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 November 10, 2025
November 10, 2025 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Sue Beckmeyer called the meeting to order on November 10, 2025 at 6:09 PM 6:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Beckmeyer called the meeting to order at 6:09 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 Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
Staff Present: Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager; Denise Bazzano, Asst. City Attorney; Yulia Carter, Asst. City Manager; Maria Sarasua, Police Chief; Melissa Tigbao, PW Director; Samantha Updegrave, Community Development Director; Scott Leslie, PB&R Director; Marisol Gómez, Finance & Administrative Services Director; Zach Harris, Human Resources Manager; Sarah Coffey, City Clerk; Emily La, Dep. City Clerk.
Reading of Land Acknowledgment
Mayor Beckmeyer read the Land Acknowledgement.
Salute to the Flag led by Local Veterans from American Legion Post 238 / Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. League of California Cities (CalCities) Helen Putnam Award for Excellence - Internal Administration Category to City of Pacifica for Rose AI Project City Council Regular Meeting 2 November 10, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse stated that winning this award speaks to what Pacifica has been undertaking on this work in creating an artificial intelligence virtual assistant which began a couple of years ago. He described their process to accomplish providing better services to Pacifica.
Montana Cruz, Public Affairs Manager of the League of California Cities, gave a brief history of the career of Helen Putnam who was the first female Mayor of Petaluma and an influential member of the League of California Cities and the first woman president of CalCities. He stated that the award winners are honored during the CalCities’ annual conference and are featured in the Western City magazine and press releases. At this meeting, they are presenting the award to the City. He stated that we can also use this award as a tool to apply for grant opportunities outside of CalCities. He stated that Pacifica won this award in 2000 for Planning and Environmental Quality for the restoration of Linda Mar Beach and reclamation of wetlands in that area. Pacifica is one of the first cities in California and the country to bring an AI-powered solution to municipal services and he is proud of Pacifica for this award.
Mayor Beckmeyer thanked him and shared that AI-driven solutions are improving all the time and you can still get connected to people in the department that you need. She stated we are excited to receive the award.
Councilmember Bier thanked Mr. Cruz for being here and stated that being at a conference of that size and watching our City get honored was special. She also thanked Asst. City Manager Carter as this was her endeavor.
Councilmember Wright echoed what Councilmember Bier said and added that Public Affairs Manager Cruz was one of the first regional people to reach out to him in the beginning and it was great being there and seeing our name in huge letters on the stage.
Vice Mayor Boles agreed and thought it would be great for the City Manager to name the staff members that worked on it as she felt it was important to recognize individuals and it was great that several of them were at the conference as we have dedicated and hardworking staff. The City tries to be creative and solve problems and be a better resource for the community.
City Manager Woodhouse stated critical staff included Asst. City Manager Yulia Carter, Mgmt.
Analyst Elizabeth Brooks, City Clerk Sarah Coffey, Dep. City Clerk Emily La, Exec. Asst. Jennie Kenway, and PW Project Manager Michelle Trayer. He stated it was a team effort.
Vice May Boles reiterated that it was important to give individual recognition and shared that real people are behind it also.
Councilmember Espinosa mentioned testing AI to work for us and she thanked everyone for a great technology.
There was no public comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if any Councilmembers wanted to pull an item, and seeing no one, she asked if there were any comments.
City Council Regular Meeting 3 November 10, 2025
Councilmember Wright stated he had a brief comment. He pointed out the fact from the budget we are again spending $250,000 on PG&E and he looks forward to a day when we reduce that.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
1. Approval of Disbursements for 10/01/25 through 10/31/25 PROPOSED ACTION: Approval of Disbursements for 10/01/25 through 10/31/25
2. Approval of Minutes
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve the minutes for the October 13, 2025 City Council Special and Regular Meeting.
3. Cancellation of December 22, 2025 City Council Meeting PROPOSED ACTION: Move to approve cancellation of the December 22, 2025 regular City Council meeting.
4. 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.
5. Quarterly Financial Report for General Fund for the quarter ending September 30, 2025 PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Financial Report for General Fund for the quarter ending September 30, 2025
6. Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for the quarter ending September 30, 2025 PROPOSED ACTION: Review and accept the Quarterly Treasurer’s Report for the quarter ending September 30, 2025
7. Resolutions approving the Tentative Agreement (TA) between the City of Pacifica and the following represented labor groups: 1) Fire Battalion Chiefs, IAFF Local 2400 for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028.
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the resolutions approving the tentative agreement between the City of Pacifica and Fire Battalion Chiefs, IAFF Local 2400; for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028, including the revised salary scheduled effective November 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, and July 1, 2027. After Council approval, staff will ensure the MOUs are properly cleaned up, and all technical corrections are made, including any remaining typos, fixing the tables of contents, finalizing the documents for signature, and eventually posting online.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated she met with San Mateo County Department of Housing and shared possible cuts to federal funding and encouraged everyone to check on our neighbors and share existing resources, including Pacifica Resource Center for essential services.
City Council Regular Meeting 4 November 10, 2025
Patrick Kobernus, Pacifica, referred to 801 Fassler Avenue project and shared his concerns regarding the applicant not following through on the plans and requirements for the property.
Anita Rees, Pacifica, provided updates on Pacifica Resource Center’s schedule and shared info on Unhoused on the Coast Outreach team responding to any unhoused citizens in Pacifica through Pescadero, in addition to their holiday programs.
Marj Davis, Pacifica, shared updated information on Pacifica Gardens programs, its holiday food drive for people in need, and its annual native plant sale. She then referred to Mr.
Kobernus’ comments about 801 Fassler and hoped they would be addressed.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, shared his concerns that, on November 7, the Coastal Commission approved the conversion of almost the entire commercial space at 1300 Danmann into residential units and expressed disapproval of the City’s allowance of this action.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if staff can give any insight on 801 Fassler and 1300 Danmann.
City Manager Woodhouse stated the City Attorney’s Office and Community Development Department are researching 801 Fassler Ave.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she did not have specific information about the 1300 Danmann project but she knows that their office is working with staff on recent developments.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if it was true that the Coastal Commission approved the change.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated she does not know if that is true.
Mayor Beckmeyer and Vice Mayor Boles looked forward to follow-up on both those items.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
8. Introduction of an Ordinance to Adopt by reference the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code with Local Amendments.
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to take the following actions:
1) Introduce by title only and waive the first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacifica:
a. Repealing and replacing Chapters 1 -9 within Title 8 (Building Regulations) of the Pacifica Municipal Code related to Building Regulations and to adopt by reference the 2025 California Building Standards Code (Cal.Code Regs., Title 24): Parts 2 (California Building Code), 2.5 (California Residential Code), 3 (California Electrical Code), 4 (California Mechanical Code), 5 (California Plumbing Code), 6 (California Energy Code), 7 (California Wildland-Urban Interface Code), 8 (California Historical Buildings Code), 10 (California Existing Buildings Code), 11(California Green Building Code) and 12 (California References Standards Code); and the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code, certain appendices and making certain amendments thereto, including violation penalties;
b. Repealing and replacing Article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 (Fire Protection) of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt by reference Part 9 (California Fire Code) of the 2025 California Building Standards (California Code of Regulation, certain City Council Regular Meeting 5 November 10, 2025
appendices and making certain amendments thereto; and
c. Finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
2) Set a public hearing to consider adoption of the Ordinance on November 24, 2025.
Community Development Director Updegrave presented the staff report.
Councilmember Wright asked, in a 100-unit apartment building, how many level 2 chargers at the higher output level will we end up with.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated 15% of the required parking spaces.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that, as part of Goal Setting next year, we will be looking at electrification for new buildings under a General Plan exemption, which is not the exemption that is discussed here in terms of what we have in our current Code. She asked if we will put on the work plan as well to look at increasing the numbers of chargers.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated we will need to look at what Council is thinking about and what the reliance on the General Plan would potentially be.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if we could potentially increase the numbers for commercial. She stated that is not something they gave direction on previously, but it came to her as we were looking at the exemption with the bike parking for commercial.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated she can look up the commercial requirements and return with that information. She stated that it seems odd to have low power level 2 at a commercial but she does not know if that is allowed or what the percentages are.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if in the current time frame it is possible to make any changes to the final resolution.
Asst. City Attorney described the technical requirements: Council can make amendments to the ordinance before them tonight before it is introduced and, once it is introduced, they cannot make any substantive changes between the first reading and the second reading. If they make substantive changes beyond a typographical correction, they will have to reintroduce the ordinance at the next meeting as that is a second reading.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if that was something possible as it would need reintroduction at the next meeting on November 24.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the ordinance does not go into effect for 30 days and it has to go into effect before January 1. He stated that introducing it on November 24, with the second reading happening on December 8, would not meet that timeline, and it would need to be an added extra special Council meeting in order to meet that state requirement.
Community Development Director Updegrave added prior to November 30.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated the difficulty is the publication requirement. With the Building Code update, they have special requirements for publications: it has to be a noticed public hearing between the first and second meeting, and there has to be a published notice City Council Regular Meeting 6 November 10, 2025
twice, five days apart and 14 days before the meeting. The ordinance has to be adopted at a regular meeting.
Councilmember Bier asked what the consequences be if that did not happen.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated, if it was not adopted on time, the consequences are that, on January 1, 2026, the new State codes go into effect. There may be a gap of time between when the ordinance goes into effect and when the State laws go into effect, which is on January
1. Vice Mayor Boles asked, if we need to make it, is it a change we can make when we are considering other stronger policies for electrification as an amendment.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that it can certainly be considered later.
Councilmember Wright stated he is disappointed in the State for forcing our hand and now allowing us to try to adapt to our climate.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that all these Building Codes are consistent with the national and state register of historic places requirements and shared his thoughts on Pacifica’s protection of the Pacifica quarry. He stated the Building Codes reference the national register of historic places which Council is not following.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Councilmember Wright wished they could do more and he is afraid that we are shorting ourselves, our community, and our future.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that it sounds like there is an intention to put something on Goal Setting with regard to this item.
Vice Mayor Boles added as part of REACH Codes.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that we have that opportunity. She asked if there are any comments, deliberation, discussion on this and, hearing no further comments, she is ready for a motion.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she has one more question. She asked if the findings that were not in the staff report were shared with the public as part of the final ordinance now.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was shared in the public comment packet and in person at the meeting.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that the findings were posted online as well and these are findings supporting the local amendment and reiterate, in some of the recitals within the ordinance itself, justifying our local amendments that we are carrying forward, i.e., have to do with Pacifica’s climatic condition, geological conditions and topographical conditions, with an added new finding that our amendments comply with AB 130 by not making substantial changes and modifications to standards applicable to residential units.
City Council Regular Meeting 7 November 10, 2025
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that these findings are very similar to the ones that were used at the last cycle in 2022 except for the AB 130 finding.
Councilmember Wright asked in the event Council were to take a protest vote that we were not able to go far enough as a result of the State legislation what would happen.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated Council always has the ability to vote no.
Councilmember Wright asked, after that, if we can vote again and do what we are allowed to do, which is to make the statement that we wish to do more through the protest vote, and vote a second time and move it forward.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that Council would need to put forward a motion for reconsideration, but that would not work if they voted no for the first time; they would need to vote yes for the first motion to have a motion for reconsideration on the floor. She thinks the answer is no, but they can always vote no or vote yes and provide some statement after the vote is taken.
Councilmember Wright asked if he could vote yes and then put forward a motion afterwards for reconsideration to voice his displeasure.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated he could put forward a motion for reconsideration if he voted yes the first time.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we could also make comments in the record that we object to AB 130 and SB 131 that the State passed without going through proper processes that have banned us from doing most of the good work we need to do for our City and our climate.
Councilmember Wright feels that our hands are tied and we are forced to do something he does not agree with.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano explained one of the reasons why AB 130 had a moratorium in provisions was to assist with the LA fires. The idea was that there were houses that needed to be rebuilt in a very quick fashion and updating the Building Codes in a way that made housing development difficult with burdens of those trying to reconstruct after the fire. She stated that was what she was told was the intent.
Vice Mayor Boles states she wrote a lot of objections to that argument to our State Senators.
Following a discussion with City Attorney Kenyon on how to have our voices there at the right places at the State level so this does not happen again, City Attorney Kenyon suggested being involved in CalCities and Vice Mayor Boles has applied to the Environmental Policy Quality Committee. She stated even CalCities was not fighting this.
Mayor Beckmeyer moved to introduce by title only and waive the first reading of an ordinance of City Council of the City of Pacifica repealing and replacing Chapters 1 through 9 within Title 8 (Building Regulations) of the Pacifica Municipal Code related to Building Regulations and to adopt by reference the 2025 California Building Standards Code; Parts 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12; and the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code, certain appendices and making certain amendments thereto, including violation penalties; repealing and replacing Article 1 (Fire Code) of Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the Pacifica Municipal Code to adopt by reference Part 9 of the 2025 California Building Standards (California Code of Regulation), City Council Regular Meeting 8 November 10, 2025
certain appendices and making certain amendments thereto; and finding adoption of the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; and set a public hearing to consider adoption of the Ordinance on November 24, 2025; seconded by Vice Mayor Boles.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano added the ordinance includes the findings that have been amended and are at the dais before Council.
Councilmember Wright stated, for the record, he wanted to voice his opposition that he wishes he could have done more and wished his hands were not so tied.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa
NAYS: Wright
9. Appointments to the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission; Library Advisory Committee; and Economic Development Committee
PROPOSED ACTION: Move to appoint:
A) three (3) applicants to the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission for full 4- year terms to expire October 2029; and
B) six (6) applicants to the Library Advisory Committee: three (3) at-large members for full 4- year terms to expire October 2029, one (1) at-large member for a partial term to expire October 2027, and two (2) Youth members for one-year terms to expire October 2026; and
C) five (5) applicants to the Economic Development Committee: three (3) for full 4-year terms to expire October 2029 and two (2) for partial terms to expire October 2027.
City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report.
There were no public comments.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated we will start with the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission. There are five applicants and three positions.
Vice Mayor Boles stated she is the Council liaison to EPSC. She stated that Jay Crawford and Jeanne Salisbury are on the Commission now and have applied to continue. She thinks they are doing a great job. She stated that Ms. Salisbury said, if there is someone else, she is willing to give up her spot to give someone else an opportunity. She recommended Michael Wahlman who works in an agency in San Francisco in communications and has come to some of their meetings about communication issues. She stated that Ofelia Virtucio works at a higher level in nursing and is the only person who does it at the State level for disaster drills and communicable diseases.
Councilmember Bier stated that Ms. Salisbury was so polite and kind and it is hard not to reappoint her but she thinks Ms. Virtucio is a good option.
Councilmember Bier moved to appoint Jay Crawford, Ofelia Virtucio, and Michael Wahlman to the Emergency Preparedness and Safety Commission for full 4-year terms to expire October 2029; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.
City Council Regular Meeting 9 November 10, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there were any other nominations or discussion.
Vice Mayor Boles wanted to tell Ms. Salisbury that she worked so hard on EPSC and is a nurse also and she was sure she will still be involved, and she encouraged her to continue. She stated, regarding Debra Etienne, there are other opportunities for leadership in Emergency Preparedness as there is a CERT program and we need more leadership there.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND SAFETY COMMISSION:
Jay Crawford (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Michael Wahlman (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Ofelia Virtucio (4-year term to expire October 2029)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Bier thanked Ms. Salisbury for her graciousness.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that, for the Library Advisory Committee, there are 3 full 4-year terms, one partial term that expires October 2027, and two one-year youth terms that will expire October 2026. She stated that she is the liaison for this committee. She recommended Stephanie Hartwell-Mandella and Jennifer Hlavin.
Councilmember Wright wished, in the youth positions, that we could approve alternates.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked Asst. City Attorney Bazzano if she would like to weigh in on that in regards to the charter.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that is not part of the charter and not the appointment that was solicited before Council tonight. The appointments are very fixed for the term that they will cover.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that she knows Maya Sinapuelas has served for a couple of years and asked if Kathleen Johnson has also been on for a few years.
City Clerk Coffey stated Kathleen Johnson was appointed one year ago for the first time.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks she asked the last time whether it might be good to think about rotating since these are positions that a lot of our youth desire and we had six youth applicants and to give someone else a chance.
Councilmember Bier stated there could be cumulative learning with the current youth members.
She stated that the other two were good too, Grace Zaheed and Parker Witte.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that we can nominate two people.
City Council Regular Meeting 10 November 10, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer stated two of the youth applicants that had indicated an interest in the Library Advisory Committee have been appointed to other committees and it would leave the four, two would be reappointments and two new applicants.
Councilmember Wright thinks there is some service to allowing more opportunities. He wished we had more of these type of opportunities for this quality of student to be able to avail themselves, but at the same time want to make as much available for Pacifica youth as possible. This is one of the limited opportunities we have in Pacifica.
Vice Mayor Boles thought it might be good to rotate to give other people an opportunity.
Mayor Beckmeyer moved to appoint Grace Zaheed and Parker Witte to the Library Advisory Committee for two youth one-year terms to expire October 2026; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Grace Zaheed (youth term to expire October 2026)
Parker Witte (youth term to expire October 2026)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Bier thanked Maya Sinapuelas and Kathlee Renfroe Johnson for their service and creating a path for other youth to participate in leadership.
Mayor Beckmeyer referred to the three full 4-year terms and one partial term.
Councilmember Wright recommended Stephanie Hartwell-Mandella, Jennifer Hlavin, and Kathy Long.
Councilmember Bier thought Theo George Coppola is a good fit.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that Kathy Long is currently serving on a committee and she served on the previous committee too.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that brings years of library experience.
Vice Mayor Boles stated one of the notes she had for Brianne Miller was her passion and experience with public relations and outreach which is a critical part of where we need to bring the library forward. She recommended Brianne Miller, Stephanie Hartwell-Mandella, and Jennifer Hlavin.
Councilmember Bier stated she hears Stephanie Hartwell-Mandella, Jennifer Hlavin, and Kathy Long. She did not hear consensus for the other two.
Vice Mayor Boles thought it was Theo George Coppola and Brianne Murphy Miller.
Councilmember Espinosa supported Brianne Murphy Miller.
City Council Regular Meeting 11 November 10, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles moved to appoint the Library Advisory Committee Stephanie HartwellMandella, Jennifer Hlavin, and Kathy Long to the 4-year terms to expire in October 2029 and Brianne Murphy Miller to the partial term to expire on October 2027; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa
APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Stephane Hartwell-Mandella (4-year term to expire October 2029) Jennifer Hlavin (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Kathy Long (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Brianne Murphy Miller (partial term to expire October 2027) RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor Beckmeyer stated Economic Development Committee has five open positions, three full 4-year terms and two partial terms.
Councilmember Espinosa wanted to give the opportunity to Oscar Baud and Brandan Berman for the 4-year terms.
Councilmember Bier stated that we should also offer Cole Dalton the 4-year term.
Mayor Beckmeyer and Councilmembers Espinosa and Wright agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles was in agreement with all those and she liked Floriane Gramlich as Council interviewed her in the first round for the Climate Action and Resilience Committee and they were all saying they wanted to save her for this as she has a ton of international experience in marketing.
Councilmember Bier agreed.
Councilmember Espinosa stated they needed one more for the partial term.
Councilmember Bier stated Greta Sieglock has been serving and she thinks it would be fine to offer her the partial term as Remi Tan is already serving on another committee.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that, of the people who are already serving, she wanted to see their attendance as it is important to her that they are all attending the meetings.
Vice Mayor Boles stated Greta Sieglock missed half of the meetings this year but was not sure if the absences were recused or not. She also stated that Teresa Sulcer has missed a lot of BAC meetings but she thinks some of them were recused.
Councilmember Bier thinks Greta Sieglock has a lot of connections in our community and she puts her foot forward when she is able to attend.
City Council Regular Meeting 12 November 10, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that there is also something to be said for some continuity as we lost so many members from EDC in the last year and she can go with that.
Councilmember Bier moved to appoint Oscar Baud, Brendan Berman, and Cole Dalton to the Economic Development Committee for full 4-year terms to expire October 2029 and Floriane Gramlich and Greta Sieglock for two partial terms to expire October 2027; seconded by Councilmember Espinosa.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
Oscar Baud (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Brendan Berman (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Cole Dalton (4-year term to expire October 2029)
Floriane Gramlich (partial term to expire October 2027) Greta Sieglock (partial term to expire October 2027)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Councilmember
SECONDER: Mayra Espinosa, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Bier referred to Remi Tan who keeps on serving on OSPAC and showing up to everything else. She stated that he is at every meeting all over the county.
Mayor Beckmeyer proposed a break before their next item and then reconvened the meeting.
10. Council Study Session – Revenue Generation Opportunities and Pacifica’s Financial Sustainability Challenges
PROPOSED ACTION: Hold a Council Study Session on Pacifica’s financial sustainability challenges and revenue generation opportunities. Provide direction to the City Manager on Options to address these challenges to maintain the Current Level of City Services and address Unfunded Capital Project and Other Operating Needs.
City Manager Woodhouse, Asst. City Manager Carter, Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez, and Consultant Brian Moura presented the staff report.
Vice Mayor Boles thanked staff for all their work. She asked if the polling we did years ago for an infrastructure bond was a General Obligation (GO) bond.
City Manager Woodhouse responded affirmatively. We did polling and the top line conclusions of that report are on the City’s website. It was a split sample polling in the results for a GO Bond and was testing the bond for infrastructure and a library; we had results on both of those but neither were feasible with the two-thirds threshold.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if it was close at all for either of those and she asked if there was any feedback from the public.
City Manager Woodhouse thought he recalled 59% for infrastructure on the results, and less for the library, meaning it was not recommended to move forward with the bond measures.
City Council Regular Meeting 13 November 10, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated, from talking to other people, we have tried some of these other things before, i.e. utility user taxes in 2014 that failed by a large majority.
City Manager agreed and added that each year will be different and the needs are becoming more dire. He thinks, in Pacifica’s history, there was a sales tax that was tested or run and did not pass. However, Measure Y did pass, adding they are each different in the year being conducted.
Vice Mayor Boles asked, in terms of bonds, about our credit rating and interest rates, etc., but another nuance to that question was about bond capacity. She thinks it relates to how much income we are making as a city. She asked what our capacity is based on our income to raise money on bonds.
Consultant Moura stated that we can research that aspect, but he thinks the other thing we need to wrestle with in terms of issuing bonds is how we are going to fund the bonds and the challenge with things like the GO bonds is that we need a 2/3 vote. Regarding City Manager’s observation earlier, he thinks one of the things we are seeing, not just in Pacifica but other cities in the Bay Area in this coming cycle, is because we have passed in recent years hotel tax and sales tax and maxed those two out, he is seeing the same thing in a series of other cities and many cities are looking at parcel tax as it is one of the few options left, other than utilities or tax, which can be challenging. Even though it is challenging, it is one thing where we are running out of options in terms of ongoing operations and we may have to face it even though it was not something that was highly considered in prior years.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if there were exceptions to the parcel tax for people on fixed incomes or low incomes generally.
Consultant Moura stated that there can be but up to Council when they frame it. He explained a common approach to that: PG&E has a program called CARES which people fill out and document each year that they are low income and qualify for an exemption to the standard PG&E rates and many cities use that framework; if people can show their CARE certificate, they will give them the exemption. The reason for that is that a small city like Pacifica does not necessarily want to get into the business of asking for people’s income statements annually and PG&E has already done that work and we can use that framework. The answer to her question is yes.
Vice Mayor Boles asked about options for community finance districts, IFDs, etc. She stated we are looking at taxing mostly residents but are there ways to look at taxing new development in certain areas.
Consultant Moura stated the first concept is called an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). It is similar to the tax increment tools back in the day with redevelopment. The main difference is that the schools cannot participate in the EIFD whereas they could participate in redevelopment so the number of taxing agencies that the City could partner with are limited, i.e. mostly the City and County. He stated that the way an EIFD works is that the City establishes a financing district in a specific area in the part of the City that we think is likely to develop, and once we do that, we create a base value and the annual increase in property tax (2% per year) continues to flow to our General Fund. However, regarding the amount of revenue coming from the growth from that area that is suddenly going to develop, Council has a choice. We can either put some or all of that growth money into a different pot, such as the infrastructure district.
If we do that, what happens is that over time, we can generate enough money to bond against City Council Regular Meeting 14 November 10, 2025
and the magic of the EIFD and the redevelopment agency is that we can do major borrowing or bonds without going to the voters to get the 2/3 approval. There are downsides to that approach: First, it takes typically 5-10 years to roll up enough money in that EIFD tool to be able to issue bonds; second, to the extent that we are taking money that would be going to the General Fund and putting it in a different pot, that is going to be a problem, particularly if we have a General Fund deficit, which in Pacifica we do. He stated that an EIFD is a way to allocate money differently; it does not raise any taxes but changes who gets what share of the pie. The other question on the EIFD is will the County participate in our EIFD. In some cases, where there is unincorporated land adjacent to the community, the County has an interest in us improving the roads or putting in a library, etc., that will serve the City’s community and the unincorporated area, and the county may say they will put some of their property tax money into our EIFD. If we do that, suddenly the EIFD gets interesting for the City as now we have access not only to the growth on the City’s share of the property tax but also the County’s share. Many of the EIFDs that have been formed, about 30 to date in Southern California, typically are partnerships with LA County. The Community Facilities District (CFD) is a different tool; it is a special tax, requires a 2/3 vote, and is used primarily in cases where we have a defined area, likely to develop. Because of the 2/3 requirement, often the tax is levied before the development occurs. The reason for that is, if we levy it before the development occurs, the only person who has to vote to yes on the 2/3 election is the property owner. If the property owner partners with the City, they are likely to say yes, whereas, if we wait until the property is developed, the voters in that area have to pass it by a 2/3 vote and it is rarely done that way.
He stated that tool has traditionally been used to fund infrastructure for that new development and can also help the developer pay for some of all of their impact fees due to the City and there is a third piece to that tool that has not been used until recently. The third piece of the puzzle on the Community Facility District is if a city partners with the developer and the developer approves the agreement, thus the 2/3 vote of one, it can cover some of the General Fund costs for that particular area about to be developed. It can cover some of police and fire costs, PW costs, infrastructure, streetlights, and landscaping. It does not cover all of the General Fund costs in that area but a substantial portion of it. What they have seen in the last year or two in California is a lot of cities saying they are happy to help developers and property owners set these districts up because, with the rising interest rates and downturn of the economy, in some cases even if projects, particularly housing projects, are approved, they are sometimes stuck. By virtue of authorizing one of these Community Facility Districts, we can unstick these projects by helping to fund the infrastructure and development impact fees. What is happening with cities and counties in the last year or two is that they are saying if they are going to set one of these up and help developers, they want developers to help the cities, which is to authorized that third piece of the puzzle, i.e., creating an ongoing revenue flow for the city to get money for their General Fund and infrastructure needs on an operation of making spaces.
That is unlike the Facility District which is reallocating existing property tax and no increase in taxes. A Community Facilities District is increasing taxes and, again, it could be used for infrastructure or infrastructure plus development impact fees but it also can be used for those two plus some city costs, including public safety and PW. That is the area in the last year or two where there is growth and many cities and counties are doing that. That is another tool in the toolkit that Pacifica could explore.
Councilmember Bier feels she needs a matrix of the strengths and weaknesses, estimated revenue, and community impacts. She feels she does not have enough visual information, even though the presentation was great, in order for her to have any idea of how we move forward.
Consultant Moura agreed, and if that is part of Council’s direction, they can get more detail. As City Manager and Asst. City Manager said, they are trying to paint the big picture for both our City Council Regular Meeting 15 November 10, 2025
short-term and long-term challenges and some of the tools available and hear from Council on what is their interest or if they want to see more information.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if our main option was going to be taxing people. She would like to see self-sustainable resources. In the area where she lives, it is very difficult to pay mortgages, insurance company rates are high, and there is also Measure EE. She stated we need to find ways to be sustainable and not resort to continually taxing people.
City Manager Woodhouse was glad she brought it up and made that comment, and he emphasized that there are different strategies here. Voter-approved tax measures are one and the most immediate possibility for the City to be sustainable unless we cut services dramatically by $3-$6 million. He stated that the important thing to recognize is that all of those other strategies, new and redevelopment, that drives development impact fees and property tax, which then perpetuates sales tax revenue increases and supports our businesses, are the nontax measures that are available, i.e., building a hotel to then generate transient occupancy tax, property tax, and sales tax. Those non-tax measures are longer term tiers to our long-term financial sustainability strategy that needs to be developed. Redevelopment, including the tax increment districts, etc., are all contingent on building happening in the City and things do not get built fast. He stated that those are the longer-term non-tax measures and he thinks this is the dilemma that Pacifica has for a short term been balancing. The option is potentially a tax measure or reducing expenditures while continuing all the other things we are doing with our economic development efforts.
Councilmember Espinosa stated, if we are going to tax people, how are we going to use that money, such as producing more money with it or only spending it. She stated this is her problem. If the money was used to build a better Community Center as she has seen in different cities, it is going to be revenue to the city. However, just taxing to pay bills will in the next five years lead to the same problem. She stated that, if we are going to use the money to create more revenue, that will be a good idea, but just to tax people is not. She would like to see investments.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that we are not talking taxing people to spend money but talking about potential tax measures to maintain essential City services to provide fire and PW services.
Councilmember Espinosa understands but we have to make sure we are not overtaxing people.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated we need to focus this part of the meeting on questions and then have discussion and deliberation after public comments. She suggested asking those clarifying questions and then we will go to public comment.
Councilmember Espinosa asked for an explanation of the other financing alternatives, like Certificate of Participation and Parcel Security Bond.
Consultant Moura stated there are three options their financial advisor came up. With Certificates of Participation, which sometimes are known as Lease Revenue Bonds, what often happens is that the City will pledge a piece of property as our asset and we borrow against that and each year the City pays a lease towards that property as previously owned and, in exchange, the financial institution loans us money with the direct bank placement which is what the City used a couple of years ago to improve the Civic Center authority. The strategy there was that it was a project where we were able to identify fund balances in several of the City’s City Council Regular Meeting 16 November 10, 2025
funds to pay for a portion of that project and for the balance ($4-7 million) we then got a loan directly from a bank, hence a direct bank placement. He is not as familiar with the Parcel Tax Secured Bonds, but it is another variation on a theme in terms of financial tool, although he would say that all three of these tools are ones that we would probably use for project in the $5- 10 million range but would not necessarily use them for some of the big ticket items, like the library which was $55 million or the street which is $95 million. He stated that this is a question Council will have to address at some point, maybe in 2028, i.e. our priorities are and how much money we are going to attempt to raise. As part of that, staff can work with the financial experts to tell us how much money could be raised and what kind of tax burden that it would create for residents.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that, when we talked about different solutions, the staff recommendation was to address the operating deficit first because that is the most critical, painful problem if we do not address it timely for the budget. If we are talking about the infrastructure investment as the next step after that, we could consider a different combination of things. If we are not talking about the GO bonds immediately, we could explore Certificates of Participations if we were to pay up a million dollar annual payment that would allow us to borrow about $17 million. For priorities in every year as part of the budget process, we are talking about priorities in the CIP, and when the discussion comes in front of Council, they can look at different solutions on how to time infrastructure needs. As Consultant Moura said, they are not going to be addressed by all the alternatives.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, stated that Menlo Park, Burlingame, and San Carlos were not comparable cities with Pacifica and agreed with Councilmember Espinosa regarding not overtaxing people. He reminded the City that neutral language must be used on any ballot measure and City assets cannot be used to support passing a tax. He stated the City needed a
9.2% staff cut. He also raised concerns about the lack of funding for infrastructure needs.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared her appreciation of staff. She raised issue with the lack of coastal cities in the comparison of cities, stated new housing does not generate local construction jobs, and posed the idea of being served by the Sheriff’s Office. She stated local environmental concerns need to be prioritized before housing.
Mike Wahlman, Pacifica, asked if a 2/3 bond measure could be considered alongside Brisbane and Daly City as part of the North County Fire Authority, posed challenges about constructing hotels and housing without funding the seawall project with a 2/3 infrastructure bond measure, and identified the Council Chambers and the Rockaway Quarry as opportunities sites.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, recommended getting a new library to generate community programs and economic revitalization. She also supported a 1% impact fee for the arts and public spacemaking. She also raised concerns about lack of commercial and experiential development and stated we need visitor-serving and commercial activities.
Bryan Reinero, Pacifica, stated Pacifica does not have a great deal of business or commercial development. He also disagreed that building more housing generates more economic development, infrastructure, etc. He stated we need more visitor-serving and commercial sites.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, thanked Councilmember Espinosa for her thoughts on a sustainable city and supported Ms. Finale, Ms. Abbott, and Mr. Reinero’s comments. She also stated the City Council Regular Meeting 17 November 10, 2025
recent sales tax measure happened in a secure economic moment that is no longer present and her experience was that Pacifica would not support a tax measure.
Sam Casillas, Pacifica, raised concerns about the references used for the revenue generation study session. He also disagreed that building more housing generates more economic development, infrastructure, etc. He stated we need more visitor-serving and commercial sites.
He stated the City should conduct its own cost study.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated at 10:00 pm that we need to decide if we will complete work before 11:00 p.m. If not, we will need to have a vote to extend the meeting before 11:00 pm.
Vice Mayor Boles thought we would not finish the discussion in an hour.
Mayor Beckmeyer and Councilmember Wright agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles asked about coming back and shared concerns about losing momentum.
City Manager Woodhouse thought that the one specific direction we need at this meeting is whether we are going to pursue additional research and feasibility analysis of any of the potential voter-approved revenue measures. He needs direction tonight as we will not have another study session this year on this because of the agenda load of other priority projects.
Councilmember Wright stated he has been asking for this study session and he would prefer to both stay late and have another meeting this month.
Vice Mayor Boles referred to the November 24 meeting as a potential date for continuance.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that there may be some capacity which depends if any of the items are juggled to the special meeting. He stated it is possible but the time is ticking on the research and feasibility analysis work we need to do.
Councilmember Bier suggested we start talking and see what happens.
Vice Mayor Boles suggested focusing on the key questions and ideas.
Councilmember Wright asked how much cheaper would having the Sheriff’s Office be.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that a new study would need to be done. The previous study that was done, at least a decade ago when we considered that, showed that contracting with the Sheriff’s Office would not save money for the City compared to its own Police Department.
Councilmember Wright agreed. He stated that we have cut everything we can cut and we are woefully behind on maintaining our public safety that should be our biggest priority and therefore biggest expense. He pointed out our officers do a remarkable job with almost nothing. He asked about the State mandate for the City to build a certain amount of housing.
City Council Regular Meeting 18 November 10, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse clarified that the City does not build the housing but we have to facilitate in our Housing Element the building of that housing and there are risks that come to the City if that housing needs allocation is not met in the Housing Element cycle.
Councilmember Wright asked about the risks.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, generally, it comes to loss of local control related to housing and that is the threat that looms out there in not creating an environment in which our 1,892 housing units are going to get built during this cycle.
Councilmember Wright asked if the Sharp Park Specific Plan is an attempt to address some of our commercial shortfall with all the mixed use development and all our other mixed use developments identified in our Housing Element.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, stating that mixed use in the Sharp Park Specific Plan along Palmetto is a major driver for the policies behind that plan.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if staff can tell Council where we are on regarding submission to the Coastal Commission, changes based on the LCLUP, etc.
Community Development Director Updegrave stated that we are in the process of preparing the submission. We have already had our preliminary meeting with Coastal Commission and are preparing the analysis and anticipate submitting prior to the end of this calendar year.
Councilmember Wright stated that, in three years, we are going to renegotiate with labor again and thought we have been balancing our budget for years on their backs. We underpay them and understaff things, so we are asking them to do more work for less. He stated that we are coming up $15.4 million a year short in renewable revenue. That is what he would like staff to look at, as how do we come up with $15.4 million in renewable revenue. There are a number of different things we can do to do that, such as building more hotels, tax measures, etc. and he wants to see a plan that we can do it in three years so we do not continue to ask people to do more for less. He asked how it costs us when we have an average turnover, including how much productivity we lose from training, and asked if we have any idea what that expense is.
City Manager Woodhouse cannot speak to the specific cost about that but what happens organizationally, which is part of the organizational sustainability that is part of Goal No. 1 in the Strategic Plan, is that an organization gets to the point of the death spiral where employees are not getting paid enough so they leave, so we cannot retain them or recruit quality employees, and employees that are recruited who are willing to work at that lower pay are not as qualified which is when an organization starts to dissolve in being able to provide the services that the community is expecting of the City to provide. He stated, when we hit that point, that is the existential question that Pacifica is getting to at this point in time, despite so many successes, despite voter support for the half cent transactions and use tax to help sustain and balance the budget and maintain existing levels of services.
Councilmember Wright stated that he is looking for an average level of service from an average number of employees who are getting paid an average amount of money to do their jobs. He asked, in terms of population, if there are some benefits if we build more housing and end up with more population, if it makes any grants easier and does it help support our schools. He asked what some of the auxiliary benefits are to having more people.
City Council Regular Meeting 19 November 10, 2025
City Manager Woodhouse stated he will not speak to the school financing front, but when we do have more children, that increases the daily amount that schools get. He stated that the increased population has ripple effects, as we have more local support of services. When we have more support of the local economy, other businesses take interest in the community because perhaps there are services that are not being met and there are more people needing those services. He stated that it is a supply and demand formula.
Consultant Moura stated that there is an expression when you talk to people who want to bring in commercial and retail into a city and their first question is how many rooftops do you have.
To the extent you are bringing in more housing units, you also can make a better case, whether it is a grocery store or whatever business you attract, that you have more potential customers.
Related to that, it may not be a priority in Pacifica but, one of the things you see cities doing is when they are trying to both create and enhance a downtown, they tend to put higher density housing near the downtown as you have walkable customers. A great example of that is in San Carlos. What happens in San Carlos, while not saying it is an ideal case study, up in the hills, the housing density is very minimal and as you get closer and closer to the downtown it goes up and up. He thinks there is clearly a link between housing units and desirable businesses and also a case of strategy in terms of where you put that housing and how dense it is and where the density happens. There are some planning principles at work that you can apply, as some of them are more longer-term strategies and more economic development strategies.
City Manager Woodhouse referred to one of the public comments describing if the City ten years ago had started building a lot more housing, the City’s General Fund today would be that many more millions of dollars in annual revenue and all of the related commercial would have evolved over that time. That has not happened because Pacifica has not built housing in many years.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that, when we talk about growth, we are not talking about transforming Pacifica from a bedroom community to something completely different. The current average household size in Pacifica is 2.67. If we are talking about RHNA numbers, we are talking about adding 5,000 residents. It is not like we are talking about thousands and thousands of people and accommodating infrastructure. Adding commercial mixed use development could be transformational for Pacifica without that much of an impact.
Councilmember Wright asked, as we are bounded by the ocean, if we are considered infill development or sprawl development and what are some of the savings that we see from infill development, such as not needing to build a new police station, not being able to serve with a current safety infrastructure, already having the sewers run past the lots we are building on.
City Manager Woodhouse thinks all of the economic opportunity sites and Housing Element sites are all infill development in Pacifica, as everyone knows our Hillside Preservation Ordinances and protecting hillsides, etc. It is all infill development and, as was stated in the report in the presentation, there are numerous aspects of that which make those much more cost-effective and revenue generating compared to increasing services. He stated that the classic example of suburban sprawl on the fringes of San Jose where they are building huge new subdivisions or South East Reno building huge new developments out there and new fire stations. That is where a lot of the increased services and expenditures are required and the net revenue increase from housing is perhaps not as much in the sprawl situation, but in infill, there are many factors that relate to enhancing the revenue generation of that. He wants to make a point that this conversation is not about building housing or new or redevelopment or commercial redevelopment to generate revenue. Council has policy goals related to why those City Council Regular Meeting 20 November 10, 2025
things need to happen to help Pacificans thrive into the future. The ancillary benefit is the revenue that is generated from that and will help Pacifica dig its way out of its financial challenges.
Councilmember Wright stated we have already cut everything to the bone and that is why it is that we did not necessarily fund everything that we should have. He also referenced the South San Francisco Library and wished that for Pacifica.
Councilmember Bier stated that we see every month what other cities are building.
Councilmember Wright asked what fiduciary responsibility means and what is their responsibility here with this problem.
Asst. City Attorney Bazzano stated that fiduciary duty is that we have an obligation to the City to do the best we can to research, analyze, understand, and ultimately make a decision that benefits the City financially. She added Councilmembers have discretion to decide that and they have the duty to the City to do the best they can and make the decision that promotes fiscal responsibility.
Councilmember Wright asked City Manager what happens if we go broke and do we have any discretion over what gets built here if we go broke and the County takes us over.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he has never been through that but our responsibility as staff is to every year recommend a balanced budget. He thought Consultant Moura may know a case of cities going through bankruptcy or dissolving, turning over to the County, unincorporating, etc. If we are left cutting $3 million from the budget next year, there will be significant service cuts and that is the process we have to go through every year.
Councilmember Wright asked if a balanced budget means we are fully staffed with fully paid people.
City Manager Woodhouse stated no, a balanced budget is we are only expending the revenues that are coming in. We can have a structurally balance budget where the ongoing revenues coming in fund the ongoing expenditure or have an un-structurally balanced budget where we are taking one-time savings in order to fund those expenditures for that year in order to bridge to hopefully a brighter financial future. He stated that is what we are.
Councilmember Wright stated that we will still be 13% understaffed and growing, depending on if we need to cut people and still pay people 17% less.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding possibly more understaffed if layoffs are part of the formula that Council approves for balancing the budget.
Councilmember Bier thanked Councilmember Wright for bringing up the community outreach.
We cannot do things without listening to the community first, then educating, and finally polling.
She understands that a smart infill growth and development is good for cities. She thinks the one place we fall short on is the walkability because where are they going to walk to, as our transportation system is not nearly what it can be. She thinks that is where we fall short on the smart growth model where we have multi-use infill development. She thinks there is a difference between new development and existing housing stock and what is the difference in City Council Regular Meeting 21 November 10, 2025
the tax income from those two separate things. She feels like she needs a lot more information generally in a simple, clear, what works, what does not work, etc. manner.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated it is disturbing to see your City not shine, citing Rockaway as one of our economic drivers but facing challenges. She knows it is because we do not have enough staff to cover all of it, as we have to deploy them to the most important, highest priority areas; oftentimes, that is the potholes that are so enormous they are causing peoples’ cars to need additional repair. Our Pavement Condition Index is the worst in 101 cities in the Bay Area and we have taken tiny incremental steps to improve a process and do a better job of analyzing our streets so we can take the dollars we have to extend the life of those streets as long as possible. However, meanwhile, we have streets we are not touching at all because we cannot.
She stated that this has been an ongoing theme. She feels that our community needs more information and we have not done a good job of explaining where the City has cut services but not in the form of a layoff or a dramatic way. We did it in an incremental way, not filling positions, putting more work on people’s plates, etc. just to keep the City functioning.
Considering our financial situation, we have an amazing staff as everyone goes 110% to make it possible. As Councilmember Wright phrased it, we are balancing our budget on their backs and that is the harsh truth when we look at what was presented at this meeting about how underpaid our staff is, look at how fewer staff members we have relative to other cities. She appreciated the point about comparing ourselves to coastal cities as that is a valid point. The first one that popped to her mind is Santa Cruz, as it experiences many of the same challenges Pacifica does in terms of impact of weather and erosion impacts, their different downtown areas, the amount of building they are doing as infill, increased number of hotels they have put in over the last few years, etc. She then referred to hotels and the short-term rental challenges and the pain neighbors were feeling with their neighborhoods being negatively impacted by having unregulated hotel operators in our neighborhood with the larger full home STRs. She stated that we made a policy decision and that decision has consequences, possibly $1.5 million in terms of the projected loss of temporary occupancy tax. She stated we often heard that people need to stay in hotels, not STRs, but relative to the size of our community, we have a very small number of hotel rentals. Our community has done what we asked, increasing our Temporary Occupancy Tax. However, if you have a 15% TOT tax rate and you do not have very many hotel rooms to apply that to, you are not generating much revenue. She heard people comment that our hotels are not full, but she needs that data. As we move into our BID process with, SF Peninsula, formally known as San Mateo and Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, they are very skilled and she is excited looking forward to hearing data. They have access to information that we have never been able to generate to have a better handle on our occupancy, what we can do to improve our hotel fill rate, but they need more hotel rooms to fill them. She cannot believe, with the amount of visitors we have, plus them driving through Pacifica to go to Half Moon Bay that has 17 hotels and a mix of different opportunities. She has heard the arguments and understands the concerns about coastal development and the risks and there are opportunities to develop in a way that works with changing coastal conditions.
She feels we need to take a shot in terms of generating that TOT. She stated that there are other opportunities in town that are working and available. She finds that as a bright hope and opportunity for Pacifica to generate renewable revenue in a sustainable way as we know people want to come here. She stated our infrastructure is in big trouble, and while she thinks we need to educate the community and hear from them, we will tell them that our road needs to be repaired. She has heard comments this night about our wastewater treatment facility being inadequate to address what Pacifica needs now, but she is not sure it is factually true. She knows when they got our RHNA, her first question was can our wastewater treatment plant handle that. She stated, when we have peak rain and storm events, there are challenges but not every single day; we have ways to address that with the EQ basin. She stated this Council City Council Regular Meeting 22 November 10, 2025
has been listening and taking the steps to authorize the studies, and we now have to make some decisions about what we are going to do. She was in favor of exploring a revenue measure that would have to do with infrastructure, whether it be streets bond, community infrastructure district, etc. From her point of view, infrastructure improvement is something she thinks most people who live here get and understand the need for. She would like to find out from the community what is their appetite and ability. She is not insensitive to the idea that people cannot afford things. She stated some people can and we have to figure out where is the right point.
Councilmember Espinosa stated it could be about property value, as properties above a certain amount may be taxed higher. Another concern is that we came here thinking we will be bringing ideas but we are more listening to ideas. She would like to see the City being self-sustainable which is important. She believed that we need more rooms, hotels, restrooms, etc. We need locals and tourists to shop and go to the restaurants.
Mayor Beckmeyer feels that we need to move forward with some of the things we are already doing, i.e. the Sharp Park Specific Plan addresses the infill kind of development we were talking about, with higher density in the areas where there is more business and more opportunity for businesses, as well as the plans in the Housing Element that relate to putting housing in the areas where our shopping centers are. It takes time and we cannot do it unless we have the documents in place to do it. What she heard and saw tonight makes her scared for our City and our fiduciary responsibility, but more than that, for our staff and citizens, and she wants to take the steps to address that, educate the community on why we need to do this measure, why a hotel needs to be built, how it ties into not having short-term rentals, etc. She stated that we need to get the facts out and get feedback from our community. She thinks the way to do that is polling and if we can get to a place where we see the need for or want to pursue a revenue measure.
Vice Mayor Boles stated the focus right now is what are we asking staff to bring back, what information do we need to be able to evaluate these measures, and talk about other ideas. She stated one idea that she saw in San Bruno to help our police and fire and to fix the fire stations which is the City’s responsibility. She stated that San Bruno had a special public safety bond measure of $2-3 million. She stated that we have to think about what can get passed in our community and the community wants to see the benefit of what we are getting. It is easier to get them to vote for those things that they see the need for, so that may be something we can consider if that is easier to approve.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought doing that for facilities or staffing might be a parcel tax, not a bond.
Vice Mayor Boles stated San Bruno did a public safety special tax that brings in $2.2 million a year. She asked about the percentage of businesses paying business tax and is it fair to be asking businesses that are already paying and doing their fair share if we are not enforcing and trying to collect the money from other businesses. She would like to hear from Economic Development staff what they are hearing from the businesses. On the utility users tax, we are already taxing more than other cities for electricity and gas, which is the greatest hardship for people now who cannot afford to turn on their heat. She stated we may be able to lower those and raise other things. She stated that, as Councilmember Espinosa mentioned, many people are struggling to stay in their homes now. She asked what is simple to explain and what are the easy points to try to bring some extra money in.
Mayor Beckmeyer agrees and thought public safety is an area that people would support.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 November 10, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated she did not want to put off infrastructure until 2028, as we have a lot of needs now that we cannot meet. She wants to explore these community finance districts that are trying to get new development to bring in some of that money to help pay for this infrastructure. They should be paying their way. She thought the Toll Brothers analysis was faulty as it did not cover sewers, just the bare maintenance, not the replacement value. She stated that we have many old aging things we need to replace and they need to pay their fair share in that also. She is not convinced that new housing pays for itself. Having one analysis from a developer for a project that they are trying put forth is not giving her the information she needs. She has not seen the data from Kosmont yet, and she thought if staff can ask for that, it would be helpful. She stated San Carlos, Burlingame, and Menlo Park have huge businesses and they are not a comparison at all. We are just residential. She stated that San Carlos was mostly residential and made a decision to diversify and that is not in our plan. She stated that every time we turn around, we are reducing our zoned commercial land. She thinks we need to be looking at all of those rezoning decisions very carefully because, once we lose that commercial opportunity, it is gone forever. We need not only income, but also jobs, because jobs and people working here will also spend more money in our businesses and restaurants during the day and during the week when they have nobody coming now.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles asked what else we need staff to bring back.
Councilmember Wright asked if Council agreed on the 15.4 and the 371.
Vice Mayor Boles stated 371 does not include our sewer money and it only includes identified immediate projects, not infrastructure that has been depreciated that will need to be replaced which is longer term planning. She stated it is a bigger number than that. She thought the sewer tax was coming next year and that is another huge request for residents.
Councilmember Wright stated that we need to instruct staff to look into different tax revenues and the feasibility to try to address both the capital improvement side and the staffing side.
Vice Mayor Boles stated staffing is included in the total budget and General Fund. Those are two different measures.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated it sounds like the community facility districts have revenue for staffing.
Consultant Moura agreed, adding that they can be used for some staffing, i.e. police, fire, PW, but the rest of it is towards maintenance of infrastructure. Regarding the comments he heard from Council, they are correct that those are seen as a way to have new development pay its way, both in terms of maintaining the infrastructure it put in and to pay for a portion of the General Fund cost. He thinks that is the reason we are seeing in the last two years cities rushing in that direction and that is something that could be part of what we do here.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that is something she would like more information about as they are poised for more growth. She understand that we have to do it in an area that is likely to develop prior to the development occurring.
Councilmember Wright stated like Sharp Park.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 November 10, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles stated that it is time critical.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed.
Vice Mayor Boles stated the infrastructure financing district seems less interesting to her as it was described as a shifting of General Plan money, not bringing in any more money.
Consultant Moura stated, at the risk of making it too complicated, one thing they have seen some cities do is do both, called stacking. Because the money for the EIP does not show up for 5 or 10 years, you start out with a facility district as their money comes in on day one. Then, over time, as the value increases, you can decrease the amount of the facility district tax. The problem he sees here is that approach works for cities that have General Fund surpluses but it is not where Pacifica is at the moment. The facility district may be more appealing in the short term, and if you can identify areas where you think there are going to be developments in the future, that is a good time to have that discussion before they develop because then the 2/3 vote is the 2/3 vote of the property owner and not the 2/3 vote of the voters in that area after the housing or commercial gets built. He thinks that is consistent with the big picture discussion they are having at this time.
Councilmember Wright moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Wright asked how much TOT 100 hotel rooms generates.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that 100 hotel rooms would generate $900,000 to $1 million.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that the staff report estimates proposal as $1 million for TOT but altogether can generate $1.2 million.
Councilmember Wright asked if we can look into the County participation as well.
City Manager Woodhouse stated a conversation with the County regarding tax increment districts would be premature as we do not know exactly what area we will be talking about and we need to know the area in order to make the pitch to the County that it is in their interest to participate with us. He added that he did not think right now was the greatest time to be talking about the County about foregoing some of their property tax revenue.
Councilmember Wright stated, in terms of revenue, if we built their RHNA numbers, how much money is that to make that 15.4 smaller.
Asst. City Manager Carter stated that we estimated about $4 million in property tax, but it depends on the time, how we build, and the development impact fees collected for each unit, City Council Regular Meeting 25 November 10, 2025
plus local spending and increase in sales tax related to that, especially if it is mixed used development.
Vice Mayor Boles added that it does not include cost of services for those residential units, such as police.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the $4 million is the net.
Councilmember Wright thought, when we talked about the $15.4 million, we added full staffing.
City Manager Woodhouse asked what kind of direction we have related to our immediate shortterm structural deficit challenge. Many different revenue ideas are longer term but, if we are going to be evaluating the feasibility of anything on the ballot for November 2026, that is the direction he needs to know and we need to start working with the consultants on developing that feasibility analysis.
Vice Mayor Boles thinks we need more time to talk about that and have a presentation to evaluate these options so we can understand them better.
Councilmember Wright stated that, when he did his math, he came up with $7 million to look for immediately.
City Manager Woodhouse stated staff is focusing on our forecasted estimate of $3 million next year deficit which rises to $6 million in the year after. Any kind of approved measure in November 2026 is not going to be generating revenue until 2027 so we are looking at the $6 million goal. In terms of more information about short-term revenue potential, he needs to hear more about that because, if we are talking about continuing this discussion on November 24, we will not be able to generate more information. From looking at the feasible measures in the report, business tax, utility user tax, and the parcel tax, as Consultant Moura said, the parcel tax is the most feasible. If it is something else that would be on the ballot, he needs to hear what that is. Staff do not have a separate recommendation. He stated that CFDs are unique as they are driven by particular development projects in certain areas and that would not be polled out.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that Vice Mayor Boles brought up a point about public safety parcel tax.
Consultant Moura stated business license tax and utility tax are majority measures, whereas parcel tax is two thirds. In general terms, if you do something other than a parcel tax majority measure, the moment you earmark it, it becomes a 2/3 measure. One of the interesting features of the parcel tax is that, since it is already a 2/3 measure, you could earmark it for a specific purpose. In this case, since you need $6.6 million for all of your services, he is not sure it works. That is a direction Council could go if you feel that is going be it.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that those are our biggest expenses and we could take that money out of that piece that is now used for General Fund, presumably for those specific services.
Consultant Moura stated that is a discussion we could have with the outreach expert.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed, adding that it does not get us to fuller staffing or higher wages, but that maintains if we just use it as a new funding source, as Vice Mayor Boles said, taking that money coming from the General Fund now and applying it to other things.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 November 10, 2025
Vice Mayor Boles agreed. She is not saying we necessarily put more of that budget in police but it will help other staffing if we can take that money out for others.
Mayor Beckmeyer emphasized what do people comprehend, absent a long communication plan to help address our impending shortfall. People understand public safety, bonds for roads, and the value of a library. However, whenever we poll rank order of priorities, library is not high in that list of priorities, despite the positives it brings to the community. We have to build the library and the way we have to build in Pacifica is to pass a general obligation bond and that GO bond needs to be around $55 million. She thought it might not be worthwhile to poll about a new library.
Councilmember Bier asked if it poll better than parcel tax.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she would not know if parcel tax is for public safety.
Consultant Moura thinks the key to remember is, on a General Obligation bond, it is for infrastructure only, not for the operating budget. He thought we have these two major challenges and the question is how do you move forward with each and when, with the City Manager suggesting the operating challenges first and the other may come later.
Councilmember Wright stated he was concerned that we are not taking care of our people. He thought we need to have different plans. His ideal coming into this meeting was that, in three years, we would be able to figure it out for our next round of salary negotiations and bring everybody up to the average. He stated maybe that needs to be a five-year plan and by then we can build some hotel rooms and our RHNA numbers. If we do a parcel tax for $6 million, that problem is solved, but that would not address the capital problem. The roads are also the worst on Pedro Point and in Vallemar, so we could do a special tax just in those two areas at some low amount that all that money that comes from those two districts on that special tax that only goes to fix their roads so they can see a slow progression. That does not mean that some of our other grant funding does not go to address that as well, but it means it is dedicated funds towards progress on the roads getting repaired.
Mayor Beckmeyer had a hard time imagining people in the back of the valley saying yes to a parcel tax or GO Bond with the primary purpose to fix roads for only those two sections.
Councilmember Wright stated assessment district only for the neighborhoods affected.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if we do that for other capital projects and where do we stop that line.
Councilmember Wright stated that the sea wall is different and he thinks we need federal and state help, and the split he sees on that is the 65% federal investment, 25% state investment.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we are not getting either of those funds right now.
Councilmember Wright agreed with that now with the present administration.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if we are interested in the business license tax or the utility users tax.
Councilmember Wright stated he is interested in the utility user tax and whether it would function.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 November 10, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if business license tax meant figuring out who has not been paying.
Vice Mayor Boles stated enforcement and review of our policies and increasing those taxes.
Councilmember Wright stated he is a no because it is only $500,000 and we want to encourage businesses, not push them away.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked, by the same token, the UUT.
Councilmember Wright stated that is slightly different.
Mayor Beckmeyer thinks it is too hard to explain and it hits people in their pocketbook, housing costs, and budget. She does not see it passing.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we are already charging too much for the two we do charge for.
She is not sure how much extra it will bring.
Councilmember Bier stated that we are not moving forward with either the business license tax or the utility user tax.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked Councilmember Wright if he thinks the UUT would get approved.
Councilmember Wright thinks it is something we should get information about, but that does not mean we do it.
Consultant Moura stated that one other variable to think about is that because the business license and the UUT are only majority votes and the other is parcels 2/3, in some cases, you may want to poll on at least one of the majority items just in case parcel tax has support but not 2/3 if one of the others might have a majority, theoretically.
Mayor Beckmeyer referred about stormwater fee charges. She knows we have stormwater problems and she wondered if we financed our stormwater improvement only through our sewer tax. She asked if it is possible to fund stormwater infrastructure improvement through that stormwater fee.
City Manager Woodhouse was not familiar with that stormwater charge on the property tax bill.
Consultant Moura stated it started out as a C/CAG assessment and then later some cities charged an additional amount because the C/CAG assessment was not covering it. They probably need to research what is going on today.
Mayor Beckmeyer would like to know, in light of projects, other places that a project could be funded at CIP through an incremental amount.
Councilmember Wright stated that if SB 63 passes, we may get some revenue towards our roads.
Councilmember Bier thinks we need to understand what our community feels about either a general obligation bond or parcel tax.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 November 10, 2025
Consultant Moura stated a key thing to point out is those two revenues fund two different things.
The parcel tax is to keep your current service in your General Fund. Your general obligation bond is to address your infrastructure.
City Manager Woodhouse asked Councilmember Bier if she is suggesting for the Council’s consideration if they were to direct staff in terms of their research and polling feasibility analysis, we would poll about an infrastructure bond measure and a parcel tax. He wants to be clear that the way you find out what the community feels is by doing polling. In doing polling, you are limited in how many things you can poll about. One example in the poll two years ago, we were able to do two different applications of the infrastructure GO bond poll and, at the end of the polling, there was a very short question about the TOT increase. We are limited in what we can design a statistically relevant survey within the time people are willing to spend to answer that survey.
Councilmember Bier stated that we need to do something for a short term in order to look at the renewable things we can build upon, like hotels. She asked how Council feels about it.
Vice Mayor Boles added that even these we heard are not money for next year and are not short term either if something is on the ballot in November. That would not help budget planning in spring 2026.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed and stated that we need to do some sort of interim bridge budgeting and that is why we have strategic economic stabilization reserves, etc., that helps until that revenue flows if it were successful.
Vice Mayor Boles asked if the revenue would start flowing in January 2027.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it depends on the kind of measure.
Consultant Moura stated, if it is a parcel tax, it would probably be delayed until the next property cycle, but the City Manager’s point is correct that we would use reserves or other funds to get between the election and when it kicked in the following fiscal year. To the other point, the parcel tax is one of the short-term potential solutions. It sounds like there is some interest in exploring.
Councilmember Wright asked if it was part of the presentation that we only have two years’ worth of reserves to do that.
Finance & Administrative Services Director Gómez thinks the City Manager mentioned our budgetary stabilization funds (10% of the budget set aside) in addition to the unassigned fund balance that we show as going depleted in fiscal year 2028. There are two separate pots in the General Fund balance.
Asst. City Manager Carter added that the presentation showed hypothetical scenario if the budget deficit remains unaddressed which is not going to be the case. We always balance the budget. When we look at expenditures, staffing, and capacities, a lot of things go into this and Council made some of the tough decisions in the last budget cycle.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that it puts it in perspective.
Asst. City Manager Carter agreed.
City Council Regular Meeting 29 November 10, 2025
Councilmember Bier stated that Councilmember Espinosa mentioned something about taxing parcels at a certain price point.
Councilmember Wright suggested doing it by square footage.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed, adding smaller parcels pay less or there is a flat amount that is low and larger parcels will pay more or we can do it by square footage.
Councilmember Espinosa stated we do not have to fund everything with property tax.
Councilmember Bier stated for short term.
Councilmember Espinosa stated make it three years or four years, but not forever.
Mayor Beckmeyer heard a combination of the amount of the parcel per square footage but also the terms over which it lasts.
Councilmember Espinosa thinks people may be okay with a limited-year tax if the City is suffering.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that we then have to do our jobs building other things, so the community is trusting that Council is doing all we can to not continue to put that burden on them.
Councilmember Espinosa stated the idea was to talk about revenue generation but she does not think taxing people is revenue generation. She does not think it is okay to put people at risk.
She asked we figure out how we can bring money to the City without taxing people. She stated if it is short term and we may not be able to fund everything the City wants to fund. We have to think about the people needing to fund their own home.
Councilmember Bier stated that it is not just what the City wants, but what our residents need.
There is a difference in the language as it is not that the City is going to spend all the money but what do our residents need.
Mayor Beckmeyer added public safety, fire, police, and PW.
Councilmember Espinosa stated we need to know what the public thinks about this before we put something on the ballot.
Councilmember Bier stated we are trying to figure out what our community thinks about it now.
Councilmember Espinosa thinks we should have started earlier and we do not have enough time.
Vice Mayor Boles stated that she was looking forward to Economic Development study session as that is the other piece as there is so much opportunity there that we are not capitalizing on.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if there is Council consensus about direction about further research on mostly about parcel tax. In addition, he needs to know whether we are continuing this meeting in discussion to November 24 or a date uncertain. The most Important thing is the direction about research that we need to be starting immediately. He supposes we can start City Council Regular Meeting 30 November 10, 2025
some wheels in motion for November 24 and confirm on that date. His preference would be to get that direction at this meeting but no later than November 24; anytime later than that, we are talking about an infeasible work plan for anything that would be targeted in November 2026.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated what she would want on November 24 is a timeline. In addition, Councilmember Bier asked for a chart comparing all the various revenue measures we discussed.
Councilmember Wright asked if we have one that we agree on now for staff to have something to start working on while we are still figuring out what else we might want to have them look at, such as a square footage parcel tax.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought a square footage parcel tax and an infrastructure bond like streets.
Vice Mayor Boles is still interested in the public safety one. She thinks the parcel tax is going to be hard to pass and she is looking for other options that can bring some money in.
Councilmember Wright stated that is what the next meeting will be about. We are just looking for something for right now.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated the public safety one is a parcel tax.
Vice Mayor Boles knows that but it is very specific as opposed to just general City funding and she thinks it would be easier to pass.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed. She asked if Councilmember Wright was saying a general parcel tax or for public safety.
Councilmember Wright stated for public safety.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that they are all in agreement.
Councilmember Wright stated public safety and other essential employees.
Vice Mayor Boles asked some of PW people can be public safety.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed they were first responders.
City Manager Woodhouse asked if we are continuing the meeting until November 24.
There was Council consensus.
Vice Mayor Boles added some comparisons with other similar coastal cities that are more residential.
City Manager Woodhouse stated we cannot provide that research information for November 24.
Mayor Beckmeyer moved to extend the meeting to 11:35 p.m.; seconded by Councilmember Wright.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 November 10, 2025
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:35 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
SECONDER: Greg Wright, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Boles, Bier, Espinosa, Wright
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Council Communications.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Staff Communications.
ADJOURN
Mayor Beckmeyer acknowledged the passing of Shirley Gibbs. She stated that she was a stalwart of this community for decades. She and her husband raised their family here and she served with Ms. Gibbs on the Lion’s Club. She was a member for only 15 years and Shirley has been a member from the time a woman could be a Lion. In the sorority, she served in the Historical Society. The Little Brown Church would not exist as our museum were it not for Shirley Gibbs. The rail car would not have happened without Shirley Gibbs. The Resource Center would not have a home without Shirley Gibbs. The amount she has given to our community and her family is indescribable and she is going to miss her so much but she knows she gave a lot for 95 years. She knows the woman and, if she could still be here, she would.
She thanked her for all she gave to the community. She then adjourned the meeting at 11:31 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
APPROVED: 5 - 0; 1/12/2026
__________________________
Christine Boles, Mayor