CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Council Chambers
2212 Beach Blvd
Pacifica, CA 94044
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer
Vice Mayor Christine Boles
Councilmember Mary Bier
Councilmember Mayra Espinosa
Councilmember Greg Wright
City Council Regular Meeting 1 October 13, 2025
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
October 13, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on October 13, 2025 at 5:00 PM 5:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Section 54956.9(d)(4) (One Potential Case). 00b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 and paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9: One Case. 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer reconvened the meeting at 6:26 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sue Beckmeyer Mayor Present
Christine Boles Vice Mayor Present
Mary Bier Councilmember Present
Mayra Espinosa Councilmember Present
Greg Wright Councilmember Remote
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call. She stated Councilmember Wright will be joining the meeting via Zoom from the remoted location as posted in the written agenda. She confirmed all the conditions by which he was participating pursuant to the Brown Act.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Melissa Tigbao, PW Director; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Bill Glasgo, Police Captain; Vince Romero, Police Captain; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
City Council Regular Meeting 2 October 13, 2025
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgment.
Salute to the Flag led by Mayor Beckmeyer
Closed Session Report
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the City Council voted unanimously to join with the County of San Mateo which initiated a lawsuit against the State of California for the collection of the vehicle license fees.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation: United Against Hate Week October 19 - 25, 2025 Mayor Beckmeyer read a proclamation honoring United Against Hate Week, October 19-25, 2025. She then opened public comment.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, expressed appreciation for this proclamation and shared her thoughts on why and how to support this issue.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comment.
Councilmember Wright appreciated taking part through Zoom and felt it was good that they model standing against hate, state it, and do it on an annual basis.
Vice Mayor Boles stated some of the meetings at a State conference she attended were about the hate spreading in our communities and alienating certain communities, especially those of color. She stated that is being led by the national politics, and it was important for us to say it is not okay as it is not who we are. We value each member of our community and will stand with them against any hate they might experience. She stated that Council is here and their numbers are on the city website. If community members experience anything, any one of the five Councilmembers would be happy to stand with them. She shared a quote from Maya Angelou, i.e., “hate has caused a lot of problems in this world but it has not solved one yet”.
She asked everyone to make better choices and examine ourselves as we all make decisions every day.
Councilmember Bier stated that the United Against Hate campaign is a statewide campaign with a lot of different activities in different cities. She stated that it is the first activity she does every year with the Youth Council at Oceana and it is nice to see what they come up with and how they feel about things and they are the most important voices we have.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if any Councilmembers wish to pull any items from consent.
Vice Mayor Boles asked to pull item #4 to get a brief presentation about the fireworks.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comment for any items except for Item #4 and, seeing no one, closed public comment.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 October 13, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles noted the following corrections to the minutes: On page 28, the sentence referencing “required all electric renewed construction” should state “new construction”. On pages 31 and 32, “Flex Pass” should be “Flex Path”. On page 33, “portable water” should be “potable water”.
Councilmember Bier moved to accept the consent agenda with Vice Mayor Boles’ corrections to Item #2 and minus Item #4; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEMS #1, #2 AS AMENDED, AND #3; EXCLUDING #4) RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
1. Approval of Disbursements for 09/01/25 through 09/30/25 PROPOSED ACTION: Receive and file the Monthly Check Register Report for the month of September 2025.
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the September 22, 2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
3. Continuation of Proclamation of Local Emergency of the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the End of Beach Boulevard.
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept report and make a determination that conditions of local emergency continue to exist within the Pacifica Coastline from Westline Drive to the end of Beach Boulevard.
4. 2025 July 4th Activities Report
PROPOSED ACTION: Accept the staff report on the 2025 July 4th activities.
ITEM #4 DISCUSSION
Police Captain Glasgo presented the staff report.
Vice Mayor Boles referred to the staff report, which said revenue from the sales of fireworks was $36,000 and all the departmental expenditures was $42,000, and understood that did not include the fines totaling $14,000. She concluded that we are not in the red to cover their expenses.
Police Captain Glasgo responded affirmatively.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if he could talk about calls and what staff are looking for when a community member complains about illegal fireworks they are seeing.
Police Captain Glasgo stated that, typically, staff answer a lot of phone calls coming in, try to obtain as much information from the caller to get a location and if willing to provide a name so City Council Regular Meeting 4 October 13, 2025
they can follow up. He stated that typically, a lot of the calls are people who want to remain anonymous, so sometimes Police are going just based on the location provided.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if the number to call was through the website link.
Police Captain Glasgo stated, typically, yes and staff encourage that, if something dangerous is going on, do not hesitate to call 911 as you will get the quickest response.
Vice Mayor Boles asked how incoming drone technology could help with ticketing.
Police Captain Glasgo believes it will help as the policy will dictate how to utilize the drones. He stated that this is a City asset and we want to be cautious in deploying such expensive equipment. However, if there is a specific public safety need the drone can be used as an extra tool; we will make those decisions in determining the impact of how to respond to a specific incident.
There were no public comments.
Councilmember Bier thanked him for his time and his report. She stated that, at the State conference, TNT had a booth and was well-versed on data about our City.
Mayor Beckmeyer thanked him for the report as it is helpful to hear his firsthand experience.
Vice Mayor Boles moved to accept the report and approve Item #4; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
AGENDA ITEM #4
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Michael Wahlman, Pacifica, spoke in support of electing several positions, such as the City Manager and Mayor, as well as expanding the number of City Council members to include atlarge and district seats.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared information from Faith in Action Bay Area, including details on what the organization is negatively experiencing with ICE. She described resources such as red cards, posters, hotlines, and volunteering.
Steve Franco, Pacifica, referred to the RV issue and spoke in favor of a no camping ordinance.
Joyce Toomey, Pacifica, emphasized that Paloma Ave. should be removed from the RV map and shared safety concerns on the RV issue.
City Council Regular Meeting 5 October 13, 2025
Jolissa Acosta, San Mateo County, stated she is joined by LaSaundra Gutter and they are both commissioners from the Commission of Status of Women for San Mateo County and invited us to their listen and learn session to be hosted at the Half Moon Bay Library on October 28, and their role is to listen from the community on issues related to women and girls in the County.
Martin Anaya, Pacifica, stated he is with PCT and added they have an all-female crew for the first time in a typically male dominated field and mentioned their training process should anyone be interested. He then shared thoughts on the Fog Fest as well as the upcoming PCT Honors.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
5. Consideration of Process for Recruitment and Selection of a New City Manager and Consider Adopting Resolution Establishing a City Manager Recruitment Ad Hoc Subcommittee
PROPOSED ACTION: Consider Process for Recruitment and Selection of a new City Manager and move to adopt Resolution Establishing City Manager Recruitment Ad Hoc Subcommittee.
City Attorney Kenyon presented the staff report.
There were no public comments.
Vice Mayor Boles thought City Attorney Kenyon was key to the process in guiding Council through all the steps, not just the ad hoc committee chosen to appoint a recruitment firm.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she would work closely with whatever recruiting firm is selected by Council to conduct the recruitment and we both work with Council at every step of the way.
Initially, the executive recruiting firm will work directly with Council in developing the candidate profile, but she will not be working on that. She will be working with Council, once the candidates have submitted applications, in scheduling closed sessions and interviewing the candidates.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if there is input from the whole Council in terms of outreach to staff or to the community and does that need to be discussed before recruitment starts.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, generally, that discussion happens with the selected recruiting firm and the whole Council. The recruiting firm will provide the full Council with questions and detail what the process will look like and will take suggestions from full Council or it can be done with an ad hoc if Council wishes to delegate all that to the ad hoc. She stated, at this stage, the initial purpose of the ad hoc subcommittee would be to recommend a recruiting firm for the full Council.
Councilmember Espinosa thought it was a good idea to have a survey for the council and staff to see what they are looking for in a City Manager.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, not all Councils ask for that, but that is a common request.
Council would give that direction to the recruiter and the recruiter will talk to Council on how to go about getting input.
City Council Regular Meeting 6 October 13, 2025
Councilmember Bier stated tonight’s item is just about the recruitment selection. She asked what is expected of the ad hoc subcommittee, such as their time commitment.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is whatever Council majority directs as the scope of the ad hoc. If Council just wants the ad hoc work on making a recommendation to Council on the recruitment and make another decision later if there are other roles for the ad hoc, that can be done. In Council’s deliberations, they can design the authority they want to give that ad hoc to work with in either selecting the recruiters to recommend or letting the ad hoc make the recommendation with some input from Council and bring it back to Council for that recommendation. After that, there may be other roles for the ad hoc, but sometimes there is not. It all depends on what Council needs from the ad hoc. Until we have names of candidates, none of the discussions can be had in closed session. The reason for the ad hoc is to make the deliberations more streamlined. That would mean that the full Council would be delegating certain responsibilities to the ad hoc. She imagined that it would be the ad hoc who would work with her to select the proposers for the executive recruiting firm, we will interview them and, with her assistance, create a staff report to Council and a decision will be made. Sometimes the ad hoc has no work after that and sometimes the ad hoc continues to have tasks if the full Council wants.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that, during the interview, she would like to see everyone there, as all of them might have skills to select a City Manager.
Vice Mayor Boles clarified that two people would not be selecting the city manager, but they might be helping narrow down the recruitment.
Councilmember Espinosa thought that makes more sense, but she thought that during the interview all of Council should be there.
Vice Mayor Boles would love to be a part of that, and she said that Councilmember Bier suggested that it might be the Mayor and Vice Mayor.
Councilmember Bier thinks it is a natural thing for the Mayor and Vice Mayor to work on together.
Councilmember Wright thinks that is probably one of the most important decisions Council is going to make. He thinks it would be useful for the Mayor and Vice Mayor to come back with three recommendations for the full Council to choose from and gets the opportunity to at least have a phone interview with each of the potential candidates. Council would then take a vote in public. He asked if that was a reasonable process.
City Attorney Kenyon stated this process is the Council’s project. She stated it is their selection and she agrees with Councilmember Wright that this is probably the most momentous decision that they will make in their term. They all need to be comfortable with this process.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked about process for the Councilmembers who would not be part of the ad hoc and would do a phone interview with the firms recommended.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it is up to them as to how Council wants to select their consultant.
They are not an employee of the city and not an appointed official, so it is a different category of selection.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 October 13, 2025
Councilmember Espinosa agrees with the ad hoc subcommittee, but she does not agree with the interview followed by the phone interview. She preferred that all of them interview, adding that she wants to be there.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought Councilmember Espinosa was referring to interviewing the candidate for the actual position. She thought Councilmember Wright was saying to phone the firms that are being considered as the consulting firms.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that is okay.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that any Councilmember can interview those firms separately.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that Council cannot interview altogether unless they notice it as a public meeting under the Brown Act. She understood Councilmember Wright saying that, in addition to the ad hoc recommendation, all Councilmembers could individually call the recruiting firms before the public agenda item where all three firms will be here to interview and the full Council will be asking them questions at that time. She stated that there will be an opportunity for the full Council to interview and ask questions of the recruiters. She stated that Councilmember Wright was saying in addition, if any Councilmember felt like talking to the recruiter personally and asking questions, they could do that as well. She stated that the ad hoc subcommittee will be interviewing initially and the rest of the Council will interview either once or twice (once when the recruiters are actually here in open session for the selection or twice talking to them privately over the phone before the public meeting). It is up to Council, but she thinks Councilmember Wright’s suggestion satisfies Councilmember Espinosa’s concern about being involved in the interview process.
Vice Mayor Boles understood that the ad hoc might narrow it down to three and we would bring three to interview.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the reality is that there are not that many executive recruitment firms. There are not a lot of firms that do this and her guess is that the ad hoc would most likely interview at least three recruiting firms. The issue with interviewing privately is that it would have to be telephonically because these recruiting firms are not local. She wanted to make the process clear that the ad hoc role would just be in selecting the three initially. There are usually only three, and those three would then be brought before the full Council to interview in open session. The only way to interview the recruiting firm in private would be either the ad hoc or the individual Councilmembers talking to the recruiters separately. The formal interview would be held in public session during an agendized Council meeting.
Vice Mayor Boles stated the public can also ask questions.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they could ask questions through public comment and then a Councilmember could ask that question again.
Councilmember Wright asked if the ad hoc committee has the opportunity to make a recommendation on a preference.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the ad hoc would make their recommendation but the full Council would have an opportunity to meet all three and make a joint decision on the dais. She City Council Regular Meeting 8 October 13, 2025
stated that the motion would be to adopt the resolution attached to the staff report and the ad hoc committee would be comprised of Mayor Beckmeyer and Vice Mayor Boles.
Councilmember Bier so moved; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
6. Discussion of Potential Options for Amendments to Mayor and Vice Mayor Selection Process Policy
PROPOSED ACTION: Review recommendations and policy decision options identified by City Council Ad-Hoc Subcommittee to amend the Mayor / Vice Mayor Selection Process, and provide direction to develop an amended Administrative Policy No. 17 for the annual selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor.
City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report.
Councilmember Bier referred to the deferrals and declining not being rescinded during that meeting and asked if they defer the nomination for Vice Mayor, the same question is in play.
City Clerk Coffey would presume that deferring or declining the nomination would likely come up more in the Mayor selection process than Vice Mayor. If the person declines, and they are doing the selection out of a hat, their name would not go in the hat for that selection.
Councilmember Bier stated there is a difference between deferring and declining.
Mayor Beckmeyer had the same question that Councilmember Bier had regarding deferrals for Vice Mayor. She asked if there are any other items Council feels we did not see as options that should be on the table for any of these steps.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that she would like to hear from the ad hoc subcommittee as well.
Councilmember Espinosa thought the key was to make sure that every elected Councilmember has the opportunity to serve as Mayor and Vice Mayor. She thought it was a good idea to have the flexibility to defer if they are not ready for any reason to be Mayor or Vice Mayor. She would like that person to go on the top of the line because they are giving their space to the other person coming. She stated that, if they go to the bottom of the line, they might not serve, as they only have two terms. She wanted to be sure that, for any reason, if that person has any hardship and cannot make it, she would like to see them have the opportunity to serve at a later point and not be left out completely during the four years.
Councilmember Wright stated the task that Council gave this subcommittee is an extremely difficult task. He can see that a lot of thought went into making things as equitable and fair for everyone. He stated that it seems like an impossible task to achieve.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 October 13, 2025
Michael Wahlman, Pacifica, thought it makes sense to have minimum criteria but disagreed with ineligibility criteria or maximum amount of time. He also did not necessarily support district rotation. He referenced possibly expanding Council and stated to move away from the idea that every person elected deserves to become Vice Mayor or Mayor.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Councilmember Bier thanked Councilmember Espinosa as well as City Clerk Coffey and Dep.
City Clerk La for coming back with this report. She spoke to other councilmembers in other cities, and the bottom line was that there were so many variables. This especially includes the term limits, which is where we differ from other cities. She and Councilmember Espinosa came to an impasse on the person being appointed as Vice Mayor deferring and going to the front or back of the line. She was passionate about that as she had assumptions when she deferred that she would go to the front of the line. She feels that that should not be the case but go to the back of the line. She stated there were so many variables that it became ineffective for them to keep the discussion going.
Councilmember Espinosa stated her background is computer programing and stated, if we do it by district, it will be an issue later; when the term limits end, there will be a variable and it will be very difficult when we have new people coming in depending on if the person is running, only doing four years, etc. The key would be leave this policy open and change it if we need it.
Councilmember Bier stated another place where they came to an impasse was the rotation. In her mind, having a district rotation makes things clear for everyone. If all these variables come in, they will look at the criteria for the variables and, if all else fails, you go to the district rotation.
Councilmember Wright stated the way district-based elections works automatically means that Districts 1 and 4 have a higher chance of serving twice than Districts 2, 3, and 5. He stated that there is a built-in potential for inequity. In terms of deferrals, he had concerns about members moving to the back of the line when they have a good reason to defer. He thinks we need to preserve an option for a second nomination to go along with whomever is getting nominated and for Council to have some discretion in trying to choose the best person for the job. He is also interested in understanding, since district elections, what is the historical sequence of who served and what districts had representation serving as mayor.
Councilmember Bier stated, since the first election with districts in 2020, it was Districts 4, 1, and 5.
Councilmember Espinosa stated some Councilmembers currently have been Mayor and District 1 has been Mayor twice.
Councilmember Bier stated that her district (District 3) has never been Mayor. She was Mayor before districts.
Councilmember Espinosa thinks if we do it by district, there will be a time when the district does not qualify because of a one-year term. That is why this is not that easy.
Vice Mayor Boles thanked them for doing all this work. She wanted to address the public comment. She stated that district rotation and public drawing were with the intention of having fair representation among all the districts. It is not about perfection but about sharing the City Council Regular Meeting 10 October 13, 2025
responsibility and the opportunity to do that. She appreciated the two options they put forward.
She stated that, if she is Mayor next year and she gets re-elected, then in her fourth year, it would be her district for Vice Mayor district but she would be ineligible, which makes sense. If someone else is elected the following year, they are not up for another four years which means that they might not have a turn. She thinks that is where the strict rotation may not make as much sense.
Councilmember Bier thinks we are trying to combine things so there is something to fall back on if necessary.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that the public drawing might work and we can talk about that as another option. She saw Redwood City put a list together and then there are priorities based on when you were elected, if you served in the past before, etc. It is not that anyone is ineligible but that there are priorities. There are times, such as in East Palo Alto, when someone is a brand new councilmember and the Vice Mayor. She stated, if there is a way for a little more flexibility in terms of prioritizing who is first, some of that might involve drawing.
Councilmember Espinosa thought we have two councilmembers coming, such as her and Councilmember Wright, and if she wanted to be Vice Mayor, what is the process. She proposed that both of them talk to the City Clerk and state that they are both interested and they both want to be Vice Mayor. The whole direction was that both of them came here and are the only ones eligible and, in order to choose who is going to go fairly, we will draw the name of the person and that way you do not feel that they voted against you. If there are three eligible Councilmembers, they can draw their names as well.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that is why she likes the preferential one and hopefully everybody gets a chance to serve in their first four years.
Councilmember Bier stated that makes a difference for someone whether they defer or not, as they are going to know.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that both of them were working on including fairness and she wanted everyone to have the opportunity to serve without Council choosing.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if Councilmember Espinosa meant she was seeking to avoid conflict.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, not only that, but because we are already elected officials, why do we need a confrontation in choosing who is supposed to be Mayor or Vice Mayor.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated what she is hearing among Councilmembers is a desire to bake into the process avoidance of conflict. She understands the need for that but she also understands that, in human endeavors, that is always a possibility. Any concept of a strict rotation because that is fairer may not be accurate because of the election cycle that has two Councilmembers running on that election cycle versus the election cycle that has three Councilmembers running when there are only four years in a term. What she heard now is the desire for there to be an opportunity for every person who runs for a four-year term on Council to serve as Mayor and, to do that, you serve as Vice Mayor. Eventually the math stops working because there are not enough years for it to all work out. What she heard multiple times is the desire for a way to avoid perceived conflict. She does not think that is possible. She thinks we need to dispel that for purposes of this discussion.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 October 13, 2025
Councilmember Bier agreed it is not fair.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated it is not against anybody, but a mathematical reality. She stated, among the five people sitting in these chairs, there is going to be some aspects of this that we cannot mathematically program into the process. She asked if there is anything missing in the draft policy that Council would like to put into the conversation. She would like to suggest that regardless of the process adopted, if we have the qualifying criteria, the City Clerk would state all the persons who are eligible, and that is very clear to all Councilmembers making a decision and to the public. There are also a couple questions about ineligibility within three or four years of serving as Vice Mayor or Mayor and she would like to hear from the ad hoc subcommittee on what the discussion was around that and the purpose of that.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that the ad hob subcommittee did not discuss the three or four years, but there are consequences every time we choose something.
Vice Mayor Boles thought it would be helpful to start with qualifying criteria and that may eliminate some decisions.
Councilmember Bier thought that was what City Clerk was trying to map out in the staff report.
Councilmember Espinosa stated staff did a great job.
Councilmember Wright added that he thought it was important to have the opportunity for a second nomination prior to any vote being taken and to ask are there any other nominations and seconds, regardless of the system, to maintain maximum discretion for Council.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the draft policy criteria does include, as previously discussed by Council, by supermajority vote the policy does not need to be followed and that other nominations can be taken. If we match up that option with what Council Rules and Procedures say about motions and seconds and alternate motions, that always exists. You have a policy that says you need a supermajority vote to not follow the policy, someone is following the policy and makes a motion, according to the policy, you can have an alternate motion that says you are moving that we, by supermajority vote, do not follow the policy. He thinks a key point on that is do you need just a majority vote or a supermajority vote to not follow the policy.
Councilmember Bier stated supermajority can still never let one councilmember serve as Mayor year after year and does not know what to do about that.
Councilmember Espinosa stated she does not see the need of going through all this policy when Council is going to make a nomination and the majority could choose another person.
She stated the whole reason to rotate is to avoid voting or at least the vote had to be agreed on the rotation schedule.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated there may be cases where we would not want to put someone into the position of Mayor if they are not following protocols. She heard what the City Manager was saying and she appreciated the concept of a supermajority vote to disallow that policy to go forward for that person to become the Mayor, but she is not sure that would be the best choice based on our own Council Rules and Code of Ethics. She thinks the Council needs to retain the ability to make a different choice. She stated a majority or supermajority would not avoid a situation where a councilmember does not serve as Mayor for multiple consecutive years.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 October 13, 2025
Councilmember Bier stated it would not matter.
Councilmember Wright asked if we are seeking the best for the City or to avoid conflict.
Councilmember Bier stated it is to establish a transparent, fair and predictable system for Council and the public.
Councilmember Wright understood.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks we are missing the whys of the process and, hopefully, the next Council will also appreciate transparency, fairness, and predictability. It is about Council having trust so they can work together and about being fair to the people in the community that have elected each of them. The goal is that we are all helping each other.
Councilmember Espinosa thought the problem was voting for the Mayor or Vice Mayor and emphasized the importance of eligibility criteria in the policy. Otherwise, if Council picks someone over the person already in the line waiting to be a Mayor or Vice Mayor, why should we be here talking about this new policy.
Councilmember Bier asked if City Clerk had any thoughts on the matter.
City Clerk Coffey stated that her thoughts are that the current policy gives maximum flexibility but there is no predictability. She stated that they are trying to balance predictability and fairness with flexibility and she thinks they have to give up one or the other. She stated that there could be a less rigid policy where they establish some qualifying criteria or eligibility criteria and then she heard some suggestion that the City Clerk will report out the name of those individuals and they can leave it up to Council’s choice to make a nomination of those individuals or hear from those individuals that meet the qualifying factors to present a statement or a case for selection and not nail down specific rotation or not leave it up to random selection.
There could be a compromise in that regard to allow for flexibility but to establish some qualifying criteria. That option was not presented in the presentation but it is another idea.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked City Attorney if she had something to recommend.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she has seen all different types of policies. It starts with Council in terms of how do they want to select. She heard some of them say this policy can be changed and it has changed a lot. She has seen policies that are this complex for a year. The following year they are changed because Councilmembers are finding that it is too difficult to implement the policy. That may or may not happen. What she sees happen is once the complicated inflexible policies are adopted, the next iteration of the policy generally looks like what the City Clerk just mentioned. It is put in the protocol so every Councilmember reads the eligibility criteria. If the five Councilmembers want to adopt this policy or a rotation policy, that can happen so long as they are all mindful of the fact that, after it is implemented one or two times, it may change. The policies for selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor is for the Council that is making the selection because it can be changed at any point and any time by a majority of Councilmembers. She has been in Council meetings where this discussion has taken three hours without a resolution and, if that happens, she thinks perhaps the complexity of the policy is becoming a hurdle for all the reasons mentioned. At some point, she thinks Council should consider whether or not this type of policy, which is complicated with a lot of variables, the likelihood of the policy remaining that way in the future. She suggests looking at this policy for 2025 and most likely 2026, not permanently.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 October 13, 2025
Councilmember Wright wondered if the ad hoc subcommittee considered how we could amend the current policy as an alternative.
Councilmember Bier stated that they did not, adding that it is a very good idea.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that their main concern was to avoid the confrontation that they had earlier in the year. She stated that the whole key here is not be that rigid. When they were writing this policy, she was not doing it because it was good for her but she was thinking of the people coming next to make it easy for them and having Council be more collaborative.
Councilmember Bier stated, for her, it was very important that there is understanding about what happens when certain things happen. If she defers and she knows she is going to the end of the line, she is going to defer making that decision knowing that. That was not the case for her, so she thinks that is something that needs to be very clear in the policy. Things like that which they are all very clear about is going to help them make their decisions moving forward.
City Manager Woodhouse reminded the Council that, in defense of the ad hoc subcommittee’s work, clear direction from Council was to look at a rotational policy and a lot of comment received from the public was about each district having the opportunity to be Vice Mayor and Mayor. Because of that direction from Council, the ad hod subcommittee framed what was looked at. Council is at a point now where they can decide whatever they want.
Vice Mayor Boles suggested, based on City Attorney Kenyon’s point, to think about the decision they have to make in December as to how they rotate. For Vice Mayor, it is between Councilmembers Wright and Espinosa, as they are both eligible. She stated that they might come to the point where one or either of them says they are not ready and will let the other one do, but if they are both ready and want to be considered, do they want a discussion or draw names out of a hat. She asked what they want to have happen in December. She stated that they are assuming the Mayor selection happens and she will do that. If something happens in her life and all of a sudden she cannot, neither of them have been Vice Mayor, leaving only those two who have. That could be where they go to an uncharted territory.
Councilmember Wright stated that you would then need a supermajority vote to do that.
Councilmember Espinosa asked why are we putting this policy if we need a supermajority. The whole thing is that she was trying to make it flexible. She stated that she is open to whatever they decide and there is a possibility to make changes later.
Vice Mayor Boles mentioned a public drawing is a good option if there is more than one person that wants to serve.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, at the end of the term in November or beginning of December, they can tell the City Clerk they are interested. Then she will say which Councilmembers are interested and that way they can choose randomly who can be eligible for it, but they have the voting and that is her problem. If they are going to vote, if Council majority does not like the rotation, what are they going to do.
Councilmember Bier stated, even if the draw of a hat, there still has to be a motion and a vote.
Councilmember Espinosa stated it could be if you are going to take precedent of what is already City Council Regular Meeting 14 October 13, 2025
there. She asked if Council majority is required for the Vice Mayor and Mayor selections.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified that, for the Vice Mayor or Mayor to be selected, by law, it has to be selected by a majority of the Council.
Councilmember Espinosa asked why they have this rotation.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that you can still do that and you are only advancing one candidate for that vote. It has gone through the rotation or the drawing and you are putting forth one person’s name but you still have to vote legally.
Councilmember Wright supposed that they go through all these criteria and the names are put up for a vote. What happens if that person does not get the vote.
Councilmember Bier stated that then the community is very mad. They have experienced it.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated, on any given day and any given issue, that does come up.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that it is legal to have the Council vote, but that is the problem.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that it does not have to be a problem if they are all following process.
Councilmember Bier added being aware of the process as well.
Councilmember Espinosa assumed that is the process and the process will be the next person.
Mayor Beckmeyer returned to previous conversations and suggested establishing things like deferral. There is no policy or statement in our Council Rules about deferring. She asked for the reason, process and consequence of that decision. The individual is nominated, they deferred, and then a different individual was nominated and was voted in. For the person who deferred, because there was no clear statement of what that meant, the assumption was it means the next time around it is that person’s turn. She stated that is not the way Council understood it.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that was the reason why we put it in this policy.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked is it that you go to the top or go to the bottom and she thinks we need establish it into the rules what it means.
Councilmember Wright cited good reasons for someone who deferred to stay at the top.
Councilmember Espinosa does not think there should be a reason. You just have to say you want to defer for next year and that is it.
Councilmember Bier asked then what happens after that.
Councilmember Espinosa stated it is the same thing because the next person is going to take her place and it is not going to change anybody. They are just switching the first one and second one and everything remains the same for everyone else in line.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, if you are going to talk about what happens with a deferral, City Council Regular Meeting 15 October 13, 2025
you should first talk about whether the policy is going to be rotational or not. If it is not rotational, then going to the top or the bottom does not apply. What was talked about earlier was establishing eligibility criteria, City Clerk gauging interest of those who are eligible, and then perhaps a drawing of those eligible. Someone who is deferring would not submit their interest for that year.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she was hearing two different things: 1) people need to step forward and go to the City Clerk and indicate their interest prior to the meeting or 2) the City Clerk comes to the meeting with that information and puts it on the table. She stated if the person needs to step forward with their interest prior to the December meeting, how far backwards would the person be needing to meet with City Clerk to indicate their interest.
City Manager Woodhouse does not think there is any urgent timeline.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated it would have to go for preparation, like being published in the agenda.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that would just be a week before the meeting or you can apply the rule of ten days before the meeting to know that someone is eligible and interested and there will be a drawing on whatever the decision process is between those that are eligible and interested. He was making the point that the discussion about top of the list or bottom of the list only applies if you are doing a rotational process.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that we did not have a rotational process last year and it was a problem. She does not understand how he believes it is not an issue.
Councilmember Bier stated that, in the community’s mind, there was a rotation. Before districts, we based it on votes when we were at-large.
City Attorney Kenyon stated adopting a clear policy with selection criteria or eligibility would solve a lot of the confusion. With all the confusions raised today about the process in the past or potential problems in the future, a lot of them would be solved by everybody knowing what the Council expects in terms of selection. The policy has to include the eligibility criteria and potential priorities. At the end of the day, it does provide for some flexibility because of all the other things that could happen. What we are talking about now will solve a lot of the issues that occurred last December.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if we could go through the eligibility criteria. She asked about serving one year as Councilmember for Vice Mayor instead of having served 11 months because the vote is happening before someone serves a whole year. She also asked about serving one year as Vice Mayor for Mayor.
Councilmember Bier focused on Vice Mayor first. If there can be an assumption that the Vice Mayor is going to become the Mayor, we are really talking about Vice Mayor.
Councilmember Wright agrees with Vice Mayor Boles on the 11-month criteria.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated eligibility criteria for Vice Mayor would be “11 months” instead of “1 year” and ineligibility as “Serving in the final year of their second full term”.
Councilmember Bier stated that it does not have to be second full term because what if they are not running for a second term.
City Council Regular Meeting 16 October 13, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer asked about “serving in the final year of their term”.
Councilmember Wright stated that would rob them of the benefit of experience.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that, even if someone is running, you do not know that they are going to be re-elected. She does not think the last year of your first term should be a limitation. She agrees with what is written, i.e., ineligibility is final year of your second full term.
Mayor Beckmeyer mentioned the additional ineligibility criteria of having “served as Mayor or Vice Mayor in the past three years.”
Councilmember Wright and Vice Mayor Boles did not like it.
Councilmember Bier stated that they had to think about all the variables happening.
Councilmember Espinosa stated there could be a chance that people who have already been a Mayor might have to serve as the Mayor because we do not have another eligible person.
Councilmember Wright added that you could have three brand new elected officials.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if we could write it with preference given to Councilmembers who have not served previously in that role.
Councilmember Espinosa stated there will be a time when someone who already served will need to serve.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that is why she is saying preference and not blocking it.
Councilmember Wright stated he would not be in favor of that.
Councilmember Bier suggested talking about eligibility.
Mayor Beckmeyer added about interest. She asked if Councilmembers go to City Clerk in advance and say they are interested or, if eligible, City Clerk says they are eligible and they can say they are not interested and pull their name out at that moment.
City Clerk Coffey asked if it is Council’s wish to have those interested named in the staff report for the item versus the City Clerk presenting those eligible based on the qualifying criteria and then the statement of those interested would be made on the dais at the meeting.
Councilmember Wright and Mayor Beckmeyer preferred the latter.
Councilmember Wright would prefer that the City Clerk reach out to all eligible people to ascertain their wishes.
City Clerk Coffey concluded that it would be the preference for the Clerk to reach out to those eligible prior to the agenda.
City Council Regular Meeting 17 October 13, 2025
Councilmember Wright preferred, prior to whenever she discloses it, that it be released on the dais so there is no campaigning going on in between.
There was Council consensus.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if we did not want a preference for people who have not served before.
Councilmember Wright can see that being a potential problem as it diminishes people’s second term and any rotational criteria that we may or may not want to put in. That is why he is against it. He wants the City to benefit from people’s experience.
Vice Mayor Boles understands that, but she thinks that could block sharing of the responsibility.
If you are going to look at experience, anybody who served before has more experience.
Councilmember Wright does not feel that should be the criteria either but does not think it should count against them. He stated that it makes sense for Vice Mayor Boles to be Mayor next time as she is the most experienced in other reasons. He stated that the question comes in her second term, because it looks like she would have the opportunity to be Mayor the second time, if Pacifica would be better off benefitting from that experience as opposed to somebody who has been on Council for a short time and does not have the same relationships.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that she would rather have everyone a chance to do it.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we cannot go by experience.
Councilmember Wright stated he is not saying that we go by experience but saying they do not disqualify someone because of their experience.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that is a good idea.
Vice Mayor Boles pointed out if they have names in a hat, some newer and others not, how is that decision made.
Councilmember Wright stated names in a hat are a different issue. He thought we were not talking about that yet, just strictly criteria.
Councilmember Espinosa stated the names in the hat should only include elected officials who have not served, not everybody else.
Mayor Beckmeyer pointed out that the only ineligibility criteria for Vice Mayor now is “serving in the final year of their second full term”. Mayor Beckmeyer opened the discussion between district rotation and public drawing.
Councilmember Espinosa stated we cannot do it by district as it does not work. She stated that the most recent elected are going to go after the other ones. She stated that the district rotation might work and we can leave it alone until it does not work and then we can change.
Councilmember Wright thinks, if we make it a suggestion and not a rule, then we can say district rotation would be a suggestion.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, if district rotation does not comply with all the rules, then we City Council Regular Meeting 18 October 13, 2025
move forward to public drawing.
Vice Mayor Boles suggested that Councilmembers Wright and Espinosa are eligible next year and then the following year we have 2 or 3 new councilmembers and she would want both of them to have preference. She stated that a new Councilmember would have to wait a year but, in the second year, she would still want one of them to have the preference for that seat as they have been there longer.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that goes to Councilmember Wright’s point about not letting experience disqualify you.
Vice Mayor Boles stated he was talking about experience for someone having served before, and she was talking about experience in terms of the number of years on Council.
Councilmember Espinosa mentioned the district rotation sample in the staff report.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that the point she is making is that she would not be eligible in her fourth year in District 2 and a new person elected would have to wait another four years. She stated that it starts to break down.
Councilmember Wright stated we should address the old system and what broke with that.
Perhaps prior to any vote being taken, we ask if there are any additional nominations for consideration. It might be the simplest solution of all.
Mayor Beckmeyer appreciated that.
Councilmember Espinosa understood this year either District 4 or District 1 will be the Vice Mayor; the following year they would become Mayor and new elected officials coming in 2025 would be the next in line waiting to become a Vice Mayor.
Councilmember Bier added then you gauge interest.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if there is a way to set up a preference, which is what Redwood City has done, and every year you update your list to priority preference and it can be decided between. If there is someone stepping forward and someone stepping back, she thinks the public drawing could be a way to go about that so we do not have to argue about it.
Councilmember Espinosa stated the drawing is to avoid choosing among multiple qualified councilmembers.
Councilmember Wright asked what if there is interest and one of the people who is not qualified.
Councilmember Espinosa stated it does not matter as the criteria is being on Council for one year. If the three of them have been on Council for one year, then the three are eligible and after choosing the Vice Mayor people may question why they were not chosen.
Mayor Beckmeyer suggested seeing what the other issues are and mentioned deferral.
Councilmember Wright asked if there can be two types of deferrals, noting possible reasons.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we do not have to specify the reason for deferral.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 October 13, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that there is deferring and declining: If you are declining, you are going to the end of the line, and if you are deferring, you keep your place in line.
Councilmember Wright agreed.
City Clerk Coffey understood deferring goes first in line, declining goes to the end.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if we need to discuss eligibility for Mayor.
Councilmember Espinosa stated we do not, as the Vice Mayor will be the Mayor.
Vice Mayor Boles stated, if something happens, what is the process when we do not have an eligible Vice Mayor.
Mayor Beckmeyer assumes someone is going to nominate someone and there will need to be a second for that nomination and we would have a discussion and vote.
Councilmember Wright stated that we would call if there were any other nominations.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that the case is perfect because none of them are eligible to become a Mayor and any Councilmember can be Mayor.
Councilmember Bier stated that there will have to be a nomination and a vote.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that this where we go to extenuating circumstances and decide on a different policy.
Councilmember Bier is curious about what the community will have to say about that as they were very vocal before.
Vice Mayor Boles added that she wanted to make sure there is a public comment period before the vote.
Councilmember Bier agreed it should be stated in the writing.
Council reviewed what would happen if the Vice Mayor declines the nomination for Mayor.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, if we do not have someone who is eligible because they are new, we have to pick from whatever Councilmember is eligible or has the experience.
Vice Mayor Boles stated maybe someone who has served within a year or two and why it is good not to have that ineligibility criteria of having served as Mayor or Vice Mayor in the past three or four years. She stated that it may be that you choose someone who has not been Vice Mayor if you do not have another choice. She thought that happens sometimes.
Mayor Beckmeyer referred to Councilmember Wright’s point that we vote, which means it is an unusual circumstance that we do not write into the policy because we just deal with the circumstances on the ground at that moment.
Councilmember Wright responded affirmatively.
City Council Regular Meeting 20 October 13, 2025
City Attorney Kenyon stated that Council needs to understand that we will not consider all the potential variables.
Vice Mayor Boles asked for the difference between the two choices for eligibility of Mayor.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated one is the eligibility for Mayor and one is the eligibility for Vice Mayor.
City Clerk Coffey stated it is asking which eligibility criteria would take precedence in that situation. Ordinarily you would have the Vice Mayor become Mayor, so if the Vice Mayor declines to become Mayor, now you are in this situation to choose who is eligible to be Mayor, such as look at the Vice Mayor eligibility or the Mayor eligibility minus the person who served as Vice Mayor in the preceding year.
Councilmember Bier thinks it is just Vice Mayor eligibility and then there will be a vote.
There was Council consensus.
Mayor Beckmeyer reiterated declining nominations means you go to the back of the line and deferring means you postpone for a year.
Councilmember Wright thinks we should include that you cannot defer two years in a row.
There was Council consensus.
Mayor Beckmeyer referred to Exceptional Scenarios and Multiple Eligible Councilmembers.
She feels we need to have to have a statement of who is eligible and then a nomination.
City Clerk Coffey thinks this was covered in the discussion where it sounds like the consensus was that City Clerk would provide the names of those eligible and would let them know before the agenda is published that they are eligible and their interest would be expressed on the dais.
Vice Mayor Boles stated the question is if it is done, discussed, and decided on the dais by comparing two candidates or are we having a drawing which is a blind process.
Councilmember Wright stated that we deliberate and vote.
Councilmember Espinosa disagreed as she feels we are going to be choosing between multiple eligible people and she thinks we should randomly pick one name and that way no one feels left out. That is her suggestion, but she can live with either way.
City Manager Woodhouse asked a clarifying question regarding declining or deferral. If someone had deferred or declined, then the next year when you are establishing who is eligible, how does that play out. Is the person who declined or deferred eligible.
Vice Mayor Boles stated declining moves them to the bottom of the list.
Councilmembers Bier, Espinosa, and Wright stated those who declined are not eligible.
Vice Mayor Boles asked when the declined person comes back up further and if there is a line as we have not set that.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 October 13, 2025
City Clerk Coffey stated, if we do not have a rotation policy, we look at the eligibility again regardless of declining in the year before. She stated deferring going to the top of the list implies that priority is given to the person who deferred above making nominations.
Vice Mayor Boles assumed we would not accept other nominations as we automatically give it to the person who deferred. The person who declined might not be eligible that year but might be eligible the year after that.
City Clerk Coffey stated that the question is, if the person who has declined is still eligible, does their name go into consideration, whether it be a drawing or nominations.
Councilmember Wright thinks a declination should be a minimum no for two years.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, by two years, if you decline, then the following year, you are not eligible, but the year after that you would be eligible.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated, if you decline in a given year, you are not eligible the following year.
Councilmember Wright stated he wants to distinguish by a period of one year between the deferral and the declination.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated, if you defer, you are eligible the following year. If you decline, you are not eligible the following year.
Councilmember Bier added that, if there are other people who are eligible, then there needs to be a vote between the other people.
Councilmember Wright thinks we are placing too high a priority on avoiding voting. He thinks that is part of the job and sometimes we have to bite the bullet and do it.
Councilmember Bier agreed, as long as we are all clear about everything else. If we are clear, the public will be clear.
City Attorney Kenyon added that just creating this criteria will make a difference. We have never had that before and that added to part of the confusion last year. Now, people understand what the intent is with this policy. She stated that we are not going to be able to fix everything as no policy is perfect.
Vice Mayor Boles stated at least it lets everyone who is eligible put their name in if they choose to have it in and have the public comment if they seem someone is better qualified than another.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if we need to discuss consecutive years as Mayor or Vice Mayor.
City Clerk Coffey thinks this is the situation where Vice Mayor declines or defers the nomination for Mayor and are they eligible to continue to serve as Vice Mayor and is that the preference. If they want to continue to serve as Vice Mayor, do we not go through the selection process for Vice Mayor as the Vice Mayor wants to continue in that role. That would imply that the Vice Mayor would move into the Mayor position a year later.
Councilmember Bier stated that would be a deferral.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 October 13, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that, if they defer, they should not be Vice Mayor again so we have somebody else who has that experience.
Councilmember Wright stated that then they are not deferring as what they are deferring is their right to be Mayor the following year.
Vice Mayor Boles stated they are not necessarily giving that up but they are not allowed to be Vice Mayor two years in a row. They will have served one year as Vice Mayor so they would be eligible for Mayor.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed, as the requirement is that you have to serve as Vice Mayor for at least 11 months.
Councilmember Wright asked if we are just postponing a problem for the following year. He asked if it would be simpler to say there is no deferring as Vice Mayor to be Mayor.
Mayor Beckmeyer suggested life circumstances that could be reason for why you defer.
City Manager Woodhouse stated clarification on this point is if there is presumption that the Vice Mayor is going to become Mayor, then a Vice Mayor that defers is a problematic piece of the policy. Those are mutually exclusive. If a Vice Mayor that defers, someone else will become Vice Mayor that year, and the presumption is that someone who became Vice Mayor that year will be Mayor the following year.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, if the Mayor defers and we do not have a Vice Mayor, then she thinks we have to get somebody to be a Mayor without being the Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor Boles stated City Manager Woodhouse is talking about the following year as we would have two people eligible and that problem keeps going.
City Manager Woodhouse heard a suggestion that, if you are Vice Mayor and defer to become Mayor, you are not eligible next year to become Mayor, which is a special circumstance.
Councilmember Wright asked, if you are Vice Mayor, is there even a vote to make you Mayor.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated City Attorney Kenyon said we need a majority vote of the Council.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we will follow the rules on the rotation.
Councilmember Bier agreed as we will have the understanding that the Vice Mayor is going to be the Mayor unless there are special circumstances.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that there still needs to be a motion, second, and vote.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated, in that case, when the City Clerk would introduce the item coming up for this coming year, anyone who has served as Vice Mayor for at least 11 months would be eligible.
Councilmember Espinosa stated not necessarily.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 October 13, 2025
Councilmember Bier asked if we are talking in the context of Vice Mayor deferring as Mayor.
City Clerk Coffey asked if the assumption is that the Vice Mayor becomes Mayor.
Mayor Beckmeyer and City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
City Clerk Coffey stated that the criteria for Mayor is to serve as Vice Mayor for 11 months. The preference is for the person currently serving as Vice Mayor. She thinks we are asking that, in the case the Vice Mayor defers if they are the presumed priority the following year for Mayor, if there is a different sitting Vice Mayor.
Councilmember Wright stated that is why they need to be Vice Mayor again but that blocks somebody in the rotation.
City Clerk Coffey referenced the question of consecutive years as Vice Mayor: If the Vice Mayor defers, is the preference that Vice Mayor can serve another year as Vice Mayor.
City Attorney Kenyon thinks another way to look at it is do you want to allow the Vice Mayor to defer. If you do, the answer is, if they are deferring, it is with the intent to be the Mayor the following year; that cannot happen because normally you do not want the same person to be the Vice Mayor two years in a row, but it does not mean that you cannot have in your policy a preference for Vice Mayors who defer the Mayor nomination to be preferred in the next rotation for Mayor and Vice Mayor as the Mayor. You can do that but it creates the same issues that you have in other deferrals.
Vice Mayor Boles suggested deferring could mean to be considered the next year as Mayor. If you have to defer and you know you might be giving up your choice, you might have it, but you might not, and Council can have that discussion.
Councilmember Bier thinks that needs to be clear.
Councilmember Wright stated he is starting to like the old policy better.
City Attorney Kenyon stated this policy, even leaving the unknown in the policies, will help in that discussion. She emphasized we will not get perfection in this policy but by having this deliberation now, we are helping not only colleagues on the dais but future councilmembers who may get elected in 2026. Something will be in a policy and it will help.
City Clerk Coffey referred to the case of the Vice Mayor deferring, the next question is do you wish to remain Vice Mayor and, if the answer is yes, the process stops there.
Councilmember Espinosa thinks the one who was Vice Mayor should not be Vice Mayor again.
City Clerk Coffey asked if it is up to the preference of the Vice Mayor who is deferring to make that decision or is it Council’s decision.
City Attorney Kenyon thought, if they defer as Vice Mayor, they would not be the Vice Mayor again but they would have a preference in the following year or be up for consideration. She stated that it does not mean they are ineligible to be Mayor.
Councilmember Wright thinks we are building in a problem.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 October 13, 2025
City Clerk Coffey emphasized we will have a sitting Vice Mayor and a person who deferred.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the sitting Vice Mayor will understand that when they are selected Vice Mayor. She stated that, if it is in the policy, people will understand that is the policy. If a person is elected as Vice Mayor, they understand that they may be Mayor but they may not.
Vice Mayor Boles thought another way to look at this it to take it out and that would become an extenuating circumstance that would come back before Council. For the most part, people who are accepting the Vice Mayor know that they are getting to be Mayor.
There was Council consensus.
City Clerk Coffey noted there was a question for diverging from the policy and if that requires a supermajority vote.
Councilmember Wright is not in favor of that and wanted a majority instead of a supermajority.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks there are often 3-2 Councils and these are policies that the whole Council establishes and she would rather it be a larger majority.
Councilmember Bier thinks it needs to be a supermajority.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there is supermajority in the Council Rules.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that it takes a supermajority to extend the meeting.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there is no statutory law on how you appoint Mayor or Vice Mayor. The only law is what you put in our policies or protocol. That is why it is different for every city
Councilmember Wright thought a possible situation to illustrate the supermajority to put forward a different process could be where it would need to be unanimous except for the one councilmember against whom it is being used, as that person would obviously go for themselves. He gave the example of a councilmember being charged with a crime, but it has not been adjudicated yet.
Councilmember Espinosa thought we should address that before the time of voting or selecting.
Councilmember Bier stated we need a supermajority to go outside the policies.
Councilmember Wright favored simple majority.
Mayor Beckmeyer thinks a simple majority is sufficient and her concern is what she is hearing from Councilmember Bier and Vice Mayor Boles about 3-2 Councils.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks it is not uncommon and it is easy for the majority of 3 to overpower the two and that is what we do not want. She stated that we are establishing rules that we think are fair and it should take all of them agreeing to changing the rules. She has seen it in past Councils in Pacifica where they are trying to exclude someone.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 October 13, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse added that there are two variables that we want to clarify, such as one is supermajority for not following the rules in that year and the other is supermajority regarding the vote of the Mayor or Vice Mayor when not following the rules.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated it is 9:58pm and do we think we will finish by 11:00pm.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse posed that at the reorganization meeting a motion is made to not follow the rules, and he asked if that requires a supermajority. If the supermajority says yes, do not follow the rules, then do we need a supermajority or a simple majority in nominating and selecting the Mayor and Vice Mayor. If we do not follow the rules, do we also need a supermajority for that Mayor and Vice Mayor.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the purpose of the supermajority is to change the rules, not to vote on the person. Her understanding of that requirement is, if you want to go beyond, for extenuating circumstances, the established policy. If Council decides we need to, then will the vote after that be just a majority of the Council, which is what is required on other issues where a vote needs to be taken. You are never requiring a supermajority vote on the selection of a Mayor or Vice Mayor, only requiring a supermajority vote to divert from the policy. Once that vote is taken, then you can make another motion that diverts from the policy.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked, what if there is a Councilmember who is routinely not coming to Council meetings and they happen to be the Vice Mayor. She asked if we need a supermajority vote to divert from the rules as ordinarily that person would have the expectation of being Mayor the following year, otherwise 4 out of the other 4 Councilmembers who are showing up.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, 4 out of 5, yes. She stated it could be a supermajority of those present, which would only be three if that person is not present.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if there is another way to handle that with better eligibility criteria.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there is a law that says that, if you miss a certain number of meetings in the span of 90 days, theoretically you have absented your office. That is never used but there is statutory authority for Councils to seek an Attorney General opinion on whether or not that particular Councilmember has absented the position.
Vice Mayor Boles and Councilmembers Bier and Espinosa were in support of supermajority, and Mayor Beckmeyer and Councilmember Wright were in support of simple majority.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated her question is should we add the caveat that a supermajority of those present: If all of Council was present, then four would have to agree; if it is a supermajority of those present, it is 3 out of 4.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if it would help to have more criteria so those things do not happen.
Councilmember Bier liked supermajority of those present.
City Attorney Kenyon clarified it would be just the majority (not supermajority) of those present, if only four are present. She asked if it is just a majority if only four are present.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 October 13, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer responded affirmatively.
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the 3- or 4-year limit on having been Mayor or Vice Mayor was removed as ineligibility criteria.
City Clerk Coffey stated her note from that discussion was that we were removing ineligibility based on past experience being Mayor or Vice Mayor. She asked if she got that correctly.
Councilmember Wright responded affirmatively.
Vice Mayor Boles asked, when we do the transition, she asked who is the presiding officer at that time in the vote for Mayor.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, generally, it is the Mayor who is selected and then the Vice Mayor is selected. She stated that the sitting Mayor handles the proceedings and as soon as the next Mayor is selected, that new Mayor then presides over the selection of the Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor Boles asked, when seating a new Council, that does not happen until after that transition.
City Clerk Coffey stated, in an election year, if there are new Councilmembers elected, the councilmembers are sworn in and come up to the dais, the outgoing Councilmembers go off, and the next step is the selection of the Mayor. Whoever is voted in and selected as Mayor is the presiding chair or officer that presides over the meeting for the selection of the Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor Boles asked about the current Mayor stepping off and no longer being on Council.
City Attorney Kenyon explained that the Vice Mayor will be the Mayor.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that the Vice Mayor has not been selected yet.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that there already is a Vice Mayor who will be a Mayor.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that there is still a vote.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that the Mayor is the presiding officer until a new Mayor is appointed by Council, and whatever occurs, the presiding officer will be the current Mayor.
Once that new Mayor is selected, then the Mayor will either move their seat to a new location if staying on Council or, if going off, that is when they leave the Council.
Vice Mayor Boles concluded that the outgoing Mayor who has not been re-elected would step off the dais after the vote for the new Mayor.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively. She stated, presumably, given the eligibility criteria, the Vice Mayor would not serve if it is the last term, and they will be able to serve as Mayor and, according to our criteria now, it will not be an issue.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there was anything further on this item.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that we will have to revise the policy and will bring it back. It will City Council Regular Meeting 27 October 13, 2025
not be a separate policy but included as part of Council protocol, as that is what most cities do.
Councilmember Wright appreciated the collaboration and the collegiality with which we went through this process. He thanked fellow councilmembers and staff.
RESULT: NO VOTE REQUIRED
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmembers Bier and Espinosa deferred their Council Communications.
Councilmember Wright appreciated the opportunity to speak to so many people that served on other Councils to discuss the issues and gain insights on how things work in other cities at the CalCities conference in Southern California. He thought it was enormously valuable and he cannot wait for next year.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that she loves CalCities conferences as there are so many sessions to go to, such as Economic Development and ways of engaging youth and ways Council supports families in their community. She stayed over the weekend as Oceanside was having a presentation about their Re-Beach program led by a group called Resilient Cities Catalyst, a non-profit working globally on climate resilience. They are now working on creating two points of land that have community facilities and an offshore reef that helps keep the sand there. She stated it was a lot of synergy with the work we are doing. The organization is now working with Santa Cruz, Alameda, Fort Bragg, and Santa Barbara and are doing great work in their communities around public engagement around sea level rise adaptation planning. Vice Mayor Boles also stated that she and Mayor Beckmeyer are leading a discussion through San Mateo County Leadership Council on October 29.
Mayor Beckmeyer thinks the advantage we have with this group, Leadership Council, is that they have a broad reach to people in all kinds of different organizations in the County. As a result, we bring the issues forward, what our process was, and help them understand what we face. They may not have the understanding of Pacifica’s challenges over time and it will be a good education.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that there may be opportunities that come out as they will be looking at Esplanade, Sharp Park, and Linda Mar Beach; sharing what our frustration is in not being able to get money from the State and the difficulty of managed retreat financially for a city; and asking how we can work on this together. It is good to tell our story and see what help we can get.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that there is a meeting coming up in early November in Brisbane about aging. She also invited anyone available to come out to the Pier on Saturday, where Andy Pappas’ grandson, Mike Terro, is dedicating a plaque in Andy’s memory. She will defer her report on CalCities conference to a future date.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
There were no staff communications.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 October 13, 2025
ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 11/10/2025
__________________________
Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor