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 August 11, 2025
August 11, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on August 11, 2025 at 7:08 PM 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor Present
Christine Boles Mayor pro Tem Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
Greg Wright Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Karen Murphy, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Melissa Tigbao, Public Works Director (Zoom); Louis Sun, PW Dep. DirectorWastewater Div.; Roland Yip, PW Dep. Director-Engineering; Stephanie Douglas, Recreation Manager; Brianne Harkousha, Community Development Deputy Director; Travis Meyerhoff, Police Corporal; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Beckmeyer
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if any Councilmembers wished to pull any items from consent.
Mayor pro Tem Boles had some questions about Item #7. She was confused with the agenda for the new contract amount for HdL, reading, “The total annual cost for the contract will increase from approximately $85,000 (previously based on a combination of fixed fees and City Council Regular Meeting 2 August 11, 2025
variable contingency fees tied to recovery revenues) to $125,000 fixed contract rate plus the ongoing contingency fees.” She understood from staff that last year’s total cost with all the other fees was close to $116,000. The staff report mentions this new contract being $125,000 as a fixed fee but her understanding from the answer is that it may go up and down depending on the work that HdL is doing. She concluded that was an estimate that they may go under.
Her understanding is that the only big change, other than standard cost increases, is the new $24,700 fee for STR identification monitoring, education, registration, and compliance. She was confirming that as the only new piece that is in the contract, but the total amount of HDL’s contract is only going up by about $10,000 from before.
Mayor Beckmeyer understands that this is a two-year agreement and she asked if she is correct that what Council is voting on in this item is for FY 25-26 and 26-27.
City Manager Woodhouse believes that is correct.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if the last paragraph of the resolution provides an option to extend.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated it was an option to extend.
Mayor Beckmeyer confirmed that two years with an option to extend for one more year.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, thanked Council for the progress on the Short-Term Rental Ordinance, as well as the Planning Commission and community.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, shared concerns about sections of the Voluntary Collection Agreement with HomeAway preventing tax audits and negative impacts on the Short-Term Rental ordinance. He also asked for an explanation on the cost increase in the contract with HdL as well as the process for enforcement.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, agreed with Mr. Reinero. She also thanked Council and staff for passing the Short-Term Rental ordinance.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked for staff to comment about the auditing procedures in the contract with HomeAway and whether it is information also collected from hotels and why guest information would not be included with the STRs.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated staff worked with VRBO and Expedia for over a year about the contract and the contract helps for City to collect TOT. It is quite significant progress for implementation of the ordinance with certain provisions, including specific recommendations for accountability. For the VCA agreement, none of the platforms agreed to violate some of the privacy provisions. The language here is what their legal team agreed on. She stated that collaboration is there.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated the other provisions of our STR ordinance like platform accountability that would require them to list permit numbers before they collect taxes, etc. would still be things we can hold them to.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 August 11, 2025
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed, adding that in the VCA payments, they still did not agree for this to be in the mandatory field but we had numerous meetings and they were willing to work with staff to report and coordinate with the City if the entry in this field is made and be able to remove this listing.
City Attorney Kenyon added that the City does have the ability in our TOT ordinance to audit transient operators who do not pay TOT. There is a way to audit and we do not necessarily need this in order to audit. She also said that this agreement took exhaustive negotiations and this was the final result of those negotiations. She stated that, with any changes at this meeting, her suggestion would be that we would have to pull this item and go back and negotiate with VRBO as this was a very important privacy provision from their perspective.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated this will help us collect the fees more easily so HdL does not have to do that work.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that at the end of the day we felt very pleased that they would agree to any kind of agreement. When we went into negotiations, we would not have been surprised if they said no, but after almost a year of negotiations, this is the result. It may not be perfect, but we have other tools that can address some of the issues that we heard raised at this meeting.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that STR compliance comes in three different ways: TOT, business license, and STR permit. This agreement will help address the TOT compliance which is a huge component of what HdL currently does as all VRBOs currently are required to selfreport the TOT and remit them to the city and it may or may not happen.
Mayor pro Tem Boles assumed, if the City is not happy with this contract as it goes out, after a certain amount of time there are provisions for termination or changes that we can try to negotiate.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we can always negotiate amendments.
Councilmember Bier moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
1. Approval of Disbursements for 07/01/25 through 07/31/25 PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of July 2025.
2. 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 August 11, 2025
3. Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of $68,895.20 from the state of California’s Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program for the education, prevention, and enforcement of impaired driving laws.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica authorizing the acceptance of $68,895.20 from the state of California’s Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program for the education, prevention, and enforcement of impaired driving laws.
4. Approval of Agreement with Metro Mobile Communications for the purchase of (70) police handheld portable radios in the amount of $157,319 and to Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute all Documents Associated with this Project.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt a resolution approving the Agreement with Metro Mobile Communications for the purchase of (70) police handheld portable radios in the amount of $157,319; and Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute all Documents Associated with the Project.
5. Resolution to Approve Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Admin Building Elevator Modernization Project P0039
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution:
A. Approving the Construction Contract with KONE, Inc. in an amount of $205,232.
B. Authorizing a budget authority in the amount of $219,000, which includes contingencies in an amount of $13,768, not to exceed seven percent (7%) of the Construction Contract amount;
C. Authorizing staff to Execute Future Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount; and
D. Authorizing the City Manager and Designated Personnel to Sign Contract Documents related to the CCWRP Admin Building Elevator Modernization Project P0039.
6. Adopt Resolution Updating List of Projects Funded by 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bonds PROPOSED ACTION: Move to Adopt Resolution to Update 2017 Wastewater Revenue Bond (Installment Sale Agreement Appendix B)
7. Resolution to approve a contract with Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates (HdL Companies) for Business License, Transient Occupancy Tax, and Short-Term Rental Services.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution to approve the renewal of the consultant services agreement with HdL Companies to continue providing business license administration, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), and other municipal revenue compliance services, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any necessary amendments.
8. Resolution authorizing execution of a Voluntary Collection Agreement (VCA) between the City of Pacifica and HomeAway.com, Inc, for the collection of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Pacifica Tourism Management District (PTMD) Assessments.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution approving the Voluntary Collection Agreement (VCA) between the City of Pacifica and HomeAway.com, Inc, at no cost to the City, for the collection and remittance of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Pacifica Tourism and Marketing District (PTMD) assessments on short-term rentals through a VRBO hosting platform and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement and any necessary amendments.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 August 11, 2025
9. Adoption of an Ordinance by the City of Pacifica to repeal and replace 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 the adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommended CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) “The General Rule” and Section 15301 “Existing Facilities” of the CEQA Guidelines.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to adopt an “Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica to repeal and replace 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 the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (File 2025-001, Text Amendment TA-127-25).”
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Mayor Beckmeyer provided a statement requesting public comments speaking on the Sanchez Art Center, either related to rezoning or the Housing Element, be held until Item #10. Item #10 is the Housing Element in general and specifically under that item is the Sanchez Art Center site. It is a separate facet of the same item. Mayor Beckmeyer stated that there were seventeen cards requesting to speak on items not on the posted agenda, and suggested limiting the time to two minutes each; Councilmembers agreed.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated under SB 1214, the City no longer provides online information and development application proposals for public review and comment. He stated that the City withheld all information, not only those that are copyrighted. He also stated public notices that have been moved to San Mateo Daily Journal are not able to be viewed without a subscription.
Joyce Toomey, Pacifica, requested that Paloma Ave. be removed from the oversized vehicle parking map. She also stated we need a no camping ordinance and shared concerns about tent camping in the Manor Shopping Center.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her concerns on the proposed parking ordinance amendments and asked to consider data, current studies, and community reports before making decisions that could bring harm to residents.
Julia Rapoza, Pacifica, shared her concerns about the 72-hour parking ordinance, the 1000 feet requirement, and officer discretion. She also stated it was confusing to determine where one can legally park and that it appeared that the ordinance was targeted at vehicle dwellers.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, stated the public comments in the previous item received three minutes but this public comment period received two minutes. She requested consistency for the entire meeting.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, shared her concerns about protocol and the clarity regarding what can be included in this public comment period.
Michael Wahlman, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on quality education for children and concerns about decisions by the Pacifica School District board. He asked City Council for a City Council Regular Meeting 6 August 11, 2025
proclamation or resolution for a cease and desist of the Pacifica School District causing further harm to the City of Pacifica, its residents, and businesses.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, referred to a trespassing violation on her property and Ms. Egan’s property by the STR at 1987 Beach Blvd. and asked for their permit to be revoked or not renewed in the next cycle.
Gioconda Egan, Pacifica, shared her concern about the trespassing violation described by Ms.
Quinn and further explained a trespassing incident that took place in December 2023. She asked City Council not to renew their permit in the next cycle.
Aren Clark, Pacifica, shared his concerns about homeless people living free near homeowning taxpayers and stated the City needs to provide overnight parking for incoming motorhomes so they do not move into neighborhoods.
Joaquin Jiminez, Half Moon Bay, invited the City of Pacifica to an event on August 16 called Vaquero Days and provided information on the event.
Marcia Sampson, Pacifica, stated she is present to share her concerns on RVs at Paloma Avenue, which differed from other circumstances in the City. She also stated we need a solution that directly addresses the RVs.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, supported Ms. Quinn in the trespassing incident with the STR. He was not sure why the STR permit had not been revoked these past three years and asked Council to direct staff to be clear in the criteria that would trigger hearings and how many hearings in the past three years have City staff performed for revocations for STR permits.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, supported Ms. Quinn and Ms. Egan and asked Council not to renew the STR permit for 1987 Beach Blvd. She also expressed her concerns about overdosing in the community and asked Council to look into banning sales of nitrous oxide.
Lori, Pacifica, shared her concerns on getting documented information on Council and Planning Commission meetings and shared her request to provide online access for documents submitted for active planning applications. She emphasized that SB 1214 applied to copyrighted materials specifically and shared links that may serve as a solution.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, stated it was not standard practice to change the protocol to not let general comments for an issue not specific to an agenda item, as Sanchez Art Center was not specifically mentioned in Item #10.
Councilmember Wright asked for a point of order, as it was made clear that the Sanchez Art Center was part of item #10.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she will give Ms. Lee two minutes to complete her comments, but she sees there is a disagreement about the interpretation on Sanchez Art Center.
Ms. Lee wanted to offer a solution to respect those who came for Council to vote to move Item #10 up in the agenda. She stated that for those engaging the process that last-minute changes to speaking time and parameters, as well as transparency, feels disrespectful and disdainful.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 August 11, 2025
Councilmember Wright asked City Manager Woodhouse to speak about some of the staff challenges regarding keeping information on the website, where it is in the work plan, what our plans are for the future, and how our challenged budget is affecting this process.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the Community Development Department is working on improving our technology usage process for the development applications portal. It has involved manual uploads of information and, in the past, resulted in outdated application documents, which creates confusion in the community and inaccurate information when those are accessed. He stated that Community Development Director Updegrave recognized that and is working on a process to improve that dramatically. He stated that we are limited in certain aspects as commenters noted in providing information under new state law, but there is the Community Development portal that has a map of the applications that exist and we are working on both interim measures to implement as well as longer term. What is in Council’s Strategic Plan for implementation this year is a permit application and tracking system that will benefit not just Community Development but Building and Public Works projects, etc. He stated that it is not a simple thing to implement and manage. He stated that it comes down to resource constraints and commitment to ensure accurate and up-to-date information that is available to the public combined with the constraints of state law. We are navigating that to improve the whole system in due course.
Councilmember Wright asked about evening hours available one night a week.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that City Hall is open until 7:30 on Wednesday evenings.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated we are working on interim measures, and she hears the frustration in the public. She asked if we have an idea when this might be coming on and is there a work around for at least projects that are coming before the Planning Commission or Council.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we are hoping to launch the initial stages of the process improvement work as soon as possible. She felt it was important that we have consistent, accurate, and updated information available at all times, which is always available at the Civic Center’s permit center. She stated that we are looking into some interim measures and hoping we can implement by the end of the year. She liked Mayor pro Tem Boles’ suggestion of potentially creating files for projects going before Planning Commission, and she thinks it is something we can explore and taking a more manageable project by project approach.
Mayor Beckmeyer suggested moving Council and Staff Communications after Item #10.
There was Council consensus.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Beckmeyer read a Letter of Commendation in honor of Roy Earnest.
Roy Earnest felt Pacifica has done well as a surfing community and it has been an honor to live here and being involved in surfing since 1962. Kahuna Kapuna was one of the ways he could give back to the community.
City Council Regular Meeting 8 August 11, 2025
Councilmember Wright stated Mr. Earnest has helped build that community and he is part of that attraction that drew them here and part of what makes Pacifica special. He thanked him for all his years of service.
Councilmember Bier stated it was wonderful to acknowledge Mr. Earnest for all the work he does for our community, including the Age-Friendly Coalition. She has learned so much from him and she bring that into the community when she can and she appreciates him for that.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she had so much fun with him at the Kahuna Kapuna this year.
She stated this is just one piece to try to make us a more age-friendly community. She mentioned that she was told loneliness for seniors is worse than smoking at least seven packs of cigarettes a day, and staying healthy is one way to stay mobile. She recalls telling AARP at a statewide conference about Kahuna Kapuna and they were blown away. She thanked Mr.
Earnest for all he did.
Councilmember Espinosa thanked Mr. Earnest, stating that she had the opportunity to talk to him about what he does for the community. She liked to assist older members of the community and she thanked him for everything he does.
Roy Earnest thanked them for their comments.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated, independent of and underlaying all of this, it is the grace with which he approaches everyone and every issue in this community that inspires her the most. She felt he is a huge example to them and she is grateful for that.
There were no public comments.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS – NONE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. General Plan Amendments (GPA-108-25), Zoning Ordinance (TA-128-25), and Associated Land Use (GPA-108-25) and Zoning Map Amendments (RZ-216-25) Implementing the Rezoning Program (File No. 2025-007) required under the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Action:
Certify a Final Environmental Impact Report, Adopt Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program.
PROPOSED ACTION:
1. Adopt a Resolution Certifying a Final EIR and Adopting Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program;
2. Adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the General Plan text and land use map; and
3. Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance approving the amendments to the zoning code, and zoning map
Community Development Director Updegrave and Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha presented the staff report, alongside Consultant Allison Moore, Dyett & Bhatia.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 August 11, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there were any Council clarifying questions.
Mayor pro Tem Boles appreciated staff reaching out to HCD about the Sanchez Art Center site and that it could be removed from the rezoning. She asked if staff can specifically explain what the difference is between not being in the rezoning and having been in the rezoning and how that helps protect the site.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the Housing Element has been adopted most recently in March 2025 and that is where we have the analysis and the establishment of what our sites are that are needed to meet our RHNA. That establishes the core sites and buffer sites. She stated that the Rezoning Program is a separate action outside of the Housing Element, but implements the Housing Element. This is where the sites that have been identified in the Housing Element get rezoned. In their current zoning designations and land use designations, those properties could not be developed at the density already established in the Housing Element, hence why the rezoning is necessary. Sanchez Art Center, Site 23, has been removed from the Rezoning Program and there are no proposed land use changes, no zoning changes, and no changes proposed for that site.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated it is still listed as a buffer site in the Housing Element. She asked what that means and when might HCD force us to take a site out of the buffer and put it into the main sites for housing.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated HCD cannot force us to rezone a site.
Before anything could happen on that site, it would require a separate rezoning process:
Planning Commission, public review, and City Council. The Council would need to decide to do that.
Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to 291 other low income unit buffer sites. She asked when would a buffer site need to become a site and how does that work.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated, pursuant to the Housing Element and State law, HCD has required that all the buffer sites be rezoned and effectively be made available for housing. That is why all the core and buffer sites are included for rezoning except for the Sanchez Art Center, which has been removed.
Councilmember Bier concluded that it is not a buffer site.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that it is listed as a buffer site in the Housing Element, but it is effectively not a buffer site because it is not being rezoned.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she missed that nuance that it is effectively not a buffer zone. She asked if this Housing Element cycle ends at the end of 2031.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy believes that is so.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked, if nothing happens with the Sanchez Art Center site before the end of the RHNA cycle, can we remove it from the Housing Element in the next cycle.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the City retains full discretion on what sites to include in future Housing Elements.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 August 11, 2025
Councilmember Espinosa asked why is the Sanchez Art Center in the Housing Element now if we could have chosen not to put it there.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated Site 23 was analyzed throughout the development of the Housing Element and has been included since the beginning as it is a cityowned site of a fair size.
Councilmember Wright stated that HCD did require us to include a certain number of Cityowned sites as proper sites and through that process it became one.
Councilmember Espinosa stated her question is, if it is not required now, why do we still have to have it there.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that, in order to revise the Housing Element, Council would need to direct City Manager to reopen the Housing Element; it would go back through the process, including potentially analyzing alternative sites to take its place, go back through tribal consultations, go through a revision of our sites, etc. It is a separate process from the rezoning. If we were to reopen the Housing Element now, we would not be able to submit the Housing Element for certification to HCD until that process is completed.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, putting it more bluntly, that is the reason; in order to remove it, we would have to go through likely a year to remove it and, if we wait to go through that process to have it removed now, we will not have a certified Housing Element.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we do not have to keep it there, but we will make a decision whether we are going to put it back into a buffer site.
City Attorney Kenyon thinks the decision will be does Council want to keep it in the Housing Element or do they want to remove it and go through that process. Council can go through the process without waiting for the sixth cycle.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy added that decision tonight is whether Council wants to move forward with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to take the site out of the Rezoning Program, which effectively means that it cannot be developed with housing and would remain as is.
City Attorney Kenyon added that the goal of the Council, i.e., to have a certified Housing Element as soon as possible, along with removing the Sanchez Art Center from rezoning, if it is approved at this meeting, the Council has effectively removed the Sanchez Art Center. She stated that it is not technically removed from the Housing Element, but the fact that it is not being rezoned means that there is no land use that can be made of that property, other than its existing use, until it is rezoned. So, effectively, the Council would have removed it.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that Council would be the one to give direction to have it rezoned in the future and go through the process with public input.
City Attorney stated she is correct and this is different than a third party parcel. She stated that we have so many controls in place, such as legislative control through the Housing Element rezoning and we are exercising that by not including it in the rezoning and cannot be developed in any other way; we are also addressing the issue that it is still in the Housing Element and City Council Regular Meeting 11 August 11, 2025
moving forward with certification of our Housing Element as soon as possible. She stated it is a benefit for Council.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked the City Attorney to clarify if Council could remove it at some point in the future once we have achieved certification.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively but that process would mean that we would have to go through a very extensive analysis to determine, if that is being removed, if we still have enough to satisfy HCD that we are meeting their RHNA obligation. She cannot say definitively how it would be removed or what the process would be other than we would go through a similar process that we did to approve the Housing Element in the first place.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought it would be very similar to that process.
Councilmember Wright wondered if ministerial approvals were appealable and to whom.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that ministerial approvals are appealable to the higher body: If it was a staff ministerial approval, it would go to the Planning Commission. That action would also be appealable to Council. The appeal would be whether the rules in place were complied with effectively. Even though a ministerial approval is appealable, the appeal would be limited to compliance with the ministerial requirements in the code.
Councilmember Wright stated, with so many changes in State law, if we were to start the Housing Element process over or do it, what would be some of the significant changes that have happened in state law that were adversely affect us.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that the State laws that are enacted would apply regardless of whether we are going through another Housing Element process. HCD does continue to keep adding additional requirements on Housing Elements; so there is always the possibility that, if we reopen the Housing Element, HCD may ask for additional changes to the Housing Element, as well.
Councilmember Wright asked if we have collaborated with Coastal Commission as well as HCD since 15% of Pacifica is in the coastal zone.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that, after adoption, we will file the Local Coastal Plan amendments for the four sites located in the coastal zone.
Councilmember Wright asked who trumps who, Coastal Commission or HCD.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated they are both State agencies and Coastal Commission will need to approve the sites. HCD has approved our Housing Element and, if Coastal Commission does not approve those sites, we would have to go back to HCD. She stated they are co-equal state agencies.
Councilmember Wright asked when compliance kicks in and when do we regain local control over some of these sites.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy asked if he means when we get certification, we will achieve certification after HCD reviews our ordinance, and they have said that our Housing Element is in compliance already as adopted, so they will issue a letter saying we are certified. Staff has City Council Regular Meeting 12 August 11, 2025
conferred with them on the ordinance and we are extremely hopeful that they will agree that we have met all the requirements and this will achieve certification.
Councilmember Wright asked if Coastal Commission will not interfere with our application and we will still have local control regardless of what Coastal Commission does.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated HCD has not included any requirements that the Coastal Commission needs to approve any aspect of it before issuing certification.
Councilmember Wright asked if staff can speak about some of the challenges with some of our mixed use zoning uses. He felt we are challenged from a commercial space perspective and he thinks part of the Planning Commission’s intent was to offer more choice and more options. He asked what some of the challenges are with some of the new State laws that are going to subvert the Planning Commission’s intent on mixed use development.
Community Development Director Updegrave does not know if staff can provide an answer for that as so much of development is also market-based. The Planning Commission included, through all of their work on the objective standards, a minimum FAR (floor area ratio) requirement, which is a measure of commercial floor area relative to the lot size, in mixed use (MU) districts that has been included in both the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. In those MU districts, we have a minimum FAR requirement.
Councilmember Wright asked if the 20% affordable changes that.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, on the sites eligible for by-right approval under State law, they could propose 100% residential on a mixed-use site.
Councilmember Wright thought that would subvert the intent of the Planning Commission to offer more if they did 20%. If they did 15%, would they still have the same.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that they would have to meet the requirement of State law which is currently 20%.
Councilmember Bier asked staff to clarify for everyone how long have we been out of compliance.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated about three years, as we were required to comply in January 2023.
Councilmember Bier asked how many builder’s remedy applications have been submitted.
Community Development Director Updegrave believes we have 6 or 7 currently.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened the public hearing.
Horace Hinshaw, Pacifica, shared history on Site 23 as the School District purchased the property for only playing fields in the 1990s and then expanded to arts. He appreciated what Council is doing and hopes things will be resolved and they will all be happy.
Rene Blanco, Pacifica, shared her personal participation in Sanchez Art Center and aspiration to keep it available for kids in the future.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 August 11, 2025
Aren Clark, Pacifica, shared his appreciation for them taking the Art Center out of the process and shared his concerns regarding the increased housing projects mandated by the State.
Jerry Barrish, Pacifica, the Art Center’s artistic director for 25 years, shared some of the goals accomplished over those years and its positive impact on businesses. He asked Council not to rezone Site 23.
Michael Watkins, Pacifica, referred to Site 19, the Filipino Church, and shared his concerns on the infrastructure needs prior to building housing. He also was concerned that many neighbors did not receive information on this meeting.
Michael Wahlman, Pacifica, echoed all comments on the importance of the Art Center to Pacifica and shared his concerns on State builder’s remedy issues for the future, asking if the plan allows for new development outside of the identified sites.
Sara Woodhull, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on the importance of art culture by the Sanchez Art Center and supported keeping it out of the Rezoning Program for the Housing Element.
Andrew Leone, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on the importance of art culture by the Sanchez Art Center and supported keeping it out of the Rezoning Program for the Housing Element.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared her memories of all she did in town with her children and how the Sanchez Art Center was a treasure where parents could take their children to enjoy with no charge and requested that we protect it for the future.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, the Sanchez Art Center’s Executive Director, shared information on recent events open to the public to support local artists, etc., including artists throughout northern and southern California. She is speaking for all the facilities on the site that it needs to be removed from the Housing Element and to remove the fit study overall to show good faith.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, shared his concerns that Pacifica is being forced by State law to force us to comply with HCD’s RHNA numbers with no opportunity to control our zoning and housing plan and asked the City to endorse a ballot initiative to regain local control of cities’ housing plans.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, hoped the City figures out a way to push back on the State’s mandated RHNA numbers and shared her concerns on the issue with existing infrastructure supporting added residents, especially when dealing with emergencies.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, thanked the mayor for respecting her protocol concerns. She shared her concerns on the State housing laws and the process of options available to remove the Sanchez Art Center permanently and asked that we take it out from the Housing Element.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, thanked Planning Commission and staff for removing the Art Center from the Rezoning Program and expressed her concerns about State mandates for building housing. She asked to remove Site 23 from the Housing Element at the earliest opportunity after certification.
David/CKS, stated he represents several owners in the West Sharp Park District throughout the Housing Element phases and shared information regarding a factual error in the zoning City Council Regular Meeting 14 August 11, 2025
designation of two parcels on Salada which staff has said will be corrected. He requested that the City submit the corrected version for certification.
Caitlin Quinn, Pacifica, thanked them for removing the Sanchez Art Center from the Housing Element and requested they do whatever necessary to protect it, sharing her positive thoughts on the importance of the treasure of the Art Center for Pacifica and the need to preserve it.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed the public hearing. She called a break and then reconvened the meeting. She then stated to hear from staff some of the questions and comments by the speakers and then would like to give Vice Chair Berman the opportunity to sum up the Planning Commission changes brought forward.
Community Development Director Updegrave referred to a commenter who talked about a rezoning error and she clarified that the only sites proposed for rezoning are the 30 sites from the Housing Element and are listed in the ordinance. She stated that the site in question is not one of the rezoning sites and not in the Housing Element.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if that part of Salada where that specific question was raised is not part of the item we are discussing at this meeting in the rezoning.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she was correct. She stated that the commenter contacted staff earlier today with the question and staff will follow up on that, but she wanted to clarify that it is not a site proposed for rezoning. There is a table in the ordinance starting on packet page 273, and those are the only sites that are being rezoned and are before Council at this meeting.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated, since it is not part of the agenda on the table at this meeting, she asked if staff can explain what the process would be for directing that.
City Attorney Kenyon thinks staff must first determine whether or not there is an error.
Mayor Beckmeyer concluded investigation and, if there is a need, bring an item.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, if there is a mapping correction, we are able to correct that. If it were to be rezoned, it would need to go to Planning Commission and Council, as a rezoning would have to go through an actual rezoning process.
Mayor pro Tem Boles wanted to be sure that, if we are going to make any changes, it is going to a public process where the public is notified and can comment, not just be a staff amendment.
She wants to make sure our public processes are clear.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we can make sure we are dealing with it through a public process if that is Council’s desire.
Community Development Director Updegrave also wanted to clarify, as mentioned in the presentation, with their next cycle of the Housing Element, Council retains control over what sites ultimately get included in the next Housing Element and there is no requirement that certain sites be carried over. She stated that we do get credit for RHNA for all new units that are constructed, even if they are not on one of the 30 rezoned sites. She stated that the point of City Council Regular Meeting 15 August 11, 2025
rezoning these sites is to create the capacity that would allow us to reach the RHNA numbers.
She stated that it is important to remember that, because an application is under review, it does not mean those units are going to be constructed. She referred to one commenter mentioning the fit studies on Site 23 and that work falls under Housing Element implementation Program 3, master planning for public sites. There is a whole suite of different things to look at, i.e., Caltrans sites, district sites, City-owned sites, etc. The parameters of that work have not been determined yet but that is not part of the package proposing at this meeting but a separate body.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there will be a public process where the public has the opportunity to understand what those exact steps are when they are ready to be taken.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated we can bring that to Council as we develop that plan.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if to Planning Commission first and then to Council.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed we can take it to the Planning Commission as well.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought that would be warranted.
Councilmember Bier asked if she is talking about addressing the fit study for Site 23.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, generally speaking, HE-I-3 is the master planning for public sites and it includes a number of actions. We have not determined the full parameters yet of what we will be pursuing in the coming year.
Mayor Beckmeyer concluded we will be developing that scope of work. She then gave the floor to Vice Chair Berman. She asked if she could encapsulate for Council the major focus and major changes done as a result of the Planning Commission meetings’ work.
Vice Chair Berman stated, in addition to study sessions Planning Commission had with Council for the past three years, Planning Commission also had quite a few lengthy meetings where they went through the ODS and zoning changes in the General Plan amendment. Ultimately, they felt they provided Council with a thorough and vetted recommendation but they understood there might be some minor changes that would occur after their recommendation when staff was going to coordinate and clarify a few things with HCD. She stated that they had a lengthy discussion regarding the by-right approval on effectively not wanting our zoning to outline to developers how they can proceed with by-right ministerial approval but still complying with State law. They wanted to simplify the language in the zoning while adhering to the by-right requirement which is why their recommendation to Council was to remove the by-right language. It was a little different when presented to Planning but specifically outlining which sites could be by-right. The intent was to not explicitly list it but, understanding staff’s subsequent coordination with HCD, HCD required that the language be added and that is before Council at this time. Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to review that language.
When they reviewed parking, it was reviewed with the intent of applying it to the newly zoned designation. Their discussion on parking was not with the idea that these parking changes would apply citywide; that is a change from Planning Commission’s recommendation provided to Council which is what is before them now. She stated a commissioner thoroughly went through the recital and wanted to make the recital clear and not repetitive. She stated that there City Council Regular Meeting 16 August 11, 2025
were duplicative references that were removed as the Planning Commission believed they already had a statement that complied with State law. The Planning Commission’s recommendation was more concise recitals that didn’t reiterate HE-I-1 and that is another change before Council now that they did not originally recommend.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if they had any questions for Vice Chair Berman.
Councilmember Wright believed parking is a big issue in what we are doing and going to make issues going forward on these sites and the surrounding neighborhoods. He was concerned about applying that to the whole City.
Vice Chair Berman stated Planning Commission appreciated staff and consultant team’s test fit analysis. Throughout their years of study sessions and ODS direction to staff, we never had real life scenario test fit to ensure that what we are requiring in our zoning would be feasibly developed on each individual site, and she knows it would be a liability to the City if we were to present zoning that’s not feasible to meet the unit count required. In the Planning Commission’s discussion with the consultant team on the test fit specific to parking, building height, setbacks, etc., they had to make some concessions as they could not have all of what they wanted and still have a feasibly developed site. , One concession they agreed on was to reduce the amount of required guest parking so they could ensure that they are not raising height limits to 60 feet.
Councilmember Wright concluded that they went from 1 to 4 to 1 to 5. He asked when they lost the one parking spot for a bedroom and 1.5 parking spots for studios.
Vice Chair Berman believes that change occurred after their recommendation and may have been staff’s assessment of HE-I-1.
Community Development Director Updegrave clarified that the reduction from 1.5 space for studios and 1 bedroom was part of the original proposal that is written in the Housing Element.
As Vice Chair Berman stated, when the Commission was looking at it, the scope was limited to the rezoned sites. She stated it was the same proposal that Planning Commission looked at but applied more broadly based on our read of Action 14 in the Housing Element.
Councilmember Wright asked, if we decided not to apply it to the whole City, if there would be any push back from HCD.
Community Development Director Updegrave does not believe it would be an issue for HCD and could be something staff would study further as we are looking at more citywide zoning reforms.
Councilmember Wright stated part of the reason he moved to Pacifica was related to parking.
Mayor pro Tem Boles also had concerns about citywide parking and the fact that Planning Commission had not talked about it. She stated that most of the sites in our Housing Element are along Highway 1 corridor and she thinks it needs more study. She understands the action is in HE-I-14 but she does not see a timeline with that. She felt it could be done separately later and be given more thought, which is her preference.
Councilmember Bier agreed, stating that was one of her concerns also.
Councilmember Espinosa has a question about traffic and safety.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 August 11, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if we are okay with taking that out so it does not apply to the whole City now.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, over traffic and safety, she was reading the public comments, and some are concerned about what happens when we have an emergency and are we going to be paying attention to what we do with traffic. She asked how we address it as traffic is a big issue and she asked if we will be building close to the highway where there is more public transportation. Her other concern is if the City is going to be paying attention to just people building homes like boxes and not having anything around like parks or a living area where people can go and walk. She is hoping to have smart building where they have shopping nearby.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the Rezoning Program is laying the regulatory framework but we do not have any specific development proposals. Each development proposal that comes in gets assessed for a variety of standards, which includes open space requirements, building, safety and fire codes. Those are things that will get looked at but are not necessarily part of this particular action as her questions are more related to the project level. This program is designed to provide some parameters for the buildings.
Councilmember Espinosa stated she is putting the seed there for when we get those plans.
Mayor pro Tem Boles understood that the by-right text that was added was not reviewed by the Commission but she would like to know if Vice Chair Berman has concerns with this language.
Vice Chair Berman preferred the language not be there and she was not the Commissioner that originally brought up the request to remove the by-right language but, once it was presented, she was in complete agreement with it. If the City has the ability to not add the statement but still achieve certification, that would be her ideal approach. She is happy to defer the hard decision to Council on whether the City push back on adding language as she understands from the staff report that HCD is requiring it in order to certify.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that she has concerns with the language as well.
Vice Chair Berman stated that, the way she read it, after inventory which are designated to address the shortfall of lower income RHNA units and back to the Housing Element on pages 28-29 is where the Housing Element defines those shortfall low income RHNA units.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated the other question she heard Commissioner Davis ask was what is HCD’s statutory authority to require specific by-right language.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated HCD has the statutory authority to review our Housing Element and find it in compliance with State law or find that it does not comply with State law. They have the regulatory authority to certify our Housing Element or not.
Mayor pro Tem Boles understood and stated we are not saying we are not complying with State law and everything else shows we are complying with the by-right, but for them to specifically say what language we need to have in.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 August 11, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that they have indicated to staff that this is something they look for in their review in making that determination and have specifically stated that reference back to the Housing Element shortfall sites is a requirement.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that, on a related note in the recitals, she did not see this requirement in any of the correspondence from HCD that they wanted the HE-I-1 language in our resolution. She asked why do we think we need to have this specifically, as the Planning Commission specifically took that out and said they were complying with the rezoning and the laws and the programs which include HE-I-1.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated HCD did not review the Council’s resolution or the Planning Commission’s resolution. The Planning Commission directed staff to have those references removed from their recitals but did not discuss any of Council’s recitals.
As a staff person who is required to go back and review the record, this type of information can be critical to future understandings for the record. She added that clearly stating that this implements HE-I-1 is part of the record and it is literally the title of that implementing action General Plan and zoning amendment to achieve RHNA. In creating a very clear record, it provides direct evidence to HCD that the City has satisfied or is satisfying their commitment to the General Plan and zoning amendment to achieve RHNA. This action is directly tied to that program.
Mayor pro Tem Boles heard from Vice Chair Berman the concern that we are making this too explicit, that the by-right applies and we have no say over these sites and it could be detrimental to the City. If we can comply without being so explicit, it is in our favor. She stated HE-I-1 lists out all the sites. It would be her preference to not have that language in HE-I-1.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that this does create transparency and clarity in the record, but Council is able to remove those references in the recitals.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she is not inclined to debate that now because we all have questions and it soundslike we have a problem with all three of these bullet points and she is hearing language around walking some of this back. That concerns her as staff has spent a lot of time working with HCD on this to get to this point and she wants to prioritize what is a dealbreaker and what has the greatest impact as we go into that type of deliberation.
Councilmember Wright asked, these three points aside, if Vice Chair Berman would say that the rest of it is substantially conforming to Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Vice Chair Berman stated she did not see any red flags beyond what was explicitly presented in the staff report at this meeting. She found one amendment where she wanted to offer a suggestion. It is the height limit, article 25, on packet page 280, and she appreciated that staff took Planning Commission’s request on updating the diagrams. They had more rudimentary diagrams presented at the Planning Commission meeting and they talked about amending the height limitation equation. In the end, they reverted to something similar to what the current housing height limit equation which is measuring from the lowest finished grade at the building pad to the highest point of the roof, which is clear and concise. They did accept an exception to leave architectural flexibility for certain roofs where, instead of measuring to the highest point of that roof, it would just be to the center point of that roof. In her review of the staff report, the farthest right diagram sloped roof building, the equation is correct from how they imagined it on the Planning Commission where height goes to the center point of the roof dimension, but she thought it might be beneficial to have a different architectural profile there to show the type of City Council Regular Meeting 19 August 11, 2025
roof that they meant for this equation to apply to. That is her suggestion but they did not talk about changing this diagram at the Planning Commission meeting as this diagram as before Council was not presented to Planning Commission.
Councilmember Wright asked if she thought it would benefit by adding the word “existing” to the grade reference.
Vice Chair Berman stated, from a civil engineering background, her practice is usually a proposed building height is measured based off of the proposed finished grade. She had a discussion about this with one of the Councilmembers in the past, with a suggestion to put restrictions on the grading permit required for a site. She stated, on the other end of the spectrum, she did not know if it would make sense to measure all proposed building heights based off of the existing grade preceding the building, especially in such a sloped city with so much grade.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated many cities have this clarification for those very reasons. She has seen it done on the Vista Mar project and the quarry project. She stated she copied some ordinances from other cities that are more complicated and have more nuances but she thinks, instead of saying finished grade, if we just say “existing or finished grade, whatever is lower,” that would cover it in a simple way.
Councilmember Wright likes the grading permit as it gives us more flexibility.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agreed but stated we are not reviewing that here and it is much more complicated. She stated that we can always review this later and come up with something more nuanced. We do have Housing Element sites on steep slopes and she wants to make sure the loophole is not there.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that they get height density concessions.
Councilmember Bier asked exactly where we want to change the language.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated at the top where it says “building height is measured from lowest finished grade” could be changed to “lowest existing or finished grade, whatever is lower”.
Councilmember Bier asked, if we make a change like that, what that would mean as far as submitting it to HCD.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated HCD is not going to pay as much attention to the definitions of height. They are looking for the rezoning.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that the proposed amendment is on packet page 288, second paragraph under Section 9-4.2501, Height of Buildings, Item A, “Building height is measured from the lowest…” and insert the words “existing or finished grade point (whichever is lower)”.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought it may be a little confusing with the extra lowest and maybe just say “from existing or finished grade, whichever is lower”.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated changing it to the lower existing or finished grade is doable in terms of implementation, but it is a change.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 August 11, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, in terms of implementation, the project would come with a grading plan that shows a survey with existing grades and the proposed.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, before we leave the previous point, he wanted to note for staff that we also need to change the text in the diagram.
There was Council consensus on making that change.
Mayor pro Tem Boles wanted one more follow up on the height. She appreciated what the Planning Commission was trying to do with the sloped building roof, allowing extra height to have more interesting architecture. Her only concern is that some of these lots are big. She stated that it is in developers’ interest to build steep roofs and then build more finished floor area in them.
Councilmember Wright asked if she wants to measure from the curb.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated there may be a caveat and Vice Chair Berman suggested a certain amount of height like six feet additions is allowed which would give them 12 more feet if it is a half or a caveat that says it does not imply an extra floor level.
Vice Chair Berman stated, when discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting about the zoning amendment, that is why they only applied this additional height allowance to specific types of roofs; effectively, a flat roof, like many mixed use buildings have, would still adhere to the highest point of the roof and an A-framed roof would still adhere to the highest point of the roof. It would be only the architecturally unique. She and Mayor pro Tem Boles discussed this in the past, but they did not discuss this on Planning Commission and a personal idea she had was adding an additional height limit to that extra allowance, measured to the average of the roof height up to six feet or up to eight feet, whatever Council is comfortable with, so it does not become 20 additional feet for an enormous warehouse building.
Councilmember Wright would not be opposed to it but he is not sure if he would advocate for it.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated her question is if we should also make that amendment or leave it.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that staff has not analyzed that and it is not something we can determine on the dais and she would want to look closely at changing that language.
Councilmember Bier stated, because Planning Commission has not had a chance to talk about that, she does not think she has enough information to make a decision on that change.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agreed that she would like to hear from staff. She wanted to make the point that there is no way we will get through all this at this meeting.
Councilmember Bier thinks we need to get through all this.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed with Councilmember Bier. She stated that we better get to it. She asked to prioritize questions.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she has a lot of questions.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 August 11, 2025
Councilmember Bier suggested she can ask questions. She reiterated that this has not been rushed and, if we do not make a decision about this at this meeting, we are putting our community at jeopardy once again and she cannot see herself doing that.
Mayor Beckmeyer concurs with everything she said.
Councilmember Wright thanked Vice Chair Berman and the Planning Commission for all their hard work.
Councilmember Wright moved to extend the meeting to midnight; seconded by Councilmember Bier.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Wright asked if by-right sites are appealable.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated approval on by-right sites would be appealable but by-right sites still need to go through a subdivision process and are allowed to go through design review with objective criteria. Those actions would be appealable.
Councilmember Wright asked staff to explain the formulaic approach the State used to determine the RHNA numbers.
Community Development Director Updegrave does not have that information with her now, but she would be happy to send it to him as she would have to go back to the 2022 records.
Councilmember Wright asked if it was her understanding that it was a formula based on a certain number of miles such as from employment centers.
Community Development Director Updegrave would need to research that as she thinks there are a lot of complex things that go into the RHNA.
Councilmember Wright asked if staff can speak to why it is we cannot implement a bunch of codes to deal with some of our adverse environmental impacts of building 1,892 units.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated part of the EIR includes Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that establishes required mitigations for projects.
Our by-right eligible projects would also be subject to that MMRP and that is written into the Zoning Ordinance in the by-right section as an objective compliance standard. Things like EV readiness are currently regulated under the Building Code.
Councilmember Wright concluded we would be able to implement a lot of those on these sites.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that he is correct about the mitigations.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 August 11, 2025
Councilmember Bier wanted clarification about the fit study and how would we be able to talk about it for Site 23.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, as we develop the work plan for the Housing Element, looking at the master plan for public sites is something we will be engaging in during the fiscal year and, as we begin to put together those details, we can bring a proposal and share that with Council for feedback and direction.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked, regarding a quick clarification about the fit study, is it fit for housing.
Community Development Director Updegrave thinks fit is a broader term, more like a feasibility type of study that also looks at site specific constraints, zoning regulations, land use regulations, access, etc.
Mayor Beckmeyer added with a driver for housing.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed, under the Housing Element. She stated that, in this district, it would be for mixed use development and it is site-specific. For Sanchez Art Center, Site 23, there are specific parameters provided within the Housing Element and, based on Council direction, on what we would want to see there. Those things would inform this type of a feasibility study. She stated that they are preliminary but are specific to the site.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the concept is we need to design a scope of a study that is being directed by our Housing Element, thus an implementation action; normally, that is the direction. He heard Council saying we want an extra step there to weigh in on what the scope of that work should be. It will add extra work and discussion.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she is not asking that, but wondering if we have gone to great effort to come up with a creative way of removing this site from the rezoning as we are recognizing the constraints for taking it out of the Housing Element completely. She sees the compromise as we can get the Housing Element certified leaving that site in there and we are not evaluating it for housing because we are not putting it in rezoning and thus does not need a fit study. She asked if it can be eliminated from RFP for doing a scope of work for City-owned properties.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks that would require coming back to Council with the scope of this study and the sites to be included in that. If you limit it to that, it could be a more constraining discussion rather than a broader scope of a fit study, but that is not what is on the agenda for discussion at this meeting and they would have to bring that back in the future in this fiscal year to confirm that and, in so doing, it is a public process and there could be input about other sites. He stated that is the extra step and feasible to do.
Councilmember Wright thought we have 100% complete control as the City owns the property.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that is correct.
Mayor pro Tem Boles mentioned if it is by-right.
Councilmember Wright stated it does not matter if we own the property.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 August 11, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we own the property and can say what we want on that site but, if it is by-right, at some point there is no public process for reviewing the plans and the refinement of the project.
Councilmember Wright stated it is part of the purchase agreement that, if they do not comply to the conditions we put on it, they cannot have the property and it reverts to the City.
Mayor pro Tem Boles did not think it was that simple but she is okay with what we have now.
She would like to talk about the by-right in more detail.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked Mayor pro Tem Boles if she can help Council understand the scope and priority of her questions.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she has questions about by-right, some of the new higher density article 54, the new language that was added about taller projects we have, EIR, and mitigations.
She would like to start with by-right as it is more complicated for her to understand. She referenced a table in the presentation that was not in the Housing Element.
Community Development Director Updegrave explained that the presentation included a collapse of Table 4 from the Housing Element. Table 4 lists all shortfall sites and all the income categories for the lower income, moderate and market rate. From information pulled from the Housing Element, staff created a table for this presentation that only included sites identified for lower income RHNA to assist that understanding.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, in talking about clarity for developers, that is not in there and the only place where she may have seen it is on the A1 HE-I-1 line where it lists the numbers.
City Attorney Kenyon thought staff may be able to suggest a language change.
Community Development Director Updegrave heard from Vice Chair Berman and some of the questions and conversations coming up in terms of what HCD asked us to add back in, confusion because it refers to sites listed in Pacifica’s Housing Element site inventory, which are designated to shortfall of lower income. If it feels more clear or less confusing, we could make some slight changes in the order to say “specifically that it applies to sites designated to address the shortfall of lower income RHNA within Pacifica’s sixth cycle Housing Element site inventory”.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked for the suggested language to be repeated.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that, “specifically, it applies to sites designated to address the shortfall of lower income RHNA within the City of Pacifica Housing Element site inventory”.
Mayor pro Tem Boles found something that was troubling her on page F37 of the Housing Element that seems to contradict what Community Development Director Updegrave said. It talks about the RHNA shortfall: “Table F12 includes sites that will be rezoned but are not required to meet the RHNA shortfall and serve to create a buffer to cover no net loss situations.” She stated that there are four sites in Table F12 that are on the list but it seems to say in the Housing Element that they are not required to meet the RHNA shortfall.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 August 11, 2025
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated that the text in appendix F just references F11 as requiring by-right approval; however, the sites in F12, the buffer sites effectively, also need to be rezoned to meet the HCD’s requirements. This was added in the program HE-I-1, action 8, that specifically lists all of the sites that are required to be rezoned. Throughout the Housing Element process, this is something that we worked on and discussed in terms of which sites needed to be rezoned to allow by-right approval. City Attorney’s Office discussed it internally and with their consultants that HCD is interpreting it to require the buffer sites as well, which is why they required all the buffer sites.
Aaron Aknin, Good City Company, stated if you look at the implementing actions in 8b, it goes over all of the different sites and includes Table F11 as well as F12 and then it goes to the specific sites. It clarifies it within this.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that it does say F12 is not required. She asked if what she just read is an error in the Housing Element at this point.
Consultant Aknin read 8b as being more specific in providing clarity but that is what HCD is pointing to and what they approved within their review. If he were to redo it, he would be more specific and have that exact language within the appendix.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if this is misleading.
Consultant Aknin stated he would prefer that it have more clarity.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she counted a total of 19 sites that have to be by-right and she wants to reemphasize to the public that includes Manor Plaza, Linda Mar shopping center, and a lot of our biggest commercial bringing money to the City and allows us to have neighborhoods walkable where they can buy things and not have to drive. She thinks it is problematic that the State is forcing this upon us and we need to do our work with the state officials.
Councilmember Bier stated that would be her question, i.e., what changes is she suggesting.
Mayor pro Tem Boles wanted to make sure this was correct because then it is not a change.
She moved on to more of the by-right sections, referring to packet page 404, by-right approval requirement. Item C refers to Government Code Section 65582.2I and she believes it needs to be 83.2I for clarification.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that she is correct, and staff found that error earlier. Staff will make the correction.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if staff can explain the mitigation measures for by-right projects, which is tying back to the EIR mitigation because by-right projects will not be required to do additional CEQA.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated it is correct that they will not be required to do additional CEQA.
Mayor pro Tem Boles concluded that their only CEQA was in relation to what we have in this EIR and these mitigation measures.
Community Development Director Updegrave responded affirmatively.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 August 11, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles does not know if the City Attorney has analyzed this with the new State law in AB 130 and SB 131, and she asked if we are allowed to have those mitigation measures that we have identified.
Community Development Director Updegrave agreed as they are objective and adopted into the ordinance.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy added they will be imposed as conditions of approval on the project.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if she means when our Housing Element is certified.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if we can do by-right projects before the Housing Element is certified. She went back to a previous section on packet page 403, development standards, and this article has development standards that apply to all the different specific new zones for the high density residential and mixed use, but there is a section on page 403, 9-4.5402, Development Standards, which she believes apply to all the sites within all of those new zonings, and asked if she is correct.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated article 54, higher density residential and higher density mixed use districts, apply within all of the new zoning districts. She added that, the general use provision references back to this section in each individual zone.
Mayor pro Tem Boles read that all developments must include 50% of gross square footage for residential use. She is going back to a conversation she heard Planning Commission discuss, i.e., the 10-foot minimum setback above the second story, and when the fit studies were done, it seemed that the consultant had assumed that the Planning Commission wanted setbacks from all four sides of the building. She spoke with Chair Hauser and she said that was not their intention and perhaps Vice Chair Berman can confirm that because we have the 30-foot setbacks to single family residential within all the other zones, Chair Hauser said her intention was that the 10-foot setbacks just applied to the streets, and not to the other sides, as she saw that as a barrier to housing and affordable housing. She knows there was some of that conversation when they were talking about fit studies but does not recall that discussion continuing.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the question about which façade it applied along had to do with an additional sunshine plane setback above the third story and she does not recall setbacks being discussed in that way. She stated that, typically, setbacks do apply to the perimeter of a building and Planning Commission did not discuss or include that this would only apply to the front.
Councilmember Wright recalls having done that on a site by site analysis when Planning Commission went over this in the Housing Element which is before her time.
Community Development Director Updegrave thinks, if the intention is for it to only apply from the street lot line, Council would need to make that change and they can make that change.
Vice Chair Berman stated that Planning Commission briefly discussed from what she recalls was a point of clarification to Van Meter Williams Pollack where they took ODS direction from all City Council Regular Meeting 26 August 11, 2025
four sides of the building but the original intent was from the main façade. She does not recall if Planning Commission explicitly determined they needed to make any language changes or discussed adding specific clarification. It was like they clarified for the consultant team and they understood it. She thinks it was the Planning Commission’s intent to have that setback be from the prominent façade.
Mayor Beckmeyer is reminded, when we were talking about this issue in the Sharp Park Specific plan, that particular conversation was having to do with this because we did not have all the by-right, etc., at that moment and were focused on the Coastal Commission and the concern they would potentially be raising if they increased building heights in the coastal zone in terms of view shed. She recalls the answer to that was the setbacks. She is concerned on limiting ourselves to just street facing façade. She stated that it sounds like Mayor pro Tem Boles was concerned that they interpreted it that they wanted setbacks on all four sides and sounded like she wanted it clarified to just one façade.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated we could say street facades to be broad enough for interpretation.
Vice Chair Berman thinks that would be aligned with the Commission’s intent. She mentioned past study sessions with the Sharp Park Specific Plan where this was a long discussion and she does not know the exact language they might want to add, if any, to clarify. She stated that they just clarified it in real time in their discussion and moved on.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we can certainly change it to be just from the street-facing façade. Her understanding was that it was that this particular one was also meant for the size which have a smaller setback to the neighbors.
Councilmember Wright thinks it applied where it was next door to lower residential housing.
Vice Chair Berman stated that specific language might have been in the Sharp Park Specific Plan but she recalls different scenarios. She thought it was in the Sharp Park Specific Plan, i.e., there is a step back requirement from the street façade and there was another step back requirement from the adjacent lot. That was a discussion from a few years ago.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated what was added, which she did not think the Sharp Park Plan has, is a 30-foot setback from any single family residential for these zones and that is in each one of the separate zoning definitions. She thinks that does that to protect the residential daylight plane without needing to step back the building also.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated it sounds like we do not need to worry about it in residential areas where there is already a 30-foot setback requirement, but we have many places in Sharp Park where that is not necessarily true because of the way it is already zoned and what the uses are.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that this is only for these new zones, not for the zones in Sharp Park.
Councilmember Bier asked if there is a suggestion for changing language here.
Mayor pro Tem Boles was suggesting “10-foot minimum setback above the second story on any street-facing façade”.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that it can be implemented.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 August 11, 2025
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the change that is being proposed at this time is to Section 9-
4.502 Section B1.
There was Council consensus.
Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to page 404, ground level commercial uses, and it says “minimum floor to floor height of 15 feet”. Her understanding from Planning Commission meetings is they wanted that from the mixed use zone but not the mixed use institutional and the way it is written it would apply to both and she wanted to confirm that with Director Updegrave.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, to clarify, commercial uses are not principally permitted in the mixed use institutional zone; the institutional uses are not commercial uses, but non-residential. She stated that this standard would not apply to a church or daycare or a school.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated this would apply to a commercial space off of the Sanchez Art Center where they are selling retail art.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that would be an incidental commercial use. The way the Planning Commission directed the uses for the mixed use institutional would allow for incidental commercial, subject to the development standards of the primary use.
Mayor pro Tem Boles is okay with that if Vice Chair Berman is okay with that.
Vice Chair Berman thought what Director Updegrave recited is consistent with Planning Commission’s logic.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated all the MUs have a minimum and maximum FAR for commercial.
She does not remember the maximum being discussed at Planning Commission and why we would have a maximum. She stated it is in the sub-MU districts, starting on packet page 411.
Councilmember Wright believes the maximum would be to get housing on the site.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated we have something that says we have to build 50% of the square foot that has to be housing. She stated that some of these are our big shopping centers where we are putting these sites, and from her professional experience, it is easier to get developers to build housing because they make their money off of housing versus commercial. She asked why we would ever put a maximum on commercial as long as we are getting our minimum residential.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated her understanding is that the intent was to provide a minimum FAR to ensure commercial development and a maximum to ensure that these are truly mixed use housing development projects with higher density housing.
Vice Chair Berman believes they also started discussing it to be consistent with what they had previously discussed in the Sharp Park Specific Plan which also has maximum FAR densities.
She thinks it came from an intent to be consistent with former discussions in the past five years.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 August 11, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles thinks it is different because Sharp Park has mostly smaller sites and here we have some big sites with commercial. She is not sure she agrees with that logic.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked we could delineate them, like big commercial sites of some size.
Councilmember Bier asked what changes to the text would Mayor pro Tem Boles like to make.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that we could delete the maximum FAR limit on all of them or look at what the zoning is for all our shopping centers in particular to make sure we do not have a maximum. She stated that it affects the Fairmont, Manor, Brentwood and Linda Mar Shopping Centers and Park Mall sites. She asked about the zoning of each one of those sites as that is more complicated than just taking them all out.
Councilmember Bier asked if her suggestion was to take them out.
Vice Chair Berman stated there are also tables in the General Plan that would have to be consistent, and there may be implications to the EIR if we are allowing limitless FAR.
Community Development Director Updegrave thinks we would need to research that further as she believes that it may be a requirement in State law to establish maximum FAR on sites that are identified in the Housing Element.
Nicholas Hamilton, Good City Company, stated it is part of State law of 65583.2H2 and, at least for the by-right sites, they need to have a minimum of 50% of the floor area.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated we do say 50% of the floor footage has been residential and this would not necessarily contradict that.
Mr. Hamilton stated that may be the case but he offered that they discussed this with HCD about two years ago when they were developing these programs and this was important to them. That is the State law it is part of and it may also be somewhere else.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy thinks we do have the 50% requirement when we were discussing article 54. She stated that deleting the FAR would not be specifically inconsistent with this one section of State law so they could remove the maximum FAR. She thinks there is another question as to whether staff, from a planning perspective, thinks there is a reason why they would want to include that, but legally we can remove it. She stated we did confirm it would not impact the EIR as the EIR does have the height limits and it assumed the height limits in its analysis.
Councilmember Bier wanted to be clear on the suggestion.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she was waiting to hear back from Planning staff, as it would be deleting the maximum FAR on each of those zonings and each page number.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if Mayor pro Tem Boles’ concern was that setting a maximum floor area ratio would enable more of our large commercial sites, such as the shopping centers, to have more housing and squeeze out the possibility of commercial such as grocery stores, etc., that are currently available.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated it would limit the amount of commercial.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 August 11, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer concluded it would limit the amount of commercial to only how much they are allowed and the rest is going to be housing.
Mayor pro Tem Boles agreed, stating that we need more commercial in town.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she would not want that to happen.
Councilmember Wright stated he would not stand in the way but would not change it either.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked him what his reasoning is for why he does not think that is a concern.
Councilmember Wright thinks that the current policy does a sufficient job encouraging the development of commercial space in addition to housing and, if we are going to try to meet our RHNA numbers, encouraging housing partially is an important aspect of what we are trying to do to avoid further complications on future RHNA grounds.
Mayor pro Tem Boles is more worried about having sustainable communities.
Councilmember Wright did not disagree with her.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she is not saying we are forcing them to build a maximum but just saying that there is not a maximum. In construction, she referred to development at the Sea Bowl, as they do not want to build any commercial as that is not where they make their money.
Councilmember Wright stated he will not stand in the way.
Community Development Director Updegrave wanted to contextualize a 2.5 FAR as it is quite large. If you have a 10,000 square foot lot, you could build a two-story commercial building, lot line to lot line, and then have a third story that covered 50% of that lot and that would get you
2.5 FAR. 2.5 is a large allowance on a mixed use site and the FAR does not apply to the residential floor area but, to contextualize, a 2.5 is a fairly large amount.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if we know the FAR of commercial at Manor Shopping Center now.
Community Development Director Updegrave does not know the exact number, but she stated it does not go lot line to lot line and it is less than 1 for sure.
Councilmember Bier asked if we can move toward a decision about this part.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if there was a reason to have a maximum.
Community Development Director Updegrave thinks it is okay to remove it, but she thinks it was there to help balance residential and non-residential.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated you can also have commercial retail and then commercial offices and then residential. She stated that it gives more options with development without limiting.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we would need to make conforming edits to the General Plan document as well.
City Council Regular Meeting 30 August 11, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer thanked her for reminding her. She felt that is a concern that, if we change it here, we need to change it in the General Plan.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked where that is in the General Plan.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if we cannot just do that.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we can, as the General Plan is also being amended and it starts on packet page 258. As we added new land use designations, those all include the FAR range and the FAR ranges are also included in the tables. We would also need to make those conforming changes as well, which is doable and within the scope of what is before Council.
There was Council consensus.
Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to packet page 432, path of the combining districts and polygon sites.
Councilmember Espinosa is concerned about that because one of them is in her neighborhood and she feels like what will those people lose.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated the polygons were all established in the Housing Element and we decided that we are not changing the Housing Element today. She read from packet page 432, Item 3, “lot coverage allowance established in the underlying zoning district is calculated based on the area of the enclosed polygon, not the property as a whole. Projects may propose lot coverage as up to 100% of the area enclosed within the polygon or specific area less any lot area within the underlying designation setback requirement.” She stated that we have setback requirements to extend single family housing of 30 feet and that would be in addition to whatever the polygons are. She asked if that was correct.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the setbacks are measured from the lot line.
Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to packet page 135, page F33 of the Housing Element, site G.
That is the one that Councilmember Espinosa is concerned about. She stated that there is a little bit of a distance between the polygon and the residential site, but the property line goes right to the back of the residential site. She stated if you need to do the 30-foot setback from outside the residential property line, then you are going to be inside the polygon.
Councilmember Wright asked if she is suggesting to add language that states whatever is the more restrictive policy applies.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated the other question which this does not address is that we have setbacks to single family residential but we do not have setbacks to creeks determined. There are several sites that are right up against San Pedro Creek and she asked if there was some way we might want a greater setback to the creek because the polygons were not studied in terms of environmental review and the by-right sites may not have any more environmental reviews.
Councilmember Wright asked if she has a suggested minimum.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 August 11, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles does not have a suggested minimum and was just raising the question.
Councilmember Bier stated the question is where would she like to see changes made.
Mayor pro Tem Boles does not think this language is strong enough to consider those two things.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that creeks are regulated by the State and our engineers look at creeks at that as part of their review.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that there is no CEQA review for biology of the creek in any of these by-right projects that is going to happen.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated Public Works still conducts a review and, even if the project is by-right, they are still required to meet all applicable laws and regulations.
Mayor Beckmeyer remembers having this conversation with the LCLUP because there was a desire by Coastal Commission for increased setbacks over what was required by other agencies.
Councilmember Wright is thankful for her bringing up the concern, but it sounds like it is covered.
Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha stated a clarifying point is that, in practice, when there are proposals such as a ministerial project, those are routed to the Engineering Division and they provide comments and conditions that require the project to comply with certain permitting, either state or federal, that regulates the bodies of water such as creeks.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if California Department of Fish and Wildlife would necessarily be consulted as part of that.
Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha stated, as part of the objective standards of the environmental checklist that is required for the by-right projects to comply with, where in the by-right section they are required to comply with the mitigation measures, there are also policies in the General Plan stated that are objective standards that they would also be required to comply with. She stated that it is a future checklist that staff will maintain and require of byright projects but not proposed as a draft before Council this evening.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated it sounds like we are taking this into consideration.
Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles is concerned because the language says “project may propose lot coverage up to 100% of the area within the polygon”.
Councilmember Espinosa wants to find out what the setback from those homes to the lot if they are building there for Figure F-10, the Skyline water tank.
Community Development Director Updegrave will verify the zoning district and then the setbacks would be determined by the zoning district.
City Council Regular Meeting 32 August 11, 2025
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the proposed zoning for site G is R40 and the R40 development standards are on packet page 406. She then referred to the development standard table on packet page 407 and it has a 15-foot front setback, 5-foot rear side setback, 20-foot rear setback and a minimum 30-foot setback from any lot line that abuts the singlefamily zone.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thinks that one has more room, and she is more worried about the Linda Mar Shopping Center where the polygon is right up against the single-family homes.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, by checking those things now, it will be good.
Councilmember Bier referred to packet page 407, the additional setback part for single families, and asked if that is enough.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated it may be for this one but it is where the polygons do not necessarily align with the property lines where it may be a little tricky.
Councilmember Wright asks what trumps what, the polygon or the setback.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, in the combining district, it provides measurement for how to treat the polygon that are a bit of an oddity in the zoning world and setbacks are measured from the property lines, not the polygon lines.
Councilmember Wright asked if they trump the polygon. He supposed that the 30-foot setback approaches into the polygon and asked whether the setback or the polygon rules.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the setback as it is measured from the lot line regardless of where it falls in the polygon.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that, on that lot, there is a road for the people to go to maintenance of the water tank and what is going to be the setback then.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we would have to look at a specific development proposal. This is just the regulatory framework and we are not analyzing a specific development proposal on any of these sites at this time.
Councilmember Wright stated 30 feet from any single-family house.
Councilmember Bier moved to extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
EXTEND MEETING TO 12:30 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor pro Tem Boles referenced the checklist.
City Council Regular Meeting 33 August 11, 2025
Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha stated that the specific language about the environmental checklist is in the packet but not the draft of the checklist as it is not ready.
Mayor pro Tem Boles mentioned the specific language about the environmental.
Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha stated that the requirements for a by-right project to comply with the mitigation measures and policies refers to a check list and that is just language outlining the checklist requirements.
City Attorney Kenyon stated the checklist has not been prepared yet.
Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought we can ask staff to make sure there is some language.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that would be part of Council direction to staff.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked what the direction is to staff regarding the checklist.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated add language to ensure that we are providing environmental setbacks to sensitive habitat, including the creeks, if needed, to be analyzed.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought that sounds good and asked if staff got that.
Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Wright asked if we can talk about parking. He does not want it to apply to everything and will it apply only to these sites.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed, but she asked why it got changed to apply to the whole City.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated staff thought it would be needed in HE-I-14, but it is not needed now.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked how HCD feels about the City walking that back. She referred to parking and the issue of those reduced parking requirements being applied to the whole City and should it just be applied to the rezoning.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy referenced the discussion of whether Council wanted to go back to the Planning Commission language on parking and take out all sites. Although there was a program in the Housing Element for this, it was not directly connected to the rezoning so we could come back and look at that. If that direction was to follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation, that language is on packet pages 940-941 regarding the changes. Council’s direction would be to go back to that language with respect to parking.
Councilmember Wright asked to restate that language so he is clear that it only applies to rezoning sites and does not apply to the rest of the city.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the change would be that two family and multiple family, including studios, townhouses and condominium in the R30 through 60, MU30 through 60 and MUI 30 through 60, within those zoning districts the change would be one City Council Regular Meeting 34 August 11, 2025
space for each studio or one bedroom, two spaces for each unity with two or more bedrooms, which is the same. Guest parking is one per five units. Outside of the rezoning would be just what it is now, which is one space for each studio, 1.5 spaces for each one bedroom, 2 for each two bedroom and guest parking as one for every 4 units.
There was Council consensus.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated her other questions start with the EIRs so she did not know if we want to finish the deliberation on the other two Planning Commission changes, i.e. parking, the by-right language, and the HE-I-1 references in the resolution.
City Attorney Kenyon stated her suggestion is for Director Updegrave to take each one of them and, for the first State law by-right approval, read specifically what is changing and what is staying the same.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the change will be in the redline and would say “specifically it applies to the sites designated to address the shortfall of lower income RHNA within the City of Pacifica sixth cycle, 2023-2031, Housing Element sites inventory.” Instead of putting that at the end in the clause “which are designated as,” it front loads that and makes it easier to understand.
Mayor pro Tem Boles added that there is not confusion about the site’s inventory separate list.
Community Development Director Updegrave responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thinks that sounds better to her.
Vice Chair Berman thinks the clarification is an improvement. Planning Commission did not agree to this language at all at their meeting, but she understands the requirements that HCD has in order to certify the Housing Element and she personally thinks the revised language is an improvement.
There was Council consensus.
Mayor Beckmeyer referred to recitals with references to HE-I-1.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified that this decision, from staff’s perspective, is within the discretion of Council. It is a deliberation among Council as to whether or not they agree with staff’s recommendation which, for transparency purposes, is to make clearer in the case HCD has any issues with our Housing Element that there was a reference to purpose for HE-I-1. If Council wants to take that out, it does not mean that it is not still in there as it is referenced in other places, just not referenced there. This is a decision within Council’s discretion to leave in or take out.
Councilmember Bier asked if we can just change it back to Planning Commission’s language.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated instead of referring to Housing Element program HE-I-1, it says, “HCD requires the adoption of revised Housing Element and adoption of General Plan and zoning amendments, pursuant to the Housing Element program” from packet page 824.
Councilmember Bier agreed, adding that we have the original language already.
City Council Regular Meeting 35 August 11, 2025
There was Council consensus.
Mayor pro Tem Boles noticed one whereas statement in the Planning Commission resolution that was not in Council’s resolution so she wanted to confirm that it was taken out intentionally.
In the middle of packet page 825, it says, “Whereas the Rezoning Program amends the Zoning Code (Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code) and the zoning map to reflect the new Zoning Districts and to ensure consistency with the Housing Element, including articles, etc.” She stated it is missing in Council’s resolution on packet page 250.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy stated the Planning Commission resolution was a compilation of all the actions, the EIR, the General Plan and the Rezoning, and when we created a document for Council, we separated out the General Plan recitals and findings from the rezoning recitals and findings. She stated what may have happened is that some of the language from the Planning Commission resolution regarding the rezoning was removed with the General Plan.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, because Council adopts the ordinance instead of a resolution recommending approval, that language is on packet page 271, which is the City Council ordinance adopting the rezoning. It specifies the Rezoning Program and then the Zoning Code and the zoning map to reflect the new district.
Mayor pro Tem Boles wanted to go down the line of the program EIR. She is looking at Table ES3, the summary of impacts and mitigation measures. She referred to the first section on aesthetics and wanted to know if the Coastal Act has been reviewed as part of this EIR.
Looking at these sites that can now go up to 55 plus stories in the coastal zone, she wanted to make sure that was something that has been considered because she did not see it in the analysis.
Allison Moore, Dyett & Bhatia, stated that coastal view corridors are analyzed in the aesthetics chapter, 3.1-3, which talks about coastal view corridors. The Coastal Act is referenced on page 3.1-6 in the aesthetic chapter and thus was analyzed as part of the EIR.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated projects like the Manor Shopping Center rebuild would have to comply with Coastal Act also.
Consultant Moore responded affirmatively.
Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to 3.3-1, biology, which included red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes. She thinks there was a letter from CDFW asking about mountain lions and certain butterflies and she wondered if those were added.
Consultant Moore stated that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requested more detail on California red-legged frogs and the garter snake habitat. They had added that the existing General Plan policies cover habitat delineations and buffers for projects. They also requested additional mitigation for nesting birds and bat species. The General Plan policies have been updated to include those specific requirements. For the butterfly habitat corridors, preexisting policies were found to be sufficient, based on site specific habitat studies that projects would be required to conduct later on.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated we do not if CDFW is happy with that language.
City Council Regular Meeting 36 August 11, 2025
Consultant Moore stated when we respond in our comment letters, they have to be sent back to the agencies.
Mayor pro Tem Boles added that they have not provided other comments.
Community Development Deputy Director Harkousha stated we have not received comments back from CDFW.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if our steelhead are a protected species.
Consultant Moore stated steelhead are identified on page 3.3-14 of the EIR. It says the species is documented to occur in San Pedro Creek, but suitable habitat is not present within the subject site, Site 29.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked to identify the several sites that the creek backs up to.
Consultant Moore stated on page 3.3-36, any development in sensitive areas identified in Figure 7-3, inclusive of the creek that runs through sites 16b and 29, which is critical habitat for steelhead, and would be required to engage a qualified biologist.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated the Linda Mar Shopping Center, Sanchez Art Center, and the Sanchez Library sites are all mentioned, although the Art Center was removed.
Consultant Moore stated all sites that are critical habitat for steelhead are reflected in the EIR.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, under energy and greenhouse gases, this is one of the significant and unavoidable impacts. She asked if there are other mitigations we could add if we wanted to.
Consultant Moore stated that the EIR does consider all feasible mitigations. With AB 130, there is now a statewide moratorium on new residential REACH codes for building energy efficiency.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated it was not until October but there are paths around that and we have had several discussions with the City Attorney because we have General Plan language that could allow REACH codes that would require further analysis. She does not want to block that from consideration and that would be a huge mitigation. She asked if that is language we can add for REACH codes.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we cannot add new mitigation measures without recirculating the EIR.
Consultant Moore stated that there is the question of political feasibility in terms of mitigations, as we want them to be implemented in a certain timeframe so there is also that consideration as well for whether or not a mitigation like that could be passed in a certain number of years.
Asst. City Attorney Murphy noted that it is something Council could continue to look at outside of this EIR process.
Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to 3.6 geology, i.e., 3.6-3 on page ES-33, and stated we have several sites that are on steep hillsides that are located in geologic hazard areas. She is concerned about the sites where we are not doing further CEQA review.
City Council Regular Meeting 37 August 11, 2025
Consultant Moore stated that Dep. Director Harkousha mentioned sites that are in zones that required investigation still must comply with the requirements of State law and that does include geotechnical investigation for sites that are in areas of investigation. The Pacifica Municipal Code also establishes administrative procedures, minimum standards of review, enforcement procedures for ensuring stable soil conditions, etc. so compliance with existing regulations is something that by-right development must do which would help to ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that there is also General Plan language about trying not to build on slopes 35% or more, as well as analysis for adding sites to HPD that she thinks have slopes more than 15%. She does not see anything in here that required a slope analysis be done.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if HPD requires slope analysis if the site is subject to HPD.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated yes, but the General Plan that says that we need to look at the whole City because there are sites that need to be added to HPD. We are not doing that work wholesale, but we could be doing it as we review projects and applications are put in.
Mayor pro Tem Boles moved to extend the meeting to 1:00 a.m.; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.
EXTEND MEETING TO 1:00 AM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor pro Tem Boles added this could be something that can be added to the checklist. She wants to make sure we are doing the proper geotechnical now.
Consultant Moore stated on page 3.6-20, there is reference to implementing policy SAI-8 geotechnical studies and is within the coastal zone and hillside areas that continue to require geotechnical site investigation for proposed development on sites located in any of the following areas prior to allowing site development: on slopes greater than 15%, areas showing evidence of landslides or landslide potential, and areas showing evidence of ground shaking or earth movement within 50 feet of a coastal bluff or within sand dune areas.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thought that was great about the geotechnical but she still wanted to raise the issue about the slope analysis and HPD. She thought it could be on the checklist but it is a way to start implementing our General Plan policies and ensuring we are putting new sites in HPD that are being proposed for development.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that our Building Code has some requirements related to geological and seismic hazards.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she is okay with the language that was read about the geotechnical so it is just the slope analysis and the HPD remaining. She stated she had questions about transportation, including VMT, and fire.
City Council Regular Meeting 38 August 11, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles referred to page ES-40, 3.11-2, which says “the proposed project would conflict to be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3 subdivision B”. She asked what is the CEQA and what are we not doing.
Consultant Moore stated a significant impact would occur if a proposed project fails to reduce vehicle miles traveled below 15% reduction of the threshold of existing conditions. The proposed project does not reduce employment VMT for employee below that 15% of the threshold.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked if it is only related to employment VMT and is there no VMT that we are analyzing for all these new residential units.
Consultant Moore stated that there are multiple metrics analyzed in the EIR: population VMT per capita and employment, which is the VMT for employee. Adding multi-family and infill development decreases VMT but Pacifica is not a job center so people are still commuting out to get to their jobs. The project does reduce population VMT per capita below that 15% threshold but does not reduce it for the VMT per employee.
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked how we are reducing the VMT when we are adding all those new housings by adding multi-family.
Consultant Moore stated multi-family and infill development is assumed in the models when people run calculations on VMT for development to have less VMT impact than a single-family home.
Mayor pro Tem Boles concluded because you have to drive more between home but, overall, the VMT impacts will be more for Pacifica than they are now with all these new projects.
Consultant Moore stated compared to the base year.
Mayor Beckmeyer reiterated that is why those are unavoidable impacts.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she said we met the VMT criteria for residential, just not for employment. She does not understand how we can meet it for residential, as there are no mitigation measures.
Consultant Moore stated that a lot of this new development is mixed use so people are living in areas where they don’t have to get into their cars and drive to go to commercial services. The mixed use and the multi-family are driving the numbers down as compared to the proportion of single-family versus multi-family.
Mayor pro Tem Boles understands the percentages, but she thinks it is still a greater amount total of VMT as there are more people driving than there are currently.
Consultant Moore stated the way that the model sets it out includes those points and it does remain a significant amount of avoidable impacts.
Mayor pro Tem Boles noticed that a lot of the base models were like 2020 and 2021 which were COVID-19 era. She asked if that is giving true information.
City Council Regular Meeting 39 August 11, 2025
Consultant Moore stated the baseline was 2019 when it was taken. She may have to take a look in the technical memo but she can come back to her question.
Mayor pro Tem Boles thinks she saw that the LOS study was done in 2021.
Consultant Moore stated that the LOS was updated as part of this analysis, just for informational purposes as it is not an impact required under CEQA.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated it is something in our C/CAG plan that is allowed for us to look at.
She thinks there was language about certain intersections by law not able to decrease the LOS in the Skyline corridor and Highway 1.
Consultant Moore stated, on page 311-16, it does say that all ten non-CMP roadway segments are still expected to operate at acceptable levels of service.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she can read a section talking about traffic, 311-12: “The City currently has one roadway improvement project in the planning stage within the planning area [the Manor overcrossing]. Other improvements to the roadway network are expected to be needed during the General Plan planning period to achieve a balance between existing and future land use and traffic clearing capacity. Major street improvements planned a program for Pacifica as shown in the figure [the Manor overcrossing].” Additionally, it says, according to General Plan build out, adding over 3,000 units of housing, “additional improvements are justified based on the analysis of existing traffic conditions and projected future traffic conditions with projected growth during the General Plan planning period compared to the City’s level of service standards as described in the following sections.” Her concern is that we have no improvement plan and no congestion management plan. They had a lot of comments earlier, including from the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission, about the concerns around evacuation with all of these projects when we already have issues. She wants to know what we need to do to start identifying projects and planning roadway improvement as none of this is in the mitigation measure.
Consultant Moore stated traffic impacts and congestion impacts are not in LOS as they are not required to be analyzed under CEQA but they address emergency access and transportation in wildfire. The EIR does acknowledge that there will be an increase in regional travel but there is a robust framework of emergency preparedness and evacuation actions in place to facilitate evacuation and those strategies range from local planning efforts in making sure that, in project review, there is ingress and egress review to Pacifica’s and County’s emergency response and evacuation plans. This also involves close consultation with Caltrans and San Mateo County Transportation Authority as part of the C/CAG Congestion Management Agency, making sure that the congestion management plan updates are reflective of conditions and planning with them to make sure that improvements are being made. Other General Plan policies direct continued implementation and adherence to the multi-jurisdictional local hazard mitigation plan, and all hazard and evacuation plans, emergency operations plan. In totality, implementation of General Plan policies will improve connections between communities, trails, bikeways, and all those other transportation infrastructure that could help in an emergency and provide additional access routes will result in a less significant impact. Transportation improvements would be more of a General Plan issue.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated we do not have our own congestion management plan.
Councilmember Bier wanted to ask if that would be something we could look towards doing.
City Council Regular Meeting 40 August 11, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated that is where she wants to have a discussion in goal setting to understand what is needed so we can start to identify other projects.
Councilmember Wright agreed and stated that adding 1,892 more units is going to be a problem.
Councilmember Bier stated it is possible to look at a congestion management plan moving forward. She stated that cannot be fitted here but it is important to say what we can do.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated it ties into this as there are no mitigations for VMT for residential projects. She was hoping there would be a mitigation and there is nothing we can force a developer to pay into because there is nothing identified here.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated, as a point of clarification, development projects are subject to the C/CAG TMD triggered by 100 plus peak hour trips. That is something staff reviews for and all projects are required to comply with that cross that threshold.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated she will skip her fire questions. She stated the objective design standards we have in here are very minimal and we have on our work plan working on more comprehensive massing and changing the envelope and colors and roof lines and things that can help us get the architecture. It has been on the Council work plan and staff are feeling that means a long robust public engagement process and will take a year to work on. That concerns her because we have all these applications and objective design standards that are one of the few things we can give them to make sure we get good projects now. She stated that we are not giving direction on this now but she asked staff to look at Half Moon Bay because they saw that this was an issue with new laws now that there are restrictions in the whole coastal zone about projects and by-right projects. They quickly put together interim objective design standards which are quite comprehensive while they do their long program. She would like to suggest that we consider this.
Councilmember Wright asked if that was possible and asked to sign up.
Mayor pro Tem Boles stated, when we started talking about the schedule on all this and the fact that we are almost three years behind, that is why they have all these builders’ remedy applications and why we have by-right. She knows other cities are looking to increase densities so they change their zoning and is done before the Housing Element and it is not a by-right. She wants to make sure we are being thoughtful before the next cycle that we are giving ourselves enough time so we do not put our city in this predicament that we are in.
Mayor Beckmeyer gave a reminder about the COVID-19 pandemic, and our intent was not to wait until September 2022 against a January 31, 2023 deadline. In addition, at that time, we were working on the Sharp Park Specific Plan and General Plan through the course of the pandemic. There was an intentional decision to go ahead and do the Housing Element after those were completed, not factoring in the amount of time a pandemic would take. There was also advice because the basis and work that consultants do with housing and community development, up until that point, included a grace period. She wants to make sure we understand that it was not by design, not by intention but where we landed. We need to make the best decisions that we can going forward, examine the process and, to Mayor pro Tem Boles’ point, make sure we do not do it again.
City Council Regular Meeting 41 August 11, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Boles asked for a more careful understanding of the big work and prioritizing around that.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated big work is a relative term because it all depends on which lens you are looking at it through.
Councilmember Bier stated it was very important to ask where we are right now. We can move forward together now in the best way that we can together. She wants to keep the conversation in that space, i.e., where can we go now and do now to make things better.
Mayor Beckmeyer and Councilmember Espinosa thanked her.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated the first motion is to adopt the resolution related to the EIR and there were no amendments. The second motion is the resolution for the General Plan, as amended by Council. The changes approving the amendments to the General Plan text include removing and updating the references to HE-I-1 in the recitals and removing maximum FAR. In the motion to waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance approving the amendments to the zoning code and rezoning, there were as amendment for parking language in the by-right provision, changes to the height section, removing the maximum FAR from the zoning, correcting the reference to State law in the by-right provisions, amending the setbacks, as well as HE-I-1.
Mayor pro Tem Boles moved to adopt a Resolution to certify Pacifica Housing Element (6th Cycle, 2023-2031) Targeted General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Objective Development Standards Program Final Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 202450168, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and adopt Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA (Attachment A); seconded by Councilmember Bier.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor pro Tem Boles moved to adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the General Plan text and land use map to reflect the new General Plan Land Use Designations and to ensure consistency with the Housing Element (with amendments to Chapters 1 (Introduction), 3 (Community Design), 4 (Land Use), and 7 (Conservation) (Attachment B) as amended by Council and discussed by staff; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor pro Tem Boles moved to waive the first reading and introduce an Ordinance approving the amendments to the Zoning Code (Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code) and the zoning map to reflect the new Zoning Districts and to ensure consistency with the Housing Element, including amendments to Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 6.5, 23, 24, 25, 28, and addition City Council Regular Meeting 42 August 11, 2025
of Articles 54 to 67 (Attachment C) as amended by Council and discussed by staff; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
CONSIDERATION - NONE.
ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 12:57 a.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS AMENDED: 5 - 0; 9/8/2025
__________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor