make sure that whatever changes we make or whatever food recovery program for restaurants is considered is consistent with SB1383 and its successor bills. She stated that the City already has Code provisions relating to organic food waste and we want to make sure that whatever is adopted here is also consistent with already established regulations.
There was Council consensus.
Management Analyst Brooks stated the next beginning action word changes would be in R2.10 and R2.11 on packet page 713. Task force recommendation was to keep “adopt” and staff recommendation was “consider adoption of”. R2.11 has the same difference.
Councilmember Wright moved they extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
ABSENT: Beckmeyer
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she is okay with the cool roofing changing to “consider adoption”, as cool roofing is in Title 24 as an option for meeting energy regulations. She also referred to “consider adoption of regulations in accordance with State law that limit development in landslide-prone areas”.
Councilmember Bier asked why we would develop in landslide prone areas.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we already have policies in the General Plan about restricting development in hazardous areas and about expanding hillside preservation. She feels like those policies are already here and it is good to have another body that may be looking out for them, but she thinks “adopt” is too strong a word for that because of those nuances.
There was Council consensus.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 July 14, 2025
Councilmember Bier stated she does not understand the change to Council-appointed body.
Management Analyst Brooks stated the language is throughout as it is listed throughout action tables as a “lead body” and finally in implementation section when the Task Force makes recommendations for implementation. The original draft called it an “environmental commission” and this version changed it to “Council-appointed implementation body” by purely for the reason that it is not yet named, as this is preceding a meeting in September where the Task Force and charter are officially re-established to be the implementation body per Council direction in April 2025. Whatever it is called is up to Council and, until then, it does not have a name.
Councilmember Wright asked what the Task Force members think it should be named.
Management Analyst Brooks stated that the Task Force’s original recommendation was Environmental Commission.
Chair Meagher stated the Task Force can live with the adoption whichever way and when the resolution comes forward to establish extending the Task Force or other body at that time.
Councilmember Bier thought it was a beautiful document and really important work. She thanked the Task Force. The language that will allow some Council to consider to adopt things is strong language. She does not feel that it softens the language so much that it will not get done and she is grateful for the work they did and looks forward to what is coming next.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she will be watching to make sure we are implementing things.
We have a responsibility to the City that is already experiencing the devastating effects of climate change and we can make a difference.
Councilmember Wright added for our children.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated one interesting thing at the Climate and Energy conference, in terms of data, we have not increased our electric demand overall as a state for a long time which is a huge accomplishment. She stated these things make a difference and affect things directly but also the State does not have to spend more on providing more infrastructure. She thanked them for all their hard work.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the amendments were on page 8 of the CARP to add “as well as targeted GHG emission reduction goals” at the end of the sentence, replacing “Zero NOx” in E1.6 and E1.7 with “adopt Green Building standards to reduce methane use in new and existing construction by 2028”. She didn’t hear Council talk about new and existing buildings so, if they get clarification on that.
Councilmember Bier moved to adopt a Resolution finding adoption of the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15306 and 15308, and approving the CARP and all appendices as amended by staff; seconded by Mayor pro Tem Boles.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 July 14, 2025
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [4-0]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
AYES: Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
ABSENT: Beckmeyer
13. Resolution approving the Compensation and Benefits Plan for the Unrepresented Employee Group for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolution approving the Compensation and Benefits Plan for the Unrepresented Employee Group for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028, including the revised salary schedules effective July 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, and July 1, 2027. Following Council approval, staff will ensure the Compensation and Benefits Plan is fully updated, including making any necessary technical corrections, addressing remaining typographical errors, updating the table of contents, finalizing the document for signature, and posting the final version online.
Human Resources Manager Harris presented the staff report.
Councilmember Wright asked about recruiting benefits with these recommended changes.
Human Resources Manager Harris stated, with these enhanced classifications, especially those at the farthest behind market, when we address these positions with steps, it will allow us to better advertise for those positions if we do get vacancies with a more lucrative salary range and we can advertise the entire three-year benefit plan.
There were no public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated we are still facing a structural deficit and the only way we are able to offer this additional compensation is some very clever accounting and suggestions to borrow from positions that we are not filling to do that, but it is essential that we keep the staff we have and start to be able to recruit. We have to make those investments and find other ways to bring some revenue to the City for sustainable moving forward.
Councilmember Bier stated that we have to take care of folks so they will stay.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that our City would not survive if we did not have our staff.
Councilmember Wright stated that we will save, in the long run, a ton of money by saving the institutional knowledge that we have developed.
Mayor pro Tem Boles moved to adopt the resolution approving the Compensation and Benefits Plan for the Unrepresented Employee Group for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028, including the revised salary schedules; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 July 14, 2025
RESULT: ADOPTED [4-0]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
ABSENT: Beckmeyer
ADJOURN
Mayor pro Tem Boles adjourned the meeting at 11:09 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 8/25/2025
__________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor